September 26th, 2007
A STATEMENT ON THE RESPONSE OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO THE DAR ES SALAAM COMMUNIQUÉ
In accordance with our desire to walk “in a manner worthy of the calling to which we have been called, ”¦ eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Ephesians (4:1,2) we have looked forward with hope to the response of The Episcopal Church as requested by the Primates when we met earlier in the year in Dar es Salaam. That request was the culmination of many conversations and years of painful negotiations. It was our expressed desire to provide one final opportunity for an unequivocal assurance from The Episcopal Church of their commitment to the mind and teaching of the Communion. We also made clear that it is a time for clarity and a rejection of what hitherto has been endless series of ambiguous and misleading statements. Sadly it seems that our hopes were not well founded and our pleas have once again been ignored.
While we await a meeting of all the Primates to receive and determine the adequacy of The Episcopal Church’s response it seems clear from first reading that what is offered is not a whole hearted embrace of traditional Christian teaching and in particular the teaching that is expressed in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. The unequivocal assurances that we sought have not been given; what we have is a carefully calculated attempt to win support to ensure attendance at the Lambeth Conference and continued involvement in the life of the Communion.
Instead of the change of heart (repentance) that we sought what we have been offered is merely a temporary adjustment in an unrelenting determination to “bring the rest of the Communion along” as stated by a bishop at one of the press conferences. We also note that while we have repeatedly asked for a moratorium on same-sex blessings ”“across the Episcopal Church the clergy have continued with these blessings with the full knowledge and support of the Diocesan bishops even if not technically authorized.
This attitude towards the Word of God and the requests of the Communion is at odds with the Spirit of the One we serve. The Unity that Christ commands can only be found in obedience to the Truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures and mutual submission to one another. The Gospel message of freedom, justice and dignity for all persons can only be found in heartfelt repentance and joyful obedience to the Truth.
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” John 14:21
THE CHURCH OF NIGERIA (Anglican Communion)
THE MOST REV. PETER J. AKINOLA, D.D, CON
Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria.
Sincerely,
The Most Revd. Peter J Akinola, CON, DD
Accurate observations thoughout.
Bam!
I can almost feel the sadness in his letter.
KTF!…mrb
Not surprising.
Wide. Open. Schism.
“The Gospel message of freedom, justice and dignity for all persons can only be found in heartfelt repentance and joyful obedience to the Truth.”
There (and the whole letter, actually) is the clarity which so many sought.
At last…clarity…the clarity we seek…here revealed through the pure light of the Christ.
Charley, I sincerely hope not.
I see Akinola recognizes that the blessing of ssbs which are being performed are something less than authorized rites – he may be outraged. But will the rest of the Primates. It’s a slender thread upon which to place the weight of schism.
Canon, it’s already here. History proves these things retrospectively by fixing dates and events and it will in this case as well. It is here and we are living it.
Amen
#8, C.B., if Dr. Radner, Bishop Salmon, Dr. Harmon, Dr. Harding and Archbishop Akinola all find the document wanting it is not because there is a slender basis for that assessment.
Canon Harmon, what do you hope for, if I may ask? More meetings and resolutions? A response to the response responding to the previous response in response to the previous statement?
I have to also ask William’s question: how much more are you willing to suffer to avoid schism? At this point it should be clear that the Primates will NEVER, EVER, EVER get what they want and TEC will NEVER, EVER, EVER stop preaching their theology. So on what do you pin your hope? This is an absolute non-negotiable. Things will not change.
This is interesting. ++Akinola says here:
Meanwhile, ++Nzimibi says (here):
Now, I’m not going to pretend that the HOB statement was a clear response to what the Primates requested at Dar es Salaam. But I will note that the Primates did not ask for “repentance,” as these two Archbishops are now saying; they asked for an unambiguous moratorium on SSBs and non-celibate gay bishops.
I’m wondering whether, even if the HOB had in fact given the clear assurances asked for by DES, whether that would have been enough if it had not come with an explicit statement of wrongdoing and repentance.
Kendall, what else can there be but “wide open schism”? The ABC plainly has no spine for disciplining the Episcopal Church, and has refused the primates a meeting so they can do what he said was their task to do. His minions were there at the HOB ensuring that was came out would pass muster with him–so it’s all stitched up as far as he’s concerned. He is undoubtedly within days going to hold up a paper, literally or figuratively, and do his best Chamberlain imitation, with the analogue to Chambers’s consequences soon to follow in the Communion. There are absolutely no signs that the ABC will do what’s necessary to save the Communion, or that he has the fortitude to do it even if he understood what he had to do. On the contrary, there are signs aplenty that he will not act. We all should remember where we were last night, because that will be the moment we’ll look back and realize was the beginning of the end of the Anglican Communion, if not worse.
