Posted 5:04 PM by kendall
Alan Raul on the Massachusetts Supreme Court Decision

The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent decision. The more destructive impact of the decision for society is the court's insidious denial of morality itself as a rational basis for legislation....So courts that deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they run directly counter to actual legislative practice in innumerable important areas of society. We must recognize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral code for that of the people.

Posted 4:54 PM by kendall
How important are Weblogs?

It is a question worth pondering.

Posted 10:57 AM by kendall
Episcopal Church's Point of No Return

From New England:

Much has been said in the press recently about the new Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, an actively homosexual man. To see him on TV or read about him in the papers, he certainly seems like a nice person. Why then all the fuss about his becoming bishop? After all, aren't Christians supposed to be loving and affirming?

Really the question is "Who is God?" For some, God is a being out there known by many names, doing many things, but certainly not anyone who would ever use the word "No." For people who believe this way, the Bible is either totally discounted or like Silly Putty in a child's hands, moldable to many shapes and sizes. With this approach God usually ends up looking and sounding more like the individual thinker than a truly higher power. Belief in this being is not Christianity in any way, shape or form.

Many others believe that through the Bible and church history God has reliably communicated certain things about Himself and about humanity. "But from the beginning of creation ÔGod made them male and female.' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, so they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (NRSV; this is Jesus speaking in Mark 10:6-9, in it he quotes Genesis 1:27.)

In this Bible passage, Jesus Christ makes a broad statement regarding marriage and sexuality. He emphasizes the wholesome lifelong unity of one man and one woman, even though they are complementary opposites. This God-designed unadulterated union of opposites that He calls marriage is of far greater value than the sum of its part. Biblically speaking, any other form of sexual relationship lacks this greater value and is a departure from God's will and design (see how Jesus addresses that in Mark 7:21-22).

To be loving does not mean automatically affirming anything modern culture dictates. Certainly, we know many wonderful local Episcopalians. However, either the broader Episcopal Church should be honest and publicly admit that it no longer believes in historic and biblical Christianity, or it should change its present course completely. Soon it will reach a point of no return.

We, the undersigned, speak for ourselves only; let others have their own say.

The Rev. Ed Lopeman -- Littleton, N.H.
The Rev. Mac Starring -- Littleton, N.H.
The Rev. Mark Heinrichs -- Barton, Vt.

Posted 9:39 AM by kendall
Episcopal Church faces big change

David Kalvelage of The Living Church, an independent weekly that opposed V. Gene Robinson's consecration as New Hampshire bishop, says the aftermath of that Nov. 2 ceremony is "probably the largest and most far-reaching" crisis since the denomination formed in 1789.

Posted 9:23 AM by kendall
Interview with Bill Atwood

I consider the following interview with Bill Atwood to be quite important--KSH.

VIRTUOSITY: Dr. Atwood you travel the world talking with the primates
of the Global South about the ongoing crisis in the Episcopal Church.
You have been in meetings with Primates all over the globe. What are
you hearing?

ATWOOD: The decision to consecrate Gene Robinson is proving to be one
of the most disastrous mistakes in modern church history. Every day new
dimensions of the disaster unfold.

VIRTUOSITY: Can you be specific?

ATWOOD: Immediately after the consecration, the leaders of 50 million
of the world's Anglicans declared themselves in impaired communion;
then in the days that followed one after another of the Primates put
out individual statements not just declaring impaired communion but
formally breaking with ECUSA. Some have gone so far as to say they
would refuse financial aid from the ECUSA for fear they would give
legitimacy to the apostate Episcopal Church.

VIRTUOSITY: How are the Global South primates talking about this?

ATWOOD: First of all they understand it is a salvation issue. And what
that means is that the Bible is clear that there are behaviors that
lead people away from the redeeming love of Christ. For the evangelical
leaders of the Global South that is unconscionable. The church's role
is to bring people to faith not seduce them into Hell.

VIRTUOSITY: How do you think this is impacting Archbishop Rowan
Williams?

ATWOOD: I don't see evidence that he realizes how desperately serious
the situation is. The communion is hanging in the balance. It is
hanging by a thread. The Global South leaders cannot and will not
assimilate the same-sex agenda into their churches. If he [Williams]
continues to speak moderately he'll lose the allegiance of Global South
provinces. It's not just ECUSA that is at risk; it's the whole
communion.

VIRTUOSITY: Are you driven by any impulse about what you would like to
say to Dr. Williams?

ATWOOD: Sometimes I want to pick up the phone and try to explain to him
in straightforward language that the Global South leaders just cannot
buy it, incorporate it or overlook this spiritual situation.

VIRTUOSITY: How could someone risk losing the communion when a clear
word from him would calm the storm?

ATWOOD: I can only think he's viewing the situation with Western eyes,
and I would beg him to see it from the perspective of the African and
Asian Primates. Not only them, but also the Roman Catholics, Eastern
Orthodox and even the Muslims. It is a huge crisis.

VIRTUOSITY: Was the resignation of Frank Griswold from ARCIC (Anglican
Roman Catholic talks) symbolic of the problem, and is he personally
symptomatic of the wider fracture the Communion faces over this
subject?

ATWOOD: I would be surprised if Griswold went quietly into that good
night of resignation, because he is making a career out of minimizing
the damage he has caused. But the Global South leadership simply will
not stand for someone who has repudiated their fundamental teaching
representing them theologically. That is what he was doing on the
committee meeting with the Roman Catholics.

VIRTUOSITY: Is Griswold finished among the Primates?

ATWOOD: Stick a fork in him.

VIRTUOSITY: The "Steps to Discipline" that Virtuosity ran a couple
weeks ago indicated a final dateline of Easter 2004 when Griswold must
repent. Does this mean the Eames Commission is irrelevant which
promised to return a verdict by October 2004?

ATWOOD: First of all the timetable which was taken to the Lambeth
meeting was overturned by circumstances when the Primates all appeared
to have reached an agreed statement. There was a willingness to let the
commission do its work. Now when Griswold went ahead as the chief
consecrator, many provinces stepped up their individual timetables, and
as I said before, more than 30 million have broken communion with the
ECUSA already.

VIRTUOSITY: Is the Eames Commission relevant?

ATWOOD: The commission could be important for the future if the
Anglican Communion can survive this crisis. The big question is whether
or not discipline will be exercised against ECUSA's rebellion. If not I
can't see the communion hanging together.

VIRTUOSITY: Where does this leave the Anglican Consultative Council
(ACC) and the work of Canon John Peterson?

ATWOOD: John Peterson's partisan support of the liberal agenda is
legendary. That is not the direction most of the Anglican Communion is
willing to go. The big question now is how many provinces will boycott
ACC meetings if ECUSA is there. More than a dozen are already planning
to skip the provincial secretary's meeting early next year because
ECUSA was invited.

VIRTUOSITY: There is much talk about a parallel jurisdiction. There is
also talk about a replacement jurisdiction, would you please explain
what these are and mean to North American Episcopalians?

ATWOOD: Even as recently as the Primate's meeting in Brazil, I think
parallel jurisdiction with two Episcopal churches was possible, with
one church following a liberal path and the other a more traditional
one. Since the Brazil meeting however, there is a much clearer
understanding of how much is wrong with the ECUSA theologically. Most
Global South Primates are not willing to stay in a relationship with a
liberal and offending ECUSA, instead the Evangelical perspective of the
Global South demands that ECUSA either repent or get replaced with a
biblically orthodox one.

VIRTUOSITY: Do you think Griswold is prepared to put his friendship on
the line with Williams and back off sufficiently so as not to
jeopardize Williams's future as the titular head of the Anglican
Communion?

ATWOOD: No.

VIRTUOSITY: Do you think Griswold understands the depth of trouble he
is in, and the position he has put the Archbishop of Canterbury in?

ATWOOD: I don't see any evidence that the institutional leaders in the
Episcopal Church have any clue at all of the depth of the problem
despite all the evidence that shows the house is on fire.

