On Oct. 31., the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA sent a letter to the bishop of Pittsburgh, directing him not to split the diocese from the denomination. Bishop Duncan replied by quoting Martin Luther, “Here I stand. I can do no other.”
It’s a powerful quote, but a misuse of history. Martin Luther didn’t leave the Roman Catholic Church; he was kicked out. He decided to “stand” and fight. It’s ironic that Bishop Duncan quoted Luther’s pledge to “stand” in order to justify his intention to “walk.”
Are my fellow conservatives fully aware of the biblical and patristic teachings on schism? How do they justify a break with the Episcopal Church to which they have literally sworn loyalty? How do they justify taking Episcopal property with them? Given Paul’s command to the first-century Corinthian Church not to address church issues in secular courts, how do they justify the inevitable legal battles that accompany a schism? How much will the litigation cost? Will the money come from our offerings?
There are moral questions, too. If we break with the Episcopal Church in America over gay priests, how can we then align ourselves with African bishops who tolerate polygamist priests? Paul says that a church leader is to be “the husband of one wife.” Do we think that the word “husband” is inerrant but the word “one” is not?
If the Episcopal Church really has become apostate and its current leaders really are enemies of God, then how can we justify leaving the church, its resources and its sheep in their care? If not, how can we justify this separation?
I suppose Mr. Bower considers it to be “leaving” when a congregation or diocese chooses to continue in the traditional orthodox way of the Episcopal Church while the National Church decides to walk away from that path. I, on the other hand, see Bishop Duncan as persisting in his position to maintain orthodoxy and the premises that we hold to: the Sovereignty of God, the Authority of Scripture, and the continuance of the Church that has held for nearly 2000 years. Thus, perhaps, that quote holds true: He (by the way representing a whole diocese plus several others of us out here in the hinterlands) holds to the position he and the Church have held–he STANDS there.
I am not obligated to Katherine Jefferts Schori nor to The Episcopal Church, but to Christ’s Gospel, the Authority of the Scriptures, and to the Church of God. I am 100% on the side of Bishop Duncan.
I guess it needs to be published, but some of this stuff is hard to read.
“Schism is against scripture”. Yes, that’s exactly what it says in [url=http://www.biblestudytools.net/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=matthew+10:12-15§ion=0&version=nlt&language=en]Matthew 10:12-15[/url].
+Duncan isn’t running away from home; his home has run away from him.
I hope some one can clear one thing for me: I’ve seen in various places this assertation that +Duncan forbade prayers for Ms Schori in his diocese, and I’ve also seen that he did not.
Did he or didn’t he?
There’s an error somewhere in my link code above, but I can’t find it. Apologies. Copy and paste.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <>< --- [i]elves fixed the code[/i]
And, of course, the same slanderous lying canard about African polygamous priests. Proof and documentation, Mr. Bowers, or stand convicted as a liar.
And on reading the whole article, Mr. Bowyer would appear to be one of the conservatives (wouldn’t guess it by the excerpt quoted here) who hope that catholic order will triumph over the suppression of the Gospel of salvation to replace it with the social gospel and the gospel of radical inclusion and the corruption and takeover of most seminaries by radical liberal unbelievers and clergy selection processes being rigged to exclude any tinge of orthodox belief, to the extent of being automatically excluded for being a Trinity or Nashota grad. May Mr. Bowyer be spared the spectacle of attending a service that will be the end result of TEC’s wormhoking by reappraisers, instead enjoying the fruits of those like +Duncan who stand up to the intimidation of +KJS, David Booth Beers, et al.
A heartfelt and fourthright statement I greatly respect. He’s right.
The ordination promises clergy make – and have made since the first American prayer book of 1789 – are (1) that we do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and (2) to conform (not “be loyal to”) the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church. Bishop Rodgers before his consecration was a leader in an organization called First Promise, which referred to these promises. When the Episcopal Church adopts a doctrine, discipline, or form of worship that contradicts the teaching of Scripture it requires us to obey one promise and disavow the other.
I accept the moral authority of the resolution on human sexuality adopted by a large majority of the bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1998. I think their interpretation of the relevant scripture passages is correct and their advice good. I regret that the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 did not take that advice.
I think that as yet the General Convention has not taken any final action on matters of doctrine, discipline, or worship directly in conflict with the teaching of Scripture. Official endorsement of a rite for same-sex blessings might do so.
Clergy and lay people whom I respect think that other actions of the General Convention, including the approval of Canon Robinson’s consecration, refusal to adopt a resolution of conformity to the credal teachings, statements of Presiding Bishops, etc., have required them to reject the authority of the General Convention and to ask for the sake of obedience to their first promise about Scripture to be released from their second promise of conformity. I have not yet come to that position. I think that it is still possible to keep both promises. I attended the Western North Carolina diocesan convention, voted, and received communion at the convention eucharist. I remain in communion with the bishop of the diocese, and I propose to continue.
Mr. Bower’s case against schism appears airtight. I will be looking forward to hearing about his reconciliation with the Pope–since, after all, the Church of England was not expelled from the Catholic Church, but left in a blatant act of schism.
[blockquote] If we break with the Episcopal Church in America over gay priests, how can we then align ourselves with African bishops who tolerate polygamist priests? [/blockquote] It is at this point that we can dismiss Jerry Bower as not worth conversing with, since he clearly has no ears of his own to listen to serious challenges as to actual facts put forth by the other side. My perusing of his views stopped at that point, and henceforth they will stop at the point that I read the words “Jerry Bower.”
