Fulcrum Response to TEC General Convention 2009 Resolution C056:
official promotion of a process to develop liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions
To evaluate C056 it is necessary to trace some of the recent history in relation to same-sex blessings in order to be clear what the Anglican Communion has asked for when it has asked for a moratorium.
The Windsor Report (2004)
The Windsor Report clearly stated the problem in para 143 (emphasis added):
to proceed unilaterally with the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions at this time goes against the formally expressed opinions of the Instruments of Unity and therefore constitutes action in breach of the legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches of the Anglican Communion have received it, and of bonds of affection in the life of the Communion, especially the principle of interdependence. For the sake of our common life, we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the Primates' Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions.
It then stated the nature of the moratorium sought in para 144 (emphasis added)
While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.
General Convention 2006
General Convention 2006 failed to pass any resolution responding to this request but refused to pass A161 in the House of Deputies which had included the resolution
Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003…
Joint Standing Committee Response to GC 2006 & Dar Primates, February 2007
Following General Convention 2006 the Communion Sub-Group of Joint Standing Committee (which has consistently taken the most sympathetic reading of TEC’s actions and usually found that such a reading has left many in the Instruments and beyond unconvinced) reported to the 2007 Dar Primates Meeting
It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter. The Primates in their statement of March 2003 did admit that there could be “a breadth of private response to individual pastoral care”, but it is clear that the authorisation by any one bishop, diocese or Province, of any public Rite of Blessing, or permission to develop or use such a rite, would go against the standard of teaching to which the Communion as a whole has indicated that it is bound. 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 (para 17, emphasis added).
The Primates at Dar found the 2006 General Convention response ambiguous. They stated
we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us (para 21, emphasis added)
As a result they explicitly requested that TEC’s House of Bishops
make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention.
TEC House of Bishops, New Orleans and JSC Response, September 2007
The response of the House of Bishops at New Orleans in Sept 2007 was
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action(emphasis added).
The Joint Standing Committee believed that this was compatible with the moratorium but made clear on what basis it reached this judgment:
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).
The JSC’s acceptance of the New Orleans Response was widely and strongly criticised as not taking seriously the reality on the ground in TEC dioceses.Indeed, Gene Robinson was among a number of bishops present who were clear that the JSC had misunderstood and misrepresented the House of Bishops:
Let me also state strongly that I believe that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates misunderstood us when they stated that they understood that the HOB in fact “declared a ‘moratorium on all such public Rites.’” Neither in our discussions nor in our statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, many Primates and ACC members were clearly unconvinced (here as PDF) by JSC’s generous maximal reading, especially in relation to blessings. This scepticism was confirmed by the fact that in many dioceses same-sex blessings continued to take place with varying degrees of authorisation, up to and including publication of rites on diocesan websites.
Advent Letter 2007
As a result of the responses from Primates and ACC members, Archbishop Rowan concluded “we have no consensus about the New Orleans statement” in his 2007 Advent Letter and noted in relation to New Orleans that
the declaration on same-sex blessings is in effect a reiteration of the position taken in previous statements from TEC, and has clearly not satisfied many in the Communion any more than these earlier statements. There is obviously a significant and serious gap between what TEC understands and what others assume as to what constitutes a liturgical provision in the name of the Church at large.
General Convention 2009
Against this background, a genuine commitment to the moratorium as articulated by the Windsor Report and JSC’s statements clearly required TEC bishops and General Convention at the very least to address these continued breaches of the moratorium in parts of the province and clarify TEC’s position.
What then does C056 do? What “further action” has General Convention now taken? The full text of the resolution is available here. In summary -
1. It calls for “a renewed pastoral response” and “an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships”.
2. It authorises the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) in consultation with the House of Bishops to
(a) collect and develop theological and liturgical resources and report to the 77th General Convention
(b) devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work
(c) invite theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion
3. It authorises bishops to provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of church members particularly - but not solely - in those dioceses where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal
4. It continues to honour theological diversity in regard to matters of human sexuality but also encourages members of the Church to engage in the effort of collecting and developing theological and liturgical resources.
Although this resolution does not authorise a particular rite, rather than seeking to curtail the “local option” and make clear the limits to “pastoral response” – as requested by the Communion - it instead encourages the spread and diversification of rites and liturgies which include a blessing on a same-sex union.
There will now be wider experimentation as part of an officially promoted process involving the House of Bishops which seeks to consider, collect and develop “liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships”. This process appears to be headed ultimately towards authorisation of a GC-approved rite. The final clause and the decision to remove any explicit right to conscientious objection also suggests that all dioceses will be expected to participate in this process.
This clearly amounts to “permission to develop or use” (the language cited above from JSC 2007 Report on GC 2006) a public Rite of Blessing and thus goes “against the standard of teaching to which the Communion as a whole has indicated that it is bound”. As a result, it must have consequences for all those voting for C056 because, as JSC concluded prior to the Dar meeting – “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”.
In response to the Primates’ request for clarification, the JSC generously (and erroneously given the reality on the ground in many dioceses) concluded that the New Orleans HoB commitment meant that the use of any rites or liturgies which includes a blessing on a same-sex union would not have the bishop’s authority “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action”.
The passing of C056 is General Convention’s further action. It clearly gives the use of such rites the authority of the House of Bishops and of General Convention. It thus represents a determined rejection of the moratorium repeatedly called for by all the Instruments of Communion.
As outlined above, the rest of the Communion has – in faithfulness to Christ’s call to seek reconciliation - walked patiently with our brothers and sisters in TEC for many years, constantly inviting them to turn around in freedom and relocate themselves within the story of God that we collectively tell as a Communion, a story in which mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ, synodality, and mutual interdependence play key roles. At every stage attempts have been made to interpret TEC responses to requests as generously as possible. Now, however, TEC has spoken resoundingly and clearly through its supreme governing body of General Convention and addressed the question it avoided addressing in 2006. Sadly, through C056, we hear their firm and unequivocal answer to the Windsor Report and to the pattern of life set out in the affirmations and commitments agreed by ACC in the Covenant. An answer already made evident in the passing of D025: “No! We choose autonomy over mutual interdependence. We will now, in freedom, believing ourselves to be led by the Spirit, continue our prophetic witness and walk apart”.
