One of the greatest problems the Church faces today is the willingness to ascribe motivations and “hidden agendas” to those who disagree with us. This escalates not only our suspicion of others but levels of anger. Actions based more upon rumors and fear rather than facts cause us to separate ourselves from one another. At this writing in early September we are all aware of momentous decisions that lie ahead. The American House of Bishops has been presented with the deadline of Sept. 30 to turn from unbiblical theology and practices. Those who plead for more time and dialogue claiming that even the worst rifts can be overcome with cool headed conversation and understanding now seem to be the very ones who know what the outcome will be and have moved into action. Two parishes within the diocese have already voted to leave the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and a third is prepared to vote in the same manner within days while neither the House of Bishops, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury himself have presumed to know what the future holds. Such premature and precipitous action can only have one interpretation. These folks know in their heart of hearts that there will be no turning back, no repentance and that the unilateral action of the American Church will bring about the break-up of the Anglican Communion as we have known it or the division of our own Church in the United States or, worse, the disintegration of both.
The cry of the majority of Episcopalians has been that UNITY trumps TRUTH, that ”” in fact ”” Anglicans have been famous for keeping the unity of the Church while recognizing serious differences of theology among ourselves. We have prided ourselves on the fact that even though we are a creedal church we are not bound by a single confessional statement of belief. Early Church Fathers are quoted on this point with such frequency that it appears history itself is neglected when our attention is directed to one bishop who was prepared to stand alone, suffer exile, and remain faithful to the Scriptures for truth’s sake, ultimately winning over the whole Church that was prepared to reject him. We are reminded of our English heritage when during the time of the Elizabethan Settlement in the 1500s Anglicans remained together as theologies looking to Protestant Geneva as well as to the Catholicism of Rome were both accommodated. Here in North America with hostilities tearing our nation apart, even Civil War could not break the unity found within the House of Bishops. Southern bishops, absent for four years, took their seats among their brothers where no mention of the separation was ever made. As far as the Episcopal Church was concerned, our unity did not have to be restored. . .it was never recognized nor ever broken. Yet, when it comes to the LARGER UNITY, namely that of the worldwide Anglican Communion, these same advocates of unity within the American Church, so far, have turned their backs. The fact that decisions made in the United States by us have had a profound ”” and, in some instances a fatal”” effect upon men and women ministering abroad seems of little consequence. Our “truth” for our society somehow takes precedence over unity beyond our borders. Are we to understand that unity with brother and sister Anglicans around the world can be sacrificed for our different “truth”?
What a Godly example for all! Would that those on the other side would learn from his example!!!
+San Jaoquin speaks well to the situation that Anglicans in the United States ‘find themselves in’ and to the current political situation.
The situation created by those ECUSA leaders who have deviously and insidiously preached a false faith to the pew sitters of ECUSA over the past forty years is indeed political. Their preaching is of our immediate times, not of all human times.
There is no Scriptural nor is there an ecclesiological nor is there a traditional nor is there an episcopally ‘sound’ reason for the the creation of the situation created by the revisionists that now threatens to divide ECUSA and to separate ECUSAns from the Church Catholic.
But, please remember, particularly those of you within ECUSA who are willing to ‘go along in order to get along’ are traveling in the company of ECUSA leaders who not only deny God, but by that complicity with them you are also denying Christ who promised Salvation for all of you who would change your ways and follow Him regardless of the personal cost to ourselves.
His message ends with:
“Lord, when the dust settles, please let me be found standing near you.â€
Precisely.
It remeinds me of the message cantained within a couple of Bible stories.
The disciples were on a boat, again. The last time there was a bad storm and they were afraid but Jesus, who was with them, calmed the storm and chastised them for their lack of faith. Seems to me that Jesus gave them a job to do (go to the other side of the lake) but they abandoned their work our of fear. Now they are again in a boat and given the commission by Jesus to go to the other side of the lake.
Again, this time, there is a storm with contrary winds and high waves. They could have said something like, “Well, this door seems to be closed, lets go back and get more instructions.” But I think they learned something the first time and really didn’t want to hear a similar chastisement from Jesus – so they kept rowing, in spite of the danger of sinking boat and that they weren’t making any headway at all and that they were very tired on top of that. They had rowed for hours and all seemed hopeless – strength was wanning away quickly…
Then came Jesus walking on the water…..
Father in Heaven, I am greatful to you that there is no such thing as “loss” while in your service. Please keep this truth in rememberance of the people of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. If they stand the storm, you will be closer than they ever could immagine.
Amen
What could have been an otherwise good letter is marred by this ridiculous bit of hyperbole:
The fact that decisions made in the United States by us have had a profound — and, in some instances a fatal— effect upon men and women ministering abroad seems of little consequence.