VIRTUOSITY: It is apparent to many of us that Nigerian Primate Peter
Akinola is emerging as the central Global South bishop in this new
drama opening up. He is threatening a new communion. If that happens
what do you think will happen?

ATWOOD: First of all Archbishop Akinola is an amazing leader. He is
steering not only 17.5 million Anglicans in Nigeria, but he chairs the
Nigerian Council of Churches, which is more than 60 million strong. He
is also the chairman of CAPA, (the Council of Anglican Provinces in
Africa) which is all of the Anglicans in Africa and is the chairman of
the Global South network.

VIRTUOSITY: What makes him so powerful and 'dangerous' to Western
liberals?

ATWOOD: What really makes him powerful is that he has the grace and
humility to consult with other key leaders like Drexel Gomez (West
Indies), Greg Venables (Southern Cone); Yong Ping Chung (Southeast
Asia), plus archbishops Malango, (Central Africa), Tetemela (Tanzania)
and others in Africa. He consults broadly and his ministry and
influences are therefore multiplied.

VIRTUOSITY: What would a realignment look like?

ATWOOD: The Global South Communion would focus on Jesus; the one in the
West and North will be theologically and morally innovative but from
the view of the Global South would be tragically ineffective
spiritually.

VIRTUOSITY: Would this reduce Williams to being the head of a small
Anglican sect mainly Western with parts of Australia and NZ, while the
vast majority of Anglicans would follow a new leader?

ATWOOD: I don't know anyone who wants that. I hear Primates talking
about an Anglican future that is Christian and faithful. The question
will be whether or not the Communion can hang together.

VIRTUOSITY: Should orthodox priests in revisionist ECUSA and Canadian
dioceses be prepared to walk away from their properties if push comes
to shove, and take their people, the truly prized possession with them
elsewhere?

ATWOOD: Jesus said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole
world and lose his soul. What shall we say?" The Global South leaders
have said the gospel is not for sale. I pray we will be as clear.

VIRTUOSITY: To whom should these faithful orthodox Episcopal priests
turn to for ecclesiastical oversight?

ATWOOD: The Primates letter in October called for adequate oversight.
It may be confusing for a while to provide it, but it is something that
must be done and it is going to require everyone's help - orthodox
bishops, Primates, including the ones in North America. Everyone will
have a part to play. Those parishes under siege should be in touch with
the AAC immediately, to make their request known.

VIRTUOSITY: Was the Dallas meeting recently the turning point for
ECUSA's orthodox, and is the momentum continuing for alternative
Episcopal oversight.

ATWOOD: A lot of people found their voice as orthodox Anglicans in
Dallas. The more they experience links with like-minded Anglicans
around the world the more excitement there is. I don't think it is
stoppable.

VIRTUOSITY: Thank you.

--The Rev. Canon Bill Atwood is General Secretary of the Ekkelsia Society

Posted 7:56 AM by kendall
Some Irish Clergy Respond

The Consecration of V Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America

A Statement from the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy

The consecration of Canon V Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire Diocese on 2nd November, 2003 is an unbiblical, divisive, cynical and sectarian action made with no regard for the wishes of the worldwide Anglican Communion. We deeply regret the action of the Bishops involved in this consecration and wish to make it known that we (along with numerous faithful Anglicans across the globe) do not recognise this consecration.

In particular, we deeply regret that the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA has shown contempt towards not only his fellow Primates, but to the rest of the Anglican Communion, in personally overseeing the consecration ceremony and rejecting the valid objections of those who expressed their concerns. The Presiding Bishop (a signatory of the Primates’ statement cautioning against the consecration of Canon V Gene Robinson and issued unanimously) has acted in a deceitful way and this action is unworthy of a Shepherd of the flock of Jesus Christ.

We note that in approving for Episcopal ministry a divorcee, who is in an open, active and partnered homosexual relationship, ECUSA has capitulated to secular pressures exerted by a western culture which rejects the Bible and its clear teaching that consistently forbids same-sex relationships. ECUSA has also discarded the norm of two millennia of Church tradition. ECUSA has indubitably departed from the boundaries of Anglicanism as expressed clearly at the Lambeth Conference 1998.

The EFIC wishes to align itself with all Bishops who affirm, teach and promote the Biblical, historical and universal teaching on same-sex relationships, promoting life-long monogamous heterosexual relationships as the only God-ordained context for sexual expression. We also fully align ourselves with every network and organisation which seeks to advance this biblical teaching. In particular, we wish to align ourselves with those who remain in ECUSA and maintain biblical orthodoxy. We urge that provision of Pastoral Oversight as promised by the Primates is put in place as soon as possible.

The EFIC deplores this shameful action and wishes to make it clear that it does not recognise the ministry of V Gene Robinson; nor can it accept the ministry of those who participated in his consecration. We regretfully note that Bishop Michael Mayes of Limerick was present at the ceremony. We call upon Bishop Mayes to revoke the partnership which his diocese has with the Diocese of New Hampshire. If he is unwilling to do so in view of ECUSA's unbiblical action, then we call upon our Archbishops and Bishops to exercise appropriate discipline in order to preserve the orthodoxy and unity of the Church of Ireland.

The Bible makes it clear that there is room for people from every kind of background and past sinful experience to be included in Christ’s flock on God’s terms. The Apostle Paul made it clear to those in the Corinthian Church that “as such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)”. This is Gospel inclusivity.

Posted 6:14 AM by kendall
More on why Frank Griswold Resigned from ARCIC according to The Tablet

But The Tablet understands that the resignation was the result of a private meeting in Rome on 25 November, the day before Griswold’s resignation letter, between Cardinal Kasper, president of the unity council, and Canon John Peterson, secretary general of the Anglican Consultative Council, an advisory body made up of member provinces of the Anglican Communion over which Dr Williams presides. The unity council later said that the topic under discussion was “the future of Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue” in the light of “recent developments within the life of the Anglican Communion”. It is thought that the resignation of Bishop Griswold was the price for averting the threatened suspension of the next Arcic meeting scheduled for 28 January. Participants in the meeting, the latest in a series of the last four years in Dublin, Paris, Vienna and Palm Beach, Florida, will work on an agreed statement on the Virgin Mary. It is not yet clear who will co-chair the meeting alongside Archbishop Brunett. The meeting could be postponed if a new Anglican co-chairman has not been named.

Posted 5:04 AM by kendall
Notable and Quotable

"I got the impression that a lot of people in the USA were unaware of the implications of what has happened in New Hampshire."

--Archbishop Robin Eames of Ireland in today's Belfast Telegraph

Posted 4:55 AM by kendall
Leander Harding: Homosexuality And The American Religion


Harold Bloom, an iconoclastic literary critic at Yale, wrote a book published in 1992, with the title The American Religion. Using an argument developed by Msgr. Ronald Knox in his magisterial work on Enthusiasm and by the Presbyterian theologian Phillip Lee in his book Against The Protestant Gnostics. Bloom makes a convincing case that the real American Religion that is the unofficial but actual spiritual mythos which gives shape to the American worldview and energy to the American religious quest is some form of Gnosticism. The Gnostics, ancient and contemporary, teach that the true and deepest self is a spark of divinity which has become lost and imprisoned in a corrupt world. The drama of salvation is the drama of rediscovering this secret self and reuniting this spark with the divine one. This is accomplished by access to a secret knowledge or “gnosis” which is unavailable to the uninitiated. Gnostic versions of Christianity have been a problem for the church from the earliest times. The struggle with Gnosticism caused St. Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.) to write his chief work “Adversus omnes Haereses.” Gnosticism is hard to kill and has many contemporary fans including the scholars of the Jesus Seminar who champion the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

Bloom thinks that it matters little what is on the label, the flavor of the product is more often than not Gnostic.

