There is no hope and a future for any diocese or parish that remains connected to TEC. The Mark Lawrence case and various abuses of the canons should make this clear. This is a spiritual fact: TEC is terminally ill and the cancer will eventually spread to every part of the body.
Network bishops must prepare for separation as best they can and stay united in fellowship with each other and their Common Cause partners. Don’t wait for the “Windsor bishops.” Once there were 60 Irenaeus bishops, then 40 AAC bishops, now there are 20 “Windsor Bishops” and a dozen (and counting down?) Network bishops. Unless you are prepared to act and act in concert, you and your clergy and dioceses will be picked off one by one.
Network bishops and dioceses must be prepared to lose their rank and property. Many faithful priests have already paid this price as a matter of conscience and been summarily deposed. Congregations have walked away from their sanctuaries and now worship in schools. It is now time for the Network bishops and dioceses to take this risk by breaking communion with false and lukewarm colleagues in TEC. Remember the fires of Oxford!
I guess he does not think we should wait until TEC is “excommunicated” from the Anglican communion. Perhaps he thinks that there will not be one Anglican communion after September but two (or three!). I am afraid that this mentality is winning the day and that the ACI way is not being followed.
Sorry, Stephen, I couldn’t help myself:
“The Oxford Pureglow inset electric fire is ideal for modern contemporary lifestyles.”
[url=http://www.westcountryfires.co.uk/fires/products/711.asp]from here[/url]
RGEaton
Thank you, Rev. Prof. Noll, for saying what people like me and others have said for the past three years. Perhaps when a voice of your stature is added to ours, people will listen. Its been over for a number of years; Gene Robinson was not the flashpoint, but confirmation.
The ACI and Bishop Howe types who insist on following “the rules” are deluded. TEC has not followed “the rules” since the 60’s and simply cannot morally require others to follow them. Obey God’s commands, only.
Eugene, could you answer the following?
The TEC is terminally ill. T or F?
When do you really think the the TEC will be tossed out of the communion?
The thing which really disturbs me is the easy assumption that the Episcopal Church is no longer a church. Such a decision is being made by collective private judgement and not by authoritative determination. There’s something political about the whole thought process. The evidence seems compelling. There’s no room at the inn for faithful Episcopalians we are told and therefore if we have any integrity at all, we should leave immediately for what? We could be talking about Republicans or Democrats.
Again we are left with private judgement or perhaps geographical convenience. Which alternative separated church should we opt for, on what basis, and if it doesn’t really matter, why the choices?
It is certainly easy to absorb the lesson of the South Carolina failed election, or the difficulties experienced by some or many in dioceses whose bishops fail to demonstrate a familiarity with mere Christianity, sometimes in a manner which causes genuine suffering, and determine, in a consumer ecclesiastical scene, that one wishes to shop for a different brand. No doubt there is absolute freedom to suggest that one’s new franchise is superior to another. But all this is far from a belief in One Holy Catholc and Apostolic Church, a horror of schism or a belief that schism and heresy have much in common: the placing of personal opinion above the faith of the church. Private opinion, exalted, creates “heresies” by which we are distressed, but it also enables schism, however worthy the subscriptions of the schismatic. I say this not to attack separated bodies, however new, but to remind us all that separating is a frightful and frightening choice, even if it seems, or even may be inevitable.
IF the Episcopal Church casts itself adrift from the Anglican Communion in a complete and total fashion, or is drummed out of the regiment by recognized authority, then many of us shall have to make shift for ourselves as best we can. But while it remains possible, while we remain free, while we are enabled to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments and give mutual care to the faithful, we are not free, on the basis of our personal opinions, however widely shared, to abandon the church. I do not doubt that many in good faith and conscience feel called out to other places and fields -an “otherness” which may be next door- and I really have no quarrel with their enthusiastic recommendations, but I am haunted by the old story which suggests that when people leave the church, even because of persecution and suffering, they weaken both the church they leave and that which they erect.
It may become necessary to withdraw ourself from a church (TEC) but by the saving power of Jesus Christ we are still members of His body The CHURCH. There’s a big difference between the two.
