Bishops’ ‘Mind of the House’ resolutions
(ENS)
The following resolutions were passed by the House of Bishops March 20 during its annual Spring retreat meeting in Navasota, Texas.
Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Addressed to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church
Resolved, the House of Bishops affirms its desire that The Episcopal Church remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion; and
Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church; and
Resolved, the House of Bishops believes the proposed Pastoral Scheme of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of February 19, 2007 would be injurious to The Episcopal Church and urges that the Executive Council decline to participate in it; and
Resolved, the House of Bishops pledges itself to continue to work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates that are compatible with our own polity and canons.
Adopted March 20, 2007
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Spring Meeting 2007
Camp Allen Conference Center
Navasota, Texas
——————————————————————————–
To the Archbishop of Canterbury and the members of the Primates’ Standing Committee:
We, the Bishops of The Episcopal Church, meeting in Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas, March 16-21, 2007, have considered the requests directed to us by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the Communiqué dated February 19, 2007.
Although we are unable to accept the proposed Pastoral Scheme, we declare our passionate desire to remain in full constituent membership in both the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church.
We believe that there is an urgent need for us to meet face to face with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Primates’ Standing Committee, and we hereby request and urge that such a meeting be negotiated by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the earliest possible opportunity.
We invite the Archbishop and members of the Primates’ Standing Committee to join us at our expense for three days of prayer and conversation regarding these important matters.
Adopted March 20, 2007
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Spring Meeting 2007
Camp Allen Conference Center
Navasota, Texas
——————————————————————————–
A Statement from the House of Bishops – March 20, 2007
We, the Bishops of The Episcopal Church, meeting at Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas, for our regular Spring Meeting, March 16-21, 2007, have received the Communiqué of February 19, 2007 from the Primates of the Anglican Communion meeting at Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. We have met together for prayer, reflection, conversation, and listening during these days and have had the Communiqué much on our minds and hearts, just as we know many in our Church and in other parts of the world have had us on their minds and hearts as we have taken counsel together. We are grateful for the prayers that have surrounded us.
We affirm once again the deep longing of our hearts for The Episcopal Church to continue as a part of the Anglican Communion. We have gone so far as to articulate our self-understanding and unceasing desire for relationships with other Anglicans by memorializing the principle in the Preamble of our Constitution. What is important to us is that The Episcopal Church is a constituent member of a family of Churches, all of whom share a common mother in the Church of England. That membership gives us the great privilege and unique opportunity of sharing in the family’s work of alleviating human suffering in all parts of the world. For those of us who are members of The Episcopal Church, we are aware as never before that our Anglican Communion partners are vital to our very integrity as Christians and our wholeness. The witness of their faith, their generosity, their bravery, and their devotion teach us essential elements of gospel-based living that contribute to our conversion.
We would therefore meet any decision to exclude us from gatherings of all Anglican Churches with great sorrow, but our commitment to our membership in the Anglican Communion as a way to participate in the alleviation of suffering and restoration of God’s creation would remain constant. We have no intention of choosing to withdraw from our commitments, our relationships, or our own recognition of our full communion with the See of Canterbury or any of the other constituent members of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, we will seek to live fully into, and deepen, our relationships with our brothers and sisters in the Communion through companion relationships, the networks of Anglican women, the Anglican Indigenous Network, the Francophone Network, our support for the Anglican Diocese of Cuba, our existing covenant commitments with other provinces and dioceses, including Liberia, Mexico, Central America, Brazil, and the Philippines, our work as The Episcopal Church in many countries around the world, especially in the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and Taiwan, and countless informal relationships for mission around the world.
Since our General Convention of 2003, we have responded in good faith to the requests we have received from our Anglican partners. We accepted the invitation of the Lambeth Commission to send individuals characteristic of the theological breadth of our Church to meet with it. We happily did so. Our Executive Council voluntarily acceded to the request of the Primates for our delegates not to attend the 2005 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham. We took our place as listeners rather than participants as an expression of our love and respect for the sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in the Communion even when we believed we had been misunderstood. We accepted the invitation of the Primates to explain ourselves in a presentation to the same meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. We did so with joy.
At the meeting of our House of Bishops at Camp Allen, Texas in March, 2004 we adopted a proposal called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight as a means for meeting the pastoral needs of those within our Church who disagreed with actions of the General Convention. Our plan received a favorable response in the Windsor Report. It was not accepted by the Primates. At our meeting in March 2005, we adopted a Covenant Statement as an interim response to the Windsor Report in an attempt to assure the rest of the Communion that we were taking them seriously and, at some significant cost, refused to consecrate any additional bishops whatsoever as a way that we could be true to our own convictions without running the risk of consecrating some that would offend our brothers and sisters. Our response was not accepted by the Primates. Our General Convention in 2006 struggled mightily and at great cost to many, not the least of whom are our gay and lesbian members, to respond favorably to the requests made of us in the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Dromantine Communiqué of 2005. We received a favorable response from the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, which found that our effort had substantially met the concerns of the Windsor Report with the need to clarify our position on the blessing of same sex relationships. Still, our efforts were not accepted by the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué.
Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters. We have been repeatedly assured that boundary violations are inappropriate under the most ancient authorities and should cease. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 did so. The Windsor Report did so. The Dromantine Communiqué did so. None of these assurances has been heeded. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention.
It is incumbent upon us as disciples to do our best to follow Jesus in the increasing experience of the leading of the Holy Spirit. We fully understand that others in the Communion believe the same, but we do not believe that Jesus leads us to break our relationships. We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God’s truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision.
With great hope that we will continue to be welcome in the councils of the family of Churches we know as the Anglican Communion, we believe that to participate in the Primates’ Pastoral scheme would be injurious to The Episcopal Church for many reasons.
First, it violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution.
Second, it fundamentally changes the character of the Windsor process and the covenant design process in which we thought all the Anglican Churches were participating together.
Third, it violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life independent of the Church of England.
Fourth, it is a very serious departure from our English Reformation heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century, it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.
Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.
At the same time, we understand that the present situation requires intentional care for those within our Church who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the actions of our General Convention. We pledge ourselves to continue to work with them toward a workable arrangement. In truth, the number of those who seek to divide our Church is small, and our Church is marked by encouraging signs of life and hope. The fact that we have among ourselves, and indeed encourage, a diversity of opinion on issues of sexuality should in no way be misunderstood to mean that we are divided, except among a very few, in our love for The Episcopal Church, the integrity of its identity, and the continuance of its life and ministry.
In anticipation of the traditional renewal of ordination vows in Holy Week we solemnly declare that “we do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and we do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.” (Book of Common Prayer, page 513)
With this affirmation both of our identity as a Church and our affection and commitment to the Anglican Communion, we find new hope that we can turn our attention to the essence of Christ’s own mission in the world, to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to liberate the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:18-19). It is to that mission that we now determinedly turn.
Adopted March 20, 2007
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Spring Meeting 2007
Camp Allen Conference Center
Navasota, Texas
Update: A Living Church article is there.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
How soon do you think it will be before we hear from +Duncan or another reasserting Bishop to tell us who did NOT sign on to/vote for this? ASAP I hope!!
Lord have mercy.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
…Stating that “the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention,”…
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that’s all.’
Not with a bang, but with a petulant, whiney whimper.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
You can cut the arrogance of this with a knife.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
#3, do you think you can get a knife through it?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Something about this just as a read makes me feel saddened and … excluded.
That’s my first read, following an excellent vestry meeting. I’ll study it later.
RGEaton
March 20th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Now what is Rowan going to do?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Anybody else feeling “not included” in The Episcopal Sect?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
At last. Excellent!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
#4, good question!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
“we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God’s truth. ”
This statement is belied by the recent rejection of Mark Lawrence by so many Standing Committees and the voided election due to technicalities.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I do not know if I have ever read a more straightforward declaration of proud sectarianism.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
#2
Stating that “the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention,”…
is very clearly an attempt to try and protect property from an implied trust.
I would like to hear a legal view on its likely success.
(Implied trust — a layperson (non legal) understanding — if you give money to an organisation for the purpose of protecting kitttens, the institution cannot take that money and use it for the purpose of establishing a farm to make kitten-fur coats. The money in other words has to be used to fulfil the purpose for which it was given. Otherwise it can be taken away from you by the courts.
If you give money to an Episcopal Church, the church that uses it must remain Episcopal — and part of the preamble to the constitution defines the Episcopal church by its relationship to the Anglican communion. I think they are worried that alot of dead mens money could walk)
PS I have reposted as I was informed my original went into moderation — I could only find one word that could possibly have got me there so I have changed it for a simile — apologies if it now turns up twice
March 20th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
“we do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation”
as long as we can qualify them in the light of our “context” and our “polity”
March 20th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Please don’t tell me after this read that the ACN is going to continue swearing they will not leave TEC.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
#10. I am convinced that the rejection (for now) of Fr. Lawrence was based on his earlier equivocation about loyalty to the Episcopal Church, not on his belief or opinions on church actions at General Conventions.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Thank you, Margaret, #12, that was a fine and concise summary of TEC’s legalism and its intent. Dave Beers is definitely driving this bobsled these days.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
And if you believe that, #15, I have a bishopric to sell you.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
“With this affirmation both of our identity as a Church and our affection and commitment to the Anglican Communion,”
that is to say - our rules don’t allow your authority in any way shape or form, and we reject your guidance, but we love you anyway, and we are committed to making you see things our way…on our timetable
March 21st, 2007 at 12:00 am
“The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention. ”
Aha - so we could call a special meeting - but we choose not to do so. Because to do so would be to acknowledge that you have authority over us and your deadline really matters. You don’t and it doesn’t.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:04 am
It is not just the Episcopal Church’s rules which don’t allow the instruments of unity to legislated, but the repeated declarations of the instruments of unity themselves. One ought not to assume that the proposed innovations of Windsor are already in place, whatever one thinks about their merits. Even Windsor itself acknowledges this point.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:04 am
“Mind of the House.” “Geh’ doch heraus!”
