I am saddened but not surprised by today’s news. This decision represents not simply a change in doctrine, nor a single change in practice, but an established pattern of common life. It is contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the mind of the church catholic.
Since the Archbishop of Canterbury said this choice raises “very serious questions”¦for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion” one would have hoped that at least the bishops would have waited until they were gathered at their upcoming House of Bishops meeting to discern prayerfully their response together. They instead sought to embrace a way of life which the church through the Bible has always understood to be forbidden. Therefore the tragic damage the Episcopal Church has recently caused the third largest Christian family in the world will continue in the future, hurting our collective witness and grieving the heart of God.
–The Rev. Dr. Kendall S. Harmon is Canon Theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina
Very well said. Thank you.
Ditto
[blockquote]This decision represents not simply a change in doctrine, nor a single change in practice, but an established pattern of common life.[/blockquote]
I believe a word is missing here, unless you mean to say the decision represents “an established pattern of common life.”
Word came today that the clergy of the diocese of Quincy were deposed.
Think of it. Patrick’s Feast day, and leading catholic clergy are deposed, an uncatholic act endorsed, and there was not even enough catholicity to wait to meet together before making their responses.
This is sooo sad….both pieces of news….and as you said, Kendall, not unexpected.
But I place no hope in the ABC or AC per se.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…
WB Yeats – ‘The Second Coming’
It is clearly full-steam ahead with the PB and Bruno and their friends. Nothing Griswoldian in any of this. The lines are now very, very clear in the formal sense. This is useful in a dark sense for the Singapore gathering, and as others have noted, the next thing to watch is representation on the so-called ‘Standing Committee.’ If this is rubber stamped and the idea of representation from TEC in the light of this action is not reviewed, then we will probably have a formal split of more entrenched character than before. All of this is and has been inevitable. We will now see odd power struggles within the Left leadership, as some will want diversity and others will want a party line, all the way down. I was a bit surprised an effort was not made to keep this hidden until the final deadline.
Not a great surprise, given the American insistence on personal empowerment at whatever cost to social cohesion–a tendency that we can see in our secular politics as well. This is hardly a new phenomenon. From [url=http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7630&CFID=32160504&CFTOKEN=85348136]a 2007 article by Christopher Check:[/url]
[blockquote]On January 22, 1899, Pope Leo XIII addressed an encyclical ([i]Testem benevolentiae nostrae[/i]) to James Cardinal Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore, intended “to suppress certain contentions†that had arisen in America “to the detriment of the peace of many souls.†… “The underlying principle of these new opinions,†wrote Leo, “is that, in order to more easily [sic] attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.”
Leo named this heresy Americanism, after the country that had spawned it.[/blockquote]
Yet, isn’t this same American insistence on personal empowerment the very thing being used by the Holy Spirit to facilitate faithful Christians rapid departure from an episcopally spawned and forced heresy in the Church?
Where are the shepherds while the flock is being marauded by wolves? Oh, wait! The wolves are wearing purple!!!
Thank God for the American insistence on personal empowerment! The sheep are free to flee.
This is a tragedy for so many who have held the faith catholic in the Anglican way of being Christian. I grieve for those who are still yoked to TEC, and wondering what the way forward is. I grieve for those of us who have left for small churches meeting in rented halls or who have left the Anglican way or who have left church entirely. I grieve for the souls we are not reaching because of these troubles, and for our sins in not reaching them.
In my lifetime I have seen my church taken away from me. It breaks my heart.
A Bishop for the whole Church. Open wide, Anglican Communion.
Kendall,
Do you think the timing of this announcement just before the bishop’s meeting was meant to clear the decks so it would be easier to pounce on Mark Lawrence, perhaps even at this meeting?
francis–You are much more polite than I. My imperative to the Communion would have been “rude” in a British way and the elves would not have been happy.
Gator–This is the fruit of years of passive-aggressive activity. Blessings.
I agree with most of what is written above. One thing I would remind folks of is that this action represents power politics of the kind that would make Washington insiders blush. A few points worth considering:
1. I believe that the actions of TEC represented by GC’09, the sudden increase and openness of SSB’s and same-sex marriage rites in many TEC dioceses, and the Glasspool approval, all are actually a REACTION to Rowan Williams’ actions connected with the DES Communique, Lambeth 2008, and the ACC-Jamaica meeting. Rowan Williams made it very clear that there would be no consequences to TEC bishops nor to their participation in the Communion Instruments NO MATTER WHAT TEC DID. TEC’s bishops simply responded politically – they never cared what the Communion as a whole thought, they only cared about what potential consequences they might face vis a vis the official Communion apparatus. Once Rowan Williams made it clear that there would be no consequences, TEC’s responses came fairly quickly.