Ross, I am surprised. Of course it would have been enough. Private opinions are one thing. Violation of Communion discipline is quite another.
I read Akinola’s use of the word repentence to mean “a turning back” or “change of heart” which is very much in keeping with the requirements of the communique. Ultimately, it was a plea for TEC to turn back from its path away from Christian belief and toward the Gospel. Humble submission often requires repentence even if nobody actually says “I’m sorry.”
Ross,
Amendment of life, an intentional turning away from present behavior, is the very essence of repentance. By willingly submitting to their brothers, the HoB would have been demonstrating Godly repentance. Nobody was asking for humiliation, sackcloth, or ashes, just a change in behavior.
The Primates received neither the requested “yes” nor “no”, only a fudgy recap of the present ambiguous situation.
In the Episcopal Church [i]sola scriptura[/i] has become [i]”sola cultura”[/i] and their power structure does not like one bit that they’ve been called on it.
It looks to me like an Anglican split must now take place with all the end runs ++Rowan Williams is making agaisnt the Primates in his relationship with TEC. The latest was calling Dar es Salaam “not a deadline” when the Primates meant it to be just that. How often must this sort of thing take place before the Primates tell ++Williams he is no longer needed??? Worse yet, no longer welcome in the great majority of the Anglican Communion???? I dare say their tempers must be wearing very thin after all these years of trying to deal with the crisis and His Grace refusing to do much of anything to end it or exercise the moral authority he has.
A more temperate statement than usual from +Abuja. I note, however, that it comes prior to the release of a statement from the ABC expressing the mind of the JSC.
I tend to agree, with the sadness I share with Kendall, that schism is in the offing. Certainly it is being planned in the CC Meeting (“Will it play in Pittsburgh?”), and it be signaled by a refusal of some African provinces to attend Lambeth.
We need to be clear, ourselves, what we mean by “schism” — I believe schism within ECUSA — 815 vs Common Cause, though CC will be bringing in non-ECUSA Anglicans — is inevitable, and is probably occurring as we type. Schism within the Communion — Canterbury vs the Global South — is avoidable and depends entirely on +++Rowan’s willingness to support disciplining 815 in a serious, meaningful way while recognizing Common Cause.
Note that South Africa has just chosen a Primate who intends to move his church closer to the Global South. ++Aspinall, a moderate liberal in a mostly-liberal province (aside from Sydney), has had it with 815’s semantic games and childish hair-splitting. +Scott-Joynt claims that if push comes to shove, 60% of C of E bishops will boycott Lambeth if ECUSA attends. The DeS Communique was unanimous and utterly unambiguous to anyone but David Booth Beers.
I doubt very much that +++Rowan will go along with Canon Kearon and his patrons at 815 much longer; there’s too much at stake.
Why should there be “wide open schism”? The AC has not yet given its response to the American situation. And every time it has, the response has been both discerning and constructive. I’m not prepared to talk about a split right down the middle of the AC until the other shoe has dropped. I still say that the rest of the AC must be asking “At what cost?” Anyone in a leadership position in the AC (outside of TEC) would have to say it’s better to reduce the status of 3% of the AC than to break it in half and hence destroy its historic reality. I can understand why individuals would leave for greener pastures. But I don’t think that Cantuar and the rest of the Communion can stand by and do nothing. The fate of the entire AC is at stake.
[blockquote] Schism within the Communion—Canterbury vs the Global South—is avoidable and depends entirely on +++Rowan’s willingness to support disciplining 815 in a serious, meaningful way[/blockquote]
This Rowan Williams cannot do. He will present the HoB statement as a basis for compromise and further discussion. He will use the power of his office to facilitate this outcome. He will withdraw no invitations. He will place pressure on the GS bishops to reverse their stated positions about attending Lambeth. He will attempt to isolate those churches which might withdraw and so fracture their collective resolve. But he will never, ever under any circumstances consent to discipline for TEC. He cannot. It would preface similar judgment for the CoE.
