I stipulate to all ten of Fr Millard’s first group of bullet points. It is a depressing litany, and a source of great grief to me personally, and to thousands upon thousands of American Anglicans. It does not, however, justify the action that Pittsburgh’s convention took. Each of the points are true in their isolated contexts, but none are true [b]everywhere[/b] in the sense that one can credibly say that they are true generally of the Episcopal Church. The official liturgical formularies of TEC, which serve as the norm for doctrine, are all orthodox. That many leaders in the church do not adhere to the teaching of their own church is a serious problem, but not a fatal one. Moreover, if departing Episcopalians in Pittsburgh (or elsewhere) wish, in their departing, to remain Anglican, they would do well to remind themselves that the [i]prima facie[/i] mark of Anglican identity is communion with the See of Canterbury. Recent communications from Lambeth Palace suggest that a diocese’s membership in a province that is under discipline by the rest of the Communion will not compromise its relationship to Canterbury. Then again, perhaps some other sort of “Anglicanism” is what our friends (and I use that term in all sincerity) in Pittsburgh have in mind.
The official liturgical formularies of TEC, which serve as the norm for doctrine, are all orthodox. (etc)
As a widowed layman, I am now ready to enter back into dating. I use an online dating service. The service matches me with other Christian women. One of the first questions asked of me is “What church do you belong to?†What they are really asking me is what is my understanding of the faith. So I have to go on the defensive and explain that I actually am in father Millard’s parish by describing how we (Ascension) stand on Biblical Authority. The following is an actual answer I got back within the last several days:
I was very pleased to read that you are member of a congregation that is planning to part company with the infiltrated, corrupted entity the Episcopalian Church has sadly become.
Now I want to ask the women the same question. I’m sure that they want a husband that follows Ephesians 5:25-33 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church……†If (theoretically) my church’s inclusively accepts my unrestricted view of marriage, how could an evangelical women, contemplating marriage, accept that the label “Episcopalian†meant anything. This is where the real meaning of communion is relevant and has become so problematic.
#1 – It seems to me Rev. Millard is accurately describing the views and actions of the national leadership of TEC along with the views and actions of many of its most vocal dioceses. They are “true generally†for those that oversee TEC.
Furthermore, to describe the “official liturgical formularies†as “orthodox†seems to me to be based on a very modern view of orthodox. IMHO, the 1979 BCP does not embrace the historical/orthodox theology that Anglicanism has held throughout its history. Don’t get me wrong, I can use the modern formularies for God’s purpose, but to describe them as “orthodox†is a bit of a stretch.
As to the OP, I heard Rev. Millard address these points in a different setting a few weeks ago. I was on my feet cheering. I am not a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, but as a regular attendee of Rev. Millard’s parish, I am prayerfully encouraging my brothers and sisters in their journey to be a part of a “Biblically Orthodox, Missional Province of the Anglican Communionâ€.
Please pray for all those involved in this painful “divorceâ€. ALL of those involved.
#2, I don’t deny that there are some serious PR problems with the “Episcopal” brand name. Your own experience makes it all too real. However, I would still submit that to be (still more) patient and let the Communion processes play themselves out before taking drastic action represents a higher good.
#3, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the orthodoxy of BCP ’79. I think it’s the best Prayer Book any Anglican province has ever produced, bar none. And we’re not likely to get a better on in my lifetime. The Eucharistic rite of the 1662 book is a theological train wreck.
FrDan #4, I agree generally with you that it would be a good idea — particularly in a Windsor diocese — to hold on until the Communion decision either finally comes in or until it becomes clear that there will be no decision. It would be a pity to drop out of the game — at a great potential cost — when the end appears to be so close (a few months), having already suffered through decades of growing apostasy.
But on the other hand I can sympathize with Cole #2 — or the fellow in Louisiana described by [url=http://descant.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/monday-morning-news-of-the-hob/]Bishop Epting[/url] —
[Epting to a small local congregation:] “Two things I hope you’ll hold in tension: I want you to be concerned about these larger issues, about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and all the rest of it. But, bottom line, no matter what happens at this House of Bishops meeting, it doesn’t have to derail your local efforts. The cutting edge of our mission and ministry is the local congregation and you need to build a healthy and vital congregation!â€
A 40-something big guy, with a red face and tears in his eyes said, “I disagree with you. What happens does affect our local congregation! I invite people but nobody in this part of the world wants to come to a church where, when you open the paper, is all about gay bishops and being thrown out of the world wide communion!â€
It took more than 300 years for Nicea to straighten out our theology. “Communion processes” have been going on for a decade now, with TEC’s official disdain for Christian teaching and the incredible arrogance of its General Convention being blatantly obvious at least since 2000. Couples with children have a window of perhaps twelve years at most to build them a firm Christian foundation; one reasonable and traditional expectation is that their church will help in this, or at the very least not actively hinder it. So I have some qualms about counseling patience from a purely pastoral point of view, even given the arguments of such profound theologians as Dr+ Radner and yourself. It is obviously too late for TEC; it is not too late for American Anglicanism, if the Communion and the ABC take appropriate steps.