2. There has been discussion elsewhere about the timing of the announcement of the approvals. I think it was Dr. Seitz who suggested that Bruno was pushing for a quick announcement and I think this was right. The TEC left-wing sees this as a political fight and they will want to push the envelope. They want there to be a confrontation in the wider Communion, and I think that KJS and her supporters have come to believe that Rowan Williams will do nothing. Thus, the political timing here on TEC’s part is very good. The only thing now that can save the Communion is a strong and firm stand by a united Global South – and that stand must be to make it clear to Rowan Williams that his gamesmanship to excuse TEC will no longer be honored nor supported.
#14 jamesw
You are correct.
We can choose to be offended or not. I’m sad it hurts my brothers and sisters. But I’m not convinced it hurts God. I doubt He needs protection.
RE: “But I’m not convinced it hurts God. I doubt He needs protection.”
Wow — God doesn’t have feeling now. Who knew? And if He does have any feelings, he would need “protection” somehow from them.
Incoherent, as usual.
John Wilkins – I am sure that it does give God pain to see how TEC’s bishops have failed to do what they were called to do in their ordination vows and protect the doctrine and discipline of God’s Church. But I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that God needs “protection.” Rather, I think that God will let TEC go its own way, with the resulting consequences…
Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Anglican Communion should do also.
We parents seldom need “protection” from our children’s actions, John. But that does not mean that our hearts do not cry out in agony when we watch our children hurt themselves and others.
Dear Chris (#7),
[blockquote]… the next thing to watch is representation on the so-called ‘Standing Committee.’ If this is rubber stamped and the idea of representation from TEC in the light of this action is not reviewed, then we will probably have a formal split of more entrenched character than before.[/blockquote]
Yes, this is a sad but inevitable moment.
I wonder what you expect from Canterbury. In 2003, he summoned a special Primates’ Meeting. Who else would have the authority to delegitimize or purge the politburo, aka, Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion? Anything less is a whitewash and would leave Schori and Douglas on the body monitoring the Covenant. And if the Primates’ Meeting were convened, that would afford the chance not just to change the representation on the Standing Committee but to revise them out of the Covenant altogether, as they should have been permitted to do in the first place.
Here’s hoping. But I would be very surprised to see it. After all, it takes a lot of money to fly 38 Primates around the world!
Re: “Wow—God doesn’t have feeling now. Who knew? And if He does have any feelings, he would need “protection†somehow from them.”
Heh.
I didn’t say God doesn’t have feelings. I said I’m not convinced that he has feelings about “it,” meaning the selection of Glasspool to be Bishop makes him peculiarly upset. I don’t know if he has feelings about this or not. He’s probably very sympathetic to you, Sarah and loves it when you needle me. It’s probably delightful entertainment.
Nor did I say he needed protection from his feelings. You wrote that. I do know that some of the other commentators have feelings and I’m sad they’re hurt. I’m not sure why they need to protect God, however.
Keep shooting, Sarah. Sometimes you hit and the heavens are joyous.
fatherdaughter – that’s a good point. There is another story, however. A parent might also decide to love their child anyway, mercifully. I choose to believe that God will take the forgiving and loving route rather than the chastizing one. Am I sure God feels like that? No. It’s a risk. You may know God’s mind better than I do.
Still, I’m sad you feel bad. I also trust you have the strength to move on, and that you would still stay connected to your children, especially if they still loved you.
My own intuition is God works in ways beyond our own feelings. He’s a bit more powerful than what my emotional needs demand.
I’m also rarely convinced of the argument, “it’s always been that way,” or “that’s what everybody thinks.” The one coherent argument is that it makes us look like imperialists. Alas, we are.
John Wilkins, are you not a father? If you are you know what it is like to feel pain when your children make decisions that hurt themselves. Rest assured our Father in heaven is greatly grieved. What you are really saying is you don’t think homosexual sex is sinful — nor that holding it up as holiness of life is misleading, harmful, and evil. You are welcome to choose that intellectual position. Just don’t try to claim it is a Christian one. As to God needing protection, that is simply your rhetoric to justify an indefensible theological position.
Unlike you, I have no doubt that God is greatly grieved over his church.
Stephen
Yes it would take a great deal of money. But you would think in this day and age of technological globalization the Primates could gather remotely through a teleconference or maybe even iChat on a Macintosh! I am not kidding. This could be really effective and economical. I see the only barrier to this would be honoring tradition to continue to do business like the 19th Century Victorian churchmen.