"Mormons and Southern Baptists call themselves Christians, but like most Americans they are closer to ancient Gnostics than to early Christians. I have centered on Mormons and the Southern Baptists than on other major denominations . . . butt most American Methodists, Roman Catholics and even Jews and Muslims are also more Gnostic than normative in their deepest and unwariest beliefs. The American Religion is pervasive and overwhelming, however it is masked, and even our secularists, indeed even our professed atheists are more Gnostic than humanist in their ultimate presuppositions. We are a religiously mad culture, furiously searching for the spirit, but each of us is subject and object of the one quest, which must be for the original self, a spark or breath in us that we are convinced goes back to before the creation.” (The American Religion, p. 22)

The quintessential American Religion is the quest for the true and original self which is the “pearl of great price,” the ultimate value. Finding the true self requires absolute and complete freedom of choice unconstrained by any sources of authority outside the self. Limits upon personal freedom and choice are an affront to all that is sacred to the American Religion. When the self determining self finds “the real me” salvation is achieved and the ultimate self has achieved contact with the ultimate reality. Finding your true self is to the contemporary Gnostic the same thing as finding God. For the Gnostic the purpose of the religious community is to facilitate the quest and validate the results. The contemporary Gnostic church, which can appear in both conservative and liberal forms, is the community of those who know that they have found God because they have found their own uncreated depths. Both devotees of the New Age and many in some “conservative” Christian circles see salvation as purely a matter of personal experience, which can only be validated by those who have had similar “deeply personal” experiences.

Notice how perfectly the contemporary presentation of homosexuality fits the American Religion. A person who discovers that he or she is Gay has recovered his or her true self and “come out” and come through what the Gnostics called the “aeons” in this case levels of personal, familial and social oppression that hinder and constrain the true self. It is a heroic and perilous journey of self-discovery which would be familiar to a first century Gnostic like Valentinus. That the means of liberation is sexual practice is even a familiar theme. Some ancient Gnostics were ascetic but others counseled sexual license. Both stratagems can come from the same contempt of nature and are different ways of asserting the radical independence of the self.

Here is the point. Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire not in spite of being Gay, not as an act of toleration and compassion toward Gay people, but because he is Gay and as such is an icon of the successful completion of the quest to find the true and original self. He has been chosen for high religious office because he represents high religious attainment. He is being recognized and receiving regard for being an accomplished practitioner of the American Religion. According to this Gnostic logic divorcing his wife and leaving his family to embrace the Gay lifestyle is not some unfortunate concession to irresistible sexual urges but an example of the pain and sacrifice that the seeker of the true self must be willing to endure. That natural, organic and conventional restraints must be set aside is time worn Gnostic nostrum. From the point of view of this contemporary Gnosticism, if the church does not validate such a noble quest for enlightenment then it invalidates itself and shows that is no help in the only spiritual struggle that counts, the struggle to be the “real me.” Because Gene Robinson has “found himself” he has according to the Gnostic logic of the American religion found God and is naturally thought to be a truly “spiritual person” and a fit person to inspire and lead others on their spiritual journey which is to end in a discovery of the true self which is just so the discovery of the only real god, the Gnostic god.

Seeing the elevation of Gene Robinson through the lens of the mythos of the American Religion explains some of the fanaticism of his defenders, explains why so many bishops of the Episcopal Church including the Presiding Bishop would be willing to take such institutional risks. Here is a paradigm of salvation that echoes deeply in the American soul and promises to restore a sense of purpose to a mainline church which has lost confidence in the story of salvation told by the orthodox tradition of the church. Inclusion becomes the fundamental value for the church because it allows the church to have a real purpose of validating that people have indeed found their true identity, and thus found God. Gay people become icons of hope. These people have “found themselves” and hence by force of Gnostic logic “found God.” To celebrate Gays in the life of the church, not accept but affirm and celebrate, is to celebrate the church as a truly spiritual community with real spiritual power which can facilitate and validate the salvation of souls. The church leaders who are risking everything for Gene Robinson are in their own way and according to an heretical but powerful vision trying desperately to find a spiritual vocation for the church that has some liveliness and connects deeply with the deepest yearning of the American soul. The Presiding Bishop and his company of supporters think they are regaining the lost keys of heaven. That these newly discovered keys are not the real thing but Gnostics imitators of the keys of St. Peter will be lost on those who are drunk on the promises of the American Religion of the true, free and uncreated self.


This analysis is a caution to those of us who think of ourselves as conservative. The fault line in the current church controversy is not between orthodox “conservatives” and revisionist “liberals,” but between versions of the American Religion preferred by the cultural right and the cultural left and a tradition of genuine orthodoxy that is everywhere subverted to the service of the idol of the radically independent and uncreated self. There is much loose talk about the Holy Spirit and claims of “a personal word of the Lord” which are so obviously heterodox on the lips of the new bishop of New Hampshire parallel routine claims made in “conservative” circles.

In many cases we read the Bible in a highly individualized and devotional way with a complete indifference to its original context in the life of the people of Israel and to its ecclesial, social-political and doctrinal implications. A “personal relationship” with the Lord is vital to true religion but this relationship can be conceived in ways that discount the relevance of sustained study of scripture and doctrine or make them practically irrelevant. The famous 20th century Revivalist, Billy Sunday, was fond of saying that he didn’t know anymore about theology than “a jack rabbit knows about ping pong.” It is unlikely that similar enthusiasms in our own time will be able to resist the lure of the idol of the American Religion. At the moment we are astounded by enormities provided by the subversion of the Faith by the Gnostic proclivities of the cultural left. There is no particular reason why the Gnosticism of the cultural right should not produce different but equally astonishing enormities.

The antidote is the same it has ever been; complete immersion in the scripture with close attention to the story of Israel as Israel, to our Jewish roots and close attention to the teachings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers and other exemplars of the Great Tradition.

--The Rev. Dr. Leander S. Harding is rector, Saint John's, Stamford, Connecticut

Posted 7:15 PM by kendall
The Primate of Central Africa writes Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold

The Church of the Province of Central Africa
The Anglican Church in Zambia, Botswana, Malawi & Zimbabwe
The Most Rev. Bernard A. Malango,
Archbishop and Primate
Private Bag 1, Chilema,
Malawi


The Most Revd Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Frank,

Mercy grace and peace be unto you in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Please know that this comes with my
prayers and deepest concern.

I cannot begin to tell you the depth of grief and of betrayal your
actions have caused. All of us were conscious of a great movement of
the Holy Spirit in the Primates meeting at Lambeth Palace. What seemed
an impossible situation suddenly became filled with hope as all of us-
including you-agreed on the Pastoral Letter.

It was unbelievable to me to receive reports that you walked out of the
meeting and told people that you did not agree with the statement.
There may be some clever way of describing it in your mind so that you
can live with it. We have ways of describing it as well. It was
dishonest, false, and a great betrayal. How can there be any hope for a
shared future when communications and commitments mean nothing?

In meeting after meeting, you have either stayed silent or have
protested that ECUSA and your bishops are overwhelmingly orthodox, that
you believe the Bible and the Creeds and the faith of the church. In
fact, you leave me mystified. What could possibly be considered sin?
What needs redemption? Where is judgment, atonement, and where is the
cross of Christ?

Now, not only have you signaled your disapproval of what all the
primates agreed to at Lambeth Palace, you proceeded to be the chief
consecrator at the act which has devastated the Anglican Communion and
disrupted centuries of common witness and ministry. Circumstances could
not be more clear that it has happened.

The false "gospel" you are promoting by your actions is not saving
anyone, but it is an illusion. Calling "sin" "righteousness" does not
make it so. It is leading people away form Christ. I can think of no
greater betrayal for a Bishop or an Archbishop. In charity and
heartbreak, I call you to repent. Until that time, you have broken our
fellowship. To sit with you and meet with you would be a lie. We are
not one. We do not share the same faith or Gospel. You should resign
and let someone else lead; someone who shares the faith of the
Communion-the faith of the church catholic.