March 21st, 2007 at 12:13 am
“We have no intention of choosing to withdraw from our commitments, our relationships, or our own recognition of our full communion with the See of Canterbury or any of the other constituent members of the Anglican Communion.”
So we recognize ourselves as being in full communion with the See of Canterbury and the other members of the Anglican Communion, and you have no authority to change that relationship. We are the only ones who can break that relationship. And we will still keep paying what we pay you all, don’t worry none about that.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:13 am
I am convinced that the rejection (for now) of Fr. Lawrence was based on his earlier equivocation about loyalty to the Episcopal Church
Perhaps Mark+’s “equivocation” was based upon his suspicion, now revealed in crystal clarity, that TEC wasn’t willing to be loyal to the Communion.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am
“We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace.”
I found the Gospel of Justice here. Anyone find the Gospel of redemption and salvation? maybe I missed it…
March 21st, 2007 at 12:19 am
As usual, the Piskies tell half the truth. Article VI says, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation [so far, so good]; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. . . .”
The second part contains a “negative pregnant”: that which IS read in Scripture or IS provable thereby, may be required as an article of the Faith. Otherwise, it is a meaningless phrase: that which IS or IS NOTt read in Scripture shall not be required as an article of the Faith. [Actually, this does appear to be the Episcopal position.]
March 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am
I believe that our Bishops feel that they are doing the work God has given them (and our branch of Christ’s Catholic Church) to do, and they are being faithful to it. I and a large number of Episcopalians agree with them.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:25 am
26..”our Bishops feel”
There is the problem. Feelings are subjective and deceitful. Their feelings out trump truth.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:26 am
Diversity of thought, indeed. Tow the homosexual line or “The Episcopal Church Doesn’t Welcome You.” Diversity of thought? Just four days after rejecting Mark Lawrence for ideological reasons. What hypocrisy!
Anglican seeking Truth, you and KJS will now see “really a tiny minority of noisy” dissenters raise a stink.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:26 am
The “bishops” don’t know who God is. And I don’t think they care very much.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:27 am
Okay. I believe that our Bishop believe from the bottom of their hearts that they are doing, etc.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:28 am
So, TEC tosses out more lies and mindless arguments. They reject the Communique; they choose to walk apart officially.
To the Christians who remain in TEC: Pray hard. Who will protect us from the wolves and heretics of TEC? Pray that Rowan, and the Primates, have a good plan in place for us.
#26: “I believe that our Bishops feel that they are doing the work God has given them (and our branch of Christ’s Catholic Church) to do, and they are being faithful to it. I and a large number of Episcopalians agree with them.”
With all due respect, that wasn’t the question put forth to you all. You have chosen to reject the Communique, therefore, you choose to walk apart.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:30 am
JM [#25], your negative-pregnant logic is erroneous, and also you’re missing the historical context of Article VI. Remember that the Reformation was rejecting various Roman theological “innovations” on grounds that the innovations were not scriptural; Article VI merely codifies this. It’s fair to read the article as implying that all things contained in Scripture that are necessary to salvation must be believed, but we’re still left with the problem of identifying those things. Nothing in the article says that all things read in Scripture must be believed.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:32 am
What kills me the most is when the TEC attempts to bolster their argument by appealing to Lambeth conferences past and to “the most ancient authorities” when these things are exactly what they snub by ordaining women, blessing same sex relationships, allowing divorce and contraception, etc. What about Lambeth 1920 or 1930? What about what the “most ancient authorities” say on these issues? It is hypocritical to the Nth degree when these innovators invoke protection under Lambeth.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:34 am
Without the authority of scripture, “God’s work” is subjective. Christ is not divided, and He will not contradict his word as revealed in scripture. They are in error because they “do not believe the scriptures or the power of God.”
March 21st, 2007 at 12:40 am
That’s torn it…
March 21st, 2007 at 12:45 am
Who would have thought that the HOB could have spoken with such clarity. Now, will the ABC come to visit or snub the request.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:50 am
TEcUSA knows the legal implications of being out of Communion with the Anglican Communion hence this very carefully worded statement:
“We have no intention of choosing to withdraw from our commitments, our relationships, or our own recognition of our full communion with the See of Canterbury or any of the other constituent members of the Anglican Communion.”
TEcUSA hopes to cling on to a relationship with the See of Canterbury, hoping that this carefully crafted position may help in the legal battles now and in the future. I doubt if this will fly. Canterbury is not stupid. The US courts and the lawyers for the departing parishes are not stupid either. By this official response to the Primates’ Communiqué, TEcUSA is in for a tougher legal battle with the departing parishes. It isn’t going to be easy for Mr. Beers et al.
Let us commit to more serious prayers this Lenten Season. The miracle of Dar es Salaam is still fresh in our mind. I am convinced God is going to pleasantly surprise us again.
Keep the faith, brothers and sisters.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:01 am
smart. Very smart. Hits colonialism. Hits spirituality. admonishes the papal tendencies. Quotes the prayer book. Sounds earnest. this is good.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:08 am
This reads as if some in the HoB just want to see if the A of C can be bought. Possibly the NYT article yesterday was a prelude to such a move?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:19 am
#37
“Let us commit to more serious prayers this Lenten Season. The miracle of Dar es Salaam is still fresh in our mind. I am convinced God is going to pleasantly surprise us again.
Keep the faith, brothers and sisters. ”
Thank you for that, Spiro. Amen.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:23 am
Pam (and others),
Here’s a less cynical view. Perhaps our bishops are tired of this debate. Perhaps they want to get back to the mission of the church, and away from the artificial crisis that’s been thrust upon us. I for one believe that our bishops — while I don’t agree with all of them, obviously — are people of good faith, seeking to follow God’s will.
I actually think these HoB statements accomplish something very good. We clarify that all are invited into full participation in this church, and we seek to participate in the fullness of the Anglican Communion. The either-or choice is, I think, the creation of a few anxious prelates and clergy.
OK, I’m ready for flaming, but that’s my 2 shillings.
Pax,
SG+
Slightly edited
March 21st, 2007 at 1:26 am
John+ #38, it may be good, although none of the purported reasons for rejection withstands even the most cursory analysis.
Note that the “our polity won’t allow this” excuse is already slightly shopworn, since they used it back in ‘04 with reference to Windsor. Then, of course, at GC06 it was ruled that the GC didn’t have the authority to do it either. If the Primates buy this, they’ll be rather like the fellow in the joke who lost $10 betting on a play in a football game — $5 on the play and $5 on the instant replay.
Most of the rhetoric is stuff that both we and the rest of the Communion have heard over and over, and what the Communique requested was a straight answer. They have it — No! — along with a heaping pile of excuses and vacuous arm waving.
So I guess the question is not really “is it good” but “is it good enough to fool ++Rowan and the Primates — again?”
My strong suspicion at this point is that ++Rowan’s patience has worn very, very thin, particularly since he spent so much of his personal capital at Dar es Salaam to tone down the Communique from even greater firmness. Moreover, the Primates signed the Communique unanimously (and few have the chutzpah to claim, as Mrs. Schori did, that it was just an “acknowledgment”), so this amounts to taking on the entire Communion — a point which will not be lost on even the moderate Primates.
Looks like at the moment we have slightly more clarity than we can handle…
March 21st, 2007 at 1:31 am
Re: John Wilkins #38: “smart. Very smart. Hits colonialism. Hits spirituality. admonishes the papal tendencies. Quotes the prayer book. Sounds earnest. this is good.”
John Wilkins,
I need not remind you that the same arrogance and “smarter-than-thou” attitude, as expressed in your post supra is partly responsible for the deep ditch TEcUSA has dug and landed in and is neck-deep in trouble.
When this matter was foaming in 2003, TEcUSA had the attitude of “this will blow over in a matter of months.” Obviously, it hasn’t blown over: it is actually blowing hotter and faster for her comfort. This is now a Category 5 Hurricane.
Don’t forget that when TEcUSA was asked to make a response to the WR, she came up with the nonsensical “To Set Our Hope on Christ”, which was hailed by people like you as “smart. Very smart. Hits colonialism. Hits spirituality. admonishes the papal tendencies. Quotes the prayer book. Sounds earnest. this is good.” Only people like you, looking with jaundiced eyes saw the document as “Super.” Others saw a sophomoric attempt at making the Bible say what it certainly does not.
Obviously, “To Set Our Hope” was not as “smart, very smart” as it was billed and hailed. I bet you, a couple of years from now, you will be looking back and wondering why this Camp Allen March 20th HoB response did not do the trick. This matter isn’t going away, my friend. Worse days for the Revisionists are coming.