Posted by: Roger HarperTuesday 4 August 2009 - 06:46am Many thanks Philip. That is what I meant about tangents. And yes – the debate has moved to other threads. I am adding one of my occasional posts to the ‘Canterbury’s Response…’ thread.
Posted by: Deleted user 974Monday 27 July 2009 - 11:10am
This sheds light on the proceedings :--
http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/gencon2009.html
Posted by: LorenzoMonday 27 July 2009 - 07:17am Dear Karl
Glad to know youre better. Ive been down with the flu all week too& You say that, by definition your very words- Christians deny that unbelievers can be saved. Again, this is a Calvinist stand. Among the Fathers of the Church, Cyprian is the only one I can think of who advocated extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that there is no salvation outside the Church. His was a minority opinion. And yes, the necessity of the Crucifixion is at stake, though not its sufficiency. Again, many Fathers and doctors of the Church have argued, whilst remaining orthodox, that the Word would have become incarnate even if man had not sinned.
Paul seems to envisage that some Gentiles can and will be saved, as he wrote:
There will be tribulation for anyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first, but also the Greek for God shows no partiality&. When gentiles who do not have the Law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves. They show that what the Law requires is written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or excuse them. (Rom 2.9 ff.)
Peter also proclaimed: Truly, I perceive that God shows no partiality but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts 11.34)
Furthermore, your vision of the Law as existing only to convict humanity of its inability to keep it, though certainly found in Paul, is quite narrow. Christian Tradition has also envisaged it as God preparing a people for himself.
You wrote that the purpose of the Law is not to define the behaviours by which men may justify themselves by their own works and that we all by nature hate God and rebel against him. I fear that most of Tradition, even Augustine on which this doctrine of the total depravation of humankind is based, would speak against you. It was also repudiated by the Church of England when she rejected the Lambeth Articles which the Puritans desired to inflict upon her.
You ask me by what authority I make a distinction between what is revealed in the Bible and what is not. Again, the authority is Tradition. The vast majority of Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern orthodox, Ethiopians, Armenians, non-Chalcedonians& and Anglicans, the lot! do not believe in the reformed sola scriptura; and orthodoxy not the Reformed yardstickrequires us not to value Tradition above Scripture or Scripture above Tradition. Its also common sense. If I were to say to you that I shall reveal that Obama is president of the US of A, you would think me a fool, and youd be right. This is a truth that can naturally be grasped and verified. The same holds true of many, many pages of Scripture. They are simply factual. Revelation and Scripture overlap, but are not co-terminous.
Posted by: carlSaturday 25 July 2009 - 02:48pm Lorenzo
Please forgive the delay in responding. I was ill two days ago, and unable to access the website yesterday. Yours is the post I most desired to address.
You may wish to take into consideration that yours is a rather extreme Calvinist opinion, and a late one at that.
I am not an extreme Calvinist at all. I am a rather ordinary, conventional, well within one sigma, standard 'government issue, one each' Calvinist.
Most orthodox theologians have generally held that morality is not revealed.
None that I know of, but OK. It does make one wonder why God spent so much time revealing morality in Scripture if morality is not revealed.
Hence their belief that, if they behave uprightly, even unbelievers can be saved.
By definition, Christians (whether theologians or not) deny that unbelievers can be saved. For if a man could be saved by behaving uprightly, then there would have been no need for the Cross, and the cup would have been taken away from the Lord Jesus at His own request. The purpose of the Law is not to define the behaviors by which men may justify themselves by to their own works. It exists to show men precisely that they cannot keep the law and thereby justify themselves. Even so much as one sin is sifficient to earn the condemnation of God.
More crucially, should supernatural revelation be needed to behave ethically, Christians would not be able to put their faith in God by knowing him to be good in the first place.
Men cannot know God at all except that God works spiritual life in them. We all of us by nature hate God, and rebel against Him. We do not recognize He is good and in response put our faith in Him. We are the blind and incapable of seeing. We are the slaves bound to the will of our master. We are the spiritually dead. Of ourselves, we can do nothing. Instead, God seeks after man. The center of the Gospel is the story of how God acted to redeem men who could not redeem themselves, and who deserved nothing but judgment. He opens the eyes of the blind. He redeems the slave from the slave market. He raises the dead. Man has no part in any of this other than to respond to what God has done. "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
Even in the eyes of John Calvin you would make the deadly mistake of simply equating Bible with Revelation.
There are two forms of revelation available to man today. There is the general revelation of creation which is sufficient to condemn man, but insufficient to save. There is the special revelation of Scripture by which God communicates the central story of human history - God redeeming a people for Himself. Beyond this, there is nothing. We have no other access to the transcendent.
I take revelation to mean the imparting of truths that would otherwise pass our understanding or consciousness, or, at a stretch, which we could only arrive at with great pain and many mistakes. No one could have figured out that God is three and yet one, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father or, stretching it, that those who mourn are blessed. But no one needs revelation to tell them that, say, the king of Assyria waged war against Jerusalem, or that king Jeroboam was sixteen when he began to reign. These are facts that we are quite naturally able to grasp with a bit of skill.
By what authority do you make such a distinction, and by what standard do you judge the differences? It is not for man to pass judgment on what was and was not provided. And how would he ever establish that the distinctions he makes are not driven by the sinful desires of his own heart? You say that certain facts may be grasped with a bit of skill. I will say instead that certain moral imperatives may be grasped with gnashed teeth, and men will immediately seek out ways to free themselves from the restriction.
Nor would we turn to the Bible to tell us how to build a house or cure swine flu.
I have never said otherwise. We turn to the Scripture with the question "How should we then live?"