I really cannot see why any orthodox parish priest or parish would want to leave the diocese of San Joauqin. Being in Canada, under a liberal and sometime tyrannical bishop, I can sympathize with the plight of orthodox folks in TEC. Frankly, there are many days I wonder why I put up with it. The answer? Call. And I would relish a call to San Joaqin, and would happily stand at high noon with folks like +John-David and what appear to be a host of rock solid clergy and laity (what an abused term), until the Lord said otherwise.
#4 What you characterize as a “ridiculous bit of hyperbole” is, I believe, a reference to documented cases of violence brought against Christians in muslim-dominated areas with fatal consequences. Look back over the records immediately following the actions of 2003 and I believe you will find that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Don’t both replying or asking more; I can give you the specifics, but the facts are there to be found. Perhaps another reader can give the facts.
make that “I can’t give you specifics”
Thank God for +John-David Schofield.
#5 – The congregations have seen the writing on the wall and feel that to stay is to be unfaithful to the Lord. We think a couple of days won’t make a difference, unless these congregations are hoping that their actions will signify to the +ABC and Primates, and maybe jolt some bishops into the fact that status quo isn’t acceptable. There are many congregations over the years who have left, just as individuals have. Two in Diocese of Cent. FL are New Covenant in Winter Springs, FL (suburb of Orlando) and Prince of Peace AMiA – made up of 70% (if we remember correctly) of St. John’s of Melbourne, FL (on the East Coast from Orlando). New Covenant was eventually allowed to purchase their property for fair market value. Prince of Peace left without even a paperclip. Both are thriving congregations.
Look back over the records immediately following the actions of 2003 and I believe you will find that you don’t know what you are talking about.
There are simply no examples of a single death that can be convincingly linked to the actions of TEC in 2003.
I assumed these departing parishes were reappraisers. Anyone know for sure?
Brian, maybe we’ll send you to the Sudan to preach the Christian Gospel.
While you’re at it, you can also share with the masses the theology and benefits of sodomy and see how far you get.
Your comments are completely misplaced. Have a conversation with Archbishops Orombi, Nzimbi, or Akinola before you spout off.
Brian, check the statements of Bishop Mouneer Anis on this blog.
The parishes the good bishop refers to are almost certainly the three liberal parishes in his diocese. Hence his point – they are voting to seperate themselves from the DSJ even though the DSJ will not move to leave TEC if TEC complies with the Communique. These three liberal parishes are acting on the unquestioned assumption that the HoB will choose to turn their collective backs on the Anglican Communion.
This is a very interesting development though. If these three parishes vote to leave the DSJ, then they will no longer legally be in the position to claim to be the remnant TEC DSJ if and when the real DSJ leaves TEC. Just like, for example, Truro Church can no longer claim to be the “real” TEC even if the ABC expelled all liberal TEC bishops and the US Supreme Court upheld the ABC’s power to do so. Truro by its own choice left TEC. So, the three liberal parishes are by their own action, leaving DSJ.
Pay attention to this folks, because you can be sure that 815 and Beers were advising these three parishes. I think that this may be a huge clue as to how Beers and 815 view their chances of prevailing in the St. James litigation. Does anyone have any further details?
#10 Mark McCall: “Two parishes within the diocese have already voted to leave the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and a third is prepared to vote in the same manner within days.”
And when/if they do, they will take their property with them. Bishop John-David has already told them he will not prevent them from going, nor will he sue for their property. His only stipulation is that they take any indebetedness with them.
Designating a “liberal” congregation in DSJ has to be understood comparatively. In some other diocese these congregations might not seem so liberal.
Be that as it may, “the three liberal parishes” is an incomplete count, james. There are a couple more out of sorts with the diocese as a whole and the bishop.
And be THAT as it may, I’m not reading the context of the bishop’s comments as necessarily pointing to reappraiser congregations. I’m sure we’ll find out, though. And as I’ve said before, and as others such as Kendall have said a long time ago, this is going to be very messy.
RGEaton
Rob+ points to the sad chaos that an era of innovation-without-humility has produced. When loving obedience breaks down, the assertion of rights and power become the sole criteria. Folks on all “sides” tend to gravitate to this worldly logic, and legitimize just about anything in the name of the ends justifying the means.
Justice1, I suspect most people, including the leadership of TEC, believe that God is calling them to do and serve as they are doing and serving. However, everyone can’t all be right, can they?
Its really quite simple why some people are unable to stay in supposedly “safe” TEC dioceses–they just want nothing to do with a church that preaches rebellion against God.
Brian #4,
This summarizes powerfully and succinctly the fact that there are two different gospels. Thank you.
#17, to answer your question, let me quote Abraham Lincoln, when answering the question, re both Confederates & Federals claiming that God was on their side:
“God may be on one side or neither, but he cannot be on both sides.”