The Archbishop of Canterbury told General Synod today that he ‘regrets’ the decision by The Episcopal Church house of deputies to overturn the moratorium on the ordination of gay bishops. At the same time, the Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori has warned the Church of England that it should not recognise the new Anglican Church in North America, arguing ‘schism is not a Christian act.’
Responding to a question by Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream, Dr Williams said: ‘As for General Convention it remains to be seen I think whether the vote of the House of Deputies will be endorsed by the House of Bishops. If the House of Bishops chooses to block then the moratorium remains. I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America but I can’t say more about that as I have no details.’ Dr Williams also responded to concerns about the funding for the ‘listening process’ saying that he had been personally involved in securing that funding and had been completely unaware of any ‘agenda’ attached to the funding.
Read it all and note for the umpteenth time, this is not my headline, it is theirs. Also note that Ruth Gledhill has an audio link to what the Archbishop has said and you need to take the time to listen to it yourself–KSH.
Note also Ruth Gledhill’s own comments: This is all pretty scarily serious and it is difficult to see where else it is going to end apart from in schism.
Why, in this case, is schism a bad thing? Is this not an inevitable end?
Should not TEC face the consequences of its own intransigence? Larry
Schism is bad because it fractures the body of Christ. Of course, it is also wrong to see a dichotomy between the problems of heresy (false teaching) and schism. The truth is more that heresy demands a response and eventual will fracture the body of Christ. The innovations of the EC are fracturing the EC. The EC is breaking apart and this is no longer denial but self embraced deception. The ABC has been a weak leader and his goal is to try to hold the AC together. Yet, he is honest enough to see that if the EC and its HOD continues on the path it is following with the acceptance of D025, then it is going over the cliff and there is little he can do to prevent further damage to the Communion of the larger catholic Church.
The holding thing stopping this from happening is the decision of the HOB. It is time to realize that the Bishops have a thankless job. They are the ones who see what is happening in their dioceses, the divisions, the conflicts, and above all the cost. This is made even worse by the present economic problems. Churches that were financially stable aren’t and the ones that were struggle may close. The coffers of the Dioceses are suffering and in many cases the diocese does little or nothing to support Christian mission and is a drain upon local congregation. People rather see their churches stay afloat rather than the EC or even sometimes their dioceses. Many Churches can no longer pay their assessments and it is hurting their dioceses. Bishop know that if they follow the path of the HOD this will only get worse and make their ministries harder. Stress takes a toll on all. Take note how many bishops are retiring and getting out of the kitchen before the heat overwhelms them….it is getting worse not better.
Lord have mercy,
If I’ve interpreted the article correctly, the willingness of the HoB
to back the HoD would be a communion-ending event between TEC
and the AC.
At the risk of being banned or moderated for cynicism, there is always the possibility of this being temporarily fudged. I do not believe that Rowan Williams wants a split on his watch, and I don’t think a sizeable number of the House of Bishops do either.
So I think we need to wait and see until after GC 2009 finishes to see what it’s final product will be.
I agree with you #4 but that is the question isn’t it……What will the HOB do….and the ABC doesn’t want a breaking of the AC on his watch…but will either do enough to lead and prevent it…that is the question.
Matthew in #4, cynicism is all about tone. Your comment is quite fine. And I agree with you the sausage making process is far from over.
The honest thing to do, and my hoped for outcome of GC, is that TEC accept the reality and consequences of 2nd tiered status in the Anglican Communion. I hope too that the Anglican Church in North America will be recognized as being in full communion with Anglicanism.
If the bishops, from a TEC perspective, falter and fail to approve D025, will there be the same coerced type of resolution that brought about B033? KJS cannot walk away from this convention without a “victory” for the LGBT lobby/constituency. It is her gospel.
[blockquote]the Bishops have a thankless job[/blockquote]All they had to do was uphold the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church. Their failure to do any of those three things has placed them in the situation they find themselves in now. If what they want is “thanks”, they should just do their job.
The HOB is in a situation of its own creation. If there were no consequences they would back D025 in a minute because they think it right.