Similarly, many have argued whilst remaining in the eyes of the undivided Church impeccably orthodox that one does not need revelation when deciding between what is right and what is not. Your view of Holy Scripture is a bit exalted.
What standard then do you apply to determine 'impeccable orthodoxy?' What standard do you apply to determine the difference between right and wrong? Reason is not a standard. It is a methodology. It depends absolutely on First Principles that once adopted determine the outcome of the syllogisms. From where are those First Principles derived? To determine right from wrong, you must first set immovable criteria that defines the difference. Then you compare the outcomes of reason to that criteria. To define that criteria according to the failings of the evil human heart is a sure path to disaster.
Surely, the commandment that I gave you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away, nor is it in heaven, that you should say Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us, so that we may hear and observe it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say: Who will cross to the other side for us, and get it for us so that we may hear and observe it? No, the word is very near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (Dt 30.11-14)
The Israelites did not themselves develop the Law by which they were bound. They received it from God. And it did prove too hard form the. For the heart of man is hard as flint. Who is then who can remove this heart of stone, and replace it with a heart of flesh - a heart upon which is written the Law of God. Whose law? From wence does it originate?
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Ezekiel 36:26-27"
carl
Posted by: Philip WainwrightSaturday 25 July 2009 - 12:09pm 'Please ignore the provocative Liberal noises and continue the Open Evangelical debate.'
Yes--surely this was intended to be a debate about Fulcrum's response to what General Convention did, not about whether what it did was right or wrong. I've suggested that Fulcrum's response can only be judged once we know what Fulcrum was trying to achieve, which is still not clear.
I suspect that by now all the readers who could have contributed something interesting to that discussion have moved on to other threads, or other sites.
Posted by: Roger HurdingFriday 24 July 2009 - 04:24pm Thank you Carl.
I think this is a circular argument. You say that ‘These attempts [to reconcile Scripture with a positive view of homosexual behaviour] invariably assume that homosexual behaviour is a moral good and then read that assumption into the text’. Is it not the case that, equally, there can be an assumption that homosexual behaviour is a moral evil and then read that assumption into the text.
Surely, both you and I need to come to the texts with an open mind (since the issue is a debatable one), looking carefully, as I have tried to show, at the context and cultural understandings of the time. Thus, I suggest, just as not all heterosexual behaviour is moral (as in exploitative sex, rape, abuse of women outside and inside marriage, paedophilia, etc) so homosexual behaviour clearly can be immoral (where it is exploitative, promiscuous, etc.) My contention is to raise the question as to whether the handful of ‘anti-gay’ texts in the Bible necessarily exclude the legitimacy (and morality) of faithful, committed gay relationships. I think it is highly questionable that they do.
Let the hermeneutic debate continue.
Posted by: carlThursday 23 July 2009 - 06:53pm Roger Hurdling
"Both positions can be seen as seeking to be faithful to scripture"
I am well aware of the exegetical attempts to reconcile Scripture with a positive view of homosexual behavior. These attempts invariably assume that homosexual behavior is a moral good, and then read that assumption into the text. This is the only avenue the homosexual apologist can take, since every mention of homosexuality in Scripture is condemnatory. One does not faithfully handle the Scripture by reading one's own preferences into it.
carl
Posted by: carlThursday 23 July 2009 - 06:39pm "I assume you include in your strictures on the immoralty of adultery, those who having undertaken life-long Holy Marriage the divorce; and the marry a second person during the life-time of their first spouse?"
Yes, L Roberts, I do. And I have said so.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/21014#344587
carl
Posted by: Deleted user 1222Thursday 23 July 2009 - 05:47pm This website highlights an article 'The new order emerging from the Anglican disintegration' in America: The National Catholic Weekly which goes on to state:
This piece at Episcopal Cafe offers a fascinating example of just how strong in parts of the TEC is its anti-Catholic prejudice: Dr Williams's efforts are seen as "Romanesque" and examples of "Catholic authoritarianism".
If the writer had bothered to look, he would have realised that the piece was written by me, and I've just checked and I live near a town called Barton-upon-Humber in North Lincolnshire, England, and so what I write has no connection with The Episcopal Church. Jim Naughton just asked me to write something about once a month, and sent out an appeal for extra as he was short, and I knocked up something quickly. So really my comments are being elevated way beyond their import as representing something they don't. On the other hand, I might have my finger on the pulse...
Posted by: Deleted user 1222Thursday 23 July 2009 - 12:51pm Tangential point? Provocative? Come on!
Posted by: WATERANGELThursday 23 July 2009 - 10:33am Roger, I am sorry you feel provoked by some of the comments on this thread..However I do not even know if the noises I make are liberal or not .But I am concerned deeply concerned about the issue of (a) Women being put in the same brackets as Homosexuals..Itt gives neither side a true identity ..I am also mindful of the fact that to deny people communion denies them the route to communicate with God and therefore stand any hope of being able to resolve conflicts..It is only with conflict resolution will Gods true word be heard interpreted and absorbed..
I personally feel that it is totally unacceptable and at odds with any clergy calling to not be able to work alongside people whose lifestyle you may not like..I say that on the basis of the amount of harm that has been caused to people when extremist views are expressed and displayed openly..Or adversly the amount of harm that is caused when people are forced to be silent especially with regards to sexuality..
As far as the plot for Rowan is concerned I feel that in an age of terrorismm that is a very emotive way of expressing yourself when we have people dying at war all over the country..
Finally Lord please be our guide when we are having our discussions enable us not to be harmful when we write and grant us peace and understanding as we try to serve you and go about our daily work Amen
Posted by: Roger HarperWednesday 22 July 2009 - 12:26pm Dear Carl,
What happens on many of these threads is that L Roberts, or Pluralist, or someone, makes a provocative comment tangential to the concern of the thread and then other people respond to this provocative comment, diverting the thread from the 'matter at hand.' This, it seems to me, is what is happening here. Please ignore the provocative Liberal noises and continue the Open Evangelical debate.