Despite this pain, the Bible is clear that there is welcome for the
repentant. There is forgiveness for those who turn to the Lord. Nothing
would give me greater joy than to see you restored. For now, you must
know that that you have separated yourself from the great majority of
Anglicans (and other Christians as well).

The Holy Spirit is not "doing different things in different parts of
the world." He is doing the same thing everywhere: exalting Jesus
Christ and bringing people to Him. Come to the Lord and bring your
friends. You don't have to stay away, there is room in His arms for
everyone who comes to Him.

Yours in Christ,

The Most Rev. Bernard Amos Malango
Archbishop and Primate of Central Africa

Cc: the Most Revd. Rowan Williams

Posted 5:35 PM by kendall
More from David Steinmetz

The international bad news never seems to stop for the Episcopal Church since its ordination of a gay bishop on Nov. 2 in New Hampshire. On Nov. 29 the Anglican Communion News Service released a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury from the American Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, resigning both his seat on the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission and his post as co-chair. The ARCIC was founded by Anglican Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI to discuss issues that prevent the reunion of Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church, not least among them the validity of Anglican orders. By ordaining a bishop who was both divorced and gay, Presiding Bishop Griswold and the bishops who assisted him have managed to trample roughshod on the theological sensibilities of Roman Catholics.

The Vatican, which has clearly had enough, will suspend further meetings with Anglicans after the end of the final session of the ARCIC in the new year. The final session was rescued at the last minute from a Vatican boycott by Griswold's sudden resignation. His abrupt departure under pressure went largely unmourned by the Anglican archbishops from the Third World, who like the Roman Catholic members of the ARCIC are increasingly unwilling to share a platform with him.

Posted 2:52 PM by kendall
Ashley Null: Understanding the Contemporary Episcopal Church

On 2 November 2003, the Most Revd Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop and
Primate of the Episcopal Church USA, led the consecration of the Revd Canon
V. Gene Robinson to be Bishop Coadjutor for the Diocese of New Hampshire.
Despite taking place in only one of the smaller dioceses in one of the
smaller provinces of the Anglican Communion (in terms of membership, at
least), the event was the focus of major international news coverage. For
amongst Canon Robinson's presenters were his former wife, their daughter and
his long-time male companion with whom he has an openly on-going sexual
relationship.

Although the October 16th statement of the Anglican Primates warned that
proceeding with a consecration in such circumstances would threaten to rend
asunder the Anglican Communion at its deepest level, Bishop Griswold
followed the Episcopal prayer book and charged Canon Robinson to 'guard the
faith, unity, and discipline of the Church'. Although the Primates'
statement also affirmed the determination of the 1998 Lambeth Conference
that homosexual relations were incompatible with Scripture, Griswold also
prayed that Robinson would 'in all things ... present before [God] the
acceptable offering of a pure, and gentle, and holy life'. How could the
leadership of the American branch of Anglicanism defy in good conscience the
collegiality of the rest of the Communion and see no contradiction between
the words of their prayer book and their actions in praying them for Gene
Robinson?

Perhaps a good place to begin to answer such a difficult question lies in
that very same prayer book service. For the modern American rite asks, 'Will
you boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening the
minds and stirring up the conscience of your people?' This simple question
has all the hallmarks of the modern Episcopal ethos: (i) a reliance on the
bishop for establishing Truth rather than the Bible; (ii) the decisive role
of human willpower in the Christian life rather than divine grace; (iii) an
orientation towards contemporary society rather than the eschatological
reality of the age to come; and (iv) an emphasis on the church as an agent
for encouraging a proper experience of God rather than as the means for
handing on the faith once received. Let's examine each of these
characteristics in turn.

Historical Background to the Consecration

1. The Bishop instead of the Bible. For Thomas Cranmer, the chief
architect of independent Anglicanism's founding formularies, the key
theological issue of his day was quite simple. The Roman church erroneously
believed that its bishops had the divinely given authority to establish
traditions, even in matters of faith and morals, and these decisions were
esteemed to be equally as inspired by God as the Bible. According to
Cranmer and his fellow English Reformers, however, the authority of Holy
Scripture in matters of soteriology was unique, full and final. For its
divine inspiration was so thorough 'that whatsoever truth is necessary to be
taught for our salvation, or the contrary to be reproved, whatsoever is
necessary for us to do, and what to forbear and not to do, all is completely
contained in the Scripture, so that a man thereby may be perfectly
instructed unto all manner of goodness'. The Roman curia's failure to
acknowledge the singular authority of Scripture was the cause of its
erroneous teachings on salvation and was one of the chief theological
reasons for the English church's permanent breaking of communion with the
pope and his bishops.

Of course, later Anglican tradition would come to emphasis the supporting
role of patristic tradition and illumined reason in applying the witness of
Scripture to areas beyond faith and morals. Nevertheless, in matters of
salvation the fundamental reliability of the Bible's plain sense was not
seriously questioned until the growing acceptance of critical biblical
scholarship in Anglican circles from the late Nineteenth Century. This
movement emphasises the Scriptures as humanity's attempt to understand the
divine. Naturally, then, the authors' ideas are considered to be thoroughly
conditioned by the assumptions and concerns of the historical epochs during
which they were written. As a result, in a textbook on Anglicanism widely
used today, an influential Episcopal New Testament scholar writes:

"Paul's doctrinal conclusions are inevitably coloured and limited by the
world-view of his time. The Bible as norm can no longer be thought of as
prescribing to us a ready-made theology for our own day and age. What the
Bible offers by way of norm is a model of procedure, whereby we too in our
own day and age can move from the fundamental message or kerygma to our own
problems and questions."

Of course, once the Bible offers the church only an investigative procedure
rather than eternal principles, someone has to be vested with the authority
to do the interpretation. Returning to the very medieval precedent
renounced by the English Reformers, the Episcopal Church has come to rely on
the divine inspiration of its leadership councils to define the nature of
salvation. Hence, a modern Episcopal bishop is charged with not only
proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, but interpreting it as well.

2. Outward moralism rather than inner transformation. By the latter half
of the Nineteenth Century, the Episcopal Church had representatives of low,
high and broad Anglican churchmanship. The Evangelicals emphasised the
necessity of personal conversion through biblical faith. The Anglo-Catholics
stressed on-going spiritual regeneration and strengthening through the
traditional seven sacraments. And the philosophical intellectuals placed
their trust in reason, education, basic human goodness and its willpower.
Despite such significant divergence, the Episcopal Church was still heir to
both the English and American traditions of religion as the inculcator of
the morals necessary for a healthy society. Consequently, the three parties
found it easier to unite around a common understanding of the moral
behaviour expected of a Christian, than on the theological means which
brought this about. Gradually, however, the "can-do" mentality of American
culture left its mark on the Episcopal Church, so that its prayer book's
commitment to the Augustinian understanding of the bondage of the will
vanished from view. Instead, morality came to be seen by most Episcopalians
as primarily a matter of individual willpower, rather than an on-going gift
of transforming divine grace. Hence, a modern Episcopal bishop is charged
with enlightening the minds of the people, since the church believes that
once human beings know what is right, they have the ability to act
accordingly.

3. Current Culture over Coming Judgment. Undoubtedly, due in large part to
Cranmer's liturgical tradition, this common Episcopal emphasis on morality
normally had an eschatological referent, i.e., doing one's duty to God and
neighbour as preparation for a personal Day of Judgement before the Almighty
at the time of death. However, the revolutionary social forces unleashed in
American culture following the Second World War left their mark once again
on the Episcopal Church. The immense material prosperity ushered in by the
American victory created unprecedented opportunities for career advancement,
coupled with, however, equally demanding expectations for strict conformity
to the high standards of personal discipline and social conventions which
had sustained America through the two previous extremely difficult decades
of economic depression and global warfare. As the de facto establishment
church of American society, Episcopal congregations prospered by continuing
to encourage people to use their willpower to adhere to the accepted
morality of the period.