The only acceptable outcome for Rowan Williams is for all parties to remain. He needs TEC to protect the exposed left flank of his church. He needs the GS to keep the conservatives from leaving. So he walks a tight-rope of his own making. Do not doubt his resolve to stay balanced on that rope. He will not willfully jump off – either to the right of left. The only question is whether the flames of the church beneath will burn through the rope before he can reach the end.
carl
From my POV, there are clearly two central Bishops in the global communion now – Williams & Akinola – just as there are two US bishops – KJS & Duncan.
What is striking is how two of them – Akinola & Duncan – desire to appoint themselves leaders of a church that they envision; ignoring the two leaders who represent a calling from the main of our particular branch of Christian faith.
In my business world experience, this is called a hostile takeover. In the Screwtapian world of churchianity where Murdoch & Fox seem to have more sway than those on the margins, this is called “re-asserting”, right ?
If the Archbishop of Canterbury does not come down on the side of the Global South in removing TEC from Communion membership, I hate to have to say it but he will be nothing more than yesterday’s toast when it comes to his place and See in the future of Anglicanism.
I wonder how far in advance of the New Orleans gathering this response was written. I do not think that it would have mattered what TEC bishops decided in New Orleans, for Archbishop Akinola and his followers have been ready to set up their alternative structure and claim it as the authentic expression of Anglicanism whatever the outcome of the House of Bishops. Did anyone expect anything different to come out of the meeting in New Orleans?
Mr. Akinola rather echos my thoughts.
I would say it the other way around but I had my thoughts first.
I tend to agree, with the sadness I share with Kendall, that schism is in the offing. Certainly it is being planned in the CC Meeting
Bob from Boone, it was being planned in New Orleans, too, with the bishops’ response.
#27, your post typifies the cynicism and radical suspicion which poisons the atmosphere of the Anglican Church right now. Why cannot we as Christians assume the best of those with whom we differ? The same applies to reasserters about the statements of reappraisers.
Kendall,
It is not “cynicism and radical suspicion” when these things do in fact happen. With the clear intention of CANA being set up long before, and this new “Common Cause” gathering it is like a one person in marriage councilling showing up to the appointment with the counselor right after that person signed a lease on an apartment and ordered furniture that will be delivered in a few days. They have already mentally prepared to leave the relationship and so nothing that can be said or done can suffice. I don’t doubt that this was written well before, because it niether quotes or is realistic to what happened in New Orleans.
Kendall, Ephraim has made the same charge as #27. The modus operandi is now to spring a document onto a gathering to control the course of the dialog. It happened at DeS and the spring meeting of the HoB. It would be naive to think that KJS, Beers and Kearon didn’t have this document drawn up prior. I think the early release and unfriendly public vetting of the lawyer bishops document threw a wrench in their gamesmanship.
A Christian meeting would have all documents publically submitted well ahead of time.
And the “Primates’ Putsch” continues – the elevation of the Primates’ Meeting to Curial status.
It is not “cynicism and radical suspicion†when these things do in fact happen. With the clear intention of CANA being set up long before, and this new “Common Cause†gathering it is like a one person in marriage councilling showing up to the appointment with the counselor right after that person signed a lease on an apartment and ordered furniture that will be delivered in a few days.
Plainsparson, this would be true if New Orleans had been the first opportunity that the bishops had to respond to the larger church – it was instead the latest failed opportunity in a long line of failed opportunities. A more apt analogy would be the husband who, after having repeatedly refused pleas to go for counseling, complains during the divorce proceedings that no one had ever suggested that.
David Hein, you make the case potently, reasonably, and logically why there does not in fact have to be “wide open schism.” Unfortunately there is no potency in Rowan Williams, and reason and logic (traits he treasures) he will subordinate to his desire to avoid the hard choices (remember the Sub-Group report–the HOB certainly did). He is surrounded by those who are determined to steer him away from proper action. And the 3 percent you cite is measured in people, not dollars. And while that may not mean anything to the Archbishop–I take him at his word on that–it certainly means everything to Communion bureaucrats. And remember that he himself has ruled out the AC giving a discerning and constructive response, by vetoing a gathering of the primates. Where is there a single shred of evidence that Cantaur is capable or willing to do what duty requires?
TEC really wants to stay in the AC…..so have they dropped the lawsuits against the Virginia Eleven? Didn’t think so!
It is time to work for the Anglican Church of North America.
Peace,
Barry
Sorry for the length (and I posted similarly on StandFirm)…
What goes around, comes around.