As to the ’79 “BCP”, I was raised on 1928 and did not attend Episcopal services for a couple of decades, starting in the mid-’70s, so I missed a lot of the fun. But when I returned, my first impression (which has remained unchanged) was that ’79 managed to combine the theological depth and rigor of a bumper sticker with the flowing poetic cadences of a chemistry textbook. I don’t know enough about 1662 to have an opinion on it, but I’m afraid we’ll also have to agree to disagree on ’79…
I answer Father Dan in a revision of what I said at SF. Two of our churches in the diocese of Colorado have now left in the past few months. I just heard about the second one this past weekend. Both parishes were in dire straits. Precisely because of “Episcopal Name Brand” problems, both churches were on their last legs. The priest of the most recently departing church said that the church would not have been here in six months. I argued that it is poor pastoral care to allow one’s parish to dwindle by attrition to such a desperate state and then to come the decision there is no hope. “If not now, when?”, asks Father Millard and I do too.
Craig writes, “I agree generally with you that it would be a good idea—particularly in a Windsor diocese—to hold on until the Communion decision either finally comes in or until it becomes clear that there will be no decision.” I would point out that this is only the first reading of the resolution and a second vote is required. Thus, they have done nothing but plan for contingencies as well as send a very loud (and necessary) message to the ABC.
#7, the sarcasm in your response comes through loud and clear, don’t worry. And I will grant you that the expression Baptismal Covenant has been egregiously abused by reappraisers. They have taken their flawed interpretation of the final promise and made it an emblem of the whole thing. But the vows themselves, taken from the very beginning, and despite how they have been abused, are completely sound and wholesome. They ought indeed to make the heart of an orthodox Anglican soar!
Fr Dan
It is the elevation of the last two questions and responses to the level of ultimate doctrine that makes me gag. I expect the next prayer book revision will contain the MGDs in place of the Nicene Creed.
RE: “However, I would still submit that to be (still more) patient and let the Communion processes play themselves out before taking drastic action represents a higher good.”
Father Martins, as a ComCon I am generally sympathetic with your encouragement of patience.
But haven’t the “Communion processes” now played themselves out, and the result is that Rowan simply will not make any sort of decision involving ECUSA’s departure?
Thus, that sort of leaves everything pretty much dead in the water, and Episcopalians wondering why they should stay.
The GC that the Windsor Report gave as a deadline has come and gone. The response of the Primates to the GC has come and gone. The request for further clarification has come and gone. ECUSA’s clarification has come and gone. The deadline for the moratoria has come and gone. And now ECUSA continues on apace with same sex blessings in numerous dioceses.
So pretty much the past four years has accomplished nothing other than for all of us to say . . . “well, then” . . . and look at one another across the room.
So . . . I’m not certain what there is left of “Communion processes” to play out, other than the various Global South provinces to announce either their non-attendance or attendance at an event that is essentially powerless anyway to do anything.
The Covenant of course won’t be accepted by ECUSA either . . . not that that will really mean anything, along with ECUSA’s other various rejections of various documents and deadlines, which also didn’t mean anything.
In short . . . you know, ECUSA will continue to keep doing what it likes. And then since Rowan will not be doing anything [and again, I don’t blame him, I’m just saying . . . ], it’s simply up to everyone individually, province by province, to make their own decisions I guess.
I am sincerely puzzled at what other Communion processes are supposed to occur.
Sarah (#10) wrote: [blockquote]I am sincerely puzzled at what other Communion processes are supposed to occur.[/blockquote] Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but are we not yet awaiting another word from +Rowan re New Orleans–that is, [b]post[/b]-consulting with the other Primates? And are we not awaiting the unfolding of the Covenant development process? I think we can safely predict that GC ’09 will opt out of the Covenant, but until that happens, it’s still ‘Game On.’
FrDan #11 — Agreed that we’re waiting for word from +Rowan (and possibly the Primates). The Covenant is kind of an unknown. And given TEC’s unbroken history of duplicity and pettifoggery with regard to Communion requests, I wouldn’t bet on their rejection of the Covenant if it meant effective expulsion from the AC; I’d bet on temporizing, delay, and legalistic semantic games — as we’ve seen continuously since GC03.
RE: “I think we can safely predict that GC ‘09 will opt out of the Covenant, but until that happens, it’s still ‘Game On.’”
