Joint Statement on the Resolution of the House of Bishops
Three orthodox Anglican groups, the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, and Forward in Faith North America, have issued a joint statement on the recently-concluded meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans.
The last seven days have been eventful ones for the worldwide Anglican Communion. The future of our 500 year fellowship has been focused on The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops (HOB). The worldwide Anglican Communion has been looking for clarity, praying for unity, and searching for Christ and His will in our lives. Unfortunately, the HOB has failed the Communion; their continued ambiguity, questioning of basic Christian beliefs, and rejection of obvious Scriptural teaching has widened the gap between them and biblical Christianity.
The Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communiqué required that The Episcopal Church:
# End same-sex blessings at all levels.
# Confirm that no more non-celibate homosexuals will be consecrated bishop.
# Provide alternative Primatial oversight for those who do not agree with The Episcopal Church’s leadership.
# End all lawsuits against parishes and vestries.
To our disappointment, the House of Bishops (HOB) did not meet the request but offered a carefully crafted response that appears to comply but actually maintains the status quo.
# The HOB refused to address the widespread practice of same-sex blessings. Instead, they restated their long-standing position.
# The HOB clarified Resolution B033 as applying to “non-celibate gay(s) and lesbian(s) [among others]”; however, the bishops agree only, for now, to “exercise restraint.”
# The HOB rejected the Primates’ plan for pastoral oversight and offered their own inadequate alternative.
# The HOB ignored the request to end lawsuits against parishes and vestries. To this day, churches and individuals face litigation funded by The Episcopal Church, and guided by its chancellor.
# Fully half of the response is concerned with matters not raised by the Communion that nonetheless press forward The Episcopal Church’s agenda.
We, with others gathered in Pittsburgh for the Common Cause Council of Bishops, are committed to remaining within biblical Christianity even as The Episcopal Church once again has chosen to continue on its own tragic course. We trust that in the weeks and months ahead God will guide us and the entire Anglican Communion in continuing and deepening a faithful path forward.
Posted September 26, 2007
from here:
Good! May this be only the beginning of a strong, united response.
So: Saruman has spoken again; will the orthodox who remain in the TEC continue to be led along? When will the orthodox recognize that Saruman has long since lost any legitimacy he once held? Like Saruman, the TEC is no longer “the white,” but the TEC “of many colors.” Those who remain are dancing with a very dangerous serpent. Flee, while time remains. And do not look back, like Lot’s wife.
Perhaps I should add, for the sake of clarity: the Joint Statement reads things correctly. But what action will the orthodox who remain in the TEC take?
My opinions from last November. Although I could tweek the wording, substantively they remain unchanged.
http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2006/11/some-thoughts-on-loosing-war.html
While TEC continues to answer in squirming paragraphs, God uses their responses to provide absolute clarity.
What action, you say? They issued this press release, that’s what!
The only thing missing is where the ABC stands. Does he stand with the
Global South, the three Anglican groups named above….or….does
he stand with TEC?
bl
In the spirit of Cyril and Athanasius, great Alexandrian defenders of the orthodox faith, to say nothing of St. Mark himself, I (for one) would warmly welcome the installation of an Archbishop of Alexandria as titular head of the Anglican Covenant (or similar body).
Either ++Mouneer Anis or ++Henry Orombi would be outstanding first occupants of that chair.
++Rowan Williams might as well remain in Canterbury, to preside over the diminishing rump of an over-educated and over-fed group of self-important, mainly white revisionists, increasingly irrelevant to God’s work in the world.
Yawn.
You know, if the homosexual lobby undertook to choose a course that would exacerbate the resentment and distrust between heterosexuals and homosexuals, they could hardly have done a better job than that which is now before us. Shall we let homosexuals and lesbians into our congregations? Earlier, I would have said “of course,” but now it strikes me that new members like this are like bringing small pox to the Amerinds. Honestly now, do you really want the Susans of this “liberal” world in your congregation? The agenda driven are obsessive, and some are fanatical, as we now see clearly, and to allow the agenda-driven into one’s congregation is inviting the serpent into the orchard and showing him the right tree. The inclusive church is a psych-gambit dreamed up by a faction that will do anything to gain leverage for their agenda. Do you really and truly want to be inclusive? Read Susan’s declaration of war and justification of mendacity again and tell me if this
this is what Christ had in mind.