Even if D025 or something similar does not pass and TEC continues to officially pretend to follow B033, it is not binding and each diocese will do what it wants to do. The ACNA will not come back and orthodox will continue to leave. If the HOB passes D025 it will at least show some honesty.
It takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. So also for marriages and divorces, and for religious associations and disassociations. And as often a second marriage is the one that goes on happily until a couple are parted by death, it is a likely prospect that the Anglican Communion, once freed from The Episcopal Church and newly associated with the Anglican Communion of North America, will blossom and flourish in wonderful and lasting new ways.
Keeping in view the ABC’s institutional responsibilities and the realities of the global Communion, I read this as a shot across the bow of the HOB — hold the line on B033 or pay the consequences. I suspect that we may get a nice batch of Anglican fudge from the HOB to try to bridge the gap between what the HOD and the Communion. It will be interesting to see if the 20+ hardcore radicals (like Chane and Robinson himself) can carry the day in the HOB. In any case, TEC now seems poised either for a break with the Communion in the relatively short-term, OR a meltdown at GC between the institutional reappraisers and the ideological reappraisers. The orthodox are not in this fight, they’re relegated to the sidelines — although they may assist the institutional reappraisers in mixing up a nice batch of fudge for us.
I find myself in agreement with Larry (#1) and Matthew (#4).
A helpful analogy (and one in keeping with the biblically sanctioned metaphor of a Body) might be the problem which faces a patient and doctor of a gangrenous limb. Naturally everyone concerned agrees that a below-the-knee amputation is a terrible solution in one sense. Naturally one first tries everything else one can think of: antibiotics, etc.
But one of the responsibilities of the doctor is to be clearheaded enough to distinguish when the other remedies are exhausted and at what point we are simply acting in an irresponsibly delusional manner to persevere in them — at what point are we putting off the decision to a later date wherein the ultimate result will be a much more serious amputation (or death) preceded by a period of senseless torment?
It’s in this sense that Larry asks What’s The Big Deal About Schism? Of course he understands that schism is a terrible thing in itself. Implicit in his question is Given That TEC Is Firmly Set On This Course.
What many of us are objecting to is yet another round of lying (to oneself and to others). What is the point of the HOB refusing to pass D025 now when, if they were honest, they’d admit it does indeed represent their state of mind and furthermore something like it WILL certainly pass in GC 2012?
I could respect the HOB voting no if they really were liberals but also Windsor bishops: revisionist in their personal beliefs regarding gay ordination and SSUs but willing to staunchly support Windsor out of concern of tearing the body and to do so indefinitely, for many decades at least. But of course, if they were like that, VGR’s ordination would never have happened — they would have voted no at GC 2003 too.
It’s in this sense that I view Rowan’s actions in the last 10 days as quite wrong. It is grossly immoral to encourage lying and delusion in a situation like this. What he should be doing is gently encouraging everyone to be fully honest. He should be saying now to the bishops that if any one of them votes AGAINST D025, it should mean that he intends to be a fully Windsor bishop for as long as he can forsee and in no way subvert the intent of Windsor (in any of its aspects), and that he will encourage his colleagues to do the same. Rowan should very specifically caution them against voting no only to buy time, delay an unpleasant event happening “on their watch”, or to appease people overseas while in other respects will continue to incrementally move forward in its agenda. These are all deeply unethical reasons to vote no. Instead it sounds like Rowan is indirectly encouraging them to vote no for any reason, including those.
Actually, the schism already occurred in 2003. The Primates unanimously agreed that the consecration of VGR would “rent the Communion at its deepest level.” TEC went ahead and did it anyway. That act was ipso facto schismatic.
I think +Rowan would have better served the Communion to acknowledge that fact rather than try to hold TEC within the family. Though I admire his intent, responding with tough love would certainly have caused more immediate pain but would more likely generate a redemptive outcome. TEC would have been under no illusion that they had ALREADY walked apart.
The Roman Catholics and Orthodox (indeed everyone but revisionest mainliners) recognize this fact. Anglicans are the only ones in denial.