I’ve read recently about the abuse of conservative speakers on college campuses by pseudo-liberals (though they would refer to themselves as Liberals) who demand that the invitations be withdrawn or that the conservatives be refused the right to speak on their campuses. These people are not real Liberals, mind you, else there would be an allowance for a place at the table of all perspectives. They refuse to defend the right of the people with whom they disagree to speak their minds or present differing perspectives. They, frankly, are more like Fascists (or some other word for those who attempt to control thought and speech) than Liberals because they want to control the outcome, the thoughts of others, the perspectives that are presented to other students. They want to shut up the conservatives and the right of their perspectives to be argued or debated. They want the control to determine what is disseminated and argued. The problem is, if they do not defend the right for others’ perspectives to be presented or others’ freedom of speech or thought, then there will be a point in time when they do not hold the power and their own perspectives and thoughts could well be suppressed.
There is the old saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!†In my opinion, this is a very traditional Anglican way of viewing things – this is how we have traditionally been. What comes around, goes around. If these pseudo-liberals attempt to suppress or deny rights to the conservatives, there will be a time when they need protection for their rights and perspectives and nay well not receive it.
Archbishop Akinola and others demand that the American House of Bishops (HoB) pass resolutions and change the-way-they-think to align with his (their) theological and interpretive perspective. He does not want other perspectives to receive the same light-of-day or right to be presented or argued or debated. To allow such things would be to deny the faith. There is no reason for debate, because the case is settled and there is no reason to revisit the traditional understanding. This is not truly Conservative, but pseudo-conservatism. A true Conservative, while striving to conserve what is, also understands strongly that we must defend the rights of those with whom we disagree else our own liberties may well be denied us at some point, and true conservatives defend the right of people to believe and think according to their own consciences. That’s why I am far more conservative than liberal.
The problem we are faced with is groups of people, whether pseudo-liberals or pseudo-conservatives, who demand that their perspective be the only right one (whether it has historical precedent or not – and historical precedent is not the only criteria of judgment for we know that historical precedent has been horribly wrong in the past) and that all others must be subjugated. Too many people want absolute uniformity and agreement and cannot abide by differences of opinion or perspective – pseudo-conservatives and pseudo-liberals.
This kind of perspective in the history of the Church is known as the Inquisition. There has never been uniformity in the Church – and we see this from the very beginning with the arguments between Peter and Paul, and between Paul and James. To think that we all must believe the same thing to be a Christian and to demand a uniformity of thought or belief whether among our Bishops or pew sitters over issue of anything, even homosexuality, leads us to be neither Conservative or Liberal, but Fascist(?). There has developed among us of fear of difference and an inability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty. There is a demand for fact, when fact is not possible because we live by faith.
I’m sorry, folks, but we do not have all knowledge and we will not until we see Him face-to-face. In light of that, we should be wrapped in humility as we approach one another and the arguments we are engaged in. Remember, too, that the judgment with which we use will be the judgment with which we will be judged.
What goes around, comes around.
The demand of Akinola and of our own is that the HoB (not just a majority, but all) capitulate and “repent” of their own consciences and conform to the way he thinks (dealing with specifics) about the faith, the interpretation of Scripture, and issues of all kinds, including homosexuality. It is simply not possible if we want a democratic-style episcopal ecclesiology.
Fascinating Discussion Bob G+! I really enjoyed your POV on this, and see lots of logic in your position.
What stops me from embracing it is a relatively simple observation, (re democratic ecclesiology) i.e. I can’t see much in the faith as I have received it that requires democracy. Not that democracy is a bad thing, but should we put all the things that trouble us up to a vote? Are we to live with Salvific Wisdom that comes from our modern, easily influenced, short attention span, video game playing,
TV-watchin’, used to getting our own way, easy living, atheistic philospher influenced, “Have it Your Way” minds? I find that a bit scary. I suppose I find that this Big Tent of Anglicanism, which I find most valuable, really needs a few true, agreed upon pillars at its core to remain a Denomination of People with something valuable in common. I would certainly recommend placement of Scripture as one of those valuable core elements. The Creeds are good stuff too. But we have Bishops who don’t even believe those. That, in my opinion, is too high a price to pay for so-called academic freedom.
I just find it difficult to accept that there are no absolutes. Without firm received faithful truth, what shall we submit to? Nike? The Wall Street Journal? Sponge Bob? I’m not trying to be trite, just trying to understand the consequences of the perspective you are recommending above.