Do you think it would be interesting to have a pool as to when the ABC and/or the AC will respond? So far I have seen no official response one way or the other.
Past experience shows that the current ABC prayerfully sits on the situation for a little while before issuing a statement. I give him 5-7 days, so early next week before we here from Rowan?
RE: “I’m not sure why they need to protect God, however.”
Me neither. Nor am I sure why they need to play tennis either. But as neither assertion applies to any of the comments here, one wonders then, why you said anything about needing to protect God — it’s yet another irrelevancy from you.
RE: “Keep shooting, Sarah.”
Nah — I’ll just keep pointing out your incoherencies and irrational assertions, as I find the time.
A conference call or e-vote would be fine for the Primates. Alternatively, most of them are meeting next month in person. This action by TEC bishops should make that body’s position very clear. Clarity is good.
My thoughts this morning after the night before and after a good night’s sleep are:
This provocative act, and be in no doubt it was intended to be provocative, will have been noted by the ABC and the Communion. We may in the coming days see further statements, although I would not hold my breath on one from the ABC at whom this was particularly targetted. It was targetted to undermine him and his Covenant process and to show him to be a paper tiger, to use an old term. Much of the Communion, in particular the Global South have already said what they have to say about TEC, and remain out of communion with it. They have no need to react to each new act by TEC.
However this act from a church which is collapsing morally, financially and numerically, is likely to accelerate that collapse, and its isolation. It is the act of a wounded animal, desperately defending its corner and fighting for its life, as are the removals of priests in Quincy yesterday. Expect things to get worse as things get more desperate. But ultimately the pathetic actions of this tiny group have little impact either in the US or the Communion. It spits and lashes out, but it does so from a position of weakness.
History and theory tells us there will come a tipping point, both for TEC and its relations in the Communion, although none of us can tell when that will happen. I suspect it won’t be long, but I really have no crystal ball. In the meantime we may or may not see statements by others, but when you see the long term movements rather than relying on the immediate, what is going on and will result is pretty clear, sadly.
I am sorry for what was a fine church and formerly a Christian beacon not so long ago, but the stoats and weazels are in charge, and they are blowing up Toad Hall.
Time for the Communion and Christians to move on before more damage is done.
Pageantmaster, I agree with you, except for the complication of TEC money which funds so many of the Anglican Communion functions. These will have to change, and this will be a good thing, in my opinion. We well end up with a Communion run by bishops in communion with each other, without the present superstructure of agencies and associations funded by liberal Western money.
Dear Steve–I’m not sure what scenario you have dreamed up and then pronounced unworkable! I hate driving with the rear view mirror, personally. The Standing Committee is unacceptable in its present form (see the volumes of ink written by ACI on this, much of which finds its way into your own remarks. It now, in addition, has representation from a ‘province’ which has moved ahead on Glasspool. My stated point was simply the obvious one. Such representation further calls into question the workability of such a SC in respect of international communion affairs (a covenant). The principle of this was even pointed out by Cantaur. So we shall watch what happens and if nothing happens the communion will continue to deteriorate. Eyes are on developments in Singapore next month. What happens in the meantime will all go in the mix.
Katharine, I should add that I do not suggest that the Communion can be left in the hands of the ABC and the ACO. The churches of the Communion need to take charge again, preferably through the Primates. Of course, if you want a central secretariat, and I am not convinced of that, it has to be paid for, but given the performance of the current one, no one is going to be queueing up to pay for it. It is all very much in the hands of the majority of the Communion who are the Global South. Will they step up to the mark I wonder or continue to allow themselves to be divided by Rowan?
There is still time for him to give a lead, but past performance is not encouraging.
#21 John, you write: “Still, I’m sad you feel bad. I also trust you have the strength to move on,”
Please understand that many of us have tried to move on – however the petty prelates who run TEC will not allow us to do so. For years, my congregation has been tied up in litigation foisted on the Diocese by Kate (no honorifics or titles from me – I consider her to be a monster). This gang would rather see islamists operating in a formerly orthodox sanctuary than true Anglicans. We should make a deal – you go your way – we’ll go ours. Let’s part company. If you go to the left, we’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, we’ll go to the left. Just leave us alone.
William,
I’ll admit, I think that the national church could do things differently. There were lots of creative ways to handle property but I also think personalities – not theology – got in the way.
I actually think parting company is wise. It will allow you to focus on your mission, and us on ours.