I believe that the HOB will uphold B033 on its face, while they continue to violate it in practice. We will likely have several more years of this melodrama. This is what they understand “mission” to be.
The ABC has a F-U-D-G-E detector that is operating?! Who knew?
However, it would seem he is sending as clearly as he has ever been capable of simplicity, the simple message to the HOB: “we read this as institutional approval of your path to date and your intent to continue on that path despite all that the Anglican Communion has endured in attempting to have you remain among us; be warned, yet again, that ‘walking apart’ is your action.”
This is a clear sign to the HOB that if they approve, there is no fig leaf. If they do not approve, the fig leaf remains.
I’m betting they’ll not approve so as to “save the appearances” and allow further contamination of the Anglican Communion with the heretical new thang gozpell (r).
[blockquote]A helpful analogy (and one in keeping with the biblically sanctioned metaphor of a Body) might be the problem which faces a patient and doctor of a gangrenous limb. Naturally everyone concerned agrees that a below-the-knee amputation is a terrible solution in one sense. Naturally one first tries everything else one can think of: antibiotics, etc.[/blockquote]
An analogy I’ve used many a time here and elsewhere about the Current Unpleasantness. Unfortunately, we have an ABC that eschewed all mild, non-invasive treatments in favor of pretending that wishing away the infection would suffice. Now we reap the consequences of his inaction, with amputation looming.
Make no mistake about it: This crisis is TEC’s creation, but it has been nurtured and lovingly tended by Rowan Williams at every step of the way.
I can not presume to speak for Rowan Williams, but my sense is that he is committed to maintaining the Anglican Communion in its present form for as long as he can. His own church, the Church of England, could easily fracture and is slowly losing numbers and influence.
With regards to ACNA, Archbishop Williams may very well wish to see the back of TEC. But it isn’t just TEC. The Canadians have been neck and neck in their race with the Americans to see who can depart furthest from the faith once received. Recognizing ACNA not only spites the Episcopal Church but it also hits the Anglican Church of Canada as well. The Church of England’s ties run very much deeper with Canada than with the US.
Also, while I believe that he is personally sympathetic to the positions of the North Americans, he also recognizes that Africa is the future of Anglicanism. So his goal is to keep everyone talking to each other for as long as that is possible.
Right now I suspect the Archbishop of Canterbury no longer thinks that he is a chief shepherd, but rather a catherd of some sort. I also suspect he may be altering his views on corporal punishment.
Did I see a chink in TEC’s armor here:
[blockquote] “…regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America …”[/blockquote]
TEC is just a part of the North American Church in RW’s mind now.
This whole “schism” thing has bothered me for some time, not because I believe I’m a schismatic, but because I know the appeal to schism to be disingenuous. Have they not considered St. John 15:5-6:
[blockquote]I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.[/blockquote]
It is not schism to cut off a withered branch and cast it into the fire. It is the love of the husbandman for the vine. So if TEC believes ACNA is a branch which is withering and will die, why complain of schism?
I don’t believe ACNA has complained of schism, have they? I would suggest that they know and understand this passage of scripture. Indeed, much of the 15th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John seems to bear on this issue.
Clemmitt
It’s actually funny that INCLUSION has consistently been used as a way of confusing the true issue at hand ever since spring 2003.
The true issue regarding VGR’s ordination and SSUs has nothing to do with “inclusion” or (my PC favorite) “full inclusion in the life of the faith community.” All the leading traditionalists (Duncan, Kendall, Fitz A, etc.) were thunderously unanimous in saying that sexually active gay people were absolutely welcome in the church (with no restrictions on baptism or holy communion). The TRUE issue was simple: the traditional job description of bishop implicitly required that the candidate be a wholesome example in terms of sexual morality (i.e. chaste Christian marriage or chastely single). Therefore the question was whether divorcing your wife and picking up a permanent gay lover was sharply outside Christian teaching regarding sexual morality. The issue for GC 2003 had nothing to do with making gay people INCLUDED. The issue at hand was whether homosexuality was sin (i.e. a broken condition like many other states of human existence after the Fall). The issue at hand was church teaching — not inclusion.