Roger
Posted by: Roland CartwrightWednesday 22 July 2009 - 12:15pm L. Roberts, Dean Jeffrey John, whom you would expect to be sympathetic to your position, is candid enough to note his “Permanent, Faithful, Stable” essay that the Bishops do not regard a same sex union as on par with heterosexual marriage and that such parity is not compatible with a faithful reflection of the insights that God has given through scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience. Might it be, as Peter notes below, that “Issues” simply provides a pastoral response in dealing with laity who conscientiously dissent from the Church’s teaching and that in reading acceptance within “Issues” you are seeing more your hope than the reality? Rather than there being two standards within the CofE on this issue might it not be the case that there is one standard but that only clergy is held to the standard given their role as an exemplar and the undesirability of being too prescriptive over the lives of the laity? And if chronology has the significance you suggest then should not “Issues” from 1991 be qualified by Lambeth 1.10 from 1998, which, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has noted remains the “mind of the Communion”? I do not see why you believe that the CofE or Fulcrum has been dishonest in holding to a traditional view of sexual ethics. Equally I am at a loss as to why you believe that there has not been much of a listening process when resources such as the book edited by Phil Groves have been produced. Do you not believe that it may be possible for others to listen to you but to respectfully disagree? And might it not be possible that those who do continue to disagree and challenge you do so with an open heart, desirous of your good?
Roland
Posted by: LorenzoWednesday 22 July 2009 - 12:03pm If you reject the authority of the revelation, then provide another authority in its place so that we may examine it. Only do not present to me some poorly-disguised (sic) appeal to human reason. Man is a limited finite creature who possesses neither the authority nor the ability nor the nature required to define transcendent norms that are both eternal and good. If that is all you have, then there is nothing between us but an unbridgeable chasm.
My heart sank when I read this, Carl. You may wish to take into consideration that yours is a rather extreme Calvinist opinion, and a late one at that. Most orthodox theologians (and I dont mean Jim Packer or the bishop of Durham, but the Church Fathers, Scholastics and Anglican divines) have generally held that morality is not revealed. Hence their belief that, if they behave uprightly, even unbelievers can be saved. More crucially, should supernatural revelation be needed to behave ethically, Christians would not be able to put their faith in God by knowing him to be good in the first place. Even in the eyes of John Calvin you would make the deadly mistake of simply equating Bible with Revelation.
I take revelation to mean the imparting of truths that would otherwise pass our understanding or consciousness, or, at a stretch, which we could only arrive at with great pain and many mistakes. No one could have figured out that God is three and yet one, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father or, stretching it, that those who mourn are blessed. But no one needs revelation to tell them that, say, the king of Assyria waged war against Jerusalem, or that king Jeroboam was sixteen when he began to reign. These are facts that we are quite naturally able to grasp with a bit of skill. Nor would we turn to the Bible to tell us how to build a house or cure swine flu. Similarly, many have argued whilst remaining in the eyes of the undivided Church impeccably orthodoxthat one does not need revelation when deciding between what is right and what is not. Your view of Holy Scripture is a bit exalted. Surely, the commandment that I gave you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away, nor is it in heaven, that you should say Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us, so that we may hear and observe it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say: Who will cross to the other side for us, and get it for us so that we may hear and observe it? No, the word is very near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (Dt 30.11-14)
Posted by: Roger HurdingWednesday 22 July 2009 - 09:32am Carl, you write to L Roberts with these words: ‘If you reject the authority of the revelation, then provide another authority in its place so that we may examine it. Only do not present to me some poorly-disguised appeal to human reason. Man is a limited finite creature who possesses neither the authority nor the ability nor the nature required to define transcendent norms that are both eternal and good. If that is all you have, then there is nothing between us but an unbridgeable chasm.’
Here you accuse L Roberts of using a ‘poorly-disguised appeal to human reason’ and of rejecting ‘the authority of the revelation’, implying a subjectivism which gainsays the authority of scripture.
I put it to you that, broadly, there are two positions in this debate, and both can be seen as open to ‘the authority of the revelation’:
1. Your view, which is widely held, that makes an elision between adultery and homosexual activity. Both are seen as immoral and both are seen as a threat to the sanctity of marriage. Here the view is unequivocal, seeing the bible as quite explicitly condemning all genital sex within homosexual behaviour, arguing, for example, that the fact Jesus does not openly address the issue automatically means he held a traditional anti-gay stance.
2. Another view, which equally respects scriptural revelation but is not convinced that the standard ‘anti-gay’ texts make a cast-iron case for condemning faithful, committed homosexual relationships. Here, the gang rape and inhospitality of Genesis 18 and 19; the challenging of the stability of a clan-based society in Leviticus 18 and 20; the depraved condition of idolatrous humankind in Romans 1; and the debatable interpretation of malakoi and arsenokotai in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are seen as condemning gay relating in certain, circumscribed contexts only.
And so it will not do, I suggest, to dismiss L Roberts’ position so readily. It is not a question of contrasting a clear-eyed, sharply-delineated position of trusting the revelation with a subjective, reason-bound position of questioning that revelation. Both positions can be seen as seeking to be faithful to scripture.
Posted by: Deleted user 974Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 08:09am Carl I assume you include in your strictures on the immoralty of adultery, those who having undertaken life-long Holy Marriage the divorce; and the marry a second person during the life-time of their first spouse ?
Posted by: Deleted user 974Wednesday 22 July 2009 - 08:06am 'it simply respects the right of people to disagree with the church's teaching.' A Carey
Now tell me pray, 'the church's teaching' on baptism, the eucharist, salvation, the saints, St Mary, life-long marriage vows, permissability of divorce, 're-marriage' in Church or in registry Office, ordained women including bishops, birth control, polygamy.
Why is it that ' church' has 'teaching' on one issue and one issue only ?
A Carey is wrong --read Issues in Human Sexulaity, and see what it actually says. See how the Church of England at the highest level has accepted the Law on Civil Partnerships and incorporated it into its own Church Law.