Money and self-restraint rarely go together, however, and in the 1960s a new
generation rebelled against both. Their innate sense of moral superiority
to the conformist materialism of their parents and grandparents was only
strengthened by the fact that their elders had insisted on a rigorous
personal code of behaviour that, at the very least, failed to see the
inherent evil of segregation and of the Vietnam War, not to mention often
sought to justify them. This new generation found meaning and purpose in
fighting for civil rights and against the American involvement in Vietnam.
Their eventual success on both counts convinced them that the purpose of
morality was to improve the social condition of fellow human beings now, not
to restrain sexual expression out of concern for a future judgement.

Of course, the Episcopal Church was not far behind. Many student activists
chose to become priests as a way to continue to work for a better society.
They accepted the double challenge of first changing the church to meet
their expectations, so they could then use the changed church to change
society. Once again, they were not disappointed. The revision of the
American prayer book in the 1970s radically refocused the liturgy away from
future judgement to present joy, from divine justice through Christ's
atonement to social justice through human activity. There should be little
wonder, then, that a modern Episcopal bishop is asked to stir up the
conscience of the people, since a good social conscience is the basis of
contemporary Episcopal morality.

4. Experience instead of Truth. The sixties student activists had learned
that ideas could be very destructive. Politicians had promoted capitalism in
the name of patriotism and sent a generation of young men to their death in
Southeast Asia as a result. Conservative pastors had argued that biblical
Christianity had no role in politics, thereby leaving racism's moral
authority for societal institutions unchallenged for decades. Like Friedrich
Schleiermacher's cultured despisers, those who became Episcopal clergy
considered themselves to be educated, but they used their learning to
justify their rejection of the intellectual framework of the church's
received teachings. If traditional ideas resulted in division and death,
the church must embrace a totally new way of thinking.

Following in Schleiermacher's footsteps, this new generation of clergy began
to emphasise Christianity as primarily an experience of unbroken
connectedness to all things and all people. Ideas were only secondary,
inadequate attempts to express the truth of humanity's inherent oneness with
everything else. That was why there were so many different ideas about God.
Since every propositional statement about divine things was imperfect,
exalting some opinions over others was inevitably inaccurate and only led to
discord in God's name. In short, innate human sinfulness did not bring
about disunity amongst people. The misuse of ideas did, especially
religious ones. Therefore, true Christian unity could not be found through
agreement on received doctrinal positions, but only in experiencing the full
reality of our oneness through the powerful symbolism of sacramental
worship.

Even this hallmark of the contemporary Episcopal ethos is reflected in the
careful language of the modern prayer book's question for a new bishop:
'Will you boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening
the minds and stirring up the conscience of your people?' Notice that
'minds' is plural, but 'conscience' is singular. Christian people do not
share a common mind, but they do share something deeper, something beyond
words-a common, instinctive, inner feeling of the rightness of everything
being connected to everything else. In order to stir up this communal
consciousness, the current leadership of the Episcopal Church believes that
the role of the congregation is to proclaim the deep unity of all things in
its preaching, model this unity in its membership, experience this unity in
its worship and work for this unity in the world at large.

Contemporary Consequences

Like a perfect storm, all these factors have coalesced in the recent
consecration of Canon Robinson. The legislative leadership of the Episcopal
Church, including a majority of the House of Bishops, believes that they
have been called and, therefore, inspired by the Holy Spirit to establish
the guidelines by which the Bible is to be interpreted. And in keeping with
their commitment to religious truth as an experience of the inherent oneness
of all things, they have selected those biblical texts which talk about the
inclusion of outcasts as the true definition of the Gospel of Christ. All
other parts of Scripture are either interpreted so as to support this
explanation of Christianity or rejected as no longer being applicable in
our day.

Because of this selective biblical hermeneutic, homosexual practice is not
automatically ruled out as wrong as in many other Anglican provinces. The
question, then, is two-fold. Firstly, are homosexuals a disadvantaged group
who experience life as outcasts from the church community? Secondly, if
they are excluded, is this due to their own moral failing or merely to
ancient prejudice previously privileged by outdated biblical prooftexting?

To the first question, the Episcopal leadership has decided that the
church's traditional approach to homosexuals does indeed leave them
disadvantaged. In keeping with a sixties understanding of sexual activity as
an essential component to personal identity, they believe that welcoming
homosexuals, but encouraging them to remain celibate, is to demand an
unspeakably high sacrifice of them that is not asked of heterosexuals. The
only other question, then, is whether there is some inherent moral evil in
homosexuality that would justify denying homosexuals the same church
blessing on the expression of their essential personhood as heterosexuals
have always received.

Since morality in the Episcopal Church has long been based on the notion of
choice, in the past the church condemned homosexuality because it was
assumed that those who engaged in such practices freely chose to rebel
against God's will as clearly defined in the Bible's commandments. But the
post-sixties homosexual advocacy groups have argued tenaciously that
homosexuals experience their inclinations as inborn and unchangeable. Since
arguments from personal experience are more persuasive in their theological
reflections than received doctrines, the current Episcopal leadership has
accepted as fact that homosexuals have no choice in their sexual desires.
And if homosexuality is not a matter of choice, it cannot be immoral.
Therefore, the church must not only welcome homosexuals but also bless their
partnerships.

The Episcopal Church's advocacy for supporting homosexual relationships
achieves two distinct goals. On the one hand, the acknowledged presence of
homosexual couples receiving communion alongside heterosexual couples
strengthens the sacramental community's visible witness to the underlying
unity of all the different parts of God's creation. On the other hand, once
again the church has a powerful opportunity to prove itself culturally
relevant. As they did by starting to fight racism in the 1960s and sexism
in the 1970s, Episcopalians feel they can help make society better by adding
their support to another long-marginalised minority.

Of course, homosexuals are not the only group in American society to benefit
from this relaxation of traditional morality. It should be noted that an
unspoken corollary to setting aside the biblical teaching on homosexuality
in the name of inclusion is that Scripture's call for heterosexuals to be
celibate outside of marriage and monogamous within need not necessarily
apply as well. Thus, by addressing the perceived needs of homosexuals, the
Episcopal Church has also made it possible to justify a heterosexual ethic
which is much more in keeping with contemporary American culture. Such a
development should surprise no one who knows either the history of the
Episcopal Church or the devices and desires of the human heart.

--The Rev. Dr. Ashley Null is a priest of the diocese of Western Kanas researching in Germany. This article is the scholarly version of an article appearing in The Briefing, a monthly based in Sydney, Australia, and is reproduced by permission. For more information on this publicaiton, go to www.matthiasmedia.com.auk/briefing

Posted 6:26 PM by kendall
Michael Howell writes the President of the Episcopal House of Deputies

Dear Dean Werner:

Peace and grace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ.

I have had a chance to read and reflect on your recent letter and would like to offer my thoughts. I do not doubt the good intentions of the letter and appreciate your taking time to share your thoughts.

However, in the spirit of truth and agape, I must state that our current crisis is not going to be solved by superficial statements regarding love, unity or proclaiming the Gospel. Over the past few months, we have been exposed to numerous articles, letters and interviews, where these matters have been mentioned without any explanation regarding what they mean. I suspect there is a reason for this, as an in-depth explanation would expose the fact that there indeed are only two choices: the faithful position that embraces the truth and leads to everlasting life, or the path of sin and certain death.

Your letter ends with 1 Corinthians 13 regarding the greatness of love. We must remember that this great love that Paul writes about is nothing less than true agape. First and foremost, we must recall that agape is inextricably linked with righteousness (like the two sides of a coin), and never leads anyone astray from the path of truth and life. Indeed, our Lord has told us that the only way to truly love Him, is to keep His commandments. As the late William Barclay stated, agape is far more than "being nice" or popular and always places what is in person's highest good first and foremost, at all times and all places. It offers kindness and compassion when appropriate, but also demands the courage to stand against that which is evil and immoral, by judging right from wrong and rebuking those who refuse to accept truth. You need only look at Matthew 18:15-17 to see how painfully demanding agape can be when dealing with one's neighbor.