I know that there has never been “uniformity” in the Church, but we have all come to agreement on the basics centuries ago, and I’ve always felt that most of our knock-down drag-out fights have really been about authority and money, more so than theology. I seem to recall that even Luther was pretty surprised to be excommunicated, and I’m sure he was not happy about it. I find that if from the earliest times that marriage was territory to be defended (Thou shalt not commit adultery, If you look upon a woman with lust in your heart…etc) then that’s it. Discussion will not alter what we have received. Sure we can change the rules here, but how will that play in heaven? Seems inordinately selfish to me.
I also feel like your piece painted Akinola as the only Primate who is demanding repentance from the TEC, which is obviously not the case. In fact, there are plenty of folks here in the U.S. who think we should offer the same. So in that case, I’m afraid I disagree a bit with your perspective. And what’s the big deal about repentance? Christians do it all the time. If nothing else, we are corporately guilty of a massive disruption of the Communion, exposing TEC and the AC to vast (almost silly) amounts of negative press coverage, and endangering the lives and ministries of Bishops around the world simply because of their continued affiliation with us. Are not those offenses worth of repentance? I am ready to beg their foregiveness myself.
I love being an American, and I think our republic is a great form of government, but I’m not at all convinced that Democracy is an element of Salvation, no matter how great it is. Christianity, after all, is about being obedient and faithful. Success is God’s purview.
My two cents….KTF!…mrb
Common Cause is not planning schism. It recognizes that a de facto schism has been taking place for several years now and is searching out ways to deal with it that provide a space for the saving of souls.
Mike –
I think “democratic†forms are as flawed as are any other humanly devised forms, but I would much rather live under them than any other at this point in time. Besides, if the Church lives by the decisions of Councils, then it lives by the concept of “majority rules†– all Council decisions are by votes, hopefully influenced by the Holy Spirit. A question to consider is whether “democracy†is exercised by a small group (Bishops or Primates – an oligarchy) or by many (as might be exampled by the Anglican Consultative Council – a form of representative-democracy). Too many of us want dictatorship right now – “do what this archbishop demands†or “do what this oligarchy demands†right now. Frankly, I’m afraid of that kind of thinking because of the despots bred by these forms as shown throughout history.
The Episcopal Church, whether for good or for bad, has established itself within a “democratic†episcopal framework. If we live by the rule-of-law, then we need to abide by this framework. We can campaign for change to be more Roman or Congregational if we so choose. But, here we are right now.
Mike, your wrote, “Are we to live with Salvific Wisdom that comes from our modern, easily influenced, short attention span, video game playing, TV-watchin’, used to getting our own way, easy living, atheistic philospher influenced, “Have it Your Way†minds? I find that a bit scary.â€
This scares me, too. That’s why I fear for the future of America along with our Church and the Christian witness. Yet, the above describes conservatives as much as liberals.
Within Anglicanism, the pillar you mention can already be found in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. That is what defines us as Anglican in difference to other traditions. I don’t know of anyone, liberal or conservative, that does not hold the Quadrilateral as the pillars of Anglicanism.
I agree with you and do think there are absolutes! And I think you are right, there are bishops and pew-sitters who rebel against them all over the world and on all sides, though over perhaps different ones. This is without a doubt problematic. What are the absolutes, however? Again, I go back to the Quadrilateral as pertinent for Anglican absolutes (or essentials).
Who is right over such important issues of Original Sin or what actually constitutes salvation? Eastern? Western? Reformed? Roman? Evangelical-Charismatic? None of us are, frankly, and that’s why we keep having these kinds of battles! We have vast differences over vital issues. This is the reality, and we have to face up to it. It is far too easy, lazy, and convenient to simply say, “they are wrong and we are right and it is necessary that we divide over this or that…â€
Finally, you wrote, “Christianity, after all, is about being obedient and faithful.†Yes, but not blindly so. If it were that easy, then we should have submitted to Rome and rejected the Reformation. Rome was the authority and Tradition for the first 1,500+ years of the Western Church. Was it right to rebel against 1,500+ years of tried and established Tradition? The reformers were convinced that Rome erred and rebelled; they were not obedient and they were not faithful to Mother Church – THE Western Church for 1,500+ years. They were the “reappraisers†of their own time. We are still fighting over this, today.
