|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/442
Fulcrum Subject: Anglicanism, Windsor Process Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 94 comments on this article Fulcrum Press Statementon the decision by the House of Bishops of TEC to pass D025(see also our response to resolution C056)
Their decision to support, with a minor amendment, the resolution previously passed by the House of Deputies:
It is important to recognise the multiple levels at which the resolution disregards the mind of the Communion both in relation to human sexuality and the nature of life together in Communion as expressed in the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant. It:
In relation to the Anglican Communion and the Windsor and Covenant Processes, the Windsor Continuation Group stated that “A deliberate decision to act in a way which damages Communion of necessity carries consequences. This is quite distinct from the language of sanction or punishment, but acknowledges that the expression and experience of our Communion in Christ cannot be sustained so fully in such circumstances. A formal expression of the distance experienced would therefore seem to be appropriate” (Para 45). General Convention's actions clearly reject the Windsor Process and are incompatible with the affirmations and commitments agreed by ACC in the proposed covenant. A formal expression of distance, with consequent limiting of involvement in Communion counsels, must now follow if the Windsor and covenant processes are to retain credibility in the wider Communion. In relation to the Church of England, it has recently been reaffirmed, with regard to the Church of Sweden, that “the teaching and discipline of the Church of England, like that of the Anglican Communion as a whole as expressed in the Lambeth Conference of 1998, is that it is not right either to bless same-sex sexual relationships or to ordain those who are involved in them” and that “changes in the understanding of human sexuality and marriage” will lead to impairment of relationships and limit the inter-changeability of ordained ministry.2 These consequences must now logically follow in relation to those bishops within TEC who have voted to support D025. They could be expressed by such means as actions under the Overseas Clergy Measure and a decision that the Church of England not be represented at future TEC consecrations. Over coming weeks, in discerning a proportionate response to this latest development it is important that
As that discernment occurs and General Convention continues to meet and discuss other resolutions that would represent a further tearing of the fabric of the Communion we pray the words of this week's collect: Almighty and everlasting God, 1Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."[1] The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains. 2Letter from Bishops of Chichester and Guildford to the Archbishop of Uppsala Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Pageantmaster Wednesday 29 July 2009 - 08:53pm Thanks Kurt, that is interesting, there are certainly differences in the two churches one only becomes aware of as one talks to people. I have never met a Calvinist here, but then again it is not usually a question I ask people: "So, Vicar, are you a Calvinist?" Posted by: Kurt Wednesday 29 July 2009 - 01:47pm I think it less a matter of my confusing the three groups than the fact that the three groups are somewhat different in America and in the UK. Broad Churchmen/women here are generally theologically modern/liberal despite their liturgical differences. American Broad Church can be liturgically High or Low in appearance, depending on parish custom. Low Church Anglicanism in the United States is generally quite different than the Evangelical-Low Church worship traditions found in either the Church of England or Church of Ireland, which resemble (to us Americans, anyway) Methodist or even Baptist services. Calvinism here is very rare; in fact, I have never met an American Episcopalian who described himself or herself as a Calvinist. I have met a very few Evangelicals who come from the Wesleyian tradition. Low Churches here often use elements which would be considered High Church in, say, Ireland, e.g., candles and crosses on altars, use of processional crosses, statues and images of saints in churches, etc. Even the only self-proclamed Evangelical seminary here (Trinity School for Ministry) occasionally has services with clergy in Eucharistic vestments and the use of incense. High Church-Anglo Catholic parishes also differ from many in England in that they are almost entirely and adamently non-Roman. Anglo-papalism has not been much in vogue here since Father Paul Wattson led the Franciscian Society of the Atonement to Rome in 1909. The absence of anglo-papalism may also be due, in part anyway, to the fact that the Catholic Revival in the American Church began here around 1783, rather than 1833 as in England. Posted by: PghPaul Wednesday 29 July 2009 - 01:23pm Sorry - I should clarify that "recent conservative scholarship states that both Jesus and St. Paul affirmed remarriage after divorce given specific parameters", that those paramenters include more than just adultury (which is one of four parameters), and that the debate "raging" in Jesus' day was whether there was (the equivalent) of "no-fault" divorce or allowable divorce for limited, specific reasons. Posted by: PghPaul Tuesday 28 July 2009 - 09:48pm While there are be historical-sociological reasons that Bp. Sauls can claim that ". . . the church had placed pastoral concerns over Scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Jesus to permit remarriage after divorce . . . "; recent conservative scholarship states that both Jesus and St. Paul affirmed remarriage after divorce given specific parameters (cf. http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/), thereby negating the divorce-remarriage argument championed by Bp. Sauls (and others) that "pastoral concerns" can be placed over "Scripture, tradition, and the teachings of Jesus". As would be obvious to those in this discussion thread, true pastoral concerns would be in sync with "Scripture, tradition, and the teachings of Jesus"; which, it would seem, that TEC is now completely ignoring! Posted by: Pageantmaster Tuesday 28 July 2009 - 10:29am Kurt: You mention in relation to people you would like to be in communion with: "If, on the other hand, what you mean by “us” is liberal Catholics, Broad and Low Churchmen/women, then most of us feel right at home. But I guess, at least for now, one cannot be in communion with the latter without at least offering to be in communion with the former--some of whom have already refused to continue in communion." I think you are confusing three distinct groups: 1. the "Broad/Low church" - in my youth this was probably the majority of the CofE. You could go to most places in the country and find Matins and Evensong from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This is not 'liberal' on sexual ethics, nor is it anything but traditional in its understanding of Christ risen. It is out of this tradition that Evangelicals arose. I should know, this was my background. It is still in many cases the mass of church goers, but increasingly elderly and disengaged with the Anglican wars. Here and there you will find people who are more liberal but they tend to have better things to do than be activists. 2. Affirming Catholics. This peculiar 20th C development manages to claim to be both catholic and liberal at the same time. It distinguishes itself from the much smaller group of Anglo-Catholics with whom they share much, but also something which approaches internicene hatred and scorn. We saw an example two Synods ago when it was the Affirming Catholics who ganged up with extreme liberals against the Anglo Catholics. When I say peculiar, they will advocate full inclusion in one breath, include prayers to the saints in the next, and yet are by and large institutionalists. 3. Liberals - a relatively small group who liberal members of TEC would recognise as similar in theology and outlook. But I would also say that I have spoken to people in all these groups who are deeply distressed by the effect on their church and their own faith of the Anglican wars. I am not at all sure that you will find much support for what TEC has done, particularly at GC in the face of the Communion Instruments. In so far as any of these groups will take a view on ACNA, which is a combination of Evangelicals, catholics and broad church - we will have to wait and see. Posted by: Kurt Monday 27 July 2009 - 02:25pm “The impression I get from reading the missives and utterances of the TEC leadership is that TEC is gradually moving from Anglicanism to Unitarianism.”--Iconoclast That’s interesting. Some evangelicals have been saying that about TEC since the Rev. James Freeman took King’s Chapel Boston in the Unitarian direction around 1785 or 1787. “Such moves as there are in England were in General Synod where signatures of 1/4 of Synod and 8 bishops were obtained to a request for a debate on recognising ACNA. This is a pretty much unprecedented level of support for such a request as far as I am aware, and it is likely that the matter will be debated at the next Synod in February.”-- Pageantmaster Certainly, it is unprecedented for your General Synod; but as I said, I doubt that such a position will receive much more than that percentage next February. As you know, there are plenty of people, regardless of their feelings about Bishop Robinson, etc. who believe that extending recognition to ACNA would be very unwise, for a whole number of reasons. In fact, I would think that our affirmation of support for the Anglican Communion, as well as the clarification of the mind of the General Convention, would make recognition of ACNA less likely than six months ago. It should put to rest the anxieties of some who fear we will simply shake our sandals free and walk away from the mess. And, of course, until an additional partnered gay person is consecrated a bishop of TEC, even the formalities of the now-dead “Windsor process” are being observed (at least by our side). “I know that it is not your personal responsibility Kurt, but many of us wonder why TEC wants to be in Communion with us, when it pays no attention to anything we say? We are left wondering: what do we have in common, and is the trouble which results from TEC worth all the effort others go to? I personally have never wanted to see TEC expelled. However that does not mean that anything goes and that includes losing the majority of the Communion who think that TEC is taking the mickey.... as we say over here.”-- Pageantmaster Well, that’s an interesting question. I guess it matters what you mean by “us”. If by that, you mean English con evos on the one hand, and the anglo-papalists on the other, then most Episcopalians I know of would rather not have much to do with you. Certainly in the con evo department, there are plenty of such people in the multitude of Protestant sects in this country, so we need not go abroad to find them. Anglo-papalists, though, are almost as rare as hen’s teeth here. As long as such people are not pushing their agendas on us, or trying to expel us from the Communion that we were instrumental in creating in the first place (along with the Canadians), then we can live with them if not in the same apartment at least in the same building. If, on the other hand, what you mean by “us” is liberal Catholics, Broad and Low Churchmen/women, then most of us feel right at home. But I guess, at least for now, one cannot be in communion with the latter without at least offering to be in communion with the former--some of whom have already refused to continue in communion. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 27 July 2009 - 11:13am This article is a very useful survey of the recent General Convention and its implications. Its reaffirmation of orthodox Chrstian doctrine -especially Christology should bring 3 cheers from Fulcrum ! http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/gencon2009.html Posted by: Pageantmaster Monday 27 July 2009 - 01:00am Note number 3 to Kurt from beautiful Brooklyn: You said with regard to recognition of ACNA "you are welcome to try, but I doubt that you will receive much more than ¼ of the vote as things now stand in the UK" I personally won't be trying anything, however I am not sure where you get your figures from. Such moves as there are in England were in General Synod where signatures of 1/4 of Synod and 8 bishops were obtained to a request for a debate on recognising ACNA. This is a pretty much unprecedented level of support for such a request as far as I am aware, and it is likely that the matter will be debated at the next Synod in February. However knowing how we carry on it is quite possible that someone will try to nobble it notwithstanding the support, if they dare. If it is debated I do not know how much support it will engender, but you can be pretty sure that it will be more than it would have been before General Convention's decisions. However I suspect that the position of TEC will be more dependent on Primatial decisions than CofE Synod's. I would be surprised if there were 8 provinces who have not been completely turned off by TEC's actions in breaching moratoria, litigating and deposing anyone they disagree with, whether they can under their canons or not. Since General Convention there may be even fewer - TEC has few friends left. I doubt that English or other liberals have much time for TEC either. By taking such precipitate action TEC has effectively undermined the "listening process" which many were hoping might lead the Communion to reflect on the theological issues, quite apart from the blatent disregard for the Communion Instruments, their draft Covenant and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I know that it is not your personal responsibility Kurt, but many of us wonder why TEC wants to be in Communion with us, when it pays no attention to anything we say? We are left wondering: what do we have in common, and is the trouble which results from TEC worth all the effort others go to? I personally have never wanted to see TEC expelled. However that does not mean that anything goes and that includes losing the majority of the Communion who think that TEC is taking the mickey.... as we say over here. Posted by: Celinda Sunday 26 July 2009 - 11:03pm Iconoclast--I don't think so. Did you read Bp Marshall of Bethlehem and Bishop Breidenthal of S Ohio on why they did give consents for the bishop elect from N Michigan? And have you read Bp Marshall's biography of Samuel Seabury? And are you aware that many leaders in TEC (although they are loyal to her) feel about her the way TEC leaders have always felt--the PB is not perfect, and is not a pope? Posted by: Iconoclast Sunday 26 July 2009 - 09:08pm The impression I get from reading the missives and utterances of the TEC leadership is that TEC is gradually moving from Anglicanism to Unitarianism. Posted by: Deleted user 2112 Sunday 26 July 2009 - 07:07pm I found out about this forum from a print out at church. It was Bishop Tom Wright's "Americans Know This Will End In Schism" This WILL end in schism??? Excuse me? This split was coming for years, and it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, not will happen. It's done, and there's no turning back. Badda Bing. End of story. Roll Credits. In some ways, ++ Wright, with all due respect, has the same mindset as the Current TEC regime (which probably explains the vast decline of the CoE!). TEC refuses to acknowledge that anything is wrong, and somehow think all this will make the church stronger. They really do. ++ Wright seemed oblivious in his article to the new Anglican province formed in June until he gave them a few lines toward the end of it: "The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed province of the Anglican Church in North America . One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution." Ah, well, I thank him for at least acknowledging the existence of the ACiNA. The fact is, ACiNA will be the future of Anglicanism in North America, if it is to have a future there. TEC will probably become a curiosity along with such all but extinct churches as the Moravians, Quakers, and Unitarians. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics make up the bulk of American Christians, and liberal Christians are in the minority. Most people who go to church want to really have faith in something, not merely dabble in it. And as for the TEC clergy fence riders, I'm afraid their motivations are more about what will become of their pension fund and health insurance if they leave, to put it bluntly. And I can understand their dilemma; if you're a 50 to 60 something year old man and you "only" have a Doctorate in Philosophy, how are you going to get another job, even in a good economy? There isn't a whole lot of need for 50 something year old philosophers. So, they try to ride the fence by paying lip service to the conservative members and shrugging their shoulders every time they're asked "What's going to happen?" These clergy don't seem to realize all they're doing by this is akin to staying on a sinking ship (because one can only take so much shoulder shrugging), rather than risk jumping off into the ocean. Either way, they're going into the water, the first way is merely prolonging it. It says a lot about their faith on many levels. In fact, when I stop and think about how Anglicans in Africa literally risk their lives at times for their faith at the hands of their Muslim neighbors while a few old bitties worry about such things as losing a building they can't afford anyway ( O God forbid they'd have to meet in a school auditorium!)...it makes me wonder if Episcopalians are even worthy to be called Anglican anymore. Ironically, the thing that holds TEC back...the 60 to 80 year old crowd that make up the majority of congregations...is the one thing keeping it afloat. These people have been Episcopal all their lives, and they don't want to change. "So what if some gays get married in the church, I'll be dead in a few more years. And I do like fellowship hall and the cake we have after communion". That's the way many of them think. It's a social club. The young conservatives who go are Evangelicals. They're fed up. They are the future of TEC, and now they're leaving or have left. And, even though TEC doesn't realize it, their actions will not help them grow. As the Primate of the Independent Old Catholic Church of America told me once concerning the ordination of "Bishop" V. Gene Robinson, even on a purely financial level, TEC acted stupidly, because it isn't like homosexuals are going to come running to TEC to join waving $100 bills in their hands. At some point down the road years from now TEC will probably merge with the United Church of Christ, since the two are now practically indistinguishable from one another. UCC (the church of President Obama's Rev. Wright) split with TEC in 1964 (when TEC was PECUSA) because TEC wasn't liberal enough. Now, that doesn't seem to be a problem. As Carl mentioned, TEC has deep pockets, and those deep pockets will run out eventually. TEC is already feeling it, in fact. When TEC says they will miss the contributions conservatives will make, they mean in the collection plate. As this progresses, TEC will realize toward the end it cut off its nose to spite its own face. Then, it will almost be funny (if it weren't so sad) to see what TEC does to try to win conservatives back, but they won't really have the stomach for it. They'll be saying things like "Jesus loves you! (well, if he actually exited, but he probably didn't)" and "I believe in the King James Version Only! By the way, did you know he was a homosexual?" They'll try, but they won't be able to pull it off, and conservaitive will see through it. In the Diocese of central Florida, Bishop Howe (a conservative Bishop, but alas, still a fence rider) has released a video a couple of months ago titled "How To Give Away Your Faith". That kind of video should have come out in the 1960's (ok, I know they didn't have DVD's then, but you know what I mean), not after the schism has happened. Evangelism has been an almost embarrassing topic to Episcopalains...or at least it seems that way. All this fear of evangelizing has resulted in loss of members while Evangelicals have mushroomed. I doubt seriously TEC will be able to evangelize any time soon if the fact the DVD has remained unopened on the Priest's desk since it arrived is any indication. And so, the ACiNA may be the proverbial 600 lbs gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about about or even admit exists, but nevertheless, it exits. Posted by: carl Sunday 26 July 2009 - 05:07pm Pluralist is right that growth is not necessarily a reliable indicator. It can never be said that sound orthodox faith grows even as the counterfeits die. Many noxious weeds grow quite large and prosperous. Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn come to mind. And yet it is undeniable that TEC is in terminal decline. Its own reports admit as much without using the word 'terminal.' Those 60-somethings will soon be either 80-somethings or dead, and there is no inflow to replace them. The parishes they sustain will fail as the parishoners die. And then the dioceses sustained by those parishes will fail. Already the dark clouds of bankruptcy and merger can be seen on the horizon. Were it not for the boatloads of dead men's money squirreled away in TEC back accounts, this process would be much farther advanced then it already is. We are assured however that with the spectre of conflict removed, TEC will once again experience a new birth of freedom; that religion of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth. But here TEC is crippled by its own message. It must have something to say worth hearing. But what does it have to say? "God (to the extent we know anything about him with confidence, which is problematic since truth is ultimately unknowable) loves you just the way you are, and he just wants you to be your intrinsically good authentic self. He isn't angry about anything .. exept maybe those fundamentalists over there who keep giving him a bad name. Oh, and the capitalist, military industrial complex. And the patriarchy. So let's all worship God by engaging in the political process to bring about the androgynous collectivist kingdom of heaven on Earth." Ten million remote controls just changed the channel. There is a small percentage of people who will respond to this message, and join TEC to chew on their metaphysical angst through political activism. They will sustain TECs existence in the vapors at some unconscious level. But your typical guy (defined by three sigma) is going to conclude that if what TEC says is true, then TEC is superfluous. If man has no requirement other than discovering his authentic intrinscially good self, then he can do that on his own. He doesn't need to pay TEC to help him with the process. In fact, he probably thinks he is pretty good and authentic already, so what would be the point? God isn't angy with him, after all. Plus he gets to watch football on Sunday morning. (Real football, not that soccer stuff.) So the numbers will go down, down, down everywhere except where there is a concentration of progressives large enough to sustain a little church. You need a big population of progressives to find those few who have any traditional religious impulses. Maybe TEC should try faith healing. It works for Benny Hinn. carl Posted by: Kurt Sunday 26 July 2009 - 04:30pm "TEC will exist long after the AC dissolves"--tjmcmahon (selectively quoting me) Or whatever. Some folks here on the Fulcrum site are so certain, eager in fact, to be rid of TEC‘s presence in the Anglican Communion. Certainly, our elected leadership, both clerical and lay, have made it very clear that we will not quit, walk away from, voluntarily depart, etc. If TEC (and the AC of C) are pushed out, well then, interesting things may begin to happen on a world scale that many con evos and anglo-papalists are not prepared for. Certainly, it’s very foolish to assume that 35 provinces will be left with Canterbury after such expulsions, and the ecclesial shock waves they are bound to cause. Beware of unintended consequences. Posted by: tjmcmahon Sunday 26 July 2009 - 04:09pm "TEC will exist long after the AC dissolves" Well, from the TEC perspective, which implies that the AC dissolves whenever TEC leaves it, I suppose this would be true. However, one suspects that there will be an entity that will be called the Anglican Communion, will be centered in Canterbury, and will have 35 or more provinces (given that one or two seem intent on following TEC's lead) and some other entities attached to it, whose Primates will be the same persons (or in direct succession) as the current Primates of the Anglican Communion. No doubt the current leadership of TEC, which feels itself competent to remove a CoE bishop from orders, lecture the Archbishop of Canterbury on the meaning of English words like "is" and "no", correct the Pope on the standards for receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church and declare 75% of the Anglican Communion to be guilty of heresy will have no problem declaring the dissolution of the Anglican Communion. The Communion was created by invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In "Americanese"- it ain't over til he says it's over. In that vein, I hope Archbishop Rowan knows that even those of us who have often disagreed with him over these last 6 years, as this process has drawn out, are praying for him in this most difficult of times. Posted by: Kurt Sunday 26 July 2009 - 03:51pm “You make the case for recognition of ACNA very well.”-- Pageantmaster Of course, you are welcome to try, but I doubt that you will receive much more than ¼ of the vote as things now stand in the UK. Posted by: carl Sunday 26 July 2009 - 06:12am Kurt Hill "So, carl, that’s where you get your knowledge about TEC--from J. R. R. Tolkien?" The metaphor was just too perfect. I couldn't resist it. Besides, this is a British site and it seemed polite to draw from British authors. I could cite Edmund Burke next time, if you would prefer. carl Posted by: Pageantmaster Sunday 26 July 2009 - 01:09am Second note to Kurt: Thanks for responding. You make the case for recognition of ACNA very well. As for the future of the AC - we try to be God's church, and perhaps that is the way we should remember to think of ourselves. He will dispose of us according to His mercy I hope rather than as we deserve. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Saturday 25 July 2009 - 08:44pm The argument keeps being made about the apparent heterodoxy of TEC and its decline. However, the UUA, which is clearly heterodox from any Christian point of view, has enjoyed consistent if small year on year growth. Many a religious group experiences decline or growth for no reason connected with Christianity. Perhaps a problem with TEC is that it has been for a while neither one thing nor the other in clear terms, a prospect that any enforcable Covenant would have perpetuated. However, nothing has happened at all yet to 'remove' TEC from the Anglican Communion, if it happens at all, and remember there are many other Anglican Churches which, if faced with the prospect of TEC excluded with a restrictive Covenant, or TEC in without a restrictive Covenant, will either ditch the Covenant or make it of no consequence. The evangelical voice as of here is only one voice, and a minority, if concentrated in a few places, and that is only considering the Church of England. The General Synod debate of some meetings back wasn't exactly happy with a restrictive Covenant, and it still might be illegal to adopt it anyway should it involve any form of international oversight. Posted by: Clare Saturday 25 July 2009 - 08:35pm Bishop Saul's point 'that the church had placed pastoral compassion over Scripture, tradition, and the teachings of Jesus to permit remarriage after divorce, and it would be nothing less than hypocritical for the church not to do likewise for gay and lesbian people' does have considerable force, however, and one which I have not heard answered. If you lot are really serious about this homosexuality business being a non starter, then unless you accompany this by a move to stick to Jesus' teaching on divorce, remove all divorced persons and those married to divorced persons from office and preach repentance and abandonment of second spouses (sexually, not economically), then how can we believe other than that you are acting from a place of homophobia? I don't like slinging labels about and I do not mean to here, but I find myself unable to square this particular circle. (Yes, Carl, you are the exception to this rule and I admire your consistency). Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 25 July 2009 - 08:33pm I have just read jordans thread .Thankyou Jordon for such a sensitive write up with all the right information to understand the various sides of the debate. It is truly brave to have to stand against the popular opinion of the time..In the same way as it is brave to be an innovator.. But we know that Christ honours those whose mission it is to find a way of promoting the Gospel in a way that it is open for all to receive him in their heart. Waterangel Posted by: Jordan Hylden Saturday 25 July 2009 - 07:37pm Thanks very much, folks. Looking forward to hearing your comments. For those interested, I've actually already responded to several points over at the First Things website: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/brave-new-church Christ's peace, Jordan 
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Saturday 25 July 2009 - 07:26pm
We have just published on Fulcrum 'Brave New Church' by Jordan Hylden copublished with First Things and Covenant Posted by: MattS Saturday 25 July 2009 - 07:09pm I think some of the points being made are quite instructive because we can see this kind of thing often. Orthodox Christians build up and endow church buildings, denominations, theological seminaries, whatever. At some point, these institutions are hijacked (strong word but I think it fits the reality) by people who are extremely radical (this is what support for homosexual relationships as being equal with marriage is, after all). The people who stand in the tradition of those who started and built up the institutions protest. The radicals then clamp down (non-biblical systems of morality have to be authoritarian by their very nature). Orthodox protest and are then accused of being schismatic and trying to "steal" things. Seems topsy turvy to me. Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 25 July 2009 - 06:21pm Provocative and liberal statements is a popular description it would seem to use about anyone who does not see it in the violent context of exclusion from the rights of communion and worship eiither as a leader or otherwise. Fulcrums response to this issues is not the most important thing..It would be wrong to trap the fulcrum team in a box and say to them now then because you said this they did that..Fulcrum is the people who use the various christian colleges centres and universities..Like the church is the People so is fulcrum..is it not?? is it not about getting a cross section of views cross refrencing them with the bible and finding Gods truth for your self without insult to fellow contributers, who have the same rights as you.. Roger is right in one very important point that is that it is not appropiriate to use selected verses of the bible to support our own views ie build a faith around the things we like in the bible..It is our duty to enable people to understand the bible in a way that enhances their journey with God Jesus and their fellow human beings..It is that freedom which Christianity has over and above all other faiths..Using religious sites as an avenue to insult people is simply not right.. To preach a gospel which offers hope is surely the mission of every christian in what so often seems like a hopeless society with no boundaries..Sheep stay in their pens because the wolves outside are worse.. My point being we need to show people that christianity is not a religion of restriction and judgement but a religion of Love Laughter and Learning..The bible excludes no-one in totality..Of course the timeline dictates it was mostly males who talked and recorded the message of the day, the loudest objectors of homosexuality are perhaps the least secure in their own.. Human beings are human beings relationships go wrong people abuse other people physically sexually and worse of all spiritually..Again Only by Grace can they enter Only by Grace can they come not by their human endeavours..Thank you Jesus!!! In Christ Waterangel Posted by: Kurt Saturday 25 July 2009 - 06:17pm Nersen, your observation “Americans, especially young Americans, don't seem to care much” about religion is accurate as far as it goes. What passes for “Evangelical Christianity” here has been in the forefront of the right-wing offensive against gays, immigrants, people of color, women, etc. for nearly 30 years. In no small measure, con evo dogma has helped to discredit Christianity in general, especially among the younger generation. Once we Episcopalians “get our house in order” perhaps we can do something to change this picture. Even now, most “progressive” parishes I know of (including my own here in Brooklyn) are growing modestly, not shrinking. Kurt in Brooklyn, NY Posted by: Kurt Saturday 25 July 2009 - 06:00pm So, carl, that’s where you get your knowledge about TEC--from J. R. R. Tolkien? I might have figured as much. Well, my friend, it’s also a fiction that