Sick and tired of being jerked around, in Maine
From your lips to God’s ears, Bert Hall!
[blockquote]Yawn. [/blockquote]
Possibly the best revisionist critique I’ve read so far. Bravo!
TEC scapegoated. Scapegoating has happened before. It’s amazing how true the gospels are: how everyone unites to crucify.
“The only thing missing is where the ABC stands. . . .” From what I am seeing, he doesn’t stand; he sits. On the fence. A fence that is neither hot nor cold.
Larry Morse [#10] writes: “Honestly now, do you really want the Susans of this “liberal†world in your congregation? The agenda driven are obsessive, and some are fanatical, as we now see clearly, and to allow the agenda-driven into one’s congregation is inviting the serpent into the orchard and showing him the right tree.”
Better her than some of the fanatics on the traditionalist side.
———————
“The Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communiqué required that The Episcopal Church:. . . .” [Emphasis added]
Oh, please.
No, Larry, we cannot, we dare not bar any sinners from our congregations, just as we dare not ask for God’s justice for ourselves, or He would have to destroy us in perfect justice. Of course, St. Paul set out good guidelines for who should have [i]leadership[/i] positions in church, including vestry, Sunday school teachers, clergy of all levels. They do not include unrepentant sinners or those who would twist and distort the faith once for all passed on to the apostles. For those who would dispute that there ever was one faith passed on once for all, read the last chapter of Luke. You can’t miss who passed it on and that He used Scripture that He said could not be broken.
15 I think, that the ABC stands with TEC. He gave them a pass before they voted on anything. He either thinks that the GS is bluffing and he just called them on it or if they absent themselves it is their fault and nothing to do with him. He is ready to welcome everone so their absence has nothing to do with him. They split the AC not him.
If Common Cause and the GS is serious they need to resign themselves to proceeding without the ABC.
Sorry I was responding to 14, CharlesB. I think we all know where the Questioning Christian stands on matters of faith.
” . . . the bishops agree only, for now, to ‘exercise restraint.’ â€
On this point, the Joint Statement of the AAC, Network and FifNA is not accurate. The language is “exercise restraint by not consenting . . .” This means no consents. The reappraising side knew this, and in the 2006 debate in the House of Bishops (according to liveblog reports) attempted to amend B033 to change “exercise restraint by not consenting” to “exercise restraint in consenting” or “exercise restraint in considering consent”. These amendments were not adopted. The import of the resulting language was recognized by the Communion Sub-Group and on this point they were right. The language acknowledging that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains should satisfy the Primates’ remaining concern on this point.
There is enough to criticize about the resolution that emerged from New Orleans. To complain about the “exercise restraint by not consenting” language dilutes the strength of the legitimate criticism.
#16 Very good:very plain. The house of God should be open to all that they hear the word of God and repent. But Paul advised us to withdraw from those who refuse to repent. We truly cannot read the thoughts of all persons but actions when compared to the plainly written words of scripture can be spoken against.
#10 Larry:
Although I agree that church is no place for exclusion of anyone, you hit on something that I do not think some folks recognize about LBGT community, if such a community can be described in generalizations. I am sure like me, most people know LBGT folks as coworkers, neighbors, fellow Christians and relatives. But we do not know them in a context much deeper than that since the LBGT community itself is, for a variety of reasons, one of exclusivity. Moreover, most straight “friends” of this community are not involved with it as a matter of socialization, rather as a measure of support for the acceptance of that community by the mainstream. It seems that if you cannot accept the self-defined sexual essance of an LBGT person, there is little else to share with them individually and collectively other than the common rituals of life.
#16: I know you are right, but I speak in a kind of grave desperation, a kind of impotent despair. The Susan’s of the world do not THINK of themselves as sinners. WE are the sinners, WE are the ones doing what is wrong. and she and her kin are arguing that mendacity and hypocrisy are acceptable courses for those who are In The Right. Milton, have we not just cause, have we no obligation to protect ourselves against those who would destroy us? Does being a Christian mean being a sucker, being – well, let me say it – cowardl?. Milton, we are under attack, are we not? And the lesbians and homosexuals want to make sure that our defense of scripture does not stand, that, indeed, scripture can be made to mean whatever the agenda-driven want it to mean. Do you really want them in your congregation? If you are not with us, you are against us, He said, and these people are against us. They are not sinners who may be brought to repentence, because for them there is no sin and there is nothing to repent. Did Christ really mean for us to stand still while the wolves kill the sheep?