I am sure it is very difficult for you to accept, but please try and, for once, view the Global South Primates as mature, sensible, educated adults that they are.
Spiro
March 21st, 2007 at 1:41 am
Scott #41 — I see no reason to flame you; your column over at InclusiveChurch (which I reached by clicking on your name at the head of your post) was reasonably well-written and avoided vituperation. Other than that it expressed the views and underlying assumptions of the revisionist position, which was hardly a surprise.
Go in peace. Just let us keep our churches.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:43 am
I think we’ve turned the other cheek enough already. I say that we start to interfere with provinces in Nigeria, etc. Just go in and hint around and say ohhh wouldn’t it be lovely if you requested so-called “alternative primatial oversight?” Let’s have the dioceses that border Canada start fiddling around with things in Canada. Why not? We’ll see if they whistle the same tune. I’m glad our bishops have said enough already.
The Communique The Communique The Communique The Communique that’s all I hear about, as if THAT isn’t arrogance of the lowest order! “We have the true gospel, while you Americans wallow in filth!!” Come on. Last time I checked, my church wasn’t called Kingdom Hall.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:47 am
#44 Craig Goodrich: “Go in peace. Just let us keep our churches.”
Amen. OUR’s and GOD’s churches.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:47 am
A great action by the HoB. We all have reason to give thanks (although I imagine the reasons are very different)
March 21st, 2007 at 1:55 am
Hey, Truth, do you ever sleep?
Blessed are they that keep awake and watch with the Lord, for their reward is Eternal Rest in Christ.
Keep up the good work, brother!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:58 am
Hi Spiro! I’m on the west coast and my daughter’s asleep. Gives me time to surf my favorite blog.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:02 am
#45 MD froth suggests
That might be counterproductive, since some ACCanada dioceses that border the US have already started fiddling around with things in Canada; do the names New Westminster or Niagara ring a bell? After General Synod this year, there may be a lot more names missing from the Lambeth invitation list.
Umm, OK, I’ll buy that.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:06 am
Lent.
Schism.
Sackcloth.
Ashes.
Tears.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:09 am
#19, #22, #31, #35.
Someone asked earlier today:
“Why if TEC does not comply with the demands is it being billed by some as “voluntarily choosing to walk apart” or “voluntarily choosing” to leave the Communion. Why not call it what it is. TEC will be thrown out. There is nothing voluntary about that. TEC has said over and over it doesn’t want to leave. So, if TEC does not meet the demands of the primates, why can’t the primates, who insist they have the authority (based I on a simple majority 20/18/) accept reponsibility for their actions if THEY tell TEC to go away? Please explain this to me.”
Here’s my answer (slightly edited):
“Let me try to explain it like this via analogy.
God says to us, “Acknowledge and repent truly of your sins, believe and make Jesus your LORD and Savior by obediently taking up your cross everyday, read and abide by My Written Word as instructed by the Holy Spirit, and you will be with Me in heaven forevermore.”
And supposing I, a resolute unrepentant sinner, say to God that I don’t want to comply with His demands. But I want to go to heaven anyway. He says “No, you’re not going to be in eternal communion with Me in Heaven.” He says that I voluntarily chose to be eternally separated from Him since knowingly refused to comply with His holy demands, i.e. accept His invitation of eternal salvation in Christ.
I could pout and say that He threw me into hell. But He would say that I threw myself into hell because of my deliberate choice not to comply.
The same reasoning applies with TEC and AC. If TEC refuses to comply with the primates’ requests, then it’s definitely TEC who deliberately chose to walk apart.
This HOB letter is a big slap in the face to the primates’ Tanzania communique.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:09 am
Does the HOB response also constitute a rebuke of the presiding bishop?
Wasn’t the “primatial vicar” proposal her concoction in the beginning?
See:http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_80010_ENG_HTM.htm
And from here:
http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/02/bishop_jefferts_schoris_initia.html
is this:
QUOTE Jefferts Schori said the Primates “have also acknowledged and supported” her November 2006 proposal to name a primatial vicar who would assume some pastoral duties at the Presiding Bishop’s direction. END QUOTE
w.w.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:12 am
There is a very interesting phrase in the Communiqué that seemed odd before, but maybe is beginning to make sense: the Pastoral Council is to consist of ”up to” five members. It appears as if the drafting was very well done, even to the extent of anticipating that not all the appointments contemplated would be made.
I think it is crucial that Archbishop Williams immediately proceed to name the three members of the council that he and the primates are to appoint. Without the cooperation of ECUSA, to be sure, the function of the council will change, but it is urgent if an Anglican remnant is to be preserved in this country that a coherent Anglican identity be established quickly. The council could identify Windsor dioceses, which will face enormous centrifugal pressure in light of the HOB decision, and ensure their continued Communion status. It would become the de facto primate of these dioceses. The vicar would become a vicar of the Primates and not of the Presiding Bishop. The council could also work as planned to unify the international parishes that have already left. It will not be able to protect orthodox parishes trapped in hostile dioceses, but that was only part of the job in any event. The compelling need now is to save the Windsor dioceses to the extent possible for the Communion. The rejection of the council by ECUSA should actually give it more credibility to some, like those in Dallas and elsewhere, that have run out of patience. I hope the Windsor bishops act very quickly to urge the ABC to press ahead with the pastoral scheme to the extent possible. We need not go back to square one.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:17 am
w.w.
That is an interesting point. I don’t believe that it is a rebuke. I believe it is actually a sign of solidarity. In the end, it recognizes that her plan can not be mandated by other member churches. Just my take.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:22 am
#53, #55. Didn’t PB KJS say or request that this meeting of the HOB was to be for discussion, for talking, and NOT for acting?
This HOB statement definitely seems like a clear rejection of her request, don’t ya think?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:44 am
TUaD #56 — This HoB statement also definitely seems like something that was written and refined by a couple of very angry bishops over the course of a week or so and then vetted by a lawyer. Any bets on who showed up at Camp Allen with the statement in his pocket?
I vote Bruno. He’s the only one with enough clout to quash Mrs. Schori’s plans.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:54 am
Out of curiosity, suppose the DioSC re-elects Mark Lawrence. Furthermore, suppose he accepts again.
Would he have to put in writing again what he wrote earlier on 3/8: “So to put it as clearly as I can, my intention is to remain in The Episcopal Church.”??
I would think that this HOB response changes matters for all concerned.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:56 am
I predict:
1) the ABC will reject the request for a meeting. The Primates are waiting for a yes or no answer; there is no need for further discussion.
2) The Primates will see this response from the HOB as the answer they have requested…and in the negative. No need to wait for September 30. Bishops who opposed this response will be invited to Lambeth. Those who supported will not.
3) Given this response, there is no need for an interim period to mend the broken bonds, so there is no need for a Primatial Vicar. The Primates will begin to recognize and formalize an Anglican Province in the U.S. without TEC consent.
4) A similar separation of the sheep and goats will begin in every Province, Diocese, and Parish. The TEC will establish a global Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion will remain the home of orthodox believers. The only question is whether ABC goes with the Anglican Communion or not. I suspect the Queen will ensure that he does.
5) This will have negative consequences for the TEC with regard to retention of properties and trusts as their actions have proved unconstitutional, having resulted in their separation from the Anglican Communion.
6) Current trends in growth will accelerate. The global TEC will continue to shrink, since without the message of salvation there is no reason to join and without financial resources they will not be able to keep other Provinces aligned with the American leadership, and will likely cease to exist within this generation. The Anglican Communion will continue to grow exponentially. with souls being saved.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:25 am
One line I find very amusing is the claim that the Primates’ Communique represents the first attempt by prelates to run the church since we disaffiliated from the Pope. Eh? The CofE exchanged papal rule for royal rule, and the bishops have been running the church since. That’s why it’s called the “Episcopal” Church and not the “Bicameral Representative” Church.
Until recently the power of the purse did rest with the laity, but the bishops have been taking that one over.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:31 am
Those of you still in TEC need more clarity than this?
-Jim+
March 21st, 2007 at 3:41 am
When Jesus was presented in the Temple, Simeon prophesied that “This Child was born for the rise and fall of many in Israel, and that the thoughts of many would be revealed.”
TEC’s HOB continues to fulfill that prophecy in our day.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:29 am
So, now there is a particular brand of episcopal “nationalism” that is being held-out as a fundamental tenant of the post-modern faith (see also the letter from the parish in Pennsylvania selectively quoting the Revolution Era language of the diocesan founding documents to justify their rejection of Dar es Salaam. I guess dead white males are good for something after all). And yet it appears to be a nationalism that only the American church and its fellow spoiled-child provinces can assert. It won’t be long before progressivists are quoting the 2nd amendment to justify standing-up to the “boundary-crossers”. Please don’t fail to see how adolescent and self-serving the whole thrust of this document is! One example: a little aside in the 7th paragraph at the end of this subsection:
We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church.
We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject.