Those who attempt to embrace sin as righteousness, or who deliberately lead others astray indeed have committed the sin of not loving God or their neighbors.

You also mentioned that more people are needed to bring the word and example of Christ's "Good News". I challenge anyone who makes this statement to explain what that means. The "Good News" has always been the proclamation that salvation has come to sinners through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the one and only Christ, who is THE way, THE truth and THE life. All who wish to receive this act of God's grace may freely do so, beginning with REPENTANCE....let me repeat that word again....REPENTANCE and then transformation into the new creation that God expects us to be through the actions of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is this better stated than in Romans where Paul declares the reality of baptism:

Verses: 3-4: "Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him and through baptism into death in order that we just as Christ was raised from the dead, through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." Verses 6-7: "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin, because anyone who has died has been freed from sin."

Any claim to unity through baptism is meaningless unless it is accompanied by an understanding of what it means to be baptized. Any attempts to affirm one's sin, is an obstacle for transformation and represents nothing less than rejection of one's baptism and nothing short of a full denial of the cross' saving power.

The Church must welcome all sinners, not for self-affirmation, but rather for repentance and transformation, which is the reality of our baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ. Anyone who affirms sin as righteousness, cannot proclaim the "Good News". Any church that affirms sin, does not and cannot proclaim the "Good News" to anyone.

Only when we are willing to take an honest look at what is going on (e.g., human sexuality, sin, and scriptural authority) will we be able to move into any kind of true spirit of unity in the ONE truth that exists to unite us all. Until then, we will have no unity or any common mission that will bring people to Jesus.

Faithfully,

--Dr. Michael Howell is a geologist and was an alternate to the General Convention in Minneapolis

Posted 6:22 PM by kendall
Christopher Ashley offers his Thoughts

In the past two weeks, one of the great engines of globalization has been sputtering badly, and almost nobody has noticed. The consecration of openly gay Gene Robinson as an Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire has drawn plenty of attention, as has the resulting uproar in other Anglican churches. Most observers have noted its place in the global politics of homosexuality, contrasting a liberal West with a traditional South, and moved on. This analysis fails to describe the implications of a split in the Anglican world. If missionary churches cannot remain in communion, then the world has become much less connected than it used to be.

Posted 3:55 PM by kendall
Sad Situation in Puerto Rico

Three priests of the Diocese of Puerto Rico have lost their canonical licenses for participating in a panel discussion at the University of Puerto Rico, whey they upheld the Church’s traditional teaching on sexuality. The Rt Rev.David Álvarez, Bishop of Puerto Rico, revoked the licenses of the Rev. Dennis París, the Rev. Manuel A. Rivera and the Rev. Pedro Balleste on Friday, Oct 24. They were also forbidden from participating in the diocesan convention scheduled for the next day. A candidate for Standing Committee, Fr. París’ name was struck from the ballot as being ineligible for election.

A spokesman for the diocese, the Rev José F. Ríos told The Living Church that the priests “were not suspended because of their opposition to the actions of General Convention or the Bishop's vote” to consent to the New Hampshire election of a sexually active homosexual person as bishop.

Following General Convention, the diocese of Puerto Rico initiated a series of dialogues. “In a clergy meeting with the Bishop, Fr. París and others were authorized to write their position pro and con of the consent, for study and reflection, but all materials and discussion would remain in an internal diocesan process” Fr Ríos said.

Fr. París was disciplined, Fr. Ríos explained, for making his writing available for sale to the public and then participating in a public conference on the topic at the University of Puerto Rico, “even though the Bishop had advised him not to do it in writing and personally.”

In his letter of Oct 24 to the three clergy, Bishop Álvarez cites the Prayer Book rubric that asks a priest to affirm that he will “respect and be guided by the pastoral direction and leadership of your bishop” as justification for stripping the clergy of their licenses. No presentment or other ecclesiastical disciplinary hearing has been held nor are any now scheduled.

A professor at the University of Puerto Rico specializing in Family Counseling and Human Sexuality studies, Dr París denies that any agreement was reached that called for the clergy to be silent. “I have been a university professor for twenty years and am a published author. Under these circumstances, I would never have agreed to have my position censored and much less would have agreed to a gag order from the bishop.”

--The Living Church

Posted 5:07 PM by kendall
Rome and the East get closer?

This is a little noticed story, while Rome and the Orthodox are further distancing themselves from Anglicanism they are drawing closer to each other.

From Zenit:

Bilateral contacts between Rome and the Orthodox Churches have developed rapidly "in a very positive sense" this year, says a Vatican official.

Bishop Brian Farrell, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, made that assessment in an interview with Vatican Radio. The occasion was today's feast of St. Andrew the Apostle, patron of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The patriarchate, said Bishop Farrell, is the Holy See's point of reference in the effort to "continue with the formal theological dialogue, but especially in the work to give value to all the bilateral contacts we have with the Orthodox Churches, which this year have developed rapidly in a very positive sense."

Posted 3:39 PM by kendall
Ralph Wood on a key Advent Theme

Christian hope concerns precisely a radical change that breaks the cycle of the world's endless turning. It takes the natural human aspiration to happiness and reorders it to the kingdom of heaven. Such hope is not a general optimism about the nature of things, nor a forward-looking confidence that all will eventually be well. Instead, it is hope in a future that God alone can and will provide.

Such a distinctively Christian hope is not an explicit part of the Lord of the Rings, yet all members of the Fellowship of the Ring stake their lives on a future realization of the Good beyond the bounds of the world. Their devotion to their quest does not depend upon any sort of certainty concerning its success. They are called to be faithful rather than victorious. Often the fellowship finds its profoundest hope when the prospects seem bleakest.

Posted 3:35 PM by kendall
A creative English Vicar

From the most recent Church Times:

A YORKSHIRE vicar has contributed to a new book of sermons based on the songs of pop group U2. The Revd Derek Walmsley, Vicar of St Mark’s, Utley, is one of the contributors to the new fundraising publication Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 catalogue.

Mr Walmsley’s sermon is based on the song “Playboy Mansion”. A fan of the band, he said this week that he had spotted an advert asking for contributions on a U2 website. “I sent this in, based on a weekend I ran called ‘The Gospel According to U2’ at Scargill House. I was surprised when I heard it was being used.”

He said that the song “was a clever comparison of the way people might seek success in the secular world with the way we get into heaven”; U2’s lyrics were soaked in spiritual imagery, he said.

The band is not involved, although its publishers have given permission for the lyrics to be used. All royalties will go to TASO, an African AIDS charity. The book goes on sale in America next week through Cowley Publications. It will be in European bookshops from January.

Posted 8:02 AM by kendall
Massachusetts Roman Catholic Leaders Speak Out

MASSACHUSETTS CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
BISHOPS’ STATEMENT

DATE: To Be Read At All Weekend Masses November 29-30, 2003


The recent ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which radically redefines marriage is a national tragedy. By their action the justices who
have decreed this have set the stage to erode even further the institution of marriage as a human reality which the State should protect and strengthen for the good of society.

We hope that all citizens will come to recognize what is at stake and work to ensure that marriage as the fundamental institution of society will be safeguarded.
The misguided decision has also served to promote divisions in society by villainizing as bigotry the legitimate defense of thousands of years of tradition.

It is not the intention of the Catholic community to infringe on the civil rights of homosexuals or anyone else. Our opposition to a redefinition of marriage is to
safeguard the institution of marriage for future generations. Marriage is a gift of God which in its natural order allows for the growth of the human family and society. It is not just one life-style choice among many. The generations to come are the ones whose rights are being violated by the Court. Changing the definition of marriage in the long run will seriously harm family life.