Still tired of being jerked around in Maine
Thanks for the compliment, #12. These unending press releases do get quite boring after a while. I am often tempted not to read them, they are so predictable in content.
#21, I’m not certain what you mean by saying that the LGBT community is, “for a number of reasons, exclusive.” My experience with gays and lesbians perhaps is less extensive than yours, but I have always found such persons welcoming and inviting. Obviously there is a major difference in that I do not share their sexual orientation, but I can given the opportunity to try to understand their orientation and the effect it has on their lives. Many college and university campuses, for example the college I taught at for so many years, have a organization that invites gays and straights to meet together for dialogue and working on common goals. It is more than just gays seeking support for their “goals,” though certainly living lives without persecution and discrimination are worthy goals.
As for gays in the Church, I find it hard to figure out how one can withdraw from any gay in one’s congregation and still think of ones self as part of the Body of Christ. It is a dilemma, I suppose, for those with strong convictions that being gay is ipso facto sinful or that gay relationships are such. As was pointed out above, we are all sinners. Let us also remember that the common tradition of the Church that sins of the intellect and the will are worse than sins of the flesh, so it is always an act of grace for us to take a good look at our own logs when we are pointing out the slivers (and logs) of others.
#23 Bob:
I mean for reasons reasons having to do with anything from self-exclusion to fear of persecution. Regarding your other statement, besides “dialog events” how many gay social events have you attended lately?
Larry, certainly we should never stand silently aloof when the word of God is attacked, dismissed, twisted and used selectively to say Satan’s lies with God’s word. The eternal fate of immortal souls is at stake. We should always be ready, as St. Peter said, “to give a reason for the hope that dwells within us”. If we live in Scripture for some significant time each day and ask for true interpretation from the Holy Spirit and listening to faithful teachers who have no agenda but the glory of God, then and only then will we be equipped to discern truth from error, license from grace and mercy, true personal pain from narcisisstic anger, repentant struggling sinner from unbelieving activist. My main point was that we should never deny the opportunity for Jesus to heal and save through His body the Church [i]and[/i] we should deny leadership roles of any kind to those whose words or lives deny the Gospel message of salvation from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. We are always under attack, but “we war not against flesh and blood”. Our only real defense against our true enemy is the breastplate of righteousness (Christ’s, not ours), the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God, “by which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one.” We must remember that “He who is in us is stronger than he who is in the world.”
#21 rudydog says:
[blockquote] It seems that if you cannot accept the self-defined sexual essance of an LBGT person, there is little else to share with them individually and collectively other than the common rituals of life. [/blockquote]
This is an important point. However, you should know that some gay people say that it is precisely our focus on sex which falsifies our understanding of gay people, and that they do not see their essence as sexual, rather than human.
The public correspondence between Rev Giles Goddard of Inclusive Church and Rev Andrew Goddard of Fulcrum includes this, from the former:
[blockquote] “I was, at the time, surprised that you saw the four areas needing clarification as being all to do with sex. I think I now understand why that is.
The literature and discussions by conservative Christians about lesbian and gay people seems to focus almost exclusively on sex. The word “love†is hardly ever heard, either in the work by the House of Bishops (for example, “Some Issues in Human Sexualityâ€) or by those who hold a more conservative position…
I think that is because, if you were to acknowledge the reality of the potential for love between two people of the same gender, you would have to acknowledge that lesbian and gay people are a legitimate part of God’s creation. You would, in other words, have to realise that lesbian and gay people are equal before God, created as part of God’s purpose and part of the astonishing and wonderful diversity of the world we inhabit. And then, the fear is, the whole carefully constructed house of cards would collapse. “Equality of souls before God†says Nietzsche. “Christian dynamite.†He’s right…
…our correspondence has led me to a recognition that the misunderstanding of the nature and being of lesbian and gay people is so profound that I am not clear how we can, usefully, continue to discuss it…[/blockquote]
After an emergency primates meeting, the Windsor Report, two additional meetings and communiques from the primates, the realignment progressing through the consecration of bishops, the continuing addition of churches from pecusa and church planting, and finally, a meeting of common cause bishops of the realignment for the purpose of further unification of the mission the liberal response is a yawn and a claim of scapegoating pecusa.