Robroy asked:
[i]When do you really think the the TEC will be tossed out of the communion? [/i]
Answer: After the NEXT meeting! Then if nothing changes, they will definately do something — right after the next meeting after that.
robroy asked me; could you answer the following?
1. The TEC is terminally ill. T or F? [b]Not sure: I guess God could change its direction[/b].
2. When do you really think the the TEC will be tossed out of the communion? [b] Again: not sure. If the communion stays together TEC could be disciplined. Tossed out? Not this year.[/b]
I do not think we should leave TEC until there is no hope for change or until TEC is disciplined by the whole Anglican Communion, not just several GSPs.
I wonder if Stephen Noll has received a response from any Network bishop, or is he looking for courage in all the wrong places?
1. Absolutely sure that TEC is terminally ill. 2. Tossed out? Maybe never.
There is no hope of change. The hardened hearts of pecusa are steadfast on their perverse path and the whole AC doesn’t have the guts to impose discipline.
The Episcopal Church has, like Islam and the Church of Latter Day Saints, gone outside the bounds of Christianity; that’s the real point.
Thanks wv parson for this:
[blockquote] But while it remains possible, while we remain free, while we are enabled to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments and give mutual care to the faithful, we are not free, on the basis of our personal opinions, however widely shared, to abandon the church.
[/blockquote]
I grew up as a classical Pentecostal and know full well the attraction of “coming out from among them and being separate.” Indeed, apostate leadership cannot be followed. But our ministry to those whom we are called to serve–and here’s a word I see seldom used in the debates about the Episcopal Church–and love cannot be so easily abandoned.
As an outsider, it seems to me that clear thinking on this issue is bedevilled by the idea that the phrase “the Anglican communion” refers to something. To what thing does it refer? What constitutes membership? What do members have in common? Does it have a leader (who?) or a spokesman (who?)? Was there a time when it was not? When did it come into being? Are the members in “communion” with one another? Do members agree as to who is in, and who out? Do all members agree on what it is to be “in” or “out”?
Perhaps, if someone (who?) “booted” (how?) TEC “out” (where?) of the “communion” (with whom?), then an Anglican communion would come into being.
I don’t mean this to sound negative – still less hostile. I’m just wondering whether the thing that people refer to as “the Anglican communion” is a thing that does not (yet) exist in reality, but which might be brought into existence if, say, two or three prospective members could agree on a common definition of what it might be.
CPKS, what a silly notion! The very idea that a church or communion of churches should have the same core beliefs. What are you, a Southern Baptist or something?
In response to #1, my letter is consistent with the Dar Es Salaam Communique and even the Windsor Report, which envision one Province in the USA. One thing is certain: TEC will not repent and reform. If Canterbury and the Primates take action and declare that TEC has walked apart, then ACN and Common Cause will have to organize the separate Province in the teeth of continued hostile litigation. If the ABC and Primates fail to act and thus abandon their own disciplinary statements, then a second jurisdiction, which is already recognized by a number of large Provinces, will emerge. What I am calling for is clarity of intention and contingency planning.
#6 What do you mean by each of the terms “One”, “Holy”, “Catholic” and “Apostolic”? If “oneness” is not by being joined in Christ, and the “Apostolic” teaching is optional and the meaning of “Holy” is in dispute and “Catholic” is only defined by agreeing to “listen” to each other then what is the point?
I agree with Harvey (#7) that in important respect these terms apply to all Christians not just Anglicans. If “church” did refer to a specific denomination then we should all become Roman Catholic or Orthodox tomorrow and stop wasting time with the Anglican communion.
Thanks Eugene, “I do not think we should leave TEC until there is no hope.” I agree completely but I and Tony from CNY have indeed given up hope on the TEC.
I can testify that there is life after TEC and it is far more fulfilling than I would ever have been able to imagine! It cost me my home, my career, friends, etc., but leaving TEC was clearly the best thing that I could have done.
In fact each of the people named in this letter from Bishop Sauls has been shown great mercy by God and lhas been elevated by the Lord to more significant ministry.