(-Those miserable Primates - how dare they not mention every serious social problem that we can think of in their Communique! Now you see, don’t you, how backward and unevolved they are!-)
But even the first sentence quoted above is meaningless and obfuscatory: are gays and lesbians and forest rangers and dentists and mouseketeers and policemen supposed to be full participants in the leadership of the church no matter what they do or what they say or what level of wisdom or spiritual maturity that they demonstrate? If Holy Scripture as it has been nearly universally understood and the weight of virtually the entire Christian tradition says sexual behavior is important, who is the TEC HoB to tell me and the Primates of the Communion that we can’t consider it in determining who is fit to lead? Even if all the American HoB want is for the Communion to be a big religious club where the local chapters can invent their own religions as they wish, as the innovators in a matter that affects the club internationally, they have the burden of proof. And they haven’t met their burden - not psychologically, not genetically, not biologically, and certainly not morally or spiritually.
Consider the use of the term “generous orthodoxy”. This is a school of thought that upholds the idea of fidelity to tradition, and working out theological questions in the context of various orthodox Christian traditions. How does such a concept apply to a progressivist’s or hard-core liberal’s view of the authority or persuasive weight of the “Prayer Book tradition”? This can only be seen as a transmutation of an idea for political purposes.
And the amazing, but I’m sure very soul-satisfying assertion of connectednes to our spiritual roots in the second to last paragraph. After stating a whole litany of priorities and beliefs that could have been taken straight off of the pages of Mother Jones magazine before being given religious embellishment, they dare to quote the portion of the renewal of ordination vows that was originally taken from the 39 Articles of Religion. Articles that episcopalianism now officially considers to be merely of historical interest.
Just as Brian (#55) sees the HoB letter as a sign of solidarity with the PB even as it clearly rejects her primatial vicar proposal, so the HoB lives completely in a world that is colored primarily by an ideological vision that must overwhelm everything else. This is the dark and unrelenting consistency of the levelling impulse, the napalm logic of egalitarianism driving out all of the understanding of human nature that has been carefully crafted and shaped by two thousand years of grace and humility and learning from our mistakes (-Yellow is blue, and blue is yellow now, didn’t you hear? If this is the way that others who have had their consciousness raised as we have are generally beginning to think, it must be so-).
The reality is that everything is about self-justification and solidifying constituencies now. There is not one expression of a meaningful theology or ecclesiology here, or even an effort to use wisdom to thoughtfully apply the canons and standard practices of the denomination to seek some kind of reconciliation. Even the obvious political and social values that are at the forefront are cliches that ring hollow in the context of what left-liberals and progressivists have preached to the rest of us for five decades: “liberation from colonialism” (now just stop right there - black folks weren’t liberated!); “emancipation of the laity” (but women weren’t included in that); “free and open theological debate”, etc. The problem is that now that Anglican provinces from those used-to-be backward parts of the globe are feeling that they are becoming liberated from the shackles of American purse-strings, they have decided that they will be a part of this “open theological debate”. Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998 was the result of that open debate, and an overwhelming majority agreed to it and passed it very democratically. Unlike the average pew-warming episcopalian, those African and Asian and South American bishops who voted “aye” expect to be respected, and they believe that there vote should mean something, and produce results.
What we have here from the HoB is the ultimate veiled statement of feminist theology, the theological equivalent of bra-burning: we will break up the family if we have to (just to let everyone know that we won’t put up with even a minor restriction on our movement), but we will not back down in any arena where there can be a greater assertion of the rights and freedoms of our self-identified victim groups. If the children suffer, and learn less and less of the riches of our spiritual tradition and of what it means to be a part of Christ and His Church, it’s worth it since many of them will thank us one day when they get to lead their first committee meetings. How could any one defend this? At this moment, I am truly ashamed to be an episcopalian.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:35 am
Well, at least we won’t have to wait until September 30.
“We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God’s truth.”
Note the omission; the Gospel the House of Bishop’s statement did not mention.
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1 Corinthians 15
Why am I no way surprised that they didn’t mention that?
March 21st, 2007 at 4:59 am
Or perhaps they could have mentioned this Gospel:
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Peter 1
Or, if they wanted to be brief.
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matt 4:17
But I guess it was too much to expect them to use the word “repent” while formulating this.
Sorry for this rant, I’ve just taken about all I can from these Bishops and their allies.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:36 am
We must assume that “A Word to the Church” will follow, once Dr. Crew and Barrister Beers draft it for their sock puppets. I will have to decide whether to burn or spit on it.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:57 am
Joe (#63)
“I am truly ashamed to be an episcopalian.”
Greviously, today, I am too, and like a number of you I am in orders and have vowed to “be loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them . . . and will you . . . obey your bishop . . .” I took those vows as seriously as I did my marriage vows 48 years ago. I find it more difficult everyday to live into those vows when our bishops (whom I have committed to “obey”) are disobedient themselves.
God in His revealed Word in scripture and in the person of Jesus Christ has to take precedence over this sad condition of this part of the Body of Christ.
For myself, Maundy Thursday is already here and I am in the Garden of Gethsemane, praying that some how this cup can pass us by.
In Christ,
Gary
March 21st, 2007 at 6:17 am
“In truth, the number of those who seek to divide our Church is small, and our Church is marked by encouraging signs of life and hope.”
No, in truth, they have no idea how many episcopalians oppose or support your views. There was an attempt to poll the laity some years ago, but it was squelched by Griswold. The last serious attempt to gauge the opinion of the laity was in the 1980’s. It’s been “don’t ask, don’t tell” since then.
What encouraging signs, pray tell? There are none. Please, point out any signs that are not of death and despair for the TEC. The announced 3.8 million dollar deficit? Which diocese actually grew (meaning faster than their population, otherwise, that’s called shrinking)? Answer: South Carolina, whom the national church just spurned. Now, imagine Falls Church/Truro in all the dioceses. The national church and David Beers won’t be able to lend their weight to all the dioceses. The considerable endowment, to which my parents gave for the advancement of His Kingdom will vanish in less than a decade.
“Father, forgive them for they know not what they’ve done.” The sad thing is that there are among them well informed who understand all and have proceeded knowing the cost in terms of the Church. They have willing put the church on the sacrificial pyre. Though, they deny it, they will come to know the very true reality of Hell. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:29 am
“Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church”
Elves, if you could please provide a link to said Preamble (perhaps in this very quoted statement) it would be most helpful.
I don’t seem to have access to that document, and I suspect many others are in the same state as I am.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:37 am
Praise be to Jesus that I am in AMiA! Why does onyone want to remain a part of TEC?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:40 am
HOB
etc, etc.
Honored Sirs and Madams:
Please be advised that Gospel (with a capital G) is a registered trademark of our client, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of God, Redeemer of Mankind, etc, etc.
Please be further advised that failure to cease and desist from using this trademark will result in legal action including, but not limited to, expulsion from the Anglican Communion, loss of property and personnel, etc, etc.
You are of course at liberty to continue to promote your own gospel (with a lower case g).
We remain, Sirs and Madams, His obedient servants,
etc, etc.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:42 am
Seeing this, what is stopping the House of Bishops from issuing a “Mind of the House” resolving not to consecrate non-celibate homosexual bishops or authorizing blessing for same sex unions? They just shot their polity argument in the foot, did they not?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:46 am
#69
PREAMBLE
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby
recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member
of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses,
Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of
Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order
as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution,
adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as
amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic
Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas
missionary jurisdictions.
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/canons/CandC_FINAL_11.29.2006.pdf
March 21st, 2007 at 6:46 am
In RE: #69. “‘Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church’
Elves, if you could please provide a link to said Preamble (perhaps in this very quoted statement) it would be most helpful. I don’t seem to have access to that document, and I suspect many others are in the same state as I am.”
Since the Elves are probably sleeping, I can provide the link you need. It goes directly to the The Constitutions & Canons of The Episcopal Church 2006. in pdf format.
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/canons/CandC_FINAL_11.29.2006.pdf
March 21st, 2007 at 6:48 am
The Primates Standing Committee, just to remind you, currently consists of Presiding Bishop Schori, Mouneer Anis of Egypt, Luke Orombi of Uganda, Phillip Aspinall of Australia and Barry Morgan of Wales.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:51 am
#14 Granny, the ACN is the worst part of this sad farce.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:19 am
I have to admit, it is clever.
Note:
we will seek to live fully into, and deepen, our relationships with our brothers and sisters in the Communion through companion relationships, the networks of Anglican women, the Anglican Indigenous Network, the Francophone Network, our support for the Anglican Diocese of Cuba, our existing covenant commitments with other provinces and dioceses, including Liberia, Mexico, Central America, Brazil, and the Philippines, our work as The Episcopal Church in many countries around the world, especially in the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and Taiwan, and countless informal relationships for mission around the world.
Hey, look at us, were not just TEC, were almost like a little proto-communion all on our own. Maybe we don’t need you guys so much after all.
Also:
Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters.
We’ve been hard done by too you know, by some of you. Nice use of emotive language - ‘violated’ (not crossed), ‘great suffering’ (not irritation or exasperation), ‘contributed immeasurably’ (not ‘we feel have exascerbated’).
This was drafted for a watching world and the sleeping middle, not the Primates.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:24 am
Jesus said, “It is finished.”
March 21st, 2007 at 7:32 am
57,56, etc.
The TEC walks apart with KJS at the head. That certainly is a house divided. She called for B033, a “season of fasting”, primatial vicar, signed Tanzania communique, etc. Now that the TEc has become the “gay” church, I am not sure how much they homosexuals are going to want to deal with her. Will they jettison her?