Now, ironically, the decision about what to do with D025 is again being framed in terms of INCLUSION. Do the various members of the HOB want to feel (and their dioceses to feel) INCLUDED in the Anglican Communion? If so, they should vote a certain way, Rowan suggests. AGAIN, the true issue is circumvented: which is the same as it was before. Here I am inclined to agree with Susan Russell and others:
* if it is just as wrong to refuse to ordain as bishop a man living with his gay lover as it would have been to refuse to ordain a man because he is black,
* and if that was your implicit rationale when you voted for VGR in 2003…
…then surely “inclusion” in the AC is too high a price to pay to be essentially the church of the KKK.
One more short blather: In light of all that’s happened yesterday and today, it would be impossible for the HoB to pass D025. Expect it to fail.
The problem is, whether it passes or fails, either way, TEC is marching headlong into armageddon. Pass it and they’ll likely be disinvited from the AC (but I guess that won’t be carved in stone until they’re not invited to Lambeth Palace in 2018???). Defeat it, and Integrity will likely launch total war from the inside.
Clemmitt
Here’s what I think is most interesting. All winks and nods have suggested that there was collaboration with the HOB–or at least key members of the HOB–as this resolution was drafted. (Note the warnings about tinkering with the language.) The aim of that collaboration would have been to grease the skids for easy or easier passage in the HOB, presumably with accompanying guarantees or assurances.. Now, before the HOB has a chance to consider it, Rowan Williams calls it for what it is: a Communion-breaking reneging on B033. Which means he’s deprived the HOB the ability to say that this text isn’t really an overturn of B033. If the HOB, or key members of the HOB, thought this language would fly with their colleagues, and proffered the same assurances to the HOD, the ante has been upped considerably. If the HOB does not accept this language, there will be accusations of treachery and backstabbing in addition to the moans about injustice from Deputies. If the HOB doesn’t significantly change the resolution, though, they are in effect poking the Archbishop in the eye and affirming his implicit conclusion that they are voluntarily taking TEC out of the Communion.
For some reason Carl Showalter’s line from Fargo comes to mind: “Circumstances have changed, Jerry.”
All the leading traditionalists (Duncan, Kendall, Fitz A, etc.) were thunderously unanimous in saying that sexually active gay people were absolutely welcome in the church (with no restrictions on baptism or holy communion).
Is this true?
Then homosexual acts are not intrinsically sinful, presuming a partnered relationship? If that is so, then no reason exists to deny ordination or matrimony. If same-sex acts are sinful, like all acts outside of marriage, the one must turn away from them (“repent”) to receive baptism or present oneself for Communion.
If Abp. Duncan does, in fact, publicly and openly allow those engaged in non-marital sex acts (homosexual or heterosexual) or other on-going, public sins, then he is not a “traditionalist”. Nor is he rational to object to their ordination or church marriage.
The issue at hand was whether homosexuality was sin (i.e. a broken condition like many other states of human existence after the Fall).
I’m not sure what “homosexuality” is, in this case: the attraction? same-sex genital acts? Historic Christianity considers the attraction a matter of brokenness, and all same-sex genital acts to be sinful (“abomination” is the biblical word”).
#23…. you’ll need to help me with your first if-then inference (“Is this true? Then homosexual acts are not intrinsically sinful, presuming a partnered relationship?”)
As I made clear, the traditionalists I mention (Bob Duncan, Fitz Alison, Ken Harmon, etc.) did and still do believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically sinful.
These three fellows are also traditional Anglicans (here I am referring to traditional classical Anglicanism as understood by Cranmer and Hooker and Donne and others) in firmly rejecting the idea that we can (a) successfully identify all aspects of sin in our lives and (b) successfully turn from all aspects of sin, prior to baptism and/or holy communion. They agree with the Thirty-Nine Articles that even after becoming Christians we are still bound in sin and continue to sin and that we have no free will not to do so.