Folks, their forces are spent. I don’t see how they are going to have the energy to save the world through the MDGs.
I am sure like me, most people know LBGT folks as coworkers, neighbors, fellow Christians and relatives. But we do not know them in a context much deeper than that since the LBGT community itself is, for a variety of reasons, one of exclusivity.
Rudydog, I’m a reasserter, and I don’t buy this. And yes, I have been to gay social events. When I lived in Atlanta, I regularly attended meetings of reading club where I was the only straight person there. I came with a friend and I was never less than welcome nor did sexuality have anything to do with the gatherings – we read and talked about books, just like all readers do.
28: Sherry:
Please note that I admitted generalization. I certainly have been a part of social situations involving gay and straight people; however, for the most part, it has been my experience that GBLT’s have an orientation to community that is hardly inclusive.
#26: I think the focus on sex is cerainly part of GBLT advocacy, not so much the proccupation of others. And this business about love between two people of the same sex….. we still have the sin problem, do we not?
There is a huge difference from 1) excluding gays from Church which would be wrong and 2) blessing a relationship which Christiani tradition and scripture has always viewed as sinful and 3) ordaining/consecrating those persons whose manner of life is in contradiction to the Church’s teaching (I long for the days when we all had an understanding of conduct unbecomming). How the world was turned upside down within my short 38 years remains a mystery to me. Lets face it there are those who view God/Church as a “bulwark never failing” and those who view it as a continuos agent for social change (and it was in the first centuries AD). These two viewpoints have always existed within the Church. However, with the turning of sexual morality on its ear inside a generation the liberal Christians have gone a bridge too far far the traditionalist wing. Hence I think we are in for a second reformation as the old traditonal churches cleave into two or three parts. Unfortuneatly, the liberals are in power in the Episcopal Church – instead of recognizing a clear theological divide which and working to amicably separate – I believe that the liberals are so enamored with their social justice viewpoint that they are willing to beggar thy neighbor – It is morrally reprehensible.
for the most part, it has been my experience that GBLT’s have an orientation to community that is hardly inclusive.
In fairness, I don’t think that’s surprising when the larger community hasn’t been inclusive to them.
In the GLBT equality equation I always see a need to remove the “B” because of its implicit admission of promiscuity. I have many gay friends I know intimately. It is not their behavior but rather the imposition of their behavior on the church that is causing me problems. As others have mentioned, when that is done, everything becomes unglued.
Thanks to all for a thoughtful and interesting series of comments here.
#30 rudydog suggests
[blockquote] And this business about love between two people of the same sex….. we still have the sin problem, do we not? [/blockquote]
However, it is no part of Anglican or even Roman Catholic teaching that love between two people of the same sex is immoral or sinful. It is only sexual relations between two people of the same sex which are condemned in the tradition.
Adam 12 wrote:
[blockquote] In the GLBT equality equation I always see a need to remove the “B†because of its implicit admission of promiscuity. [/blockquote]
Although I see your point, a bisexual can be celibate, or monogamous (that is, have sexual relations only with his or her spouse), just as a homosexual or heterosexual can be celibate. Sexual orientation and sexual practice are not the same – indeed, the traditionalist teaching that requires homosexuals to be celibate is based upon this distinction.
I agree with the poster Mike who cautioned that the argument is weakened when facts are twisted. The language was made one notch “better”–let’s give TEC bishops their due. But regardless of language, the fact is that they said they would not change the status quo. They were not going back, they were not acknowledging mistakes in promoting the ministry of active homosexuals, but the opposite: they were moving forward!
Regarding my comment in no. 19 above, I would add that apart from the difference between “exercise restraint” and “exercise restraint by not consenting” that is the subject of my disagreement with the AAC / Network analysis, there is still room for arguing the New Orleans statement is deficient on B033 for the reasons indicated in Andrew Goddard’s analysis at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=238.