March 21st, 2007 at 7:42 am
Poseur: “the ACN is the worst part of this sad farce.”
Please elaborate.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:47 am
Yanks
March 21st, 2007 at 7:50 am
#s 37 and 59, you misread the legal implications. TEC does not base any of its claims on its relationship with the Anglican Communion, so it is not likely to matter for legal purposes whether that relationship exists or not.
Rather than being a statement to protect legal interests, I think the statement about TEC wanting to remain in communion is strictly to clarify that it is others excluding or walking away from TEC, not TEC leaving the AC. As a somewhat objective observer, it seems to me this is likely to be true, as a practical matter. It will not be TEC choosing not to send money or reps to AC events — it will be the rest of the AC choosing not to include TEC.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:52 am
If the reasserter’s are a minority within TEC and TEC chooses to find itself outside the AC after September, the question for me becomes..what happens to the reasserters? Are they in schism within a schism?
March 21st, 2007 at 8:01 am
The Preamble was amended in 1964 and approved in 1967 to read:
“The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution, adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas missionary jurisdictions.”
White and Dykman says on page 6 of the Annotated Constitution and Canons:
“When adopted by the House of Deputies in the Convention of 1967 by a very large majority in both orders, an action with which the Bishops concurred, the Preamble became, in the words of the resolution presenting it, “an integral part of the Constitution.” (fn Journal, 1967, pp.379-80)
If TEC values its autonomy so much then it should leave the AC. As it is, they want to have it both ways.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:08 am
This_Day [#73],
Thanks a lot. That was quite helpful.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:13 am
For all the talk of “listening,” we get this response showing utter deafness and blindness. But we all know that “listening” is a one-way street for the reappraisers.
Abp Williams will probably keep the 30 Sept deadline, but since ECUSA clearly is getting more and more obdurate, we may as well start planning for what to do when ECUSA is let go.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:14 am
In a dozen places, the bishops’ language seems - it seems as if they are speaking a different language. At first, my response was that they were playing CYA, that they were being hypocritical, But this seems unlikely since, if true, if would be too obvious for them to ignore. Have they responded in good faith as they say? Well, not really. Are these weasel words? Probably not. They probably believe that they have uttered no contradictions, no incongruities. But what then? I suspect that they have fundamentally changed what words mean - see the earlier reference to ALice in Wonderland - and therefore what they can think without contradiction. I dear making language over in your own image.
This isn’t just a scriptural matter. They have established a new orbit around the same sun. They have, in short, made a Brave New World, and to them, we are The Savage; they are the Alphas and +Schori is, in a sense, their Mustapha Mond.
Does this frighten me? Indeed it does, and precisely because I fear that a significant portion of our western culture is their new population. Are we about to be, like the Savage, outcasts in a reservation of our own? The Anglican world needs to look at the much larger picture and it needs to do so now. LM
March 21st, 2007 at 8:16 am
Too bad I had to change my user name because of a certain thin-skinned
patron of yours. Anyway, the HOB has responded. Time to show TEC the door and get on with fashioning the new American Province.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:18 am
Thanks also to Rob [#74} for the simultaneous post with This Day.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
Archie,
It is a question I have asked myself every day for the past three years. I have tried to determine whether the ECUSA disease is simply a local aberration or a corruption deep within the heart of the Anglican Reformation. Given the on-going response of the Archbishop of Canterbury, many Primates, and the relative impotence of any of the actions taken in response to ECUSA, I am beginning to believe the latter. Time to plan backing the bags.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
elves - What’s the largest number of comments ever on a t19 post?
Over 500. It was a thread on justification by Al Kimel.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:30 am
This majority decision does not bode well for the next bishop election in South Carolina. The HOB is digging in, hardening the defensive works, stocking up the mortar ammo. I predict that some bishops who voted yes for Mark Lawrence out of bishoply courtesy will drop the mask now.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:42 am
#15, you mean Fr. Lawrence refused to express higher loyalty to the church than to God?
March 21st, 2007 at 8:48 am
Wow! This is terrific news for reasserters.
The HoB is finally saying, clearly, what they really believe. This is an admirably honest and principled statement.
This action ends the Windsor “process”. The realignment just became easier, and faster. Everything JRC (#59) predicted will probably happen, a lot sooner than if TEC had decided to appear to comply with the Communique.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:58 am
“…including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church.”
Yes, if they acknowledge that they are as imperfect as all Christians and accept the fact that ‘acting out’ their GLBT orientations in a s*xual manner is sinful behavior.
Does “sin” still exist as an active concept in ECUSA?
March 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
What a fine mess I awoke to this a.m. Guess I don’t have a place for ministry anymore. Look out AMiA or CANA here I come… Christe eleison!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 9:09 am
John Chilton - we’re a long way from the most posts (well over 200 on Mark Lawrence last week) but I was amazed at the number of posts after 11:30 PM EDT - that might be a record.
Is there a minority report we can look from the Network Bishops?
March 21st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Two years ago the 2005 Camp Allen agreement including the moratorium on all consecrations in response to Windsor’s request for a moratorium on all consecrations of priests involved in same sex relationships provided the “final blow” for my husband and I, providing assurance that in America there was no need to raise our children in this denomination. We have prayed and continue praying and now worship with the Antiochian Orthodox.
This may not be where God wants everyone to worship, but now we have another Camp Allen announcement that surely points to the door for many.
It is strange that this happens during Lent, but maybe it is so that more souls will be praying for direction and therefore as they draw close to God, He draws close to them and leads the way.
You are in my prayers, and pray for me, a sinner!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20130;&version=50;
March 21st, 2007 at 9:11 am
In response to “Truth Unites” analogy regarding “walking apart”
Thank you for iterating your response and my question. Your analogy is an excellent one, if one accepts that the Primates represent God. That is kind of big leap for me and apparently for TEC’s bishops. I was pleased by both the commitment to the listening process and the teaching of hermeneutics that emerged from Dar Es…(I was hoping for some support for epistemology because I think that is an issue as well.) But it appears that another analogy may be workable. Moses came down from the mountain and found many of the Israelites who had covenanted with Yahweh were now worshiping foreign gods. Yahweh didn’t like it. With both analogies, I guess, it depends on who one decides is the voice of God?
March 21st, 2007 at 9:16 am
“my husband and ME”, Margaret in Orthodoxy
March 21st, 2007 at 9:23 am
“O Jerusalem, O Jerusalem…”
March 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am
Sheesh. Who woke up the grammar police?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:10 am
Can you imagine the ABC Williams leading all the primates in a chorus of Don McLean’s classic song “American Pie”?
Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell
Could break that satan’s spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw satan laughing with delight
The day the music died
He was singing,
“bye-bye, miss american pie.”
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, “this’ll be the day that I die.
“this’ll be the day that I die.”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Thanks be to God for our Bishops! I’ve never understood why Episcopalians would want to allow a meeting of Bishops (much less a group of Primates) to make all of the decisions for our church - no voice for the laity, deacons, priests.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 am
#92
The question is, will South Carolina really need to bother with another election after this?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:21 am
Interesting point #104, If the AC punishes TEC as a result of these resolutions (and what we might predict they mean for September) will it be said our bishops made the decision that lead to the punishment?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:24 am
The HoB has followed Paul Tillich.
They have broken the foundation.
They have, in this document, clearly stated that they have discarded the Chief Corner Stone.
Jesus of Nazareth, whom they cite in this document, had and has no connection to the so-called gospel which is preached by the majority of the HoB. Gospel? Seek and save those that are lost? Gospel? Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Gospel? Repent and believe the Good News?
The gospel (so-called) of the majority of the HoB is the non-saving gospel of a social service adjunct to the United Nations. It is the grand reconstructionist dream of never having to say that you are sorry.
It is following in the abruptly terminated footsteps of Balaam (remember him)? who had to find a roadblock in the form of his own ass. He wanted to sell prophecy for hard cash, remember?
Now would someone please tell me how TEc is doing anything different from Balaam? Since being booted out of the Anglican Communion means no more U S cash for the same Anglican Communion, how is this not stating that the Global South must accept the new non-gospel of TEc to get the money?
Oh, well.
We know what happened to Balaam.
Now. Where is the donkey for TEc?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:27 am
I have chosen not to read the foregoing comments. I simply want to say that I have never been prouder of the bishops of my Church than I am today.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
I am stunned and saddened at this development. May we pray for these people, in humility and tearful repentance before the Lord, recognizing always that, among sinners, we are chief.
The bishops, obsessed with the pleasures and desires of this world, their hearts hardened, their eyes and ears stopped up, have abandoned the counsels of the wider Church and displayed an arrogance that is not of the Spirit. In so doing, they have committed the resources that might have gone to their precious United Nations to bitter, divisive lawsuits, wrangling and infighting. They have destroyed the church of my birth, once and for all, and for that, in my self-centeredness, I weep.
Christ’s Church does not subsist in The Episcopal organization, however, and it continues elsewhere, faithful, joyful and in loving unity with its Lord and Bridegroom; and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
I’ve been an Episcopalian for all of my thirty-nine years, proud of its heritage, proud of its liturgy, proud of its thoughtful contribution to the Christian Way. All, apparently, to be counted as loss; “For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.” (Mt 23:27) In exalting the passions and reason of man above God, the One to whom all of this points, ECUSA has made its possessions of no worth, like a treasure map read upside down; exuding mystery, with a veneer of beauty, but leading people away from the pearl of great price.