Memo: (Partial)
Bishop Sauls to Clergy of Diocese of Lexington
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I want you to be aware that additional press coverage is likely over the weekend or next week. The likely subject is disciplinary steps involving Martin Gornick, Anna Gulick, Alice Linsley, and David Brannen. There has already been attention to this by David Virtue and the American Anglican Council weekly newsletter. For your information, I did a little research and discovered that since General Convention, 27 other priests in 16 other dioceses have been inhibited for abandonment of the communion, the course of action I have followed here.
It is also possible that there will be coverage regarding Tory Baucum, a priest licensed in the Diocese of Lexington, who was transferred to the Diocese of London last year by his former bishop (West Missouri) but without consulting me. Believing this to be contrary to the intention of a Mind of the House Resolution of our House of Bishops forbidding transfers of American priests to foreign jurisdictions who do not actually intend to move to the foreign jurisdiction (for example, as in David Brannen’s case) passed last September (although Tory’s transfer was actually during the summer), I have declined to renew his license unless he transfers back to an American jurisdiction that will cooperate with me in keeping Tory accountable to our church. I believe Tory’s transfer, as well as David’s, was exactly what the resolution was intended to prevent.”
“What I am calling for is clarity of intention and contingency planning.”
Then, Prof. Noll, you should have said that in your letter.
Otherwise, the import of your words only gives false bravado to some well-meaning followers to separate before any such strategy is evident and in place to succeed.
What is the final argument to your call to “break communion”? I see at least three things (perhaps 5), one of which seems to be implied since it is not as plainly articulated:
1) If you don’t separate from TEC right now you will inevitably face the fires of martyrdom (as in your cry to remember Latimer, Cranmer and Ridley being burned to death);
2) You have to separate from TEC right now “or WE shall lose our precious Anglican heritage” (emphasis mine);
3) (and the implied point) If you don’t leave TEC right now the cancer (presumably of apostacy) will eat you alive and spit you out a reappraiser.
Regarding the “Oxford fires”, are you suggesting that these 3 martyrdoms had no eventual consequence for the furthering of Anglicanism? That they were simply wasted deaths? Or was this some sort of scare tactic? If there are those within TECusa who may be on an unseen apostolate path to martyrdom, or who even are somewhat aware, having discerned a spiritual gift for martyrdom, and all with the greater potential of being the same kind of blood foundation for revival within TECusa, why do you not recognize that? Why would you effectively negate their God-given place within this hour? Or do you just refuse to accept it as a valid part of any reasserter strategy?
Regarding #2, you’re just going to have to explain that one for everyone you are addressing.
Regarding #3, yes, that is a real danger of membership in the Body of Christ, as Paul spoke of often, with clear exhortation to stand firm. And we must add that it is an insidious cancer. So, while we are here, waiting for some sure and certain solution to our mainline denomination demise (the shifting sands of “Anglicanism” help us define where our hope should ultimately rest), let us not cower and individually spin off but hold fast to the Faith that is ours in Jesus Christ, being built up by the good news testimonies that Jesus heals cancer.
To all those to whom Dr. Noll’s letter was intended with great heartfelt sincerity, I would also say do not be anxious, but like Abraham and the man in Jesus’ parable who goes to his neighbor’s house at midnight, be bold and forthright as you ASK, SEEK, and KNOCK.
If nothing else, I will agree that it is Come to Jesus time.
RGEaton
William#2 (#15): of course you are right. I’m full of these crazy ideas. I consider my wrists well and truly slapped!
Father Rob, you over-read, “Remember the fires of Oxford.” By it, Dr. Noll is saying be bold and be prepared for sacrifice. We (un)fortunately cannot burn heretics anymore or there would be burnings occurring on both sides. Boldness is not a characteristic associated with Anglicanism of late but was previously.
The second point is easy. If discipline had been meted out earlier, it might have been directed solely at the TECusa. The TEC has been diligent in using its considerable funds to spread the poison. Now the entire communion is threatened. It is difficult to say where the bondservants of TECusa (Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, etc) will go.