The deleterious effects of the court’s ruling are compounded by the directive to implement its decision in 180 days. This time frame is a sure formula for chaos. It denies the citizens of Massachusetts any real opportunity to respond reasonably. Every effort must be made to extend the stay beyond the 180 days mandated by the court.

Ultimately, we advocate a constitutional amendment that reaffirms marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Thirty-seven states have already enacted legislation to protect the definition of marriage. We ask everyone to contact the Governor and their state legislators to urge them to find a way to give our citizens more time to deal with this issue.

In the coming weeks, our diocesan newspapers, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference through its website and MCC-Net alerts, and your church bulletins will provide more information about the ways you can help. It is vital to stay informed.

This is a serious challenge that confronts us. Thank you for listening and may God continue to bless you.

The Archbishop, Archdiocese of Boston

The Archbishop, Diocese of Worcester

The Bishop, Diocese of Springfield and the

Bishop, Diocese of Fall River

Posted 5:06 AM by kendall
A Layman Writes to Bishop Lee

Dear Bishop Lee,

I find it very difficult to know how both to be charitable and
respectful and, at the same time, to be forthright and clear on an
urgent matter. I have in mind God's great love for you, and my own
duty and desire to show you love and respect even in this. I ask
your forbearance if, in attempting both charity and clarity, I err in
favor of clarity.

You have failed--despite the urging of others, and despite ample time
for deliberation--to fulfill your duty, as a bishop in the Church of
Jesus Christ, to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who
contradict (Titus 1:9). I refer to the subject of sexual purity, so
important to the integrity of the human person (1 Cor. 6:18), so
critical to the proper functioning and self-definition of the Church
(1 Cor. 5), and so challenging in our culture where sex is so widely
perverted and degraded. You know well both the general Biblical
truth that God ordained sex solely for heterosexual, monogamous
marriage, and the specific passages showing God's condemnation of
homosexual acts (Gen. 18:20, 19:4-7; Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27;
1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; 2 Peter 2:6-8; Jude 7). Yet on this
critical subject, you voted at the ECUSA's General Convention to
endorse those who contradict the Word of God, as revealed in the Holy
Scriptures.

In the past, you have explained this vote by reference to the
supposed autonomy of the diocese of New Hampshire. However, the
Church is a body; no one sins to himself; New Hampshire has a duty to
all of us to do right; and its sins are an infection in the larger
body, the Body of Christ. Jesus is the Lord of all the Church and of
all the world; and all ecclesiastical authority--indeed, all
authority of any kind--is derived from Him and must be devoted to His
will. Your reliance on "autonomy" reflected an abdication of your
duty, as a shepherd of the Church under that Great Shepherd, to
refute those who contradict sound doctrine.

Moreover, you yourself have affirmatively taught unsound doctrine, in
your recent column in the October diocesan newsletter ("Honoring
Disagreement, Staying in Community"). You now further explain your
vote not just by invoking "autonomy" but by affirmatively defending
the licitness of homosexual behavior and the rightness of an
unrepentant homosexual being named a bishop: You justify your vote
by asserting that "the Gospel is ever-increasing in its power to
erase the barriers that we humans erect among ourselves", that the
theology of the New Testament is "based more on grace than on law",
and that voting to approve a homosexual bishop was a choice of "hope
for God's grace versus fear of change". You have thus taught your
people that disapproval of homosexual behavior is not a God-given
principle but is a human-erected "barrier"; that approval of
homosexual behavior is not disobedience but a reflection of
divine "grace"; and that resistance to revisionism on this matter
reflects not the fear of the Lord but a mere "fear of change".

These errors are very grave. You have treated the Word of God as if
it were a human thing, subject to our correction--but it is not:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but God's Word shall not pass
away. (Matt. 24:35.) You have explicitly turned the grace of God
into an occasion for sin, encouraging people to presume on God's
grace even as they violate His express commands. You have called
evil good, and good evil. You have done a deadly disservice to the
many of us within your diocese who are tempted with sexual sin. This
is false teaching; and, if you persist in it, then, sadly, you are
the false teacher.

While preserving unity is surely within a bishop's responsibility,
the emphatic admonition of the New Testament is that the bishop is to
be the guardian, proponent, and champion of apostolic truth. (Acts
20:28-31; 2 Tim. 1:13, 2:2.) Teaching the truth provides the
occasion and basis for true Christian unity. Attempting, instead, to
preserve unity by downplaying or disregarding truth turns the
bishop's duty on its head. Any "unity" that is achieved other than
on the basis of truth is simply not Christian unity; and the
resulting "community" is not the Church but is some non-Christian
thing. Disregarding the clear and consistent teaching voice of the
one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is an act against unity,
not a means of achieving it. You are thus, in fact, un-churching the
Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.

I am sure you know the prescribed consequence, given in the New
Testament, if you are a false teacher: The faithful would then be
warned not to welcome you, lest they "share in [your] wicked work" (2
John 10-11). The Apostles' instruction to us would be, instead, to
avoid you, to turn away from you, to reject you, and to remove you.
If you should persist in this error, then to the extent it is in my
power, I would attempt to follow this apostolic instruction. I am
sorry it has come to this.

The express invitation of Jesus, to those who have taught the false
doctrine of sexual immorality, is: "Repent." (Rev. 2:14-16.) I
devoutly hope you will repent. Those who have caused His little ones
to stumble face a dire condemnation. (Matt. 18:6.) At the last day,
when we all stand before the final Judge, you will give an account of
your ministry. (Heb. 13:17.) I pray that, on that terrible day, you
and I may both find mercy.

Sincerely yours,

--A Virginia Layman

Posted 4:56 AM by kendall
Comments from Richard John Neuhaus

Many people responded with incredulity to the Episcopal Church’s approval of same-sex blessings and, perhaps even more strongly, to the approval as bishop of a man who left his wife and children and later took up with a male partner. What on earth did the Episcopalians think they were doing? That question is answered, in part, by a letter that Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold wrote to the Episcopal clergy of the U.S. and the thirty-seven primates of the world-wide Anglican Communion. Griswold wrote: "I will say here that regardless of one’s point of view of the outcome on various votes, General Convention was almost universally perceived to be a well-ordered and caring community with sensitivity to the feelings of others and with mutual respect. This was noted many times in the media and I believe was a witness to the world." The Presiding Bishop then proposed a distinctively, maybe exclusively, Anglican ecclesiology: "One of the great gifts we share as members of the Episcopal Church is that our life is configured in webs of relationship: congregations are bound into dioceses, dioceses are joined together in provinces and then the national church, and the Episcopal Church is then linked with other self-governing churches to form the Anglican Communion. And Communion, in its various forms, is nothing less than our participation in the Trinitarian life of God." Whereas in the past Scripture and tradition, as, for instance, in the Thirty-nine Articles, were viewed as normative, Griswold offers a developed understanding of the discernment of truth: "I find it illuminating to think of these webs of relationship which constitute our lives as being force-fields of energy in which our various perspectives and ways of embodying the gospel constantly interact--challenging and enlarging one another and thereby more fully revealing God’s truth. Difference, and the capacity to welcome otherness, are essential to the vitality of these various force-fields. And the energy which gives them life is love. This is my understanding of what it means to be the body of Christ." While Anglican provinces that threaten to break fellowship with the Episcopal Church USA contend that the Word of God as interpreted in the Great Tradition cannot be replaced by "force-fields of energy," Bishop Griswold appeals to what he sees as a fuller understanding of revealed truth. "It is in that fullness that seemingly irreconcilable points of view can address one another in love and receive one another’s truth," he writes. Those who believe that homogenital acts are in accord with God’s will and those who believe that they are contrary to God’s will can receive one another’s truth, even though the Episcopal Church USA affirms the truth of the former position and rejects the truth of the latter, so long as Episcopalians maintain "a well-ordered and caring community with sensitivity to the feelings of others and with mutual respect." It is hoped that the Presiding Bishop’s letter will clarify what Episcopalians think they are doing.