Pray for ECUSA; pray for its bishops; pray for its people, trapped in the familiar; pray for the Church.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
I wonder. The ABC participated in this whole process against the clear voice of his own conscience and his stated understanding of the Gospel - to the shock and bemusement of much of the Church of England too, I gather. And so he put off having to be true to his own self - did it for the sake of a unity which now appears even more elusive than it was before and he did it for the sake of the mission connections which exist between the our Provinces. The Communique itself was not bad for the Church of England. Enacting some sort of ban based on the HOB’s response would be since it would expose the fault lines in the C of E. The issue of parallel jurisdictions - primatial vicars - etc was the one added bit of weight which made the whole thing unworkable.
One might have assumed that the ‘beleaguered conservatives’ would have been participants in the discussion and the voting. That the so-called ‘network’ bishops never even bothered to participate on a point aimed soley at relieving their perceived ‘misery’ gives us a stunning insight into the character of their movement.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Now that the HOB has rejected Canterbury-based Anglicanism for an independent American-based protestantism, can we separate amicably? Can we simply let those dioceses and parishes that wish to remain Anglican stay without all the lawsuits? Is it too much to ask?
Unlike Bob I can’t say I’m proud of the schismatic bishops but I am pleased with a clear decision for once. At least we have a clear decisive (and divisive) answer with no fudge.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am
Am I mistaken, or are we still waiting for another response from the bishops, one regarding a moratorium on conscecrating gay bishops?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Does anyone know if there is going to be a minority report, or a statement from the Windsor bishops on this?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:41 am
So many well-thought out comments here today. Not much to add.
I do think it is a POWERFUL statement by the HOB. There’s certainly not much fudge in it. Granted, they didn’t say what I wanted to hear, but I really never imagined they would. I don’t think they’re even capable of doing so at this point.
I think, however, it could all be summarized in four sentences:
1) We’re not leaving the WAC, and we dare you to try and throw us out;
2) We run the show in the US, and we demand you back off;
3) We define or theology, not ++Akinola, not ++Rowan not anyone but US.
4) We’ll bless same-sex marriages and ordain homosexuals anytime we feel like it, because we believe it’s the right thing to do.
TEC has thrown down the gauntlet. Time for the rest of the Communion to KICK TEC OUT or once and for all SHUT UP. (If I were to bet, I’d say there’s a 60% chance they kick TEC out and a 40% chance they shut up.)
In essence, the time for pleading and politeness is over. WAC must now take action against TEC, or live with us as we are. And so, for reasserter and reappraiser alike, this is in my opinion a very good statement. Perhaps this really is the true beginning of the end of this tragedy.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 am
I’m reading a book that helps to explain the kind of thinking about justice that we have seen develop over the last several decades. The book is “The Quest for Cosmic Justice”, by the African-American public intellectual, Thomas Sowell. His central idea is that ‘cosmic’ justice is a notion that insists on equality of outcome (process is less important than outcome) rather than equality of process (which means in principle, all are equal under the law). I hope the meaning here is clear. These two concepts are mutually exclusive because the ‘equality of outcome’ idea voids the ‘equality of process’ idea, and vice-versa. Christianity is an equality of process idea, and is part of the basis of Western systems of justice. What we are seeing, tragically is a broadening social confusion about what justice means. Example: Process Justice - All adults are free to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is sound teleologically and by nature; Cosmic Justice - The idea that self-defined persons, such as ‘gays’ or polygamists, must be allowed to marry the person, or people, of their own choice, even persons of the same gender.
The book is more than 10 years old, so Sowell is not addressing the ‘gay marriage’ issue, though he has also done that more recently. He is mainly addressing the affirmative action issue, and seeing it as a demeaning justice exercise that shows a certain brand of liberal (neo-liberals?) to be patronizing blacks rather than assuming that blacks can compete on a level playing field. Cosmic Justice posits the necessity of a non-level playing field. This is a pre-Christian idea that has simply resurfaced, in my view.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
I second the question above:
Is any minority report expected? And does report speak for all bishops or did a vote take place?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
I forgot to mention that Sowell begins his book “The Quest for Cosmic Justice”, by noting that ALL justice is ’social’, and that the term ’social justice’ is nothing more that what each person declares it to be, and is thus a post-modern, (same as pre-Christian) term!
Go Sowell!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
#57 conjectures authorship includes some bishops and lawyers. Consider that some bishops have law degrees. Compare and contrast,
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18076
March 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Early report on the votes here,
http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/03/bishop_chane_writes_to_the_dio.htm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
DaveJ: If the ABC and primates do nothing at this point, the Anglican Communion will be dead. We have been seeing “progessive discipline” of TEC since 2003. So picture this - your employee comes in late, and you go through the various steps of progressive discipline and he keeps saying to you “yes, yes, I will try to be in on time from now on.” Then you finally say “okay, next time you’re late you’re fired”, and your employee says to you “screw you, I’m coming in late whenever I want to.” If you then say “ah, okay, dude, whatever you want”, then your authority as boss is over and done with.
I don’t think that RW will want to pull the plug completely though. My guess is that he will be meeting with several of the Camp Allen/Windsor bishops over the next little while to determine their resolve. I forsee some creative attempts at a negotiated settlement, but I don’t see any charity on the side of TEC at all. It seems to me like TEC will attempt to use force and violence to keep its dioceses in line because they know that if that line breaks, then the TEC will split with a new Anglican Province being created out of the departing dioceses. On the other hand, 815 believes that if they can hold all dioceses within TEC, then the ABC will not want to throw it all away. We live in interesting times.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
#99, EPH. Sadly, it looks like the analogy in #52 was lost on you. The point was NOT to compare the primates with God as you mistakenly did. The point of the analogy was to show you that it’s TEc who’s walking away from the Anglican Communion by defiantly refusing to meet the requests in the Tanzania communique.
As others have pointed out, this does have legal ramifications.
Pax.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
If you haven’t read #63’s post, do so. It’s excellent.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Do the Windsor bishops go along with this? Is it the mind of the whole house or simply a majority? Will there be any statement of dissent? Clearly KJS could not sustain the agreement she made with the primates.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Some have brought up here and at StandFirm what this says about KJS’s leadership. Well, I have always thought that KJS brought the Communique home as the “best deal” she could get to stay in full Communion membership, but that she did not necessarily support that deal. That being said, it does suggest that KJS is more of a token figurehead for the liberal leadership. For KJS to come home and say, “well, here is what I agreed to do” only to have the HoB reject that outright, does indicate that KJS is certainly NOT the leader ENS and others make her out to be.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
TEC’s constitutional preamble says
The HoB said
Does the HoB’s statement carry any legal weight? I would think not. This would seem to me to be an attempt by the HoB to amend TEC’s constitution in an improper manner - i.e. to change the meaning of the preamble without going through the proper channels to do so.
Let’s consider how the preamble might come up in court. Most likely during a property lawsuit by a sitting TEC bishop against a departing parish. The parish would argue “this person has no standing to sue us because he is not a TEC bishop, because the preamble to TEC’s constitution says blah, blah, blah.” The court would then need to determine who interprets TEC’s constitution.
If they say that the highest body within TEC does, and identifies that body as the GC, then this resolution is superfluous, and the constitution is pretty much worthless anyway, because if a constitution is there to set the groundwork for how organs interact with each other in TEC, but the top legislative organ has the exclusive power to determine the meaning of the constitution, then the GC essentially becomes TEC’s constitution.
If the court says that the plain meaning determines the preamble’s meaning, then this resolution is worthless for the liberals, but may have some power for the conservatives. After all, this resolution can only be read as an attempt to avoid a plain meaning, and the obvious next question is “why.” Now having said that, I doubt very much that a court would delve too deeply into what the preamble “means” and who is in communion with who. My guess is that the court would look at the preamble, determine that it would be an unconstitutional exercise of its power to determine whether the TEC bishop is really a TEC bishop, and so conclude that the TEC bishop has not established his standing to sue, and thus the name of the deed would be conclusive.
But I might be wrong. But clearly TEC is worried about this, or they wouldn’t have passed this resolution.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Am getting to this late. Just read the news and comments.
Wow. I didn’t think something so decisive would come this soon.
From where I sit, the Rubicon is crossed, the die is cast and all that. I wish I could say I was sad for my Anglican friends. Seems like a death, an end of something centuries old. But it doesnt seem sad to me. It seems more like an opening to a new future for faithful Anglicans to start fresh. There will, of course, have to be the AC response. If the AC is strong, then the break will be finalized. It would be very, very bad in my estimation if there were 10, 5 or even 2 more years of protracted volleys of half compliance. Dragging on a crisis seems too draining to me even for the average pew-sitter, much less clergy. So, if all goes well, there will then be the further, more widespread choosing of sides and of course the property disputes.
But, after this misery I still hope for an Anglican future with an ecclesial life relatively free from the constant strife. Is it impossible to imagine a new denomination with some 1000 parishes in the US growing with the good news of Salvation preached and lived? Could this not be the true “bridge denomination” with the best of Catholic and Reformed theology? Could this not for the first time be a denomination with a confessional foundation rather than a political one? Perhaps you could makes some ties with the Missouri Synod? or even the Catholic Church? And you could draw Evangelicals hungry for deeper worship into the liturgical tradition. This would be an irreplaceable mission and one which TEC has done its best to ignore.