So-called 'Evangelicals' are killing the understanding of Godliness and turning so many away from Christianity - not only gay people, but most of the parishoners of England, - away in revulsion, from your obscene ideas about sacrifice, penal substition and Hell. And from the hypocrisy of a Church founded on adultery and murder, in which its current ministers and leading members, say one thing about say life-long marriage and do another. And for that matter, on 'the gay issue' itself. You want to say one thing, and then pretend, that there are no gay ministers including bishops in the C of E.
No wonder the note of desperation in posts here is so striking. But it is never too late to repent of these real (not imagined) sins.
Btw Why do we never hear a word about the (June) Osborne report these days ? I know it was never published as so supportive of gay relationships. I have a copy if anyone wishes to borrow it. That also contains the church's teaching, as does my own witness and preaching. You see the church isnt just bishops or G Synod members or well-heeled middle class beleivers who can make plenty of noise and pull strings behind the scenes in high-ish places.
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4779
Posted by: carlWednesday 22 July 2009 - 06:07am "btw why oh why have you closed your mind - not to mention your heart ?"
Says one who is demonstrably ever so "open-minded" regarding the immorality of homosexual behavior. In my experience, people demand an 'open mind' only towards the presuppositions of their opponents, and they will continue to make this demand even as they firmly close their own minds around their own presuppositions. In truth, there is no such thing as an 'open mind.' We all have first principles. We do not negotiate them. We stand upon them. We presume them in everything we say, think, and do.
Why should I "close my mind" regarding the immorality of homosexual behavior? For the same reason I "close my mind" regarding the immorality of adultery. Because morality is not a flexible lump of clay to be molded into whatever image my nature finds appealing. There is One with authority who both defines it and reveals it. If I can know with sufficiency that adultery is wrong always and forever on the basis of that revelation, then I can with the same sufficiency know that homosexual behavior is wrong always and forever on the basis of the self-same revelation. That is not evidence of a "closed mind." That is evidence of consistent presupposition consistently applied.
If you reject the authority of the revelation, then provide another authority in its place so that we may examine it. Only do not present to me some poorly-disguised appeal to human reason. Man is a limited finite creature who possesses neither the authority nor the ability nor the nature required to define transcendent norms that are both eternal and good. If that is all you have, then there is nothing between us but an unbridgeable chasm.
carl
Posted by: Andrew CareyTuesday 21 July 2009 - 11:23pm L. Roberts is quite wrong to say that 'Issues in Human Sexuality changed the 1987 Resolution. 1987 remains the mind of the Church of England, whereas 'Issues in Human Sexuality' is a document which is supposed to be the pastoral policy and practice of the House of Bishops.It's also quite untrue to say that 'Issues' gives the green light to homosexual practise among laypeople, it simply respects the right of people to disagree with the church's teaching.
Posted by: Deleted user 974Tuesday 21 July 2009 - 07:51pm Sorry to disappoint David 'H' but 1987 come before Issues in Human Sexualtiy came along and changed it. Unless you think that Issues is the Church toying with us.
btw why oh why have you closed your mind - not to mention your heart ?
Posted by: DaveTuesday 21 July 2009 - 04:05pm The teaching of the CofE on homosexuality is expressed in the 1987 synod resolution that:
"that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal [that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship] and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion [as in cases of fornication and adultery]"
Issues in Human Sexuality speaks of:
"The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, makes it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry"
If this is accepting same sex realtionships, it church has a very strange way of expressing itself.
On pensions, the church has followed the best practice of other pension providers and acknowledged a pensioners obligations to his dependants. This has nothing to do with accepting same sex relationships in any sense other than that they exist.
David
Posted by: Philip WainwrightTuesday 21 July 2009 - 03:14pm One thing that should be remembered as Fulcrum makes its recommendations on how the other Anglican churches should respond to General Convention is that PECUSA's flaunting of the two moratoria is the inevitable response to the flaunting of the third moratorium by so many other Anglican churches.
The proposal by some for the C of E to declare itself in communion with ACNA and the other American churches created by border-crossing bishops will institutionalise the flaunting of the third moratorium in exactly the same way as PECUSA has institutionalised its flaunting of the other two, no doubt with many similar arguments--'it's where we are' 'we must recognise their right to a full place in the church' and so on.
B033 showed that PECUSA can be influenced by intelligently applied pressure from other churches, D025 shows that the pressure has not been applied intelligently enough. The question remains: is the goal reform of those wandering from the path, or feeling good about ourselves for being (apparently) still on the right path.
http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/
Posted by: PeterTuesday 21 July 2009 - 08:55am I recently read through "Issues" very thoroughly, as part of my preparation for my Bishops Advisory Panel.
It "accepts" lay homosexual relationships in the sense that they are part of pastoral reality, but makes clear that people living in homosexual relationships (and all sexual relationships outside of marriage) are doing so in opposition to the converging view of scripture. In no sense can "Issues" be decscribed as condoning homosexual relationships.
Reading through I was struck by the balance of scriptural integrity and pastoral wisdom it displayed. A good model for pastoral practice.
Posted by: Deleted user 974Monday 20 July 2009 - 09:13pm
'It is not only in the US that Anglicans are divided over gay marriage. In Canada, New Zealand, Britain, especially, there are many who, like the majority in TEC want to ‘affirm’ gay marriage. We will have to make space for these people too. This is an issue on which we cannot ‘walk together.’ We are too divided. But we can, with our Anglican tradition of comprehensiveness, make space within our wider fellowship for people who are walking apart. The Church of England has done this with those pro and anti women priests. A similar arrangement is needed for those pro and anti gay marriage across the Communion. It is time to be creative with ecclesiastical structures.'
This is a very important fact.
Here's another for us. The Church of England has already accepted same sex realtionships among lay women and men. Do acquaint yourselves with 'Issues in Human Sexuality' - it is the most recent offical word on this. Except that, since its publication, the Church of England at its highest level, has permitted the Law of the land to be incorporated into Church Law. It has accepted same sex relationships among ministers too. Read the C of E Board of Finance's booklet on Clergy Pensions.