Episcoanglican, I understand you are grieved. I’m always a bit hesitant, in my own case, to assume my own grief is the same as Gods. And I’m quite impressed with your personal connection. Bless you. Such confidence is either hubris, or worth great admiration.
My own view point is that all sexual acts have a context. As Paul said, better to marry than to burn; and if being open about one’s inclinations allows for maturity and fruits of the spirit, its better than the alternative – acting out, engaging in dangerous behavior, among other things. But I’d also trust that God was working in my child’s life, and perhaps I didn’t have all the answers. I’d be more like the father and the prodigal son, perhaps. Perhaps I’d be more forgiving than you or your perception of God.
But I actually don’t know if God blesses any sexual act straight or gay.
It is always unfortunate when we demonize each other. We all have interests and beliefs in what is good. It’s our sin when we are unable to comprehend the other and treat each other charitably.
I was not commenting on my grief. I was simply responding to your rhetoric about it “hurting God” or not and if he “needs protection” or not. Your assertion was something along the lines that ‘this election doesn’t matter nor does it negatively affect God.’ Which is empty rhetoric.
I was commenting from a consistent theme of God’s self-revelation in scripture of his grief over his people’s sins (ie. Mt 23:37 and many, many other passages), as were other commenters here. But you ignore that truth to make a sardonic remark about my own spirituality thereby avoiding real biblical truth.
> Perhaps I’d be more forgiving than you or your perception of God.< Then you twist my statement as being unforgiving which I never said, and impose your own twist on my perception of god as if I think he is at all unforgiving. Nice straw man. > It’s our sin when we are unable to comprehend the other and treat each other charitably. < Is this your confession?
I think Seitz is right. Though I suspect that the ABC is again trying to figure out how he can avoid putting TEC out now that they have handed him such a difficult situation, and if he comes up with some formulation, he will try it. After all, he was trying by a small plan to keep TEC in by giving them control over the JSC and the ACO while watering down the covenant, and this makes it more difficult. If Jamaica is any precedent, any solution to keeping TEC in the communion will not be nearly as clever as he needs it to be, nor well thought through. Anything more would be a rare surprise from the current inhabitant of the palace.
I am also quite sure that there is no small amount of communication going on between the bureaucracies of Lambeth and 815. For example, it will have been no surprise to the Archbishop that this would be taking place. While we do not know his reaction, it would be consistent with past practice that this announcement was timed by TEC with some knowledge of what his reaction was.
The next meeting of the Primates will be interesting indeed.
I would seem to me that the “church catholic” is not of one “mind” on this issue. Or is it simply the case that when some parts of the church (and this is not just TEC) change their minds about a particular interpretation of traditional teaching they are no longer part of the “church catholic?” I am also curious as to how the present circumstance is so clearly “contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture,” given that there is no unambiguous prohibition of female-female sexual activity anywhere in scripture. Romans 1:26 is often cited as such, but that is an interpretation that is dubious at best and at least not required by the original language and context. There is nothing else in either the Old or New Testaments that comes close to proscribing female-female sexual activity. I grant you that Paul and others would probably not have approved, but that is an assumption, not something that is explicit in scripture.
#33 – “But I actually don’t know if God blesses any sexual act straight or gay.”
John, since you are a priest, your statement is somewhat surprising to me. I think we can say unequivocably that God does not bless fornication (since Jesus rejected it in Matthew’s Gospel – maybe other places) and adulterous sexual relations, since the 10 Commandments rejected that, as did Jesus. So, we can assume that some sort of sexual relations must be approved by God, since we can all agree, I believe, that at least those two kinds are circumscribed. And can not we not assume that sexual relations for the purposes of having a child of God, between two heterosexual persons, committed in Holy Matrimony, who love each other, would be blessed by God. I cannot fathom a reason we cannot assume and have faith in that, but seriously (and I do mean it) tell me if you don’t believe that. So the question arises, what of sex outside of that married, for-child-creation relationship? Is homosexual or heterosexual sex outside of marriage fornication or adultery? If not, what is fornication and what is adultery? These would seem to be questions our priests should be answering or at least wrestling with. Please advise if you have opinions, answers or thoughts in this regard.
“They instead sought to embrace a way of life which the church through the Bible has always understood to be forbidden.â€
The multitude of things that the Bible did not understand includes democracy, airplanes, nuclear weapons, relativity, DNA, quasars, tectonic plates, and on and on. More to the point, the Bible does not understand phenotype changes caused by epigenetics. One would think that the educated people on the other side of the aisle would.