In anycase. my best to you all.
Arthur
March 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Wait a minute. Are we reading TOO MUCH into the HOB responses to the Executive Committee and to the ABC and primates standing committee?
The only issue they dealt with “officially” was the alternate Pastoral Scheme part of the communique. Even the conservative or orthodox bishops saw “problems” with the final version hastily cobbled together in Tanzania.
The HOB did NOT address “officially” the primates’ two central requests: clarification about a moratorium on consecrations of non-celibate gay bishops and on same-sex blessings. Presumably, those responses will come in a subsequent meeting of the HOB.
The “easiest” one to get out of the way first was the primatial vicar one. Note that they left the door open to some other alternate pastoral arrangement.
w.w.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
For Truth Unites at 121, I think I properly understood the analogy at #52. If you start with the assumption that the primates are the voice of God, it works, if not, well, it doesn’t. But I’d rather move to something else… as usual, protecting the rights of the minority. At Dromatine TEC was asked to voluntarily sit out. It did. It had no idea, that in its absence, the rules of the game would be changed. That change resulted in the majority at Tanzania. I think TEC had every right to feel ill-treated. I am also concerned for the potential ill-treatment of the “minority” that may remain with TEC. I doubt that TEC will impose a gay bishop on anyone. I doubt it will enforce a female bishop on anyone. But I do feel that real protection does need to be in place so that the minority feels safe in TEC. I don’t think it has to be the “stonewalls” suggested by + Duncan, and more important, I don’t think that TEC can suborn the kind church that is “in” but not “under” TEC that he would so wish. But having witnessed the kind of “tyranny of the majority” (although maybe just a slight and even unfairly created one) that TEC experienced at Dromantine and Tanzania, it will do its darndest to insure that such should not happen to the minority in its midst. Do you have any suggestions how this could be accomplished?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
EPH, I appreciate your thoughts, but I think they are shared by few in TEC and that the “tyranny of the majority” is instead eagerly sought. I see nothing here to make me think otherwise.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
If there is a split, which way will the Windsor bishops go? What kind of ratios are we looking at on the diocesan, parish and parishoner levels? TEC/Anglican: 90:10? 60:40?
I suppose you could have a split of very different ratios at each of the three levels. Perhaps 80:20 bishops, 90:10 parishes, but 60:40 members. Depending on distribution, you could end up with few but larger and healthier Anglican parishes and TEC left with more severely weakened parishes and perhaps significant numbers of closures and mergers in the years ahead.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
#128. All I can offer is what’s worked in the past for His people everywhere:
(1) Unceasing prayer… for wisdom and love.
(2) Submission and sacrificial, joyful obedience to His Written Word which attests to the Living Word.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
127. w.w.
“The only issue they dealt with “officially” was the alternate Pastoral Scheme part of the communique. Even the conservative or orthodox bishops saw “problems” with the final version hastily cobbled together in Tanzania.
The HOB did NOT address “officially” the primates’ two central requests: clarification about a moratorium on consecrations of non-celibate gay bishops and on same-sex blessings. Presumably, those responses will come in a subsequent meeting of the HOB.”
First, it seems to me that the HOB did not offer an alternative or even an opening to the discussion of an alternative conception of the Pastoral Scheme. They rejected it.
Second, I dont think there is justification for distinguishing between “central” and presumably periferal items among the Primates’ clearly stated demands.
I do not see anything in this document indicating that the HOB foresees a further discussion of the Communique of Feb. 19.
It is pretty clear that the bishops have chosen disaffiliation.
Now we just need to see how many Windsor bishops are willing to realign in order to remain in the AC. If it is a significant number and the parishes seeking realignment is significant, then TEC will not be able to afford the legal fees to claim all the properties in question.
It now has its hands in 40 parish lawsuits, give or take. What if that number climbed to 500? or 1000? or more? What if the 10 Network dioceses were joined by another 15 or 20 Winsor dioceses? There is no way TEC could keep up with that kind of dissention.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Truth, the other week I responded to your opinion that the HOB would speak with clarity by saying it “ain’t goin’ happen. Those are crow feathers that I’m spitting out.
However, there’s still the possibility that the HOB will fudge on the other two requests. I assume the HOB took up the Primatial Vicar issue first because it had the greatest potential of splitting the conservatives.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
The HOB position is self contradictory. The HOB states:
“The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them.”
So, Bishop Robinson should have stuck with his first marriage and sought the transformative power of the Gospel in it rather than take off to satisfy his desire for sex with a man right?
However, lets look at ourselves for a moment. How many of our reasserter parishes or Windsor Bishops teach that divorced and remarried persons (without just cause) should be refused Communion? My solid reasserter TEC parish does not even ask divorced people about this before admitting them to full membership and communion. The reasserter camp may not be standing as firm as we like after all.
I think it is an open question whether a majority of Primates will stand firm against the polity/process arguments. Are they willing to disassociate with TEC on process polity as TEC has tried to reframe the issue? ++Aikinola will hold firm but how many with him?
Who is on the Primates Standing Committee?
The Primates Standing Committee, just to remind you, currently consists of Presiding Bishop Schori, Mouneer Anis of Egypt, Luke Orombi of Uganda, Phillip Aspinall of Australia and Barry Morgan of Wales.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
James W: I think we’re in agreement here…almost.
My point is, the HoB has now issued a crystal clear statement. It seems to me they are saying to the rest of the Communion, “We will not change who we are. Take us or leave us, but don’t ask us to change.”
The is the white glove across the cheek. The HoB is calling the rest of the communion out as a paper tiger.
And you’re right…if the Anglican Communion as a whole now has three options. Tell TEC to hit the road, Accept TEC and its theological errencies (”we may disagree, but we still love our rich, crazy cousin in America”), or blow apart at the seams.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Or #135 - Come up with a better scheme!
March 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
The clarity and hubris are stunning.
The HOB ignored the multiple warnings back in 2003, and now they solemnly pronounce that they ‘cannot accept what would be injurious to the church’?!?
WHY WAIT FOR SEPT 30? THE AC NEEDS TO ACT NOW BY:
1) declaring TEC has, in word and action, decided to ‘walk apart’ from the Faith, and
2) officially establishing an Anglican Province in North America to shelter traditionalists (and our hard-earned property).
This resolution of the HOB is a hard slap in the ++ABC’s face. Hopefully, it will be taken as such and not ignored or overlooked.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
One other thing.
Arthur brings up an interesting point when he says, “Now we just need to see how many Windsor bishops are willing to realign in order to remain in the AC.”
In a way, the Windsor Bishops are now in a real pickle. They’ve been called out as well.
If they stay in TEC now, the laity who support them will wonder about issues of timidity at best, hypocrisy at worst.
If they choose to go, exactly where will they go? Further, it’s clear no one can take anything with them as they go, unless they want to spend the next 5 years in court.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Well, finally.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
134. doubting anglican.
“My solid reasserter TEC parish does not even ask divorced people about this before admitting them to full membership and communion. The reasserter camp may not be standing as firm as we like after all.”
I agree with you on this point. It seems to me that one message of the Holy Spirit in this time is a calling of departing Anglicans to a higher standard than the one they have heretofore been living.
I admire the departing Anglicans. The courage it takes is formidable. They have also displayed a dignity far above what I would expect from a division so personal and difficult. On all the issues which have brought about this division I support the departing Anglicans, from scripture to morality, from traditional teaching to ecclesiology.
Still, their constant use of the term “orthodox” to refer to themselves is fairly difficult to stomach from my vantage point. It seems to me that there are too many issues that they have been soft on in direct contradiction to the gospel to be congratulating themselves on their “orthodoxy.” Divorce and remarriage, WO, abortion, the unjustified practice of open communion, a form of governance in which lay people interfere in the work proper to bishops.
It is my fervent prayer that these departing Anglicans will listen with openness to the Holy Spirit who undoubtedly desires that they live up to the the claim of orthodoxy and make a real and comprehensive return to the practices and teachings of the historic faith.
Similarly, I pray that I and all Christians make a definitive turn to the Lord in our thoughts, words and actions in this season of Lent.
God Bless,
Arthur
March 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“If your religion does not make you holy, it will damn you. It is simply painted pageantry to go to hell in.”
See, Spurgeon got it 150 years ago!!!! Why can’t our ridiculous left-over hippie HOB get it?
KTF….mrb
March 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
137. Petesie.
I have been waiting for and alas have found a statement upon which we can both completely agree!
Greetings from across one of those damn* rivers!
Arthur
March 21st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
In Number 33 Jim says:
“What kills me the most is when the TEC attempts to bolster their argument by appealing to Lambeth conferences past and to “the most ancient authorities” when these things are exactly what they snub by ordaining women, blessing same sex relationships, allowing divorce and contraception, etc. What about Lambeth 1920 or 1930? What about what the “most ancient authorities” say on these issues? It is hypocritical to the Nth degree when these innovators invoke protection under Lambeth.”
I say: No women priests, No same-sex unions, No abortion, No contrception, etc. Hmmm, Wouldn’t you be happier in the Roman Catholic Church? Oh, wait. Probably not. The Vatican wouldn’t let you get away with half the stuff you guys can get away with in TEC.