These are verifiable facts rearely mentiuoned here. Why not ? Is your silence a form of dissembling or even dishonesty ? It makes it hard to blame and punish TEC, does it not ? It does not fit the Fulcrum narrative one bit.
I should ahve had more respect for both the C of E and Fulcrum had each acted with greater honesty, in this matter.
Honesty. So singularly lacking. How can you continue like this ? How can Evangelicalism ever recover from such an ethical failure ? Recover trust that is. Recover grace.
I expect both this post and myself to be ignored as (almost) usual. Not much of a 'listening process' here then ....
But of course, you Know and therefore need to hear no-one else.
Posted by: WATERANGELMonday 20 July 2009 - 06:49pm I cant help that think that "What Now "is prayer prayer and more prayer and if you think i am a lunatic for suggesting it say another prayer..At the New Wine conference last year this was discussed and views were shared..But the issue still remains that it is unacceptable to look at the issue of homosexuality on the same page as women, This is insulting in the extreme to both parties..I bet none of the people who object to either party reject medical advancement and treatment required or reject the food grown by same sex couples and certainly not women..All food is of God and all food is to give life.. Plotting a way forward is easier to do than you think you just obey the commandments and see how God turns the situation around when you do..It is not right to make your brother stumble for keeping the commandments..We are not in the dark ages with joseph and his technicolour dreamcoat..People need to get real we all fall short of the glory of God and we all fail and we are all sinners in fact i am probably better at sinning than i am at anything else..I draw your attention to the real author of life God who came to earth to show us Love one another as I have loved you !!!stones and glass houses and all that..Why as an Anglican Church do people not lead the way in love and acceptance You KNOW IF THEY ONLY TRIED IT IT MIGHT JUST WORK.. This has nothing to do with international relations this is to do with individuals who have simply found a way of bullying others..Considering themselves to be superior..The answer is send Rowan on sabatical for a year find an awful person put them in charge for a while then bring back Rowan and they will be grateful..It is not in any way Biblical or of God to treat other people of God in this way..I feel very strongly that it is unacceptable to use the communion table to hurt people in this way whether people are denied receipt of it or denied the channel to give it with a gracious heart..of God... ooh sorry as the advert says was that a bit harsh??
Waterangel
Posted by: PageantmasterMonday 20 July 2009 - 06:10pm
John Richardson's idea is useful. Perhaps the emphasis on Scripture incorporated in the Church of England's Canons [incidentally adopted almost verbatim by others including GAFCON] would do the same thing as a definition based on the Articles? I think we should be chary of being drawn into the politics between the inside and the outside strands of conservative American Anglicanism but recognise and be supportive of both.
Reading Nigel Taber Hamilton's explanation that TEC has a polity I am put in mind of a comment I had just read from 'David' http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003905.html#comments apparently singing from the same hymn sheet.
Perhaps the references to TEC House of Bishops relate: [1] to the requests in relation to the moratoria addressed to the bishops in their capacity as guardians of faith and doctrine by the Communion Instruments, and in particular the Primates at Dar-es-Salaam; and [2] the assurances provided by the TEC House of Bishops to the Communion at New Orleans, which assurances were then reported on by the Joint Standing Committee and submitted to the Communion for consideration.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222Monday 20 July 2009 - 06:08pm The Church of England has done this with those pro and anti women priests. says Roger Harper.
No it hasn't, except temporarily. There will be female bishops, and there won't be a third province for the noes to this because it would be a structural space for all the malcontents and plotters and give GAFCON what it wants without its own effort. So that will close the two sides. And when the various Churches on the British Isles come to affirm intended stable gay relationships, there will not be two places for the yesses and noes there either.
I agree though with you on one point. Rowan Williams's attempt to direct international traffic has come to a finish, and he ought to resign. I doubt if he will, and by the tone of that Presidential speech to the ACC in Jamaica I'll be surprised if he does anything more. It might look like personal spite if he did, in your direction, and might look like another reversal if he did in the other direction. The most he can do is listen to people (no bad thing in itself) and let other institutions act, but they are all pretty much a busted flush as well as the Anglican Communion returns to what, in substance, it always was.
Posted by: liddonMonday 20 July 2009 - 04:50pm As David Baker draws our attention to another blog, may I draw people's attention to the responses to Fulcrum on Thinking Angicans?
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003905.html#comments
Posted by: Roger HarperMonday 20 July 2009 - 10:21am
The Fulcrum Statement is a good explanation of where we are now, and how we have come to be here. We are walking apart. What now?
The Instruments of Communion should indicate a willingness to recognise the Anglican Church in North America as a Province of the Communion in North America. This will not be a straightforward process, not least because ACNA covers Canada as well as the US, and the Canadians, also with a pro gay marriage majority, have been more willing to hold back. But the reality in the US is clear. TEC has chosen to walk apart. The Communion needs to declare solidarity with those who have chosen not to walk apart. The Archbishop of Canterbury, especially, needs to work with TEC to make sure that both ‘pro gay marriage’ and ‘anti gay marriage’ integrities make space for each other. Expulsions and hugely costly legal disputes are not necessary. All that is needed is a willingness by TEC to make space, official ecclesiastical and physical space, for those who oppose gay marriage, or to accept that the wider Communion will make that space.
It is not only in the US that Anglicans are divided over gay marriage. In Canada, New Zealand, Britain, especially, there are many who, like the majority in TEC want to ‘affirm’ gay marriage. We will have to make space for these people too. This is an issue on which we cannot ‘walk together.’ We are too divided. But we can, with our Anglican tradition of comprehensiveness, make space within our wider fellowship for people who are walking apart. The Church of England has done this with those pro and anti women priests. A similar arrangement is needed for those pro and anti gay marriage across the Communion. It is time to be creative with ecclesiastical structures.