I think so, but as there have not been any consequences to ECUSA for any of their decisions over the past four years of the “Windor Process” I don’t see that it will matter.
Plus . . . the Lambeth Meeting will be done by 09 . . . and so they will have 9 more years, until 2018, to enjoy themselves and move on before even the possibility of any consequences could display itself, even were Rowan inclined to actually offer any consequences, which I do not believe that he will do.
I stipulate to all ten of Fr Millard’s first group of bullet points. It is a depressing litany, and a source of great grief to me personally, and to thousands upon thousands of American Anglicans. It does not, however, justify the action that Pittsburgh’s convention took. Each of the points are true in their isolated contexts, but none are true [b]everywhere[/b] in the sense that one can credibly say that they are true generally of the Episcopal Church. The official liturgical formularies of TEC, which serve as the norm for doctrine, are all orthodox. That many leaders in the church do not adhere to the teaching of their own church is a serious problem, but not a fatal one. Moreover, if departing Episcopalians in Pittsburgh (or elsewhere) wish, in their departing, to remain Anglican, they would do well to remind themselves that the [i]prima facie[/i] mark of Anglican identity is communion with the See of Canterbury. Recent communications from Lambeth Palace suggest that a diocese’s membership in a province that is under discipline by the rest of the Communion will not compromise its relationship to Canterbury. Then again, perhaps some other sort of “Anglicanism” is what our friends (and I use that term in all sincerity) in Pittsburgh have in mind.
Fr Dan, You stated:
As a widowed layman, I am now ready to enter back into dating. I use an online dating service. The service matches me with other Christian women. One of the first questions asked of me is “What church do you belong to?†What they are really asking me is what is my understanding of the faith. So I have to go on the defensive and explain that I actually am in father Millard’s parish by describing how we (Ascension) stand on Biblical Authority. The following is an actual answer I got back within the last several days:
Now I want to ask the women the same question. I’m sure that they want a husband that follows Ephesians 5:25-33 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church……†If (theoretically) my church’s inclusively accepts my unrestricted view of marriage, how could an evangelical women, contemplating marriage, accept that the label “Episcopalian†meant anything. This is where the real meaning of communion is relevant and has become so problematic.
#1 – It seems to me Rev. Millard is accurately describing the views and actions of the national leadership of TEC along with the views and actions of many of its most vocal dioceses. They are “true generally†for those that oversee TEC.
Furthermore, to describe the “official liturgical formularies†as “orthodox†seems to me to be based on a very modern view of orthodox. IMHO, the 1979 BCP does not embrace the historical/orthodox theology that Anglicanism has held throughout its history. Don’t get me wrong, I can use the modern formularies for God’s purpose, but to describe them as “orthodox†is a bit of a stretch.
As to the OP, I heard Rev. Millard address these points in a different setting a few weeks ago. I was on my feet cheering. I am not a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, but as a regular attendee of Rev. Millard’s parish, I am prayerfully encouraging my brothers and sisters in their journey to be a part of a “Biblically Orthodox, Missional Province of the Anglican Communionâ€.
Please pray for all those involved in this painful “divorceâ€. ALL of those involved.
#2, I don’t deny that there are some serious PR problems with the “Episcopal” brand name. Your own experience makes it all too real. However, I would still submit that to be (still more) patient and let the Communion processes play themselves out before taking drastic action represents a higher good.
#3, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the orthodoxy of BCP ’79. I think it’s the best Prayer Book any Anglican province has ever produced, bar none. And we’re not likely to get a better on in my lifetime. The Eucharistic rite of the 1662 book is a theological train wreck.
FrDan #4, I agree generally with you that it would be a good idea — particularly in a Windsor diocese — to hold on until the Communion decision either finally comes in or until it becomes clear that there will be no decision. It would be a pity to drop out of the game — at a great potential cost — when the end appears to be so close (a few months), having already suffered through decades of growing apostasy.
But on the other hand I can sympathize with Cole #2 — or the fellow in Louisiana described by [url=http://descant.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/monday-morning-news-of-the-hob/]Bishop Epting[/url] —
It took more than 300 years for Nicea to straighten out our theology. “Communion processes” have been going on for a decade now, with TEC’s official disdain for Christian teaching and the incredible arrogance of its General Convention being blatantly obvious at least since 2000. Couples with children have a window of perhaps twelve years at most to build them a firm Christian foundation; one reasonable and traditional expectation is that their church will help in this, or at the very least not actively hinder it. So I have some qualms about counseling patience from a purely pastoral point of view, even given the arguments of such profound theologians as Dr+ Radner and yourself. It is obviously too late for TEC; it is not too late for American Anglicanism, if the Communion and the ABC take appropriate steps.