And when you think about it ++Peter’s Church in Nigeria has a polity more like Rome than TEC. He might not let you get away with much either.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
From # 134 above; “However, lets look at ourselves for a moment. How many of our reasserter parishes or Windsor Bishops teach that divorced and remarried persons (without just cause) should be refused Communion?”
This issue is repentance and renewal of life. I think the Church that accepted an accomplice to the murder of its victims as an Apostle can accept a divorced person. The problem would be if the divorced person did not confess the sin in the divorce.
Sometimes as I read the back and forth exchanges between reappraisers and reasserters ( “you’re stupid”, “no you are even stupider”, “well, you are the stupidest ever” it seems the only two choices are Cheap Grace ( lets redefine the law so why do we really need Grace), or, The Law Can Save ( Just do it), so, again, why do we need Grace
What we really need is Grace and Truth met together in Jesus, and specifically in what he accomplished in dying for us
March 21st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
The HOB Statement is a direct challenge to the authority of the ABC and Primates’ Meeting as Instruments of Unity. Whether the ABC meets with the HOB or not, their actions are now going to force ++Rowan to take decisive action.
Analysis here.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches there is no such thing as “polity.” Ecclesiology and “polity” are indistinct in the Churches have a consistent theology and practice. TEC says it is part of the catholic church. It has bishops, priests, deacons, etc. But then it has this hideous thing called its “polity” which undermines everything that the historic epicopate and priesthood are all about–the carrying forth of the apostolic labors.
Clergy are to administer the Church and the sacraments for the sanctification of the laity. Laity are to sanctify the secular temporal order by their prayers, their evangelization and all their efforts on behalf of the kingdom of God.
Now THAT’s Cathlic/Orthodox ecclesiology.
The Church has been in disarray in part because clergy and laity are crowding the sanctuary for ecclesiastical power. Meanwhile secular “theologies” have taken root that are alien to Christianity–and the rest of the culture disintegrates.
That’s what I think of your “polity.”
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
This thread may be losing steam, but let me ask these questions anyways:
What’s the impact of these internal spats within TEC and AC on the greater Christendom kingdom (i.e., the other faithful Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant churches/denominations)?
Second, what will this do to the reappraiser/gay movement in other mainline denominations such as UCC, ELCA, PCUSA, UMC, ABCUSA, etc…?
My two cents worth of speculation:
(1) Very positive impact if ABC and the primates exercise loving, biblical discipline on the wayward child, TEC.
(2) Accelerate the division in the other mainlines from the maniacal shrieking, howling, yelling of discrimination and victimhood from hateful, intolerant, bigoted, homophobic literalists within each mainline.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
They believe in the scripture so they say–they just don’t believe that Jesus is the only way, the truth and the life. They keep asking “how can we tell that to our Muslim and Buddhist friends?” How about telling them the truth so they don’t suffer eternally?
The more they depart from historic Christian theology, the less useful they are to Christ.
Just as was revealed to John about the Church of Thyatira, “you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and who is teaching and leading astray my servants and beguiling them into practicing sexual immorality”. Sound like anyone we know?
This statement about the mind of the house brought joy to me as I read it. Finally TEC has been backed into the corner and has made a strong statement about their real positions. Now it’s time for the rest of the communion to step up to the plate. I pray Akinola hits a homer!
March 21st, 2007 at 6:33 pm
In #144 Jimmy says:
“I read the back and forth exchanges between reappraisers and reasserters ( “you’re stupid”, “no you are even stupider”, “well, you are the stupidest ever” it seems the only two choices are Cheap Grace ( lets redefine the law so why do we really need Grace), or, The Law Can Save ( Just do it), so, again, why do we need Grace
What we really need is Grace and Truth met together in Jesus, and specifically in what he accomplished in dying for us.”
I can only echo: AMEN!!!
“And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, …”
Yeah, right… as long as it fits into my agenda.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Still no word that I can find from the ‘Windsor Bishops’, or from anybishop dissenting from the ‘mind of the House’ resolution. Was it unanimous, or are they bound in TEC ‘polity’ by collective responsibility?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I gather Brad Drell has now posted a statement from Bishop McPherson saying he voted against two resolutions, and that the third asking for a face-to-face meeting with the ABC and Primates Stamding Committee was moved by a ‘Windsor Bishop’ and passed unanimously.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
flabellum, we’ve posted the link to Bp. MacPherson’s statement up at the top of the blog. Also, there are other statements we know of which are in the works or not yet public.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
“Since our General Convention of 2003, we have responded in good faith to the requests we have received from our Anglican partners. We accepted the invitation of the Lambeth Commission to send individuals characteristic of the theological breadth of our Church to meet with it. We happily did so. Our Executive Council voluntarily acceded to the request of the Primates for our delegates not to attend the 2005 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham
Our General Convention in 2006 struggled mightily and at great cost to many, not the least of whom are our gay and lesbian members, to respond favorably to the requests made of us in the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Dromantine Communiqué of 2005. We received a favorable response from the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, which found that our effort had substantially met the concerns of the Windsor Report with the need to clarify our position on the blessing of same sex relationships. Still, our efforts were not accepted by the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué.”
As to the comments that the HOB didnt speak to the other parts of the communique, the above comments show that they said they spoke to nhem and they werent accepted. There is no way they will behave differently than what transpired at GC06.
Art+
March 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
#142 Arthur: I shall cherish your comment, and shout a friendly ‘thank you!’ from this side of the fabled river.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 am
#52 Truth - my postings at 13,18,19,22,and 24 were written as bitter sarcasm for the most part, although it’s not my strong suit. Please don’t confuse me with a reappraiser. Like #63 Joe, and #109, I found myself embarrassed to call myself an Episcopalian after 53 years of doing so, and with a small band of others, walked out of tec about 3 weeks ago. Our church voted to stay in tec “as an orthodox witness” - as if that could possibly make a difference in the current climate! But I should have used more quotation marks…
#110 “One might have assumed that the ‘beleaguered conservatives’ would have been participants in the discussion and the voting. That the so-called ‘network’ bishops never even bothered to participate on a point aimed soley at relieving their perceived ‘misery’ gives us a stunning insight into the character of their movement. ” What makes you think the network bishops didn’t participate? There were some who were ill, and didn’t make it, but others were there. The posted reference somewhere here on T19 to Bp John Howe’s letter explains he was the one who proposed inviting the Archbishop over here.
#140 Arthur - I agree that those who call themselves “orthodox” have some self examination to do. In our church’s 40 days of discernment, I found repentance. I should have been paying more attention. I know there are those who were, but if all of us had been, perhaps this moment could have been averted. Communication is more transparent in the days of the Internet. But I do understand how easy it is to assume that someone in the church is taking care of : (insert your choice: Pike, Spong…) So now that I have walked out of tec, for the first time in my life I am seriously church shopping. I’m in Northern VA, so there are a lot of choices nearby… the CANA churches, AMIA, REC, Orthodox, and others… It’s time to study all of what went wrong, and get back on track. I hope to stay Anglican.
Still, last night I found myself crying, shedding tears for what was my church, and is now unrecognizable. I do think that many of the bishops don’t see what we see. They are so busy at their altar of Justice they have forgotten the gospel of Redemption. They don’t seem to believe in sin, and if you don’t believe in sin, who needs salvation? Let me say too, for any reappraisers still reading, I think the witness that the church was not paying enough attention to injustice was valuable. But I believe that that contribution over time evolved to something else, and that something else became a false Gospel, denying redemption to the world, at least here.
#104 - what part of “Episcopal” don’t you understand? If we cannot believe that the Holy Spirit is discerned through the gathering of the Primates, who are the apostolic successors, then why have bishops at all?
And as to “emancipated laity” referred to in these documents - the laity was not enslaved, so how is it emancipated? What it was before the laity became more active in ministry was a laity unengaged, relying on the priest to do all the ministry. Looking to the bishops for guidance does not invalidate the ministry of the laity. And if the bishops are to stay on track in each individual province, they should be looking to the gathered Primates, not thumbing their nose at them!
#20 Bill Carroll says the authority doesn’t exist within the Communion, although it looks like that is being corrected. At StandFirm, Fr. Matt Kennedy has an excellent analysis, saying that the tec bishops convinced themselves that Windsor was a dialogue. And now that they see a different, firmer approach, they think the rules are being rewritten… I say - bring on more authority for the Anglican Communion Primates. The lack of it has led us here to ruin.
Today my tears have dried, and I am taking a deep breath, and trying to focus on our way forward - somewhere else.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Regarding the ‘gospel’ being proclaimed by the HOB majority:
“As we have said before, so now I say again, If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.”
Gal. 1:9
I think that says it all…
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Linda writes: “Still, last night I found myself crying, shedding tears for what was my church, and is now unrecognizable.”
Those tears were tears of love. Jesus wept. And Jeremiah wept. It’s okay to weep.
Also fwiw, I never thought you were a reappraiser.
God bless you Linda and God bless your decision to leave TEC for a more spiritually healthy church family to worship Christ.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
In my entire life I have neer seen a group of clergy flip the bird at the Body of Christ in such a provocative way. Grab your kids dig your parents and grandparents out of the columbaria, and head for the doors!