TEC membership is simply melting away. In fact, we’re holding up at least as well, often better, than other Mainline denominations here in America. And with the departure of the backward-looking minority who have been helping to cause disruption for years, even decades, we now have the possibility of catching our collective breathes. Many of the properties, it is true, will be utilized by diminished congregations; but this may well give us the incentive to go out and do more evangelizing, wot? Kurt Hill In Kings County, NY USA Posted by: carl Saturday 25 July 2009 - 05:11pm Kurt Hill "Whether TEC is “in” or “out” of the Anglican Communion has no bearing on our right to keep our properties from evo and anglo-papalist pilferers." And what does TEC intend to do with those properties? Sell them, so as to pay the bureaucracy its salary a little while longer? TEC has no people to put in them. It cannot pay for them. It has no use for them other than to convert them into liquid capital. But then TEC is not really interested in maintaining the properties so much as it is interested in denying their usage to the rebellion. Better they be burned to the ground then facilitate the emergence of an Anglican competitor to TEC. I have no doubt TEC will largely succeed in this endeavor. But in so doing, TEC will prove only that a sacrifice without cost is no sacrifice. "TEC will exist long after the AC dissolves" If you define 'existing' as 'a few hundred thousand people scattered about New England and the West Coast, with outposts planted here and there across the hinterlands in an odd assortment of university towns like Cavalry posts in the Old West', then TEC will continue to exist. Rather like Sauron continued to exist after the Ring of Power was destroyed. A shadow that can no longer take form, hovering unnoticed and unlamented beneath the cultural noise. carl Posted by: Kurt Saturday 25 July 2009 - 03:28pm Second note to by: Pageantmaster: Your friends in ACNA are not what I consider “faithful Christians.” I’m sorry if my American directness offends you, but from my perspective here in the New World, they are liars, thieves, and schismatics. The fact that, numerically, many in the Anglican Communion have sympathy for them is of little significance to most Episcopalians I know, since quality is more important to us than mere numbers. Not that it matters much to me, but don’t kid yourself; if TEC (and the AC of C) were “expelled” from the AC there would be major repercussions and reverberations throughout the Anglican globe, including in the UK. Long-term, I don’t think history is on the side of the evos and anglo-papalists of the AC, whatever their temporary advantages might be today. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 25 July 2009 - 12:43pm Kurt - property should not matter to either side as much as it does. Perhaps people ought to have taken the attitude of leaving TECUSA because of revisionist theology and renting new buildings - that would have avoided TECUSA lawsuits against them........ I was in NY city this week and it was great to see hundreds of Americans and people of many other nationalities (of all ages, many under 30) in church...... but I also saw a lovely, famous old church building near my office.....but not many Americans go there, despite its claim to be oh so "inclusive" ...... but they do not seem to make any link between their revisionist theology and failure to attract many Americans. Still, luckily, they have inherited cash..... I guess lawsuits against ACNA people is all about increasing TECUSA's assets to fund its decline. How many years to go? 700k people in TECUSA churches on a Sunday (in a population of over 300m) and declining at an alarming rate.....will it be less than 0.1% of the US population in TECUSA churches on a Sunday in a decade? Still, ubuntu and all that......Americans, especially young Americans, don't seem to care much Posted by: Pageantmaster Saturday 25 July 2009 - 12:11pm Note to Kurt in beautiful Brooklyn, NY: "evo anglo-papalist pilferers" - these are faithful Christians and Anglicans, much like church-goers here and around the world who have just kept to the faith they received; you should get to know some - they are lovely people and are paying a high price for their commitment, as Christians always have in the face of persecution. I wish you would reconsider such terminology and what appears to be a defensive and isolationist view of TEC's place in the Communion and the Christian world. From the US it may look as if the Communion may dissolve or fly apart, but it is considerably larger than the North American churches. Elsewhere it is doing just fine and working well together. As for the decisions of GC - it is interesting that neither the main stream media nor anyone else for that matter is buying the spin coming out of the TEC leadership. Only in an Alice-in-wonderland world could anyone find it convincing. Posted by: Kurt Friday 24 July 2009 - 05:41pm Note to Pageantmaster: Whether TEC is “in” or “out” of the Anglican Communion has no bearing on our right to keep our properties from evo and anglo-papalist pilferers. TEC existed long before the Anglican Communion was formed in 1867 (and, I’m sure, TEC will exist long after the AC dissolves, flies apart, or whatever.) Kurt Hill In beautiful Brooklyn, NY Posted by: Deleted user 974 Friday 24 July 2009 - 05:22pm I think the it came to the PBs attention that Rowan Wilas, AM and various 'reporters' ahd misunderstood- whether wilfully or not - the decisions of GC and were misreresnting them. Rowan even spoke of it in GS betraying in his haste a lack of understaning of the import of these decisions and their theological basis. With respect, it would appear that you are falling, or is it joyously leaping, into the same trap, yourself. Posted by: Pageantmaster Friday 24 July 2009 - 01:49pm What is it that has led to the flurry of letters from the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies? What is it that they fear which has led to this PR exercise to pursuade everyone that these resolutions do not mean what the ordinary usage of the words makes clear? What is behind the 'talking points' sheet which TEC bishops seem to be taking their cue from? Is it love of the Communion which they make no effort otherwise to take into account? The conclusion I am coming to is that the reason is so that they continue doing what they intend to continue to do in breach of the moratoria while securing their tentative position in the Communion. They know full well that given their claim to hierachy and membership of the Communion as the Anglican presence in North America that sanction will undermine their scorched earth policy of lawsuits against departing dioceses and those who are differentiating themselves from the General Convention's actions. Serious things things which affect peoples church homes and ability to continue to witness as faithful Anglicans are at issue. I hope we will stop giving comfort to TEC's policy of persecution and litigation. Posted by: pete hobson Friday 24 July 2009 - 12:15am Clare - your comment about 'culling' is phrased provocatively, I presume to imply the answer 'No', but your post asks some more nuanced questions. For those who believe sexually active gay relationships can be right, then it is honest to say so, and perhaps also to press for the church collectively to move in that direction. The situation you describe in London is an interesting counter example of collective dishonesty, more or less across the board in that Area, if you have it right. I worked for 8 years in London, in a different episcopal area I think, and for the most part was not aware of the sexual orientation of fellow clergy, or if I was, was not aware if gay colleagues were partnered or sexually active. But in the few cases where I believed I was, I viewed it with disquiet, because whatever their own beliefs about the acceptability of their position before God it was clear then, as now, that this is not the formal position of the church. So it seemed and seems to me that neither collusion with hypocrisy, nor open defiance of authority is particularly helpful, although I guess he latter has the benefit of slightly greater honesty. But to come back to the 'culling' argument: I believe it to be the case that heterosexual clergy who are known to have had affairs or whatever can expect to suffer disciplinary consequences, in a way that appears not to be consistently the case with openly gay partnered clergy, so perhaps the 'culling' language only works if you're not gay? As for the divorce parallel - it isn't, at least insofar as the church has a formal position on divorce and remarriage which makes it potentially acceptable. You can argue it's got it right, or got it wrong, but any divorced and remarried clergy who have kept within those guidelines and discipline cannot be accused of hypocrisy. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 23 July 2009 - 12:04pm Hi Clare. Yes, honesty is so important.....but who is being dishonest? The CofE has explicit positions - is it not reasonable to expect people in the CofE to respect those positions? Posted by: Celinda Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 08:25pm Thanks to +Graham for printing the Communion Partners' Letter. I'm proud to say that one of the rectors in our diocese (Pittsburgh) is one of the signers. I'm doubtful that the ABC can or would want to be in communion with some of TEC if he isn't with all of TEC, but don't know. Just knowing the strength of support for the Windsor Report and for the Anglican Communion and the ABC's role in it is helpful, though. Posted by: Clare Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 07:07pm As Mark Bennet says; we've had gay bishops for many years. When I was a student 20 or so years ago, in the London deneary where I then worshipped, 43 out of 44 clergy were gay and the area bishop was as gay as gay can be. How many of these were sexually active I know not, but they weren't all celibate, that's for sure! My vicar lived in the vicarage with his partner (I know that they weren't celibate) and the bishop definately knew about this - I went to dinner with the three of them more than once. Are we punishing the TEC because they can no longer put up with this systemic dishonesty? If we want to disown them, what are we going to do about those of us who are either gay ourselves, or pro-gay, or who collude with the situation by willfully ignoring the obvious reality of gay priests, thereby being able to maintain a false 'innocence'. To be consistent, shouldn't we cull all sexually active gay priests, all priests regardless of orientation and/or gender who have had sex before marriage and remain unrepentant about this and all divorced priests or those married to divorces? Posted by: Kurt Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 06:47pm TEC Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has issued a letter to the Church about General Convention, which was held July 8-17 at the Anaheim Convention Center in California. The full text of the Presiding Bishop's letter follows: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_112789_ENG_HTM.htm Kurt Hill Brooklyn, NY Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 02:26pm A piece brought forward, or possibly extra, by me is in The Daily Episcopalian, part of Episcopal Café, which has been titled not by me but is fine by me. As you can see, I'm not one for controversy. Posted by: Mark Bennet Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 12:08pm To pick up on Peter Waddell's comments. For me it isn't about wanting to be a bishop or it being great (or otherwise) to be a bishop, or rights, or discrimination ... but about properly discerning God's call to a vocation - every time we fail to do this we diminish the church. Secondly, we have had gay bishops in the church for many years - if we see the problem as being 'openly gay' bishops, then we are deceiving ourselves collectively. Aside: It is possible to transpose many of the arguments concerning women as bishops to gay men who are less than forthright about their manner of life - they begin to look very strange in the light of the reality of Church life. Structures which tacitly collude with deceit break the church too. I think a lot of the current debate begins from the wrong place, and that until we actually have the courage to acknowledge the truth of where we are (and our part in getting to this place), our arguments will multiply without any real chance of a resolution. 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 08:00am
Communion Partners Rectors of The Episcopal Church have written a very significant open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury following General Convention, Communion Partners site, 22 July 2009. It is copied below in full and is also on the Anglican Communion Institute and Living Church sites: Letter from the Communion Partners to the Archbishop of Canterbury 104th Archbishop of Canterbury Lambeth Palace London, England SE1 7JU Your Grace: You will be sent a hard copy of this letter, statement and the list of signatories, but because of our desire to put this material in front of you soon, we are e-mailing this correspondence as well. We must share with you that this letter will also be made public via the trusted websites of the The Livng Church and The Anglican Communion Institute. Enclosed, please find a statement of the Communion Partner Rectors who welcome and declare our appreciation for the witness of the over 30 Episcopal bishops who have signed the minority statement read in the House of Bishops at the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Anaheim, California on Thursday, July 16, 2009. Though we have been in touch with you throughout the last year and a half, we simply reiterate our deep desire and commitment to remain constituent members of the greater Anglican Communion. We, as we believe it to be well documented now, concur with your leadership, and that of Lambeth Conference and the ACC that the road to stronger bonds of affection amongst the members of the Communion is our shared commitment to our Lord and His Church, the instruments of Communion and the parameters and councils set forth in the Windsor Process, the three (at present) requested moratoria, the most recent Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the unfolding Covenant Process, to which we are fully committed. We do not concur with any action taken that would be interpreted by the larger Communion as divisive, dismissive of our larger Anglican Communion or schismatic. The outgrowth of the decisions of the General Convention has yet to be ultimately determined as to its impact on our common bonds of affection that we should all share, and honor, as part of the worldwide Anglican family. Some will clearly share the assessment of His Grace, Bishop N.T. Wright that The Episcopal Church has, by its most recent actions, chosen to “walk apart.” It would be our hope that if you share that assessment, that you would also share Bishop’s Wright’s counsel to “…not forget the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, who doggedly loyal to their church, and to the Windsor Report as expressing the mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes within revisionist dioceses (and, for that matter, worshippers within revisionists parishes) who take the same stance,” (The Times, 15 July, 2009). Again, let us categorically state, that we believe our ties to both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion must remain solid and unfettered by any action, resolution or statement that would in any way further tear the very fragile fabric that is now our Anglican family; and therefore would not support any such action, resolution or statement. Lastly, we reaffirm our pledge of support for the unfolding Covenant process and it is our hope that Part IV of the Ridley Draft will soon be revisited and approved as a pathway for not simply Provinces, but Bishops, Dioceses and individual parishes to renew their commitment not only to the Anglican Communion, but to those vital pillars that in the end, draw us all together, rather than cause further division. Toward that end and toward all of these matters, we pledge our prayers and support to you, to our Communion Partner Bishops and those Bishops who joined them in signing the Anaheim Statement, and to those Bishops who have made similar statements to their own Dioceses. Please let us know how we can further support you. Faithfully, on behalf of the attached list of Communion Partner Rectors, The Advisory Committee of the Communion Partner Rectors The Reverend Dr. Charles Alley, Rector, St. Matthews, Richmond, Virginia The Right Reverend Anthony Burton, Rector, Church of the Incarnation, Dallas, Texas The Very Reverend Anthony Clark, Dean, St. Luke’s Cathedral, Orlando, Florida The Reverend S. Brooks Keith, Rector, Church