It sounds like your understanding of repentance and justification and the sacraments is that of Jeremy Taylor, who did believe pretty much what you say. Fitz Alison is on record as sharply criticizing Taylor’s view (and many of Taylor’s contemporaries also sharply rejected Taylor’s view) — you can find that criticism in Fitz’s THE RISE OF MORALISM.
Duncan is also on record as explaining that he opposed throughout his ministry the idea of denying the sacraments to gay folks (some of whom were loved ones of his). He believed that all of us are bound in sin and that the church would be a place for people, regardless of what their besetting issues were, to hear the story of the Cross and of God’s love for sinners and then to gradually begin experiencing illumination and perhaps healing.
You can talk to Kendall by email if you have some doubts about whether he wants the sacraments to be withheld from gay laymen. What he has said in his writings is to the contrary, though perhaps I have misunderstood him.
Your distinction between homosexual desires (which you say is not sin, just brokenness) versus homosexual acts (sin) is certainly held by some in the church. They view any inner desire as not sin, only if you act on it. That view, however, can’t be reasonably called the consenus of “historic Christianity” since it was deeply rejected by all the Protestant reformers, and many in the Catholic tradition going back to Augustine and before. It is also in opposition to the straightforward meaning of the Sermon On The Mount and all of Paul and many of the other NT writers. In this view, all human desire we call corrupt or broken is sin. Thus a lustful thought IS the same thing as adultery, etc.
To sum up, what I think the three guys I mentioned would say (and I could add many more, including deans of Trinity Episcopal of Ministry and Nashotah) is that the problem with GC 2003 is that it implicitly declared that VGR’s relationship with his gay lover was a wholesome example and therefore inside the sphere of Christian ethics. Furthermore, and even more troubling, the reasoning it based this on betrayed a deeply flawed understanding of the human condition and of our need for Christ and his Cross. The problem was with church TEACHING being changed. The problem was NOT, however, with VGR himself — Kendall and Co. never took the view that Gene wasn’t welcome at the service or at the altar. They understand that ALL of their parishioners, themselves included, have huge blind spots, bound recidivistic areas of sin in their lives, which is why it is such good news that we have a Savior who is indeed the Friend of Sinners.
Jon, I’m afraid I’m with Words Matter, and I think it’s a mistake to appeal to the Catholic Tradition on this. I think we need to get away from philosophical discussions of what sin is and how it mainfests itself in our lives – the bottom line is, any person living Gene Robinson’s life in the time period you mention would have been immediately excommunicated (with an eye toward, of course, compelling repentance and return to the sacraments). Within even the 1979 book of services, the minister is given the authority, with consultation with his bishop, to exclude notorious sinners from the Eucharist. What you are attributing to Duncan, Kendall and so forth is, seen in that light, simply a softer presentation of ECUSA’s line.
Fascinating. Thanks for your thoughts Phil.
I’ll be glad not to talk any further about what sin is and how it manifests itself in our lives (an interesting request). Happy to bow out of further posts on this thread.
I will say that I was fascinated to hear you think that the view I describe is “simply a softer presentation of ECUSA’s line.” What a lot of us think is that it is deeply opposed on a very deep level to TEC’s working theology — a level that goes far deeper than a particular question of sexual ethics. Again, all three fellows I mentioned are on record as saying that that their real concern is something far deeper than the presenting question. But it’s interesting that for many of my fellow conservatives, gay sex really is the main thing they care about. A reappraiser friend once told me that the only people who think about gay sex more than gay men are Anglican conservative bloggers — they apparently think about nothing else he said. Maybe he’s right!
Just so I am clear: I myself remain where I always have been on this. I have remained deeply opposed to blessing SSUs and gay ordinations since before 2003 both because they involve a huge change to church teaching on sexual ethics (that would be enough) but even more because of the implicit jettisoning of deeper and more important parts of the Christian faith, including Anglican ideas about the bound will, pervasiveness of sin, and need for a savior in Christ and his cross.