In objection three, you first point out the gravity that could have answered your #2, then you state, “let us not [i]cower[/i] and [i]individually[/i] spin off.” That’s a troubling and dishonest statement. You attempt to ascribe opposite meaning in Dr. Noll’s words. He is calling for boldness, not cowering. And this is a corporate call to all tradition minded Episcopalians (and also to Anglicans world wide) to separate themselves from the cancerous TEC hierarchy. Yes, this is a contingency plan in that the TEC may…hold your breath…repent and renounce their arrogant intransigence. If not, the Common Cause meeting follows directly the HOB’s.
Lastly, Dr. Noll is not concerned that failure to separate will make reappraisers out the orthodox. [i]”Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”[/i] There are three eventual outcomes, which we have all seen with friends already to date, with failing to make a bold break with the TEC: 1) You suffer constant predations and become disillusioned with the faith, 2) You flee to Rome, the eastern Church, etc. or 3) You flee to a continuing church like AMiA, CANA, etc. In numbers, is it a third each? Of course, option 1 is the most troubling and Bp Akinola spoke about this in his letter to the ABC. Souls are being lost.
Dr Noll has fairly expressed the state of things here. However, I think it is fair to observe the following:
The official and institutional structures of the Anglican Communion (Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglican Consultative Council, whatever remains of a Lambeth Conference [planned and presided over by Cantaur and the ACC], and maybe even the Primates’ Meeting), all lack the will to exclude (or even effectively discipline) the Episcopal Church. In terms of the Anglican Communion, TEC isn’t going anywhere. (BTW: Those who expect some new reality after the September 30th “deadline” have learned nothing from the last several years, and apparently cannot be taught)
While the so-called “Windsor Bishops” may still exist by name, they are inextricably intertwined with the institution leadership of TEC. At this point if they exist in any sense other than name (I have seen nothing to suggest they do) then this existence will simply be as a minor voice of protest, or a whispered – and ignored – call for pause, as innovations continue in TEC, and as the orthodox are run out (with nice words and hopes for their conversion to “Anglican inclusivity” and return, of course).
The Anglican Communion, as it has been constituted, will continue its slow devolution.
In the US, individual parishes and priests and laypeople will continue to leave TEC to the various jurisdictions, and these will face increasing difficulty in coming together as a common and reconstituted Anglican Church in the US. (There may be a wish, intention, or desire to do this…but even good people with good wishes/intentions/desires will become distracted from this larger complex…and needed….organic reunion).
The few remaining Network Bishops will continue to “count down” to zero in TEC, and what is left of them…if/when they actually decide to do something together….will be unable to do much. (Sadly, Bishop Howe seems to be a recent example of this group’s loss of nerve). I am confident (and speak from both observation and experience) that after they are gone any orthodox clergy or churches that are left will be picked off one by one, or they will be slowly diminished under the new episcopal administration (Case in point: The Diocese of Florida after Steve Jecko).
I could say more, but like many of you I grow weary of this “same old same old”..and by that I mean someone like Dr. Noll points out the bloody obvious and orthodox Anglican leaders in the US (if they respond to it at all) just talk about it. And while they do little or nothing parishes/priests/laypeople languish and then leave, and the Global South tries to pick up a few of the scattering pieces. For a church headed into it’s fifth year (more?) of accute crisis that is, ahem, rather pathetic.
Dr. Noll’s call to action is a good one, and there will be some talk about it, but there will be no collective action…only a collection of little, individual (and often desperate) ones, that will not lead to the restoration of a catholic Anglican witness, but will lead instead to the end of a true Anglican Communion of churches.
PS: When I read Dr. Noll’s letter I thought of the great ad campaign of the Royal Bank of Scotland: “Less Talk. Make it Happen”.
Watch it here: http://mediacentre.rbs.com/advertising/usa-advertising/tv-advertising/less-talk-make-it-happen/cablecar/index.aspx
A metaphor for the Episcopal Church’s Network bishops?