As to the ’79 “BCP”, I was raised on 1928 and did not attend Episcopal services for a couple of decades, starting in the mid-’70s, so I missed a lot of the fun. But when I returned, my first impression (which has remained unchanged) was that ’79 managed to combine the theological depth and rigor of a bumper sticker with the flowing poetic cadences of a chemistry textbook. I don’t know enough about 1662 to have an opinion on it, but I’m afraid we’ll also have to agree to disagree on ’79…
I answer Father Dan in a revision of what I said at SF. Two of our churches in the diocese of Colorado have now left in the past few months. I just heard about the second one this past weekend. Both parishes were in dire straits. Precisely because of “Episcopal Name Brand” problems, both churches were on their last legs. The priest of the most recently departing church said that the church would not have been here in six months. I argued that it is poor pastoral care to allow one’s parish to dwindle by attrition to such a desperate state and then to come the decision there is no hope. “If not now, when?”, asks Father Millard and I do too.
Craig writes, “I agree generally with you that it would be a good idea—particularly in a Windsor diocese—to hold on until the Communion decision either finally comes in or until it becomes clear that there will be no decision.” I would point out that this is only the first reading of the resolution and a second vote is required. Thus, they have done nothing but plan for contingencies as well as send a very loud (and necessary) message to the ABC.
What I love most about the 1979 ASB is the Baptismal Covenant. It makes my heart soar!
#7, the sarcasm in your response comes through loud and clear, don’t worry. And I will grant you that the expression Baptismal Covenant has been egregiously abused by reappraisers. They have taken their flawed interpretation of the final promise and made it an emblem of the whole thing. But the vows themselves, taken from the very beginning, and despite how they have been abused, are completely sound and wholesome. They ought indeed to make the heart of an orthodox Anglican soar!
Fr Dan
It is the elevation of the last two questions and responses to the level of ultimate doctrine that makes me gag. I expect the next prayer book revision will contain the MGDs in place of the Nicene Creed.
RE: “However, I would still submit that to be (still more) patient and let the Communion processes play themselves out before taking drastic action represents a higher good.”
Father Martins, as a ComCon I am generally sympathetic with your encouragement of patience.
But haven’t the “Communion processes” now played themselves out, and the result is that Rowan simply will not make any sort of decision involving ECUSA’s departure?
Thus, that sort of leaves everything pretty much dead in the water, and Episcopalians wondering why they should stay.
The GC that the Windsor Report gave as a deadline has come and gone. The response of the Primates to the GC has come and gone. The request for further clarification has come and gone. ECUSA’s clarification has come and gone. The deadline for the moratoria has come and gone. And now ECUSA continues on apace with same sex blessings in numerous dioceses.
So pretty much the past four years has accomplished nothing other than for all of us to say . . . “well, then” . . . and look at one another across the room.
So . . . I’m not certain what there is left of “Communion processes” to play out, other than the various Global South provinces to announce either their non-attendance or attendance at an event that is essentially powerless anyway to do anything.
The Covenant of course won’t be accepted by ECUSA either . . . not that that will really mean anything, along with ECUSA’s other various rejections of various documents and deadlines, which also didn’t mean anything.
In short . . . you know, ECUSA will continue to keep doing what it likes. And then since Rowan will not be doing anything [and again, I don’t blame him, I’m just saying . . . ], it’s simply up to everyone individually, province by province, to make their own decisions I guess.
I am sincerely puzzled at what other Communion processes are supposed to occur.
Sarah (#10) wrote: [blockquote]I am sincerely puzzled at what other Communion processes are supposed to occur.[/blockquote] Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but are we not yet awaiting another word from +Rowan re New Orleans–that is, [b]post[/b]-consulting with the other Primates? And are we not awaiting the unfolding of the Covenant development process? I think we can safely predict that GC ’09 will opt out of the Covenant, but until that happens, it’s still ‘Game On.’
FrDan #11 — Agreed that we’re waiting for word from +Rowan (and possibly the Primates). The Covenant is kind of an unknown. And given TEC’s unbroken history of duplicity and pettifoggery with regard to Communion requests, I wouldn’t bet on their rejection of the Covenant if it meant effective expulsion from the AC; I’d bet on temporizing, delay, and legalistic semantic games — as we’ve seen continuously since GC03.
RE: “I think we can safely predict that GC ‘09 will opt out of the Covenant, but until that happens, it’s still ‘Game On.’”
I think so, but as there have not been any consequences to ECUSA for any of their decisions over the past four years of the “Windor Process” I don’t see that it will matter.
Plus . . . the Lambeth Meeting will be done by 09 . . . and so they will have 9 more years, until 2018, to enjoy themselves and move on before even the possibility of any consequences could display itself, even were Rowan inclined to actually offer any consequences, which I do not believe that he will do.