Jon, well, that isn’t the only thing I think about. Anyway … maybe what I said came out wrong. I wasn’t trying to say bow out of the thread by any means. I was just trying to say, in response to your appeal to the Tradition, that I think it would have been non-controversial for a Gene Robinson to be denied communion in any part of the Church in these early centuries (and beyond). I did steal a base there, because that isn’t exactly what you said, but that was the original question raised by Words Matter. I just think we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
For the record, I might actually agree with you on that question – I struggle with the proper response. On the other hand, even as I struggle with it, I recognize to myself that taking this line: “teach that it’s wrong, don’t glorify it, but don’t ask-don’t tell with regards to the sacraments” is something of a concession to the zeitgeist – or, as I said, a softer presentation of ECUSA’s line. I’ll take that criticism for myself.
I appreciate your thoughts, also.
I agree with Jon #20 in that the crux of the presenting issue is whether homosexuality is inherently sinful, or not. If it is, then the church cannot bless it, and should strive to help those afflicted with the sin to overcome it. If it is not, then the church can and indeed should bless it when it is otherwise in accordance with Godly virtues, just as the church blesses Godly heterosexual relationships. “Inclusion” is a bit of a smokescreen, because how “inclusion” should be practiced hinges on whether homosexuality is inherently sinful in the first place.
The crux of the underlying issue is how we, as a church, know whether homosexuality is inherently sinful. Reasserters have an answer to that question, and so do reappraisers; but they’re not the same answer.
Jon –
I learned in my Episcopalian days that one must repent of sinful acts in order to approach the Lord’s Table and partake of His Body and Blood. If I continue to engage in them, then I am not repentant, be it sexual sin or cheating on my taxes. I suppose I can pull texts out of the BCP to make the case, if you like. Philosophical considerations of human sinfulness do not exempt us from the duty to repent of our sins.
Now, as to my If/then statement, it means this:
To welcome someone to the sacraments who continues unrepentant in a sin is to agree with them that the sin is not, in fact, a sin. If Abp. Duncan and associates really believe same-sex acts are sinful, then they wouldn’t be welcoming sexually active gay people to the Lord’s Table, until they turn away from the sin. Again, that applies to lawyers who cheat their clients, fathers who molest their children, misers, gossips, and so on. A difference, of course, is that most cheats, molesters, abusers, and a fair number of gossips and misers don’t claim their behaviors are not sins. “Openly gay” persons are, in general parlance, quite clear that what they do is not a sin.
Again, I don’t have a clue what “homosexuality”, in this thread, might be. Ross, in #28, illustrates the problem. However, whatever “it” might be, “its” status as “sinful or “not sinful” is certainly the crux of the matter.
However, I again stress that issue is not that we successfully turn from all aspects of sin, but rather, repent of the sins we have before us. And that presumes we agree with the church on whether our behaviors are sinful.
Again, I don’t have a clue what “homosexualityâ€Â, in this thread, might be. Ross, in #28, illustrates the problem. However, whatever “it†might be, “its†status as “sinful or “not sinful†is certainly the crux of the matter.
That sounds snarkier than I meant it. Apologies. You have to understand that I took the moniker “Words Matter” over this very issue. What is “homosexuality”. I have heard it applied to same-sex genital acts, transient and deep-seated same-sex attractions, and the whole lifestyle based on those attractions.
For myself, and I believe I stand with the Catholics, Evangelicals, and (I think) Orthodox, not to mention a fair number of Anglicans in saying that same-sex attractions are not necessarily “sinful” (disordered yes, and, arguably, a result of our sinful natures), but same-sex acts are. Hence, a person who experiences these attractions but rejects them, may well be a greater saint than I could imagine being.
For the record, in this particular instance I was using the word “homosexuality” to refer to same-sex sexual activity.
It is hard to believe that the ABC is completely unaware or that the advisors he depends on at the ACO did not inform him of the situation in the USA.
He would be better served by a study the American comic strip “Peanuts” – he would then know that Lucy ALWAYS pulls the football at the last minute.