Brad Page, you articulate well what I have said and believed for years. There are indeed those committed to staying until sept 30 to honor the “process” of whether the AC will as a whole discipline TEC and others who see zero hope of that happening in their own individual prayer and discernment or based upon the events we have all watched unfold together. The notion that at this moment TEC will reform is truly fanciful.Dr. Noll offers real leadership here from a voice that has earned respect after a lifetime of ministry. That people react defensively to his counsel is sign they are lost. If you are in God’s hands there is no occasion for defensiveness but instead gentle confidence. At this juncture the orthodox in TEC need to be like Moses preparing his people to leave for the promised land, instead of seeking straw to make bricks for the Presiding Bishop.
wvparson wrote, (I believe with heartfelt passion), “…while we are enabled to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments and give mutual care to the faithful, we are not free, on the basis of our personal opinions, however widely shared, to abandon the church.”
I appreciate the tough bind that clergy are in, especially where leaving seems to be tantamount to abandoning sheep to the wolves. I also am sympathetic to the judgment (sometimes private!) that private judgment is not reason enough to declare anathema on a bishop or the TEC. And indeed, one should not abandon the Church based on private opinion.
Yes, this would all be much simpler if the Primates with Canterbury declared some time ago, “having failed to repent, ECUSA/TEC is no longer a legitmate church of Christ, theirs is a false gospel.”
Although the Primates had, and have, the authority to say that, it is exceedingly problematic to do so, for they would be stepping dramatically, shockingly, beyond Anglican precedent at the Communion level. Better, it seemed, to go the Windsor route, exercise some bridge-gapping discipline, and ultimately have a Covenant that would clarify that which is acceptable/unacceptable. That’s not working out too well.
Regardless, we have Primates who have called those in TEC to abandon 815. Moreover, a case from Scripture can be made for leaving TEC, as well as a case from Reason (and to a lesser extent, from Tradition).
TEC has already gone under water, there is no hope whatsoever for that ship of spiritual death. There is only hope for the passengers and crew (clergy) who are in some gracious air-holds that may sustain them until they have the courage to swim to the safety or are miraculously rescued. That is what I think Dr. Noll is saying. The final moment of rescue is at hand before all the air runs out. Thus the only option for spiritual life is rescue by Communion divers, or the crew leads small groups to escape themselves. There is no third option that given time, people within the sunken bulkhead of TEC can raise it back to the surface. There is no more hidden reserve of air, and the bad crew continues to drill even more holes, accelerating TEC’s descent into the abyss.
Through Baptism, Christ adopts into his kingdom. Beyond that, whether by confirmation and/or by priestly vow, we enter into a bond of loyalty to some ecclesial structure within Christ’s Church, and that decision reflects a judgment. Personal judgment isn’t bad, it is a fact of life. Personal judgment is only bad when it is prideful and independent, and rejects the authorities we know: Scripture (including the Law of love), Reason, and Tradition (including apostolic/ecclesial hierarchy/ministry carried into the present).
Therefore, we are free to make a choice for life right now. We are not doomed to death, just because the Captains of our sunken ship tell us to be “good soldiers” and to stay put. Ideally, of course, there should never be a conflict between loyalties to God and loyalties to ecclesial institutions, but sometimes there is. Now is such a time wherein we are to obey God rather than man. That’s not just one person’s personal opinion. It carries the weight of Primates, Scholars, and most importantly, Scripture.
I believe Dr. Knoll is offering a counsel of encouragement to the Network Bishops.
I don’t believe he is maligning anyone who is not convinced that immediate separation from TEC is a cure-all.
Each of us has to use our informed consciences to navigate the stormy ecclesiastical seas.
None of us is currently being prevented by “TEC” from practicing the Faith or from the urgent call to commend the Faith and spread the Faith.
No age of the Church has been without the twin sins of heresy and schism. There has never been a truly “Golden Age” of Church faithfulness to Jesus Christ. We are, each of us, guilty of living what C.S. Lewis called the “undulating” spiritual life of joyous success in our disicipleship and depressing failure in our discipleship.
May God give the Network Bishops encouragement from Stephen Noll’s open letter. May each of them have the courage of their convictions. May the rest of us refrain from judgment.
rob-roy,
I appreciate your defense of Noll’s letter-made-public. I think, though, I’ll wait to hear from Stephen about whether or not I “over read” the Oxford fires bit.