--The Public Square, First Things, p.77

Posted 6:17 PM by kendall
Anglo-Catholic Agony

On Leaving the Episcopal Church

For my Evangelical brothers, the notion of shaking the dust of one's feet and heading out the door is a heroic tradition that asks not "if" but rather "when." For those of us in the Episcopal Church whose faith is formed within the catholic tradition — the vision of heading out of the church imagining ourselves on the way to the promised land is a bit hard to conjure.

We take seriously Christ's ecumenical imperative that we all be one. In the lives of St. Francis, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Benedict, St. Dominic and many more, we recognize that the Church experienced many life giving reforms before the tragic shipwreck of the Reformation. Would Catherine of Siena have been more virtuous to leave the Roman Church?

Admittedly, Anglo-Catholics appear to be at a disadvantage in this struggle. Evangelicals can divide and call it virtue. Revisionists can sieze the reigns of power and call it prophetic. Anglo-Catholics are fearful of contributing further to the division of Christ's body (removing the Evangelical option), and distrust the tools of power (removing the revisionst strategies). In the end we are left with prayer and the sacraments.

I agree with the liberal critique that many conservatives within the Episcopal Church are social conservatives rather than orthodox Christians. They have been happy to abandon Scripture and Tradition on issues such as divorce and are only now being fussy because of personal prejudice. However, for those of us for who genuinely adhere to the faith and tradition as we have received, them a quick swim across the Bosporus or the Tiber will not solve our problems.

As any "orthodox" minded Christian knows, the divisions between the apostolic churches are meaningful and cannot be overcome as a mere reaction to a local heresy. Thankfully the Anglican Communion is bigger than the heresy of the Episcopal Church. I guess the question for me is WWCoSD?

Posted 4:59 PM by kendall
How One Minister is Responding to the Crisis

Posted 2:14 PM by kendall
Notable and Quotable

In his famous book The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis described the elevation of self-fulfillment in similar terms. Lewis observed that for both Christian and classical culture, the principle moral task was “how to subdue the soul to reality”—that is, how do we train our souls to fit in with the order of things in the universe. Social and cultural institutions in traditional societies were generally organized around this task. But the modern project, Lewis warns, turns that older and wiser goal on its head. The chief end of modern society is “how to subdue reality to the wishes of men.” Similarly, social and cultural institutions in modern societies have tended to follow the logic of this goal. The idea that divine or natural law should restrain or direct social activity was still widely plausible at the beginning of the twentieth century. But by century’s end, almost all social institutions were committed to encouraging the liberation and fulfillment of desires rather than their restraint.

--Ken Myers, host of the remarkably helpful resource entitled Mars Hill Audio

The quote from C.S. Lewis:

For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality.... For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men.

And here is the fuller version:

For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique: and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious.

--(The Abolition of Man, p. 88).

Posted 11:57 AM by kendall
From the email bag

Dear Dr. Harmon:

First let me commend you on your courage, perseverance and sense of loyalty to an ideal. That vision of Anglicanism, rooted in history, seems to have fallen out of popular favor. Today's American version has evolved into something quite unrecognizable to traditionally minded people, a perversion morphed by the spirit of the times.

My purpose in this small communication is not to preach to the choir. Please forgive any presumption on my part. In fact, not being an Episcopalian, I really have no legitimate axe to grind. However, having observed the denomination's continuing descent for a number of decades, it appears that a "revival" of Evangelical and/or Anglo-Catholic influence is stretching the bounds of optimism. Perhaps it is an attempt to recover something that never really was.

Over the years, issues such as the re-writing of theology, by means of Prayer Book revision and liturgical innovation have paved the way for the encroachment of the secular humanist, post-modern agenda. Gender blurring, through the disestablishment of ancient Christian teachings regarding the the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of Man, the nature of the Church and priesthood, have lead to countless heresies and the official approval of immorality. Beginning with the preaching of tolerance (tolerance is the only virtue in a morally bankrupt society), the writing of a new gospel of diversity and inclusion has replaced the sacred canon of scriptures. As you know and believe, Christianity is not a religion of continuing and progressive revelation; it is a faith based upon the total and complete revelation of God in Jesus Christ. What has evolved is not a more loving and inclusive form of Christianity; it is a new (sort of) religion, made up of the worst parts of some old, very familiar religions. I question in my mind why the purveyors of this earth-based religion still cling tenaciously to the a christian name.

Sadly, there has always been a small group of traditionalists, now labeled non-conformists by the run-away denominational powers that be, who continue to suffer defeat after defeat. With every new push from the Spongish cult, reaction groups form and competing conservative organizations splinter while doing, what appears to be, very little to combat the evils that have been unleashed. In the end, it appears that the Anglican talent for compromise takes center stage, all in the name of not dividing the "church". Even from the outside, it appears that the denomination is in total shambles. The good news is that the Church is not divided and the gates of hell shall not prevail. Please excuse what might seem a harsh criticism to Christian believers within your denomination. It would seem that after repeatedly redrawing the line in the sand, over and over, backing down again and again, it might occur to some that starting another rump church or attempting to recreate the legend of 16th -19th century Anglicanism, is missing the point. Anglicanism has been referred to as an interesting experiment. Does that experiment have vitality today? Does the Anglicanism of past generations even exist today? I am sorry for how harsh that may sound but that very question is on the minds of many. If I were an Episcopalian, I would be thinking about the words of Kinky Friedman, "If the horse is dead, get off."

Again, I am not even sure why I decided to send this email. Perhaps it is because you are a leader, because you are a believer, because you truly care. Please forgive any offense I may have caused; it was not my intention. You are well within your rights to say that none of this is any of my business. You would be correct. I do wish you to know that there are others who empathize with you in your struggle and offer our prayers to God for you and for all who love Him.

-a clergyman from another tradition

Posted 8:23 AM by kendall
Worried about Worship in England

From the London Times:

ANGLICAN services are so dire it is amazing that people manage to keep going to church, the bishop responsible for worship in the Church of England has said. The Bishop of Salisbury, the Right Rev David Stancliffe, claimed that many services were marred by clerical incompetence. “In an age when the standards of public performance are so high, how do worshippers manage to keep on going to church faithfully when the way worship is prepared is often so dire; when it is frequently confused with entertainment and when it is led by those who apparently have no idea about what they are doing or professional competence in doing it?” he asked in his new book God’s Pattern.

Posted 7:52 AM by kendall
More on Griswold's resignation from ARCIC

From today's Telegraph:

Top level unity talks between the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches have collapsed after the consecration of Anglicanism's first openly homosexual bishop.

In a bitter blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the Vatican is preparing to suspend the talks following a final meeting in the New Year.

That meeting was only rescued from a Vatican boycott by the dramatic resignation at the weekend of the senior Anglican participant, Bishop Frank Griswold....

Posted 6:17 AM by kendall
Vicki Oland offers her Thoughts

My heart goes out to those members of the Episcopal church who now face a crisis in faith. How do they find comfort in their faith when that very faith has committed a sin....

Posted 4:33 PM by kendall
Mark Goodman Chimes in

Posted 4:15 PM by kendall
Dallas article on Biblical Interpretation

Debate in the early church was largely about the Torah obligations of Gentiles, said Dr. Markus Bockmuehl, a professor at Cambridge University and the author of Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics.


As Gentile converts began to swell the ranks of the church, early Christian leaders turned to halakhah – Jewish law – as a guide for deciding which Jewish laws the new faith would follow, he said. Gentiles were never prohibited from eating the Bible-era equivalents of ham sandwiches, for instance. And that's one reason the prohibition against pork didn't survive, he said.
Jewish law identified three kinds of Torah commandments that applied to non-Jews as well: those against idolatry, those that defined appropriate sexual behavior and those that generally established the sanctity of life. And the law against homosexuality was included in the definition of appropriate sexual behavior.