of the Transfiguration, Vail, Colorado The Reverend Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr. Rector, St. Martin’s, Houston, Texas The Reverend Leigh Spruill, Rector, St. George’s, Nashville, Tennessee The Communion Partner Rectors’ Statement: July 22, 2009 We, the undersigned clergy in good standing in the Episcopal Church welcome and declare our appreciation for the witness of the bishops who signed the minority statement read in the House of Bishops in Anaheim, California on Thursday, July 16, 2009. We also express our on-going support for all the reaffirmations listed in that document, which read as follows: We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships. We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538). We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion. We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed. We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God. We are committed along with said bishops to be a positive force for the spread of God’s Kingdom in this world; to pray for Christ’s Body, the Church, the Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all bishops and other ministers. We hold that as Christ’s Body, the Church is to be a “pillar and buttress of truth,” (1 Timothy 3:15) through which the Gospel is held high in witness and proclamation, and we pray for the reconciliation of all humankind through the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. For more information about the Communion Partner Rectors, contact CPRectors@stmartinsepiscopal.org The Rev. Dr. Charles Alley Rector, St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church Richmond, Virginia The Rev. Christopher L. Ashmore Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church Jacksonville, Illinois The Rev. John D. Badders, Jr. Rector, St. John’s Episcopal Church McAllen, Texas The Rev. Phyllis Bartle Rector, St. Jude’s Episcopal Church Orange City, Florida The Rev. Milton E. Black, Jr. Rector, Church of the Good Shepherd Corpus Christi, Texas The Rev. Christopher Andrew Bowhay Rector, St. Thomas’ Episcopal Church Houston, Texas The Rt. Rev. Anthony J. Burton Rector, Church of the Incarnation Dallas, Texas The Rev. William J. Cavanaugh Rector, The Episcopal Church of the Epiphany Richardson, Texas The Very Reverend Anthony Clark Dean, The Cathedral Church of St. Luke Orlando, Florida The Rev. Anthony F. M. Clavier Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church La Porte, Indiana The Rev. C. Carter Croft Rector, Good Shepherd Episcopal Church Silver City, New Mexico The Rev. Joseph N. Davis Rector, Church of the Resurrection Franklin, Tennessee The Very Rev. Canon Richard C. Doscher, Sr. Rector, St. Alfred’s Episcopal Church Palm Harbor, Florida The Rev. Mifflin Dove, Jr. Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church Katy, Texas The Rev. Robert G. Eaton Rector, St. John’s Episcopal Church Tulare, California The Rev. Theodore W. Edwards, Jr. Rector, St. George’s Episcopal Church Bradenton, Florida The Rev. Richard H. Elwood Retired Rector, St. Barnabas Episcopal Church Fredericksburg, Texas The Rev. Frank E. Fuller Rector, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church Beaumont, Texas The Rev. Ronald E. Greiser, Jr. Rector, St. John’s Episcopal Church Portsmouth, Virginia The Rev. Laurens A. Hall Rector, St. John the Divine Houston¸ Texas The Rev. John F. Hardie Rector, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church Corpus Christi, Texas The Rev. Theodore E. Hervey, Jr. Rector, Epiphany Episcopal Church Burnet, Texas The Rev. John M. Himes, OSF Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church Marshall, Texas The Rev. Charles L. Holt Rector, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church Lake Mary, Florida The Rev. Robert Horowitz Rector, Church of the Redeemer Greenville, South Carolina The Rev. Thomas S. Hotchkiss Rector, Church of The Advent Nashville, Tennessee The Rev. Robert T. Jennings Rector, St. Francis in the Fields Harrods Creek, Kentucky The Rev. Bennett G. Jones, II Rector, St. Paul Episcopal Church Munster, Indiana The Rev. Timothy Jones Senior Associate Rector, St. George’s Episcopal Church Nashville, Tennessee The Rev. Stuart Brooks Keith III Rector, Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration Vail, Colorado The Rev. Jerome A. Kramer Rector, Church of the Annunciation New Orleans, Louisiana The Rev. Gerald W. Krumenacker, Jr. Rector, Christ Church Dallas, Texas The Rev. Ronald James LeBlanc Priest-in-Charge, Church of the Incarnation Lafayette, Louisiana The Rev. Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr. Rector, St. Martin’s Episcopal Church Houston, Texas The Rev. John S. Liebler Rector, St. Andrew’s Church and Academy Fort Pierce, Florida The Rev. Ramiro E. Lopez, Jr. Rector, St. George Episcopal Church San Antonio, Texas The Rev. Daniel H. Martins Rector, St. Anne’s Episcopal Church Warsaw, Indiana The Very Rev. Dr. Jean McCurdy Meade Rector, Mount Olivet Episcopal Church New Orleans, Louisiana The Rev. Mark A. Michael Rector, Saint Paul’s Episcopal Church Sharpsburg, Maryland The Rev. Joel J. Morsch Rector, Christ Church Bradenton, Florida The Rev. Elizabeth L. Myers Rector, St. Francis of Assisi Lake Placid, Florida The Rev. David G. Newhart Rector, St. Elizabeth’s Episcopal Church Sebastian, Florida The Rev. John Newton Rector, Messiah Episcopal Church Saint Paul, Minnesota The Very Rev. Timothy C. Nunez Rector, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church Belleview, Florida The Rev. Jennie C. Olbrych Vicar, St. James Santee Episcopal Church McClellanville, South Carolina The Rev. Robert P. Price Rector, St. Dunstan’s Episcopal Church Houston, Texas The Rev. Dr. Darrel D. Proffitt Rector, Church of the Holy Apostles Katy, Texas The Rev. Fredrick Arthur Robinson Rector, The Church of the Redeemer Sarasota, Florida The Rev. Bruce M. Robison, D.Min. Rector, St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania The Rev. Mark Seitz Rector, St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church Wheeling, West Virginia The Rev. John Thomas Sheehan Rector, The Church of Our Redeemer Aldie, Virginia The Rev. Dr. Jerry Smith Rector, St. Bartholomew’s Parish Nashville, Tennessee The Rev. Leigh Spruill Rector, St. George’s Episcopal Church Nashville, Tennessee The Very Rev. Canon Harold L. Trott, SSC Vicar, Church of Our Saviour Albuquerque, New Mexico The Rev. Eric W. Turner, Sr. Rector, St. John’s Episcopal Church Melbourne, Florida The Rev. Guido Verbeck Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church Shreveport, Louisiana The Very Rev. Dr. Edward A. Weiss, OSB, APC Rector, Church of Our Saviour Okeechobee, Florida The Rev. John T. Wells Rector, Episcopal Church Of The Holy Spirit Waco, Texas The Rev. Ted Welty Interim Rector, Christ Episcopal Church Tyler, Texas The Rev. Stockton Williams, Jr. Rector, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church Kerrville, Texas The Rev. Dr. Kenneth A. Wolfe Rector, Christ Episcopal Church Fitchburg, Massachusetts The Rev. Michael Wyckoff Rector, St. Luke’s on the Lake Austin, Texas Posted by: Art Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 12:31am Notwithstanding ACI’s customary detailed analysis (for which many thanks + Graham), Anglican TV in the US has an interview with + Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, who makes very quickly substantially the same point about the creep from Lambeth 1998, 1.10, to The Windsor Report, and then to GC 2006 & B033 (and then to the JSC’s ‘verdict’), and then finally to D025 & C056. See http://www.anglicantv.org/node/357 The important thing to note about such glacial incremental slides is they usually cause enormous avalanches in the fulness of time - at the eventual edge. Kyrie eleison! For that too is “the other side of history”.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 21 July 2009 - 06:19pm
The Anglican Communion Institute has just published a perceptive article which is copied below in full: Resolutions and the Windsor Moratoria Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 At its recently concluded General Convention, The Episcopal Church passed resolutions that are widely regarded as repudiations of prior commitments to the Windsor moratoria that have been officially implemented by the Anglican Communion. Apparently reacting to the swift denunciation of these actions by many in the Communion, various constituencies in TEC are now scrambling to re-interpret General Convention’s actions. ENS withdrew and revised its story about a key vote and Convention participants have produced wildly inconsistent, if equally far-fetched, interpretations of what took place. Integrity continues to claim, however, that this Convention was a “virtual clean sweep” for their side. Bishops There are now multiple conflicting interpretations of the relationship of Resolution D025 to Resolution B033 and the Windsor moratorium on episcopal elections. During the debate on D025 in the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop stated (in response to a leading question from Bishop Gulick) that the moratorium would remain in effect until another gay bishop was consecrated. Bishop Gulick has since repeated this claim himself. In any sense in which this is true at all, it is merely a trivial tautology and therefore of no empirical significance or interest. The Windsor Report was not asking TEC to refrain from consecrating another gay bishop only until such time as they consecrate another gay bishop. It was asking TEC to commit not to do so. A few days later, in their joint letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies stated that “Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.” http://ecusa.anglican.org/documents/D025_letter_to_Archbishop.pdf Note that this letter makes no mention at all of a moratorium. It neither claims that one is still in place or even that one was ever in place. It only refers to the relationship between D025 and B033, and in that context makes the claim that B033 will be interpreted in light of the later D025, not vice versa. The joint letter thus gives D025 priority over B033. Time will tell, they say, whether B033 will either be re-interpreted or treated as repealed. But it is the status of B033 that is up for grabs, not D025. The Presiding Bishop’s assistant for ecumenical matters, Bishop Epting is among those taking the tack of re-interpreting B033: The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ passage of resolution D025 does not overturn last General Convention’s call for care and “restraint.” That last resolution (B033) was never a “moratorium” on the ordination and consecration of gay and lesbian persons. It counseled care in approving any bishops whose “manner of life” would cause additional strain on the Anglican Communion. Quite apart from the press’s (including Episcopal News Service) usual misunderstanding of such things, D025 simply re-asserts what has always been true — the ordination process in The Episcopal Church is governed by the Constitution and Canons of this church. It would be perfectly possible for a bishop to have voted for D025 and still withhold consent for the election of any bishop-elect. http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/do25-does-not-overturn-b033 In other words, the Epting defense is that B033 is not repealed because it was never a moratorium to begin with. This points out the flaw in the D025/B033 shell game that is now the party line of TEC progressives. It “preserves” B033 by acknowledging that TEC was never in compliance with the Windsor request anyway. It thereby constitutes a stunning betrayal of the Communion bodies that bent over backwards at the cost of their own credibility to find in B033 the moratorium that the Windsor Report and consecutive Primates’ Meetings requested. Note that the Windsor Report requested in paragraph 134 that: the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_d/p2.cfm The Primates’ Meeting at Dromantine formalized this request and asked that TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada) “respond through their relevant constitutional bodies.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique%20_english.pdf Neither the Windsor Report nor the Primates specified that the moratorium needed to be incorporated into canon law; only that the commitment to “effect” the moratorium be given by the relevant constitutional body. In TEC’s case, a moratorium could have been effected by passing a canon at General Convention, but that was not done. Indeed, it was never proposed. Instead, B033 was merely a resolution requesting restraint. But in TEC’s case, a moratorium could also be effected by a commitment by the constitutional bodies responsible for giving consents to episcopal elections, bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees. The Communion bodies did TEC a great favor by interpreting B033 in precisely this fashion. B033 complied with the Windsor request, they said, because it was a commitment by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to withhold consent. Thus, the widely-criticized “Sub-Group Report” issued before the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam found TEC in compliance on this front based on its conclusion that: In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report…. The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates. (Emphasis added.) http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf The compliance with the Windsor request was found therefore not in the canonical enforceability of B033 but in the commitment of a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to a moratorium. And that commitment was manifested by their vote on B033. In New Orleans in September 2007, the House of Bishops confirmed this interpretation of B033 by endorsing the Sub-group Report: The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”[1] The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains. (Emphasis added.) http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm In evaluating the House of Bishops’ response after New Orleans, the Communion’s Joint Standing Committee concluded TEC had complied with the Windsor request solely on the basis that it had endorsed the Sub-Group’s conclusions: By confirming the interpretation of the Communion Sub-Group and quoting it explicitly, as well as making the explicit acknowledgement in the last sentence of their text that Resolution B033 does refer to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”, the Episcopal House of Bishops is answering the question of the Primates positively. They confirm the understanding of the sub-group that restraint is exercised in a precise way “by not consenting”, and that this specifically includes “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”. They have therefore clearly affirmed that the Communion Sub-Group were correct in interpreting Resolution B033 as meeting the request of the Windsor Report. http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf As this review shows, the significance to the communion of B033 was the “commitment” manifested by bishops with jurisdiction by their votes to “effect a moratorium” by withholding consent. One can readily see that this was the most favorable interpretation one could possibly give to TEC’s actions in 2006 in passing B033. Those who gave TEC this benefit of the doubt have now been rewarded with D025 and the claim that no harm has been done because B033 never was a moratorium anyway. Yet those same bishops (including Bp. Epting) concurred in the HOB statement at New Orleans that B033 complied with Windsor and effected a moratorium. We now have the Presiding Bishop (among others) saying the moratorium is still in effect, her ecumenical assistant saying (contrary to what he said at New Orleans) that it was never in effect, the two presiding officers jointly saying only time will tell, but D025 takes precedence and virtually everyone lauding themselves for their “honesty.” In fact, B033 never was a de jure moratorium, but it could be construed (as the Communion bodies graciously did) as a commitment by bishops with jurisdiction to effect a moratorium. But under this most favorable possible interpretation, that commitment by bishops has now been repudiated by D025. In that resolution, an overwhelming majority of bishops, including bishops with jurisdiction, committed to opening all orders of ministry to partnered homosexuals and accepted a resolution that was explicitly based in its own official Explanation on the claim that homosexual relationships reflect “holy love” and that these “standards” should provide “guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate.” The only conclusion that can be drawn from this vote is that the commitment to effect a moratorium manifested only by the votes for B033 has been repudiated by the very different commitment manifested by the votes for D025. A vote endorsing D025 and the standards articulated in its Explanation is not a commitment to effect a moratorium. It quite obviously is the contrary and is why Integrity regards this convention as a “virtual clean sweep.” A minority of bishops remain committed to B033, but they no longer are the majority the Sub-Group and Joint Standing Committee concluded was sufficient to effect the Windsor moratorium. Blessings Similar efforts are underway to obscure the effect of Resolution C056, which approved dioceses’ blessings of same sex unions and began the development of church-wide liturgies. This is a subject with a lengthy history and public record. In 2003, General Convention by resolution C051 acknowledged that liturgies blessing same sex unions were in use in TEC: “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.” http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2003-C051 The Sub-Group Report found that such public liturgies were in use in several TEC dioceses and concluded: “We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.” http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf In New Orleans, the House of Bishops acknowledged that some, but not a majority, of bishops “make allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.” http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm In light of this record over several years of acknowledgement of public liturgies of blessing, the language in C056 encouraging bishops to offer “generous pastoral response”—not “private [pastoral] response” as contemplated by the Primates—can only be construed as endorsement by the General Convention of the well-known public liturgies of blessing that have long been acknowledged to be in use in TEC dioceses. That this endorsement was given with obvious cunning and craft is not a point in its favor. In other words, C056 is the endorsement by TEC as a whole of those bishops who act in violation of the second of the Windsor moratoria. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that it is public liturgies of blessing, not just approval of rites, that are implicated by the second Windsor moratorium. The post-New Orleans Joint Standing Committee report, which was accepted by TEC’s Presiding Bishop, a member of that committee, made this explicit: It needs to be made clear however that we believe that the celebration of a public liturgy which includes a blessing on a same-sex union is not within the breadth of private pastoral response envisaged by the Primates in their Pastoral Letter of 2003, and that the undertaking made by the bishops in New Orleans is understood to mean that the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action”, a qualification which is in line with the limits that the Constitution of The Episcopal Church places upon the bishops (emphasis added).” http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf The Windsor Continuation Group Report released earlier this year concluded that those dioceses that were “actively pursuing” public rites of blessing had “only the passive consent of General Convention, which has until now refused to take positive steps toward the recognition of such Rites.” The WCG was willing to conclude the second moratorium was “significantly” holding because it found that the public blessings could not “be characterized as a determined movement by the whole Church to see such Rites firmly established in the life of the Church.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/windsor_continuation/WCG_Report.cfm C056 quite obviously is a repudiation of the New Orleans undertaking as understood by the Joint Standing Committee and is the “determined movement” by the whole church the WCG did not find earlier this year. C056 made no effort to discourage the long-acknowledged and ongoing public blessings, and no one suggested for a minute that they were not what was being encouraged as a “generous pastoral response.” Whatever one makes of the resolutions of the last two General Conventions, it is clear that TEC has now charted its own course and no longer considers itself bound by previous undertakings and Communion moratoria. Posted by: User 2096 Saturday 18 July 2009 - 03:52am Kevin Mequet, UMC America I have tried reading your work, Tom, and I can't get beyond your abstruse -- and obtuse -- misconstructions and flagrant disregard for reason free of passion. This essay is so fraught with errors and incorrect reasoning; one is struck with the dilemma of where or how to begin. So, I will start here. In your world that is 2,000 years behind the modern era, there are no gay persons. They don't exist and therefore you dismiss any effort at understanding the fact of the existence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and queer persons. This is wrong. They do indeed exist. Gay men, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered and queer persons are in all of our churches right now and they have been throughout history, regardless of the absence of modern understanding. They are serving and worshipping with our straight brothers and sisters right now. This is a justice issue, not a political accommodation. The only problem is can they live lives of integrity in full truthfulness of the their existence in our churches or not. Can they stop being made to lie and fake reality for your convenience? Obviously, you are committed to them not. The ancient complimentarian argument is fallacious. You have this wrong. GLBTQ persons are not failed heterosexuals who are chronically rebellious to G-d, or sinners selfishly “CHOOSING” their “orientation” against G-d’s will, or “demon-possessed.” These are wholly and demonstrably unworkable judgments. Really. In this modern age, is this rational? It's fascinating to me that you flagrantly disregard the Christian Gospel in welcoming without condition of any kind in rendering of full hospitality to the stranger as Christ has called you to do with respect to GLBTQ persons. They are exempt with impunity in your world for the sake of "unity." A great American philosopher once said, "Any creed that requires self-immolation as the standard of its validity is irresolvably contradictory." Aristotle said, "There are no contradictions." The philosopher said, "When you find one, check your premises, you'll find at least one is wrong." I know you dismiss philosophy, so I won't beat that dead horse. But I find this even more fascinating. You hold the entire bible to be inerrant and absolute. Then why do you choose to ignore and dismiss Jesus' lesson in Matthew 19:1-12 KJV? Jesus makes quite plain that there are at least 3 instances where the law of marriage would not apply. Persons born known at that time as intersexed or sex-organ-ambiguous persons, men castrated by punishment or accident, and men who give themselves wholly to G-d by castration to remain cantor tenors in Synagogue or were also the 1st century Hellenic Jewish euphemism for gay men. Tom, please listen carefully: “He that is able to receive it, LET him receive it.” It's so fascinating you refuse to recognize the existence of GLBTQ persons when quite clearly in the Gospel, Jesus would. All the Episcopal Church of America is doing is correcting this error. Why are you rebellious to the call of G-d in this? I know, I know. You have all the rationalizations and justifications to do this. The problem with this is that at the end of the day, they remain merely rationalizations and justifications impervious to G-d's love and will to welcome the stranger you do not know. Posted by: Neil L Friday 17 July 2009 - 08:18pm Rev. Neil G. Lebhar I appreciate the press release for it clearly states what really has happened in TEC. As an American priest who was deposed from TEC without even their attempt to respond to my appeal, who lost over $200,000 personally because of pension consequences, and whose parish leaders were personally sued and forced to leave a $3 million property they had paid for because our bishop ignored the Panel of Reference and Canterbury, I find the naivete that now finally is the time to act a little frustrating. I wrote some of the following to a bishop before Lambeth. But the principles seem even more pertinent in light of this week's General Convention. I am aware that alcoholism is a complicated moral issue not so easily classifiable as a sin. But the principles of dealing with it are my primary focus in this analogy: One analogy that has been helpful to me is that of a family dealing with an alcoholic. It is common here to have an intervention (interesting word given our current crisis) where family members and the alcoholic's employer confront him. They make clear that his behavior will not be tolerated, and then spell out consequences if he does not stop drinking. Usually the consequences include isolation from the family and loss of employment. If the person stops drinking, all proceeds well. But if he insists that he doesn't have a problem, then comes the test. Will those who were so clear in the intervention follow through, or will they next decide to ignore the drinking in order to somehow keep the family together? Often the family divides at that point into those who insist on distancing themselves from the alcoholic (I would call them distancers) and those who try to ignore the problem and stay together. The second group thus becomes "enablers" of the alcoholic, allowing his condition to continue. Sometimes the enablers become alcoholics too. In the process both they and the alcoholic are destroyed. These are the types of choices that Paul leaves to the Corinthian Christians in 1 Corinthians 5 in dealing with sexual immorality. Of course they hold true for sins in general. ... We are at the point where countless interventions have been tried on TEC, and either the Communion now unites in following through, or it divides into distancers and enablers. I share this because it has helped me understand what is happening. It may also be a picture that is helpful in describing ...our position to others perhaps more familiar with alcoholism than they are with 1 Corinthians (sadly this is not unusual). My hope is that Lambeth could actually be two different meetings, with clear guidelines as to attendance. One could be for those who have abided by and intend to abide by the Lambeth 1.10 position of the Communion and create a covenant to continue. The other could be a 'cease-fire' talk with those who cannot abide by the Communion decision, ending litigation and agreeing to disagree. But a meeting where distancers just have to defend themselves again to enablers is a waste of time and money. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Friday 17 July 2009 - 06:52pm "Push on more attainable things: working more effectively to end homophobic legislation in countries like Nigeria" I think you'll find that it is more attainable having gay bishops in The Episcopal Church and many other Anglican Chruches then being effective in ending homophobia in Nigeria, and indeed to have such bishops is to challenge the Anglican supported homophobia in Nigeria. Posted by: Kurt Friday 17 July 2009 - 02:42pm I apologize for verbally striking out at you, Peter Waddell. Frustration sometimes makes one snap at people. I disagree with your analysis; we Episcopalians HAVE been listening to others. It’s the Tom Wrights, Graham Kings, and Rowan Williams himself, who have not returned the favor. They are deaf to what TEC has been saying since at least the 1970s. These people are on the wrong side of history. In fact, while most American Episcopalians know quite a bit about C of E history, (through our confirmation and Church history classes), its obvious that our British cousins know very little about us. The origin of American Episcopalianism goes back almost to the very beginnings of the English Reformation. The first celebration of the Holy Eucharist in continental North America by an Anglican priest took place in 1579, north of San Francisco Bay, the same year that the great Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, received Holy Orders. The first native-born American Anglicans were baptized in Virginia in 1587, the year that Mary, Queen of Scotts, lost her head for plotting to take the life of her royal cousin, Elizabeth. America’s oldest Episcopal parish, St. John’s Church Hampton, Virginia was founded in 1610, and thus predates the first printing of the King James Bible. America’s oldest Episcopal Church building, St. Luke’s Church (“Old Brick”) Smithfield, VA dates from 1632, the same year that Christopher Wren, the future architect of St. Paul’s Cathedral, was born. St. George’s Church Valley Lee, Maryland was established in 1638, the year Scottish Calvinists defied Archbishop William Laud and signed the National Covenant, by which they pledged themselves to uphold the Puritan position by force and violence, thus leading to the English Civil War. (By the way, the last battle in that Civil War, the Battle of the Severn, took place outside of Annapolis, Maryland in 1655 between Cromwell’s Protectorate and American Episcopalians. We lost.) Our Line of bishops, beginning with the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury by bishops of the Scottish Church in 1784, is the oldest Line of Anglican bishops outside of the British Isles. The Catholic Revival, (one of the great transformative movements in Anglicanism during the past 200 years) was well underway in the American Church when the Oxford Movement began in England in 1833. And despite this history, we are treated like naughty children by Rowan Williams, Tom Wright, et al. Kurt Hill Brooklyn, NY Posted by: Peter Menkin Friday 17 July 2009 - 04:43am As a Californian, home to Disneyland and Anaheim, I have followed TEC General Convention from a distance. I did so and do so from my home computer, just to check in once a day. California is also home to so many good and many beautiful things. It is a large State, perhaps as many as 35 million people-- and mountains, and farms, and San Francisco, and people, and Episcopalians, and problems. So as life goes on, What a surprise. What a surprise to find out that TEC is going for the Gay thing, after all the Windsor Report statement and agreement. Also, with the thought and maybe even intent (I am not sure I believe that movement of intent) to leave the Anglican Communion. Whew! Bad news for me. Now what? This TEC member can wait, and so I will. I do hope that we won't leave the Communion, for then I am not sure what I would do. Even moreso, I do contemplate and consider other matters before that event. Going to Church, worship, prayer, friends, what's for dinner. This may sound a little trite, but the small and large things of life continue. My Parish is still there. Delegates have not returned to explain everything. Normal life goes on, and that may be the sense of the tragedy in this major decision and movement. Will TEC leave the Communion? Does it really want to do so. That is hard to fathom let alone believe. But it has touched my mind, and even led me to put that consideration into words. I bet I'm not alone. Bad news. All of it. Peter Menkin Mill Valley, CA (north of San Francisco) Posted by: Peter Waddell Thursday 16 July 2009 - 11:08pm Kurt: the problem, of course, is that it isn't Mugabe we have to listen to: it is Tom Wright, Graham Kings, perhaps even Rowan, a whole host of good, prayerful, intelligent people who think you and I are wrong on whether a partnered gay person could make a good bishop. I think they're wrong - but I don't think it is an important enough issue to break the church over. And incidentally, I apply exactly the same logic to women bishops in the Church of England. Not to black bishops, though, because I can't find any good, prayerful, intelligent Christians saying we can't have those. So no, I'm not ashamed of what I wrote. I am a bit uncomfortable, though, because I know that my stance means that for a while, possibly a long while, we put up with injustice - and I am conscious that I am not really part of the 'we' in this case, being a heterosexual male. But what I would say to both women and gay people is: what's so important about becoming bishops? Why focus on winning that battle, which at the moment (for gays at any rate) is bound to be a losing one Communion wide? Push on more attainable things: working more effectively to end homophobic legislation in countries like Nigeria, for instance, or simply acknowledging the work of our gay presbyters - the theme of my earlier post. These would be wonderful things, and we risk not making any progress on them because the whole thing becomes bogged down in the 'gay bishops' question and the conservative backlash on that. It's the wrong battle. What's so great about becoming a bishop anyway? And incidentally, if the rest of my post wasn't a sufficient clue, I'm not really much of an evangelical.... Posted by: Deleted user 1532 Thursday 16 July 2009 - 06:49pm I am a long time fan of Tom Wright. He is a fine biblical scholar from whom I have learned much. Yet some of his arguments in this article puzzle me. He says: Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse.... This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition. Surely he knows that he is begging the question. The question is whether either the biblical authors or the tradition contemplated "committed, life-long, homosexual realtionships." I do not believe that question can be answered one way or the other on the evidence provided by either the scriptures or the tradition. If that is so, then there is room for respectful disagreement and perhaps even fruitful discussion. I was saddened by the precipitous action of the TEC, but I am equally saddened by what I take to be Bishop Wright's shortsightedness. Is it not possible to believe firmly as he does without ignoring Cromwell's caution: "bethink ye by the bowels of Christ that ye may be mistaken." As for the issue of homosexual relationships themselves, what is the problem? If it is promiscuity, then both sides may well concur that promiscuous sexual activity (homosexual or heterosexual) is not only scripturally forbidden but is harmful to both individuals and society. However, we are concerned here with monogamous sexual relationships. In most of the cases where the Bible advances a moral prohibition that we still observe we can identify the harm that is done by the proscribed action. What is the harm that is being done by the mutual embraces of a lesbian couple who have been together for thirty years? Would it be permissable for such a couple to live together expressing their love through kissing and cuddling so long as they avoided orgasms? If not, why not? Is it their love for each other that is objectionable or only certain acts? Does the Bible address that question? Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 16 July 2009 - 05:15pm It seems to me that those who are troubled by the TEC decision have two choices. They either find compromise and stay, or they go. But what is not a position is to wish to go but not do so because you can't take "resources" with you. In the real world, you ordained and paid people, people are losing their jobs left, right and centre, and many are unemployed and hardly getting by. Your unwillingness not to self-sacrifice when it comes to pay and conditions is the worst of reasons. Secondly, if the ministry of gay priests and others is as good as anyone else, so is any ministry, and the argument that there is some international responsibility to hold back and for the minority to continue to accept the injustice would mean that nothing ever changes so long as objection had a certain weight to it. The Episcopal Church had an 'as if' moratorium for a while, which it has observed, but done so set against others continuing to border cross and then set up a rival institution. The process has not seen those unwilling listening to gay and lesbian experience, and indeed in some places internationally there has been supported repression. So the lack of equity in this, and the need to move on, means now that any restraint regarding ordination of gays and lesbians has moved down into the disagreement on this matter that does exist, while the Church as a whole would not object to a partnered gay or lesbian person having a full bishop ministry. The line gets crossed somewhere first, and here it has been. So, OK, respond. Let's see what happens. My guess is that little will happen of any substance internationally - indeed far more likely is equivalent decisions in other Anglican Churches. It is no more than a return to the Anglican Communion as has been, rather than dreams that somehow it has centralised decision making. Posted by: Kurt Thursday 16 July 2009 - 04:03pm “I know this is easy for me to say as a heterosexual, but for the moment and for the forseeable future, I think gay people simply have to put up with this injustice. There are bigger, and more important, things for us to put our energy into than having openly gay bishops.”--Peter Waddell This is not a matter of simply “having openly gay bishops,” it is about a refusal to exclude some of the baptized called by God to the ordained ministry simply because of who they are. Listen to what you are saying, and substitute “people of color” or “women” for “gay”. You should be ashamed of yourself. About 250 years ago, Evangelicals helped to lead the way in opposing social injustice inside and outside of the Church. Since the rise of fundamentalism a century ago, however, evos generally have gradually become part of the problem, not part of the solution. Yes, you have grown in numbers, but so have the fundamentalists in all other religions as well. We hear so much from evos about “a majority of world Anglicans” (a “majority” of whom probably can’t even read and write). These people are stuck in a pre-industrial, pre-scientific, backward mindset. And they are dragging down elements of “The West” who should know better, with them. It’s time to call a halt to the descent, and to re-embrace the best elements of Transatlantic Civilization. (Unless, of course, you prefer the Mugabes and Akinolas of the world to the Tutus and Jefferts Schoris). Kurt Hill Brooklyn, NY Posted by: Ken Petrie Thursday 16 July 2009 - 01:04pm I think there is a time when the truth has to be recognised and it is too late to save a cancerous limb. TEC/ECUSA has not behaved like a member of the body. It is not interested in the welfare of the body. It will go its own way whatever the consequences to the body. This is now clear. To save the body it must be amputated. That is sad but inevitable. This does not mean recognition should go to one of the 'continuing' churches. They too have shown no respect for the unity of the body. Rather it means the Anglican Communion must take its cue from Revelation 3.20. The church has failed. Now it is time to appeal to individuals to start again. Of course, individuals from the continuing churches may also join the new structure. That way a new limb can be formed and the notion of communion remain intact. Nor does it mean the questions surrounding homosexuality are settled. On those the debate must go on until a consensus on Biblical interpretation emerges, appropriate to the context of all current and developing knowledge. I would take issue with Bishop Wright's use of the term "selfish genes" however. Surely a gene which limited its bearer to homosexual intercourse would be suicidal rather than selfish. In reality, of course, genes do not have motivations, only outcomes. Those who try to argue a simple genetic cause for homosexuality are likely to be wrong therefore, since simple homosexuality would be genetically self-defeating. The issue must be more complex and deserves proper investigation. I suspect there is no single or simple cause for homosexuality. It is much more likely to be part of the confusion which others have already observed exists throughout nature, taking multiple forms with a whole host of causes. However, that then means we cannot simply accept our contemporary culture's view of the issue either, for that is based on a simple directional (orientational) model which is clearly not true. This is not simply an equivalence issue. And then there is the question of the Fall, and how much we should accomodate that in our expectation of Christian's behaviour. With those determined to force the issue no longer dictating the agenda we might stand a chance of working it all through. Posted by: Peter Waddell Thursday 16 July 2009 - 10:27am I wish TEC had not passed the resolution it did this week. Bishops are meant to be a focus of unity across the Communion, and right at the moment there is no way an openly gay person in a sexual relationship can be such a focus of unity. The time is not right, and perhaps will not be for a long, long while - perhaps ever. And, given - as Tom Wright says - that no-one has a 'right' to be a Bishop, it is not right to force the issue and break the church in the way the Americans are doing. I know this is easy for me to say as a heterosexual, but for the moment and for the forseeable future, I think gay people simply have to put up with this injustice. There are bigger, and more important, things for us to put our energy into than having openly gay bishops. One of which, perhaps, is to introduce a little bit of honesty into the debate. The Fulcrum statement, Bishop Tom, and now the Church of England's letter to the Swedish Church, all maintain that the ordination of those in gay relationships is wrong - ordination to any order of ministry. Do we really, seriously, mean this? Because if we do, we will have to fire lots of clergy. I know some of them. They work hard, preach well, are creedally orthodox, keep parishes going up and down the country, they offer fantastic pastoral care - and do all this not despite, but because they are in committed, loving relationships. They learn God's care for them in part through their partner's care for them, just as I have learnt it through my wife. They learn something of the discipline of love by their partnerships, as I have by my marriage. The idea that they are all hedonists, purely gratifying selfish sexual instinct is as insulting as it would be if you applied it to my marriage. What's going on in their lives is love: different love than heterosexual love, sure, but 'different' does not necessarily mean 'bad'. If 'by their fruits shall ye know them' is a good ethical test, the sexual relationships of these priests pass with flying colours. Do you really wish these people had all not been ordained? Do you really wish to fire them? Good luck with filling their parishes if you do, and explaining it to their parishioners. And good luck, too, filling the posts of those heterosexual clergy who would not want to be part of such a purged church. I have a great deal more respect, love and natural affection for many of the gay priests I know than I do for many FOCA types, for the Bishop of Rochester or for Peter Akinola. I try to stay in communion with all these, I try to listen and learn and love - that's why, once again, I think TEC was wrong this week. But if I am ever forced to choose who to stay with, it will be with my friends. Splits can happen both ways, and if the conservatives misjudge their response to TEC and declare open season on gays, you will lose a lot of good people. I really hope Bishop Tom and Fulcrum don't begin to wander down that dark path. Open your eyes, see good gay priests around you doing a good job, and instead of bashing them ask how you might be able to help. Posted by: User 1878 Thursday 16 July 2009 - 08:08am I find myself in the awkward position of being a priest in good standing canonically resident in the Episcopal Church of the USA, yet as my ministry is in England I am licensed to function as a priest in the C. of E. The actions of the General Convention have grieved me, but they have not altogether surprised. This was bound to be a take-no-prisoners convention. A close friend who is a member of TEC House of Bishops told me in an email the other day that the choice before them was stark: either become an American stand-alone denomination or be part of the wider church catholic. It would seem that the former decision has been made leaving me and many other Episcopalians in a quandary. We have stayed part of the Episcopal Church because we do not believe that schism is the right or biblical response to what we perceive to be error, but at the same time has the Episcopal Church now committed an act whose destination seems to be schism from the church catholic in the form of the Anglican Communion? There are tens (probably hundreds) of thousands in the Episcopal Church: bishops, priests, laity, parishes, dioceses, etc, who affirm the creedal catholic faith and are perfectly content with the Anglican Covenant as a fair expression of the faith within our tradition's context. We would have our dioceses sign it tomorrow. If we break with TEC taking our resources with us, we inevitably put ourselves on the receiving end of relentless litigation with only a limited chance of winning (and years of pain and bitterness). If we stay we find ourselves identified with an act of heresy and schism with which we have little sympathy (with the accompanying pain and bitterness). This is being between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The truth is that those who shout the message of Inclusion from the housetops have little concern for those they seem determined to exclude, which is the biblical, creedal, and historically Anglican members of TEC. Staying despite the hardships that result seems to be a witness that however dark the day in the life of the church, the grace of God will in due course prevail -- right now we are called to be patient and faithful, to bloom where the Lord planted us. These are dark days for Episcopalians, and we need the fellowship, prayers, and encouragement of our sisters and brothers elsewhere in the world, not their cold shoulder or castigation. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 16 July 2009 - 07:56am Looking at reactions to TECUSA rejecting the ABC's requests for more delays in going down a revisionist path which is out of step with the mind of the Communion, it sounds like now +Tom, Fulcrum, the FCA, ACNA and the Communion Partners can and should work together - for the sake of the CofE, the AC and our gospel witness as we call people to repentance and faith (Mark 1:15) Posted by: liddon Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 06:22pm If you're not convinced by Tom Wright's description of the biblical basis of marriage, but can't quite think what's wrong with it, you might like to attend this seminar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw Posted by: User 2084 Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 06:16pm There are three problems with the Bishop's position. First, it assumes that there are unchanging principles of the Church. Second, it assumes notions about what is natural that are highly likely to be incorrect. And, third, it places the Anglican Confession on the wrong side of history. First: on unchanging prinicples: In common with most of Christendom, the Anglican Church once supported slavery and, indeed gave it Biblical justification. In fact, the old testament does support slavery. If that was a principle supported by the Bible, how come it is no longer one -- or are we wrong today? And what about the devine right of kings to rule. Was that invoilable or a mistabke. If if was a mistake, then perhaps you're making a mistake now. The notion that there are unyielding principles is a common falacy that anyone acquainted with the history of religion will realize is simply wrong. Sorry, guys, rationalize what you will -- it just ain't so. The reality is that conditions change and theology -- usually kicking and screaming -- always manages to adapt. Second, underlying this notion that heteorsexuality is the only right relationship, is the notion that it is somehow natural, rooted in human nature -- that way it is supposed to be. However, it appears to me (a heterosexual, by the way) that the evidence is mounting that hemosexuality if not just a matter of inclination but of nature. In fact, anone who follows the news will have read reports that homosexual behavior has been observed among many non-human species. (Yes, I know there appears to be no one gene for homosexuality.) If homosexuality is not a matter of inclination, then asking someone to refrain from homosexual behavior makes as much sense as asking everyone to abstain permanently from heterosexual behavior. The Shakers in the the United States did do that -- and they became extinct. Fianlly, it is very likely that you are on the wrong side of history. Just as those who supported the divine right of kings, slavery, and other wicked institutions in the name of Christianity -- and just as fervently and righteously as you do -- are now properly reviled, so likely will you be. Is that where you want to be? Posted by: David Baker Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 06:13pm This comment at the end of the article on http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/07/after-b033-can-english-evangelicals.html#more has much wisdom: "Perhaps it is time for Bishops Kings and Wright to get on the phone, rather than the keyboard, and instead of lobbing more brickbats to speak to the organizers of FCA and ask, 'Where do we go together from here?' He will be a truly great man who can do this." And how happy many of us evangelicals would be if one of you would have the courage and love to do this. Please will you at least think about it? Best wishes David Baker Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 05:30pm Yet another one of his sweeping articles. In one place he says, drawing on Queer Theology: Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day. And