Rowan Williams cannot take the Communion forward now. His way forward was restraint by all sides, a new Covenant, people talking together until agreement is found. This way has failed. The Covenant cannot now include the Americans. Rowan Williams has not been heeded. TEC, and the opposing Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, have both rejected his way forward. If Rowan Williams stays, he will continue to be ignored and sidelined. The office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the unity of the whole Communion will be seriously damaged. It is time for someone else to plot a different way forward.
Posted by: David BakerMonday 20 July 2009 - 10:09am Dear leaders of Fulcrum,
Please may I with great sincerity and earnestness draw your attention to the post on http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/ entitled http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/07/joint-statement-by-church-of-england.html which says:
A joint statement by Church of England Traditionalists for this time of crisis in the Anglican Communion
No, there isn’t one yet. But shouldn’t there be? And shouldn’t it be signed by Traditionalist Anglican Bishops, representatives of Anglican Mainstream, the Church of England Evangelical Council, FCA, Forward in Faith, Fulcrum, New Wine and Reform, patronage bodies and Principals of Theological Colleges?
So who is going to organize it?
and also the post which follows on from it at http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/07/possible-joint-statement-from-cofe.html in which he does actually draft something.
It would need refinement and discussion, but please, rather than dismissing it out of hand, or knocking it, please, would you consider it? We really need evangelical unity at this time; and that will take some give all round.
I am sure there must be lots of things going on behind the scenes, but, please - make those phone calls!
Sincerely,
David Baker
Posted by: Nigel Taber-HamiltonMonday 20 July 2009 - 08:02am I am puzzled by why you keep refering - in the same sentence - to "the House of Bishops and General Convention [of the Episcopal Church]". Is it that you see these as separate entities? The House of Bishops is a part of General Convention, not separate from it. In fact, it is the junior house of G.C.
There also seems to be a further misunderstanding. While the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church can certainly speak for itself, and speak outside of General Convention, it's words do not have any binding authority in that context. Only when the two houses (the other being the House of Deputies, being made up equally of laity and clergy) meet together does the Episcopal Church speak in its fullness, because only then are the Baptized gathered in the fullness of the Episcopal part of the Body of Christ here in the U.S.
Any other comment by our House of Bishops does not represent the mind of the Church therefore, but the opinion of a group within it.
You might bear this in mind when you present your case, since your failure to understand our polity detracts from the force of your opinion.
Grace and peace,
Nigel Taber-Hamilton.
Posted by: Joe+Monday 20 July 2009 - 01:22am It is a bit surprising to those of us on this side of the pond that, considering your lucid understanding of the pattern of duplicity, that there would even be a hint of surprise. TEC has not only been walking apart from the majority of the Anglican Communion, they are walking apart from Christ. Still, Fulcrum wants an "inside strategy." Please, tell me when enough will be enough? Interestingly enough the alternate lectionary reading from the OT today was Jeremiah 23:1-6.
Posted by: PageantmasterMonday 20 July 2009 - 12:01am Thanks Pete Hobson.
Yes, I suppose I do feel very strongly about this, perhaps unusually for me. I have looked at the divorce thread which is full of Christian wisdom but I think there is something much more real going on than an internalised battle on how to view differences between Christians although it does sound good.
Perhaps I feel strongly because what I wrote is based on talking to people first hand who are in mission in South America and in Africa, and of anecdotal stories of what is going on in Indo-China. The stories of what people are going through and having to deal with directly as a result of the actions of the US church would make one weep.
I say that as someone who does not believe in schism and would not wish to see a final parting of the ways with the US church, but the voiceless Anglicans of the rest of the world also need to be considered and the Communion must differentiate itself and if necessary isolate itself from the actions of TEC. The worldwide Communion of 78 million often unheard Anglicans is not just about TEC, although they take up a disproportionate amount of time and effort from the Communion for such a small and crumbling church, much as we love them.
Posted by: pete hobsonSunday 19 July 2009 - 10:05pm I can see you do feel strongly pageantmaster, and if it was in any degree as you tell it, I understand why. I'd also refer you to the 'how to have a good divorce' thread, which I found moving and challenging in that context... I'm not sure how we marry these two approaches, of depth of anguished feeling with attempt to differ as Christiantly as possible.
Posted by: PageantmasterSunday 19 July 2009 - 12:47am I have been pondering all this and the organised and determined effort made to get these resolutions through, co-ordinated by Integrity USA and I offer it fwiw. It is what I have written on an American blog where it may or may not be read by some who were involved in it:
It has been well organised, the local branches, the training courses, the targeting of people for election, the distribution of resolutions to diocesan conventions, the propaganda. And at General Convention the swamping of everything by one agenda, described in so many different ways, the lobbying, the rainbow flags, the determination to drive through resolutions in the teeth of the Anglican Communion moratoria. Total success.
Did anyone give any thought to the traditional societies in which most Anglicans live, where there are Muslim neighbors in Africa, Buddhist or Hindu neighbors in Asia, or Roman Catholic majorities in South America? Where persecution is the norm in the best of circumstances, discrimination in jobs, housing and education. Where with the hard life of Anglican Christians in these societies, from this weekend, life is going to be so much harder; where their opponents will jibe at them, and laugh at them in South America and ask how they can call themselves Christians for their association with a church like TEC in the Communion? They will be called immoral, un-godly, and a bad influence in Asia and Africa at best and at worst they will find their ability to spread the good news of Jesus Christ compromised and will face persecution and perhaps imprisonment and now and again death. Did any of the rather smug members of TEC HOD and HOB consider them in their hell for leather drive to pass these resolutions? They may live far away, not be as educated or rich as you and have different skin colors and languages but did you ever give them a thought? Do you care about them?
Thinking about it, this more than anything else is why in my view it is sadly necessary for the rest of the Communion to now publicly distance itself from communion with the Episcopal Church.
I apologise if that comes across too strongly, but it is what I feel.