As Father Greg Boyle says in his new book, Tattoos on the Heart, we must “obliterate the notion that there is a ‘them’ who should exist outside of our circle of kinship.â€
#38 – phenotype phe·no·type (fÄ“’nÉ™-tÄ«p’)
n.
The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.”
No, I think the Bible clearly understood and understands this – see Genesis, Adam & Eve, and all of Old Testament and also NT, as God interacted with his people, as their genetic make-ups often determined their interactions with their environments and their turning away from or turning to the Lord. (Perhaps Peter’s genetic makeup made him outspoken, brash, half-cocked in his reactions; Paul’s genetic makeup made him combative, aggressive; John’s made him gentle; King David’s made him both a warrior and a poet; Easau was hairy and masculine; Jacob was a smooth-skinned man and more gentle.
“epi·ge·net·ics
Pronunciation: -iks
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
: the study of how genes produce theireffect on the phenotype of the organism”
No, the Bible clearly knew and was a history of that, also. Please note OT reference above. (And, by the way, if you are attempting to indicate that there is a recent discovery of specific genes that indicate someone is innately homosexual, please give source for that, as my understanding is that no such valid study has been produced, and prior studies alleged to show such have been proven invalid and admitted so by their authors.)
In summary, I simply don’t believe your statements are true.
Volumes of ink have produced no effect. Torrents of words have produced no effect. American unilateralism has triumphed and the EcUSA/TEc is mere ugly americanism writ in religion rather than politics.
#39. Los Angeles Times. 2/23/2010. Page A13. Op-Ed by Dean Hamer & Michael Rosbash.
Yes, there is no single “gay” gene. This is also true for height, skin color, handedness, heart disease, and many other traits that have a large inherited component, but no dominant gene. Epigenetics = changes that alter gene expression without a change in the DNA code of an effected gene. These changes obviously are neither moral or immoral, and do not constitute a “lifestyle choice.”
The human genome comprises the information contained in one set of human chromosomes, which themselves contain about 3 billion base pairs (bp) of DNA in 46 chromosomes (22 autosome pairs + 2 sex chromosomes). The total length of DNA present in one adult human is calculated by the multiplication of
(length of 1 bp)(number of bp per cell)(number of cells in the body)
(0.34 × 10-9 m)(6 × 109)(1013)
2.0 × 1013 meters
That is the equivalent of nearly 70 trips from the earth to the sun and back.
2.0 × 1013 meters = 133.691627 astronomical units
133.691627 / 2 = 66.8458135 round trips to the sun
No creation myth in recorded history contains this information.
BTW, I don’t know if we can say that the Bible “says” anything. It is of course not a book but a library, written by many authors, over thousands of years, all with their own prejudices and levels of knowledge. And men decided which books were in and which were out.
One of the retiring bishops in the LA diocese, Chester Talton, happens to be African-American. There was a time when the Orthodox would have said that such a man would be unacceptable as a bishop, in the name of social cohesion. Thank God, those day are gone.
I only know that God blesses marriage, Billy. In traditional Rabbinical wisdom, there’s holy sex, unholy sex, and just sex. I don’t subscribe to a Manichean view about sexuality. I don’t think the church, for example, should bless a straight couple living together.
I do think that the church has an interest in children and death. In a culture where the lives of children and women are tenuous, the sacrament reminds us that sex is not merely about pleasure, cooperation, or peace, but also about death as well.
I don’t know much about what God curses.
#41, thanks for the reference to an op-ed piece from LA Times. Don’t understand what it has to do with Bible’s understanding of the interplay of nature of man, as created by God, and man’s environment, which you stated the Bible did not understand. Also, don’t understand your strawman of Bible as a library – so what? And, your description of it being totally man-produced ignores any thought or faith that it was God-breathed or inspired by God or that the Holy Spirit was moving within those who chose which books to include and who wrote those books – but you and other reappraisers want to dearly hold onto the Holy Spirit as doing a new thing with Mr. Robinson and Ms Glasspool. Interesting paradox to me. Finally, raising the race issue is really very passe and has nothing to do with choices of sexual conduct made by homosexuals. Neither the Bible nor anyone else, far as I know, has ever called skin color sinful.
#42 – John, I don’t know what God curses either, except what I read in the Bible. I assume, from your first paragraph that you mean that you done have an opinion that some sex is blessed and some not. I also assume that, since you don’t believe the church should bless straight couples living together that you are ok with the church blessing homosexual couples living together, since our church does that. So how is that not a double standard, and where is the theological justification for this latter blessing?
[Comment deleted by Elf – would commenters please keep discussion on the thread topic – thanks – Elf]