God will be God and His will is to be accomplished in time. I am convinced of that, yet it is by faith only that my conviction is born. I have not proof of any of it. I believe that in striving to love God with all my being and to love my neighbor as myself (far more difficult than checking off a list of does and don’ts), well, these will get me through all the errors of belief and practice that are inevitable in my life over time. That is why I cannot simply cast off another who strives for the same thing whether I agree with them or not over particular theological perspectives or Scriptural interpretations. There are certainly points where differences do constitute a different religion. Yet, do we understand that none of us, not one, has “pure†understanding or practice of the Way of Christ? God showed us the way of salvation and the way to grow into better understanding of it all, but not “pure†understanding. That only comes when we see Him face-to-face.
Dear Bob Carlton,
+++Williams is a political apointee (of a socialist prime minister) and ++KJS was put into power by a church that had already been taken over by politcal activists (as a right wing political activist I can recognize the opposition) masquarading as a religious body. Btw – sometimes a hostile takeover of an ill corporation is a good thing.
chips,
i suspect that makes Akionola & Duncan the insurgents ? freedom fighters ? next, we’ll hear cheney or the ird or the aac claim that the unchurched will greet a true Anglican orthodox presence as liberators.
the conservatives – who bemoan the liberals as creatures of culture – are beholden to the neocons for their tactics & ideas
all this is re-arranging the pews in the chapel of the titanic
No Bob I think it is two religions that can no longer pretend to be one. I would like a negotiated peace along Christian lines that could bring about two Churches with as little disruption and displacment as possible. I do not begrudge you your Church – but people holding your views took over mine. Your side is in the position to be gracious winners and refuses to do so.
Bob G+: I want to thank you for your comments and analysis because it really struck a nerve with me (not a bad one, an inspirational one) and encouraged me to revisit the councilar history of the Church. So I got down my History of the Catholic Church and revisited those monumental councils….Constantinople, Nicea, Trent, Rome (Vatican I and II)….and I was struck by a remarkable consistency in them….just a couple of things they seemed to share….
First, they were irregular…that is, they were not meeting on a regularly scheduled time frame. The councils were called for extraordinary reasons…typically a threatening situation either heretical, financial, or physical threat. Secondly, they were not time-bound. Some went on for fifty years or more. And third, they were entered into often reluctantly by the Bishops called, as they realized that hard decisions were to be made, and there was always the danger of losing the message at the center.
Then I contrast this with our triennial (is that the right word) meeting of our House of Bishops. From my perspective, they do not fit into the historical councilar model at all, save that some bishops may be reluctant to go. In this case, I do not think they have served us well.
In this particular case (the one of same sex blessings and the definitions of levels of participation by GLBT members of our church) it seems the Council has CREATED the threat. There was no burning heresy attacking the Church. There was no physical threat. No financial threat. In this case, it seems the democratic, councilar model has not served us well.
This forced me to ask then why? Why has the model failed us so utterly? The answer I consistently come back to is one of apathy, i.e. the average Episcopalian was unwilling to involve themselves in Church Politics unless they actually realized, internalized, and decided to act upon a threat. Hence I discover every day how unaware our congregants are of what has happened, what has been decided, and how it could affect them in the future.
Yes, Martha, you could certainly be going to Church in a diocese with a Bishop who is a non-celibate homosexual, male or female, at its head. Yes, Martha, you may find yourself receiving the Eucharist some day from a smiling homosexual, male or female, with his/her smiling partner beaming at your from the front row of Church. Yes, Martha, you may some day be sitting in church when a baptism of a new baby being raised by two women, or two men occurs right then.
When I put these terms to them, inevitably I get back disbelief and denial. Never happen, they say, not in MY Episcopal Church.
I fear we have an awful lot of rude awakenings ahead of us.
Thanks again for your comments, I find them most stimulating.
KTF!…mrb
Mike –
Thanks for your responses. One of our most profound failings, in my opinion, is that we as clergy and lay leaders of our parishes (and Church) have not generally dealt with this situation until 2003. (There are definitely excepts) I’ve heard from priests who said they didn’t want to deal with it because of all the problems they would get into if they forced the issue. It was too messy and easier to just sweep the issue of homosexuality under the rug. We were cowards! We were not leaders! We did not do our job! Both sides of the issue.
I don’t think our Bishop’s meetings are the same as the General Councils/Ecumenical Councils of old. What has been going on for the past four years in the Primate’s meetings or the ACC might come closer to such Councils. Yet, there are those who want an answer RIGHT NOW! Do we not see that this demand for NOW is a result of the influence of our culture for immediacy and instant-gratification upon what in the past might have taken decades?