Posted by: Graham KingsSaturday 18 July 2009 - 01:28pm Thanks, David. Fulcrum is continuing to:
back the Covenant process
listen carefully to our partners in the USA (Anglican Communion Institute, Covenant, Communion Partners)
report accurately
write lucidly (hopefully)
pray faithfully
Do pray with us and especially for the Archbishop of Canterbury as he seeks to respond.
Posted by: David BakerSaturday 18 July 2009 - 01:09pm I am still at a bit of a loss as to Fulcrum's strategy in response to what is happening in America.
What are you aiming to do and how are you hoping to achieve it?
Is this somewhere on your website?
Best wishes
David Baker
Posted by: ChristianSaturday 18 July 2009 - 07:53am Thank you for an exhaustive explanation. However, I find the overtly pharisaic approach tiresome and debilitating. Why not call a spade a spade - unless, like Gwendolyn Fairfax, you're glad to say you've never seen a spade?
Rev. André Hattingh
Posted by: User 1878Saturday 18 July 2009 - 07:39am As a priest of the American church living, ministering, and licensed in the Church of England I second TJMcMahon's comments
Posted by: tjmcmahonFriday 17 July 2009 - 11:14pm First, let me thank all those at Fulcrum who contributed to this statement, and especially those who must have burned the midnight oil to get it posted so quickly. TEC has already begun the "All is well" media bombardment, and it certainly appears the timing of the vote was in no small measure to take advantage of the late hour in London.
All of us in the US have deep appreciation for the support we have received these last few days from several bishops in the Church of England and several of the blogs "on your side of the pond." The closest I can come to characterizing the mood here among traditional Episcopalians would be one of sorrow. I would commend the video of Bishop Bill Love as perhaps a representation of how many of us feel as we watch our Church breaking bonds with the rest of the Anglican world.
The statement that +Graham Kings cites in his earlier comment (being referred to here as the Anaheim statement) has been the cause of considerable confusion over here. WHile clearly intended to differentiate the Communion Partner and similarly minded bishops from the majority opinion with the House of Bishops, several of the bishops who signed it voted in favor of one or both of the resolutions (D025 and C056). It is difficult, in these trying circumstances, to understand why they signed it, or why they were encouraged or even allowed to sign it by its authors. It seems quite hypocritical to state that one values interdependence within the Communion only hours after voting to tear it apart. This fact has considerably weakened the impact of the document, as it now seems to be yet another statement that "means whatever on wants it to mean."
We pray that the coming days bring action, as well as words, from the See of Canterbury. And we ask your prayers, as we prepare for what will be a very long and dry road ahead.
TJ
Posted by: nersenpaulFriday 17 July 2009 - 08:23am I hope the Communion Partners and ++Duncan are talking and the ABC is talking to both of them. (I also hope Fulcrum and FCA leaders are talking! I believe in miracles...)
Posted by: Graham KingsFriday 17 July 2009 - 07:31am A very significant statement, organised by the Communion Partner bishops of TEC, relating to General Convention 2009 resolutions D025 (rescinding B033 of 2006)and C056 (rescinding moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions), is copied below from the Covenant site, 16 July 2009. Craig Uffman, editor of Covenant, is also on the leadership team of Fulcrum.
Note by Editor of Covenant:
Bp Lawrence of South Carolina evidently informed his canon theologian, Kendall Harmon, that several bishops read a statement on the floor of the House of Bishops this morning while it was in private session. Kendall posted news of this statement on his site. I post below the text that was read and is now being called “The Anaheim Statement.” The text below is reportedly an accurate copy, for it was given directly to Greg Griffiths by Bp Howe and published by Greg at his Stand Firm site.. It is believed that as many as 20 or more bishops have signed this statement.
Bishop Gary Lillibridge read a statement to the House of Bishops that a number of us helped craft, and then invited any who wished to sign on to do so. As of our recess at 5 PM 26 had done so. The Statement is as follows:
The Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009
At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the HOB, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.
It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.
We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.
* 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.
Posted by: L Weber+Thursday 16 July 2009 - 06:36pm Yes, '...autonomy trumps interdependence'! So ironic given the trumpeting of the convention theme: 'ubuntu' -- 'I am, because we are'. No matter that that statement is already either heretical or completely theologically tone-deaf. But who cares about the 'we are'?!? Well, we've been experiencing this irony and double-think/speak for years!! From New Mexico...
Posted by: Graham KingsThursday 16 July 2009 - 09:08am At General Convention, the House of Bishops has passed resolution C056 allowing the development of rites for the blessing of same sex unions. It is likely to be passed also in the House of Deputies. This approves the provisional development of liturgies which will be considered at General Convention in Indianapolis in 2012.
See this thread on the Covenant site.
Thus the second moratorium is about to fall and is further evidence of TEC indicating clearly that, in their view, autonomy trumps interdependence.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is likely to make a comment once the House of Deputies has voted.
The Bishop of Woolwich has said he is "deeply saddened and distressed" to hear of a fatal machete attack on a man in south-east London.
Christian Today. 22 May 2013
Iran has launched a public crackdown on dissent before next month's presidential election, executing two men charged with espionage and waging war against God, arresting a group of activists, including Christians, and summoning campaigners for questioning. Political prisoners in some of the country's most notorious jails have had their parole or visiting rights withdrawn and some transferred to solitary confinement.
Saeed Kamali Deghan Guardian 21 May 2013
Thanks, Bowman. And does this - the pleasantness of compliance to God's order and commands - not apply not only to aspects of the law given to Israel, which we are not obliged to keep, but also to the traditions of the apostles, which we are instructed to hold on to, and pass on to the next g...
I quite like Bowman's point that there is potential danger in bringing the women bishops issue into Ephesians 5 (if I can put it like that), which is about marriage. If we want to know 'how we should conduct [ourselves] in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pilla...
Bowman, you say that the only distinguishing quality of the relationships: Christ:man, man:woman, God:Christ, and Christ:church, husband:wife (I have added one there), is coinherence. Surely, there is a hierarchy of authority visible here. Jesus submits to the Father, the church submits to the Lo...