To your other concerns, perhaps I didn’t make MYself clear enough, even as I made that critique of the posting of his letter. Written to those working on strategy for the whole, one could assume that body to take into consideration all that I wrote in response. Fine.
But made public to everyone, he needed to spell out a greater understanding of “get out now.” What contingency is involved in that strategy? None.
And is this a new call to action? No.
So, then, how else to respond? Some — even those already out of TECusa — will say, “Yeah, bold! Finally, clear!”, etc. Others will say, “Who?” Others will say, like me, will say, “Broad strokes rarely include everybody”, and so we question for clarity, because if there is anything the ACN needs right now it is the fullest range of options available to the Faithful as possible before crafting the master plan.
Now we have people trying to explain Stephen Noll! I’m pointing out to HIM that he has left much to be explained, and too much left unconsidered for all of us locals who are not involved, say, in the ACN Council meeting today (nice timing on his part, eh?).
And what’s left is an old question variously asked by many commenters on T1:9 and SF and other blogs, What about those who are (intentionally) left behind? And I don’t mean the blind, ignorant and naive; or the apostate. I mean those who remain by calling.
RGEaton
Ron Eaton+ (#27):
I understand your predicament, and mean no judgment or attack by the following. It really is a question of clarity, too.
On the point of those who remain in TEC “by calling” (and here I specifically address the calling of a priest) how does one fulfill some of the primary elements of that vocation within the present reality of Episcopal Church? As one who is ordained and licensed as a priest, one has authority to minister granted by the Episcopal Church (and one is therefore is a representative person of the Episcopal Church). How is one who is a reasserter now able to bring new Christians, and Christians from other bodies, into that church as a specific ecclesial reality?
(And, before anyone says it: Yes, I know the reply that the Church is more than an institution (thank God), but it is also more than an idea. It is a relationship, yes, with Christ (as His Body), but it is one that is intertwined with human relationships…and institutions. And priests bring converts into specific incarnations of the Church).
The question springs from my own experience. One of the major turning points in my journey out of the Episcopal priesthood was when I realized that I could not, in good conscience, prepare the college students in my cure of souls (I was a college chaplain) for Confirmation in TEC. Later I asked a firmly reasserter priest, who is also firm in his “calling” to stay in TEC, how he can bring people into the Episcopal Church. He attempted to reassure me by saying that he makes sure they know that they are coming in to fight the Unitarian ascendancy and be firm Christian witnesses within and to TEC (sort of “in the church, but not of the church”).
What an odd sense of evangelism this Anglican crisis has wrought.
This makes no sense to me in term of priestly calling. Unless the idea of “Church” is to remain that: Simply an idea.
Brad,
I appreciate the emotional sensitivities, and I did not sense your comments as judgmental, nor attacking.
I especially appreciate your defining, ‘“by calling†(and here I specifically address the calling of a priest)’; unfortunately, that is not the specific focus for my use of the phrase “by calling.”
Certainly, those “called” into the vocation of ordained leadership have serious questions to ask of themselves as they contrast the vows made, and the environment of TECusa today. And, I might add, any ordained person in TECusa morally is required to continue to fulfull those vows while they remain.
But “by calling”, as I used it at the end of #27, has to do not only with the vocation of ordained leadership, but ordained leadership within TECusa. At a time of wanting to be somewhere else (to provide context for you), the Lord called me to be in TEC.
Everytime I ask God if He knows what He’s doing with me, or in what denomination He’s asked me to serve, He says (and I paraphrase), “Excuse me?”, and reiterates the call.
So, while I am specifically here I will continue to serve the Lord as an ordained leader and do my part to help build up the Kingdom of God. If I do any other, I will be immediately disobedient to God’s specific will and calling. I have asked the Lord if there is some special task or manner of leadership I am to take on, voiced as “Why am I here?” And He has given me some indication, prophetically, which has yet to be fulfilled. In the meantime, I take some consolation in knowing that – despite my deep conviction as a broken vessel – one of the resultant benefits within TECusa itself will be the increase of the Light in the midst of the darkness.
RGEaton