yet he would exclude from ministry anyone on the fixed basis of the sex of the one they love. Let's be consistent: if the modernist fiction is to be rejected, such as being gay in an all defining sense, then remove that as a blockage from being in ministry - a blockage which is entirely irrelevant from the capability and ability of enacting good ministry at any level. He has simply exposed his own - and the system's he supports - prejudice. For that is all it is. Posted by: Richard Wilkins Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 04:37pm My response to Bishop Tom Wright's 'Times' article: Amen So much for Bishop Kings' slow glacial movement of The Covenant. A glacier is an unfortunate metaphor for progressive reform. A glacier, in any case, needs a compatible air temperature to stay in existence. The glacier is melting in the social air. The inevitable schism may now split along many divergent lines, but let it be remembered that its flashpoint was, as Bishop Wright says, a division between Christian and pagan views of sexuality. Posted by: User 98 Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 03:41pm Thanks to Bishop Tom for his article. I fear it is likely to fall on deaf TEC ears. Minds have already been made up, and costs and consequences disregarded. It seems to me that there is an almost gnostic approach which considers that it is in a more advanced state of knowledge than som of the rest of us. Mike Withers Posted by: Nigel Bourne Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 03:16pm Is it really such a good thing for Fulcrum worthies to be so negative about FCA etc while being so optimistic about the Covenant process? Actually, I do have some sympathy with those who are concerned that the FCA UK basically wishes to abandon the normal authority structures found within the Church of England. Maybe some FCA members are essentially separatists at heart but certainly this does not apply to all - it does not for example apply to me! However, in principle, I assume that we all believe that there are times when we might need to stand up to unfair pressure and even go against the wishes of those in authority on the basis that we have a higher loyalty. This is part of the history of our reformed church. The question that remains is: where does the breaking point come? As Bishop Tom implies, TEC has voted for schism - a path that has surely been absolutely plain to anyone other than "Chamberlainesque" optimists for some time. The Covenant process sounds to me like, "peace in our time". In contrast, it seems to me that the FCA is already providing legitimate support for those who are being marginalized etc by unfair pressures and schism in other countries. In this country we are not (thankfully) in quite so bad a situation (yet) and I hope that people like Bishop Tom Wright and Bishop Graham Kings will be able to hold back the liberal tide but my feeling is that, great as they are, they cannot do it without FCA. Could I liken it to "Hard cop" & "soft cop"? (It could be a great combination as long as the cops themselves stop having a go at each other). Fulcrum worthies, we need you; I think you need the tough line taken by FCA. Work together - it will be more effective! Posted by: Kurt Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 02:02pm Your readers should check out Father Scott Gunn’s analysis of Bishop Wright’s essay for a devastating refutation of its basic assertions. http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2009/07/14/when-tom-wright-gets-it-totally-wrong/ Kurt Hill in Brooklyn Posted by: Deleted user 974 Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 01:21pm Peter Broadbent that is rubbish. You are doing the walking -- or threatening to. TEC is 'walking' no-where. Why don't you face up to your the gay bishops the C of E has ? Why don't you start being honest--honest to goodness, and honest to God ? Your postion is based on the dishonesty of Don't ask Don't tell -- and worse. What is left of the gospel after such dishonesty and in the full glare of the public attention ? The game's up--we all know of the gay ministers, including your won bishops, and lay people. What is your problem ? Posted by: Philip Wainwright Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 01:18pm The question for the C of E and the rest of the Anglican Communion is whether it is interested in bringing back to the right path its members who have wandered from it, or simply abandoning them to their fate. Not hard to make a biblical case either way, but one can't help suspecting that a preference for the latter is mostly an expression of 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this supporter of the gay agenda'. The best thing about Tom Wright's article for me was 'we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance.' It's a long time since I heard anything like that, even on Fulcrum. When you walk apart from us, you may feel very good about yourselves, but you're not working for the Kingdom. http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/ Posted by: David Baker Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 01:11pm This comment at the end of the article on http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/07/after-b033-can-english-evangelicals.html#more has much wisdom: "Perhaps it is time for Bishops Kings and Wright to get on the phone, rather than the keyboard, and instead of lobbing more brickbats to speak to the organizers of FCA and ask, 'Where do we go together from here?' He will be a truly great man who can do this." And how happy many of us evangelicals would be if one of you would have the courage and love to do this. Please, will you at least think about it? Best wishes David Baker 
Posted by: Jody
Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 12:59pm
we have now co-published, with permission, the Times article: 'The Americans know this will end in schism' this enables you to see the whole article on Fulcrum. every blessing, Jody Posted by: Peter Carrell Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 12:27pm Hi Jeremy I do not think that much of ACNA is the fruit of cross-border excursions. It is the fruit of progressive squeezing out from TEC (and ACCan) of Anglicans faithful to traditional, Scriptural Anglican theology. Some of these Anglican sought episcopal support from South America and Africa. Some refocused their episcopacies and dioceses. Together they seek to be Anglican in a manner which broadly speaking is closer to the majority of the Anglican Communion than it is to the churches they have left. There is no question of 'rewarding' ACNA via recognition and admittance to the Communion (as ACNA, I realise parts of ACNA are in the Communion via Nigeria etc). There is a question whether Anglicans outside of North America will extend the hand of fellowship to brothers and sisters with whom we have recently been in fellowship, who have changed nothing about their beliefs, but now find themselves unable to continue in TEC or ACCan. I suggest, in fact, that if any church is going to be 'rewarded' it would be TEC and ACCan were ACNA not to be recognised as a valid Anglican church. To recognise ACNA is not necessarily to encourage an FCA-driven split in the C of E. I say this not least because if the C of E recognises ACNA it would be demonstrating to the FCA that it is not intent on pursuing TEC-like agendas. Posted by: Deleted user 1543 Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 09:40am The Times itself takes a very different view - which, were it supportive of the ACNA/FCA, and indeed, Fulcrum position would no doubt be pasted up here there and everywhere in support! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6702905.ece Two thoughts: I share Tony's fears, and don't want to see the Church of Englad any more torn up than it is already. I don't believe the FCA for a moment when they say they are a "fellowship" and have no ambitions to be anything else. They are going to push and push until division is inevitable. And at what level is this going to operate? If your diocesan is FCA then what does it say for his diocese (and it will be a HE!!)? +Pete, why should recognition of ACNA come onto the agenda - isn't that just rewarding a different aspect of moratorium breaking? So much of ACNA is the fruit of cross-border incursions. They don't deserve any prize for what they have done. And if you do it - then you will only be encouraging FCA to less and less restraint. Posted by: David Baker Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 09:35am Congratulations to Bp Tom Wright for a great article which will encourage many faithful Anglicans and evangelicals: thank you! Thank you also to Bp Pete Broadbent for his comments, which I think are perceptive. I am wondering how Bp Graham Kings and others believe the covenant process will help discipline TEC: how exactly can this happen? Thank you to you all for your faithful ministry in these difficult times. With sincere good wishes David Baker Posted by: liddon Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 08:48am What nonsense. TEC (there is no such body as ECUSA) has not decided to walk. A province of the Anglican Communion has gone about making pastoral descions about how it conducts itself on matters of Church Order. Testosterone-fuelled language about 'walking' will not help. Nor will pretending that there are no practising homosexual priests or bishops in the Church of England. A friend of mine once tried in private to tell his (evangelical) bishop that he was homosexual. The bishop shouted him down, and refused to let him finish the conversation. He wanted to be able to say that he had no KNOWLEDGE that any of his clergy were gay. Can Pete Broadbent put his hand on his heart and say to us, 'none of the clergy in my patch is a practising homosexual, and I don't even suspect any of them of being such'? Bishops play language games about knowledge. They don't 'know', but they 'know'. It's sickening hypocrisy.
Posted by: Jody
Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 08:01am
Fulcrum have linked to Bishop Tom Wright's article published in the Times: Find the link here every blessing, Jody
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 07:32am
Ephraim Radner, a member of the Covenant Design Group, has written an important article 'Should General Convention Act on the Covenant?', Covenant site, 15 July 2009. The way forward, we believe on Fulcrum and Covenant, is still via the Covenant Process and this will indeed bear fruit in due season. Posted by: Tim Harris Wednesday 15 July 2009 - 03:56am FWIW - well done to the Fulcrum leadership team. A very significant and well-considered response (and likewise the opinion piece from +Durham). Both are refreshingly candid, well timed, and point to the real issues that lie ahead in terms of firm support that will be needed on a variety of fronts. The ripple-effect consequences of this decision will make a profound impact throughout the AC, and inevitable dynamics calling for realignment will gain momentum at local, diocesan and provincial levels. One way or another, there are troubled and painful times ahead (as if we haven't already experienced such anguish). More troubling, and the cause for profound sadness, is the apparent disregard for what has hitherto been regarded as the clear teaching of Christ - as +Wright clearly and rightly articulates (and make no mistake, in this he speaks for the overwhelming majority of the Communion). Kyrie eleison!!! My prayers are shaped by Daniel 9, and especially focused on upholding those in positions of leadership in coming days and months. The time when 'communion management' has held sway has passed, and it is now a time for strengthening and building genuine fellowship in moving into new territory as a communion - whatever that will mean. Choices and initiatives in the near future are likely to last for generations (one way of another), and be the 'inheritance' we leave to our children and the world at large. What sobering times... Fulcrum LT - be assured of my prayers as you play your part in such considerations. Grace and peace. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 11:46pm I need to make it clear, regarding 1360's remarks, that I am not a Unitarian pastor and not a member of any church in that denomination. This evening I presented a paper and had a discussion with Anglicans, and tomorrow morning I will worship in an Anglican church. However, I will admit that I am probably beyond the edge of Anglicanism with my views. I did preach to a Unitarian church on Easter Day and will in August once, but other than these I have not attended a service since 2004. As regards my stance, I am ecumenical across a range of liberal expressions of religion. The Presiding Bishop's words might be taken as anti-evangelical, but they can also be taken as a criticism of individualist religious liberalism or plural groups. In Anglicanism it is Churches that take decisions, not bits of them, and not something called a Communion. There is no Communion that functions like a Church. Each Church takes its own decisions in situ, and each will. What The Episcopal Church resolution does is decentralise the decision regarding inclusiveness and makes a statement regarding holy love in stable, faithful gay relationships. It accepts that there are differences of view, but those differences cannot now be used to be a blockage to the full ministry of all the faithful in the churches. Some will agree but show restraint, and some will disagree and not ordain. However, as a collective body, that rubicon has now been crossed. As for the Covenant, it is a two way street, and if no other Anglican wants to include TEC that way then TEC will make its own relationships - should the Covenant ever run. After all, one purpose of the Covenant was to extend restriction and institutionalise, and that is not going to happen. If it is to exclude, I doubt that will happen either; my own view is that a sufficient number of Anglican Churches will not accept the exclusion of the Americans and will not innovate a Covenant for that purpose. I think the Covenant will fail, which it ought to do and should have a long time ago: this section 4 won't be more relevant, it will be even less relevant. Rowan Williams or anyone else has no insitutional right or basis to pick off one diocese or another in a different Church on the basis of some test of ideological loyalty. What I do think is his international policy has failed. I think the less he says from now on, the better. At the end of the meeting in Jamaica he made a Presidential Address which suggested he'd pretty much given up on any chance of his policy succeeding. Of course he will listen and listen again, but his proactive policy, so much as it was one, is over. Now we have an interesting situation, don't we, where the hard-right conversationists have set up this Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and the fall out there with the Fulcrum position has been for all to see, and now Fulcrum is left with having to have informal links with pressure groups and defensive corners inside TEC. That's all you've got now, for your position is also pretty much without effect, and at an end, other than for writing this piece or that piece for whatever purpose. Fulcrum won't be allowed a hand on the FCA steering wheel and won't be effective beyond the evangelical wing. As an outside voice here my suggestion is that it won't be long before proper inclusiveness comes to the British Isles too. Posted by: Tony Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 11:44pm Can we now expect, as I always feared, a questionnaire applied to all ordinary members of parish congregations to identify those who believe they are still in communion with TEC, indeed who admire its GC account of the present state of its sympathies, so that we too can be properly excluded from the Bishop of Durham's version of FCA? Posted by: Pete Broadbent Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 11:30pm So let's be clear. ECUSA has elected to walk. Recognition of ACNA must now come onto the agenda. The Anglican Communion will have to realign. It doesn't come much clearer. I sympathise with those who think (as Jody suggested) that Windsor and the covenant provide a framework for "disciplining" ECUSA. But face it, ECUSA isn't interested in falling into line, and the covenant will arrive, a bit like the cavalry in those old films, several years too late anyway.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 11:23pm
Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, has written a very perceptive comment article published in The Times, 15 July 2009, 'The Americans know this will end in schism'. The subtitle is, 'Support by US Episcopalians for homosexual clergy is contrary to Anglican faith and tradition. They are leaving the family.' The clear statements in the article show that it refers to homosexual clergy who are in sexual relationships. It is copied below in full: In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion. Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”. Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled. Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional. That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation). Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition. The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”. Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day. We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel. The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed “province” of the “Anglican Church in North America”. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured. Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship. Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level. Tom Wright is Bishop of Durham
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 08:57pm
The Anglican Communion Institute has recently published an admirable article, 'Statement on the Repudiation of B033', Anglican Communion Institute site, 14 July 2009, copied below: We deeply regret yesterday’s decision by the House of Bishops to repudiate the Anglican Communion’s moratorium on the consecration of bishops living in homosexual relationships. As recently as May of this year, the Anglican Consultative Council officially affirmed the “implementation” in the Communion of the moratoria called for by the Windsor Report, including the moratorium rejected yesterday by the House of Bishops. With the adoption of these moratoria by the Anglican Consultative Council all of the Communion’s Instruments have now recognized their implementation as crucial to our common life in the Anglican Communion. It is noteworthy that Section 3.1.4 of the final text of the Anglican Communion Covenant, which was contained in the section approved overwhelmingly by the Anglican Consultative Council and no longer subject to revision, gives each of the Communion Instruments the authority to “initiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communion and its Churches.” Speaking at the close of the Council’s meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury anticipated yesterday’s action and spoke directly to The Episcopal Church on its place in the Anglican Covenant when he said “Action to negate that resolution [the moratorium] would instantly suggest to many people in the communion that The Episcopal Church would prefer not to go down the route of closer structural bonds and that particular kind of mutual responsibility.” The Episcopal Church is already out of communion with the majority of the world’s Anglicans. It is our expectation that many dioceses will not follow The Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion and the mainstream of apostolic Christianity. Instead, they will take immediate action to assure the Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury of their continued commitment both to observe the Communion’s moratoria and to preserve and restore their structural bonds to the Communion. To this end, we will continue to work closely with these dioceses and the Communion processes to finalize and strengthen one section of the Anglican Covenant not fully approved in Jamaica. The continued flouting of Communion Instruments by The Episcopal Church demonstrates the compelling need for Section 4 of the Covenant and indeed for the strengthening of that section. Communion Partner Bishops and Rectors, and their concerned allies, wish to remain in the Communion and abide by its requests. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 08:40pm TECUSA's position has been crystal clear since 2003.......there has never been any point in all the indabas and delays....especially not at the cost evangelical unity and that has been damaged, sadly. Thankfully, TECUSA is being truthful and that ends the ABC's calls for institutional unity with revisionists because the revisionists do have principles which matter more to them than keeping the club together...there is integrity in that and I respect TECUSA revisionists for not compromising on what they believe is right while knowing there are likely to be changes to their AC participation (unless LamPal bureaucrats can make nothing happen for more years and years......) Fulcrum leaders have gone the extra mile in supporting the ABC's pointless search for some synthesis of views to keep revisionists in the AC (it seems more out of loyalty to the ABC rather than respect for the divisive behaviour and weak theological thinking of TECUSA leadership) and I also respect patience (even if St Paul did not teach the early church to be patient with false teachers until they walked apart but to be less passive than that...for good reasons), but it is a shame that so many attacks have been made on other evangelicals who did not think the ABC was ever going to succeed in getting any genuine repentance from TECUSA post 2003. I hope those relationships will be repaired. Still, thank God for the clarity of the Fulcrum statement..... the next logical step is friendliness towards ACNA from both Fulcrum and the Communion Partners. Posted by: Kurt Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 08:34pm All right, now, it’s done. Let’s move on to issues that are of more importance, like world AIDS, fighting hunger, stopping global warming, etc. The ACNA is not going to be “recognized” in place of TEC by the C of E. Maybe those folks in FOCA will do so, but that’s about it. Many in the Global South will also ignore both ACNA and FOCA, and continue their relations with TEC and the C of E as usual. In nine years, there will probably be another Lambeth Conference (with a new A of C) and TEC will be there. Probably ACNA and FOCA will not. These are the facts on the ground. Get used to them. Kurt Hill Brookyn, NY Posted by: optimus prime Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 07:17pm Thank you Fulcrum folk, from a newly ordained deacon in the Anglican Church of Canada, who prays that responses such as yours will be heard by our bishops prior to our GS next summer. Many in my generation (Y) are hungry to hear the gospel because we've discovered the atheist religion around us and the liberalism of our culture both end in an empty consumerist pit. The polity of the Anglican Communion - should its Churches adopt the Covenant agreement to make explicit what has, until recently been implicit - is truly a gift for the missional renewal of our Church. Its potential to serve as a call to the reconciliation and renewal of the wider Christian Church is significant. Thus I hope and pray that it is now clear to the Churches of our Communion that it is time to adopt the Covenant and move forward as a truly catholic Church in order that we might proclaim the gospel. Thank you once again. In Christ. Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 07:10pm Thanks very much for this. Clare--that's why I was going so hard at it with Nersen, interrupting your very good conversation with Phil (I thought your response yesterday, I think, was very well put)--as you can imagine, I've been following the GC events pretty doggedly since July 7. Some things not mentioned in the Fulcrum article: the seventh clause of DO25 acknowledges the fact that there is disagreement in good faith on this issue. Will that mean leeway will be granted to bishops, rectors, and congregations on their responses? There is fear that it won't, but we don't know. Pluralist--you echoed what those pushing through both resolutions had to say about those opposed: the opposition was simply propping up a fading institution, hopelessly mired in issues of the past. As the bishop of the Diocese of Lexington said to those in his diocese attempting to grapple with the consecration of Bishop Robinson in 2006: "Get used to it!" No room for Pluralism there! --To those who blame all of TEC for this: I think it's more helpful to trace the actions of certain individuals and groups for the past few years, not the whole province. --ALSO NOT MENTIONED in the Fulcrum article: perhaps not important to the whole communion, but very important to us in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, was that ++Rowan Williams met with our delegation at least twice. Our delegation is quite mixed theologically and was grateful to him for taking the time to meet. You may remember that our former bishop, +Robert Duncan, is the leader of ACNA; many of us who did not follow him out of the diocese agreed with him theologically, but not strategically Please pray for us as we work through how to respond to GC in the coming weeks and months. ALSO NOT MENTIONED: the Presiding Bishop's opening address seemed to be directed against evangelicals in general, although she did not use the word, I think. She deplored one of "two kinds of Christians", criticizing those who thought "personal salvation" was an important focus, calling it "the heresy of the West." Posted by: Deleted user 974 Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 05:48pm Any one else for honesty ? Rowan perhaps ? Or the gay C of E bishops, or the bishops and other ministers and people who do not accept the anti-gay approach of the doom-sayers. It doesnt have to end badly UNLESS YOU MAKE IT SO. You choose. (One day you will hang your heads in shame for your anti-gay words and actions; and then it will probably too late. What WILL you dare say to the Lord ? On that day you will be speechless ... Posted by: David Baker Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 05:26pm I am really pleased to see Fulcrum taking a loving but firm and principled stand in this matter. Well done! This will be a great encouragement to many evangelicals; thank you for standing up for the gospel in this way and contending for the faith. Be gracious, but also be firm as you are being! Well done!
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 05:13pm
Pete, surely this is the moment to acknowledge that the Covenant is the only way in which TEC will be able to be disciplined? otherwise we shall all fragment into our own little groups - God help us. blessings, Jody Posted by: Rogelio Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 04:44pm Thank you for the Fulcrum statement, once more a bit of refreshing sanity in the midst of trouble. This is a very sad day. Inevitable, but sad all the same. Even sadder when confronted with the joyful comments of a Unitarian pastor (Pluralist)apparently taking this opportunity for a bit more of proselitism for his denomination. Nersen's comments were to be expected and are to a great extent understandable in his frustration, but I think that an attitude of "the worse the better" is to be avoided as at best unfruitful and at worst uncharitable. The majority of TEC decided a long time ago to go their own way... expecting the rest of us to follow. Quite a few of that majority are still in good conscience and with typical American optimism hoping that eventually we'll see the light. Meanwhile they'll carry on as the prophetic chosen people. God have mercy on them and us in all our cultural self-deceptions. Our communion is breaking. This is a day for crying before the Lord. Thanks again for the Fulcrum statement. Posted by: paul Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 04:19pm At last the veneer is gone and TEC have been honest enough to say what they have always believed. Well done to Fulcrum for such a strong response especially given the recent antagonism regarding ACNA and communion partners between various evangelicals and which way to follow. Hopefully as Pete says there is no need to say I told you Windsor etc would not change the TEC common mind and now work out how the clear division will really work. Paul
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 03:28pm
Fulcrum's statement on the decision of the House of Bishops of TEC to pass D025, thereby rescinding B033, can be found here: Fulcrum Press Statement Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 02:49pm Positive: it is good TEUCSA is being honest at last (keeping a resolution like BO33 to maintain a veneer of institutional unity with the AC while facts on the ground multiply regardless was less honest by far); Positive: it is good the rest of the AC can no longer be asked for patience because of a veneer of unity from BO33...it is sad that call was ever made and years have been wasted and divisions increased; Positive: it is good if those few who support TECUSA walk apart with TECUSA...... the self-importance of tiny groups in the AC like the Scots and the Canadians, despite their lack of ability in the last few decades to attract their own neighbours to their churches to hear their made up "new thing", is ridiculous....but it is the fault of the AC which rewards failure and decline with a full seat and vote at the Primates' table and the tail has wagged the dog for too long; Positive: perhaps the Covenant can be a force for unity now.....GAFCON leaders have shown willingness (eg Noll).... they will have more confidence in the process if it is not trying to include doublespeaking revisionists. BUT - I still fear LamPal coming up with some fudge which leaves us with nothing more than more years of faux indabas and no action despite TECUSA's greater clarity that it is way out of line with the mind of the Communion and will follow its own agenda regardless (not than any clarification was needed post 2003!!!) ....... and LamPal institutionalists know that the institutional unity card works powefully on some, so they will play it again, I expect..... going by the last six years of prevarication aimed at keeping revisionists in the AC while they tore its fabric. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 01:58pm Good and well done regarding The Episcopal Church: it is putting its people above that of restrictive institutional cares, and bringing the institution to serve all its people. This is the reality, not applying some artificial brake. The Covenant is properly ineffective regarding all this, and will be simply because of the other Anglican Churches that will follow the American's lead. Things are changing in Scotland already, with both the Presbyterian State Church and the mind of the Episcopal Church. The Church of England won't be able to be one side of the Covenant or the other - and anything with any teeth will face a legal challenge - so in time it will move the same way, especially after it ordains women too as bishops. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 12:45pm There's no particular point in saying "we told you so"... but it does make the Windsor process look pretty unfit for purpose, as many of us suspected. I know it's going to play out from now on like a slow motion car crash, but I rather hope that we can be a bit more nimble footed from now on in our attempts to rescue the rest of the Anglican Communion. The "let's all wait and see what happens" approach to church brinkmanship has probably had its day. A bit like old style ecumenism, really!
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 08:57am
The House of Bishops of General Convention of The Episcopal Church last night, 13 July 2009 - note the date for future reference - passed a slightly amended resolution (D025) which in effect has rescinded the General Convention resolution B033. This now goes back to the House of Deputies who passed the original motion by a large majority and looks set to pass this amended motion. Matt Kennedy blogged live concerning this communion-breaking resolution in the House of Bishops meeting, Stand Firm site, 13 July 2009. Susan Russell, of Integrity USA, celebrated the passing of the resolution, reported on the TitusOneNine site, 13 July 2009 B033, as I wrote in both 'Between the Primates' Meeting and the ACC' and in 'Glacial Gravity or Opportunist Autonomy', was the key resolution in 2006 and General Convention's attitude to it was crucial in 2009 concerning its standing in the Anglican Communion. Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion. The House of Bishops of TEC, in September 2007 in New Orleans, clarified that resolution: ‘The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.’ With the House of Bishops passing D025 (and the likely passing in the House of Deputies), TEC has clearly signalled, against the specific plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury on this very issue, its choice of autonomy over interdependence in the Anglican Communion. Questions will now have to be asked about the full continued participation of TEC representatives in Anglican Communion meetings. The way forward is not by mirroring such autonomy, but through the strengthening of the interdependent Covenant process, including section 4 - which is likely to be clarified but substantially unchanged. |
LATEST
|
The decision, by a 2-to-1 majority, of the House of Bishops of TEC to pass