[blockquote] Are my fellow conservatives fully aware of the biblical and patristic teachings on schism?[/blockquote]
The above reference to Matthew 10 explains it well, I think.
[blockquote] How do they justify a break with the Episcopal Church to which they have literally sworn loyalty?[/blockquote]
Heresy? Apostasy? Flagrant, willful and unrepentant championing of sin as blessed by God? Abandonment of one’s vows? For starters. Does one follow TEC into the yawning maw of Hell because of a misplaced sense of loyalty?
[blockquote] How do they justify taking Episcopal property with them? [/blockquote]
Oh, most likely because they bought it, they built it, they improved it, they maintained it. Generally engaging in what Adam Smith characterized as “mixing one’s labors” with property to acquire ownership. Tell us, Mr. Bower, what claim does TEC have over said property?
[blockquote] Given Paul’s command to the first-century Corinthian Church not to address church issues in secular courts, how do they justify the inevitable legal battles that accompany a schism?[/blockquote]
A question more aptly put to those who will initiate said battles, Mr. Bower.
[blockquote] How much will the litigation cost? Will the money come from our offerings?[/blockquote]
We had special offerings held in a separate account. Good enough?
[blockquote] There are moral questions, too. If we break with the Episcopal Church in America over gay priests, how can we then align ourselves with African bishops who tolerate polygamist priests? Paul says that a church leader is to be “the husband of one wife.” Do we think that the word “husband” is inerrant but the word “one” is not?[/blockquote]
For a conservative, you’re sure good at recycling southpaw rumors and innuendo.
“What claim does TEC have over said property?” Only an imagined claim. For instance, let’s say my wife and I are members of a voluntary community association, and we own our home and possess the deed. Does our membership in this association mean that we can’t sell our home to whomever we wish? No, it doesn’t! Does it mean that the association can lay claim to the property simply because we are members of the association? No, it doesn’t! So why is The Episcopal Church treated any differently? What gives them the right to say that the people of a parish…….or an entire diocese……..can’t take their properties with them when they leave TEC? If those parishes have sole possession of their deeds, doesn’t that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they own their properties? Seems to me that possession is nine tenths of the law!
#12: I think DBB has new legal counsel:
[i][b]Hedley Lamarr:[/b] There might be legal precedent! Of course, Landsnatching… land, land, Land, see Snatch. Ah, Hailie vs. United States. Hailie: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done! [/i]
Wow, he’s good. We need more conservatives who think this clearly.
Let us suppose that the claim of polygamy is demonstrable. I have, in fact, no evidence one way or another. But if it be true, what effect does this fact have on the scriptural statements regarding homosexuality or the African priests posture regarding scripture in this matter? If they are in error in one matter, one cannot argue -although this writer does – that they are wrong in all.
Again, his attitude toward VGR is the demoncratic attitude: One takes a vote, the most votes win,the winners rejoice and the losers adapt. He is simply wrong. Right and wrong in a church are not decided by voting. His acquiesence is simply a sign that this is simply a principle that he is not willing to go to the wall over, adiophora as the jargon no has it, and this tells us a good deal about the writer, perhaps more than he intended to tell us. LM
I’d be interested in knowing the name of any polygamous African priest and the province/diocese in which he is allowed to officiate.
Did Duncan issue such order? If so, my parish has ignored it.
David Fischler has pinned down the problem with extreme “schism is worse than heresy” adherents such as Bowyer. They are clearly fine with some schism (the ones they like) but adamantly opposed to other schism (the ones they don’t like). The arguments they employ to stay in TEC are exactly the arguments made back in the 1500’s to oppose leaving the Roman Catholic Church. And if you read the reformers they made the same arguments as Duncan et al…
For clarification, in fact the diocesan customary, required for “diocesan services” such as ordinations, diocesan convention services, etc., but simply a recommendation for parishes, is to pray for “the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion, those in authority in the Episcopal Church, and Robert and Henry, our bishops . . . .” There was clearly in this an expression of discomfort with the usual phrase “for Katharine, our Presiding Bishop,” and the absence of this petition in diocesan prayers was specifically noted, especially as the first round of these services began last year. My sense is that as our diocese includes some who disavow the Presiding Bishop’s authority and some who acknowledge it, this tweaking of language was an effort to find a place of common prayer. Some feel that even this mention of “those in authority in the Episcopal Church” goes too far, while others are pained at the loss of the specific petition for the Presiding Bishop. Still, it seems to be a prayer we can all pray without crossing our fingers,which is important. I would note that in my parish we have always prayed for the Presiding Bishop, and by name, in the Prayers of the People, and when Bishop Duncan was here in the spring for Confirmations he didn’t remark upon it.
Jerry Boyer is a well known and respected conservative columnist and reporter on newspaper and radio here in the Pittsburgh area. He and his wife are parishioners of St. Stephen’s, McKeesport, the parish where Bishop-Elect Mark Lawrence served for many years.
Bruce Robison
Bruce Robison
Funny, Canon Tunde (#16) but everytime I’ve seen that question aked over the last four years, the answer has been….resounding silence. Odd, that; one might just begin to assume that they had no viable answer…
Fr. Robison, with all due respect, if Mr. Bower (Boyer?) is a “highly respected conservative,” then I must say, in regards to the tremendous errors he seems willing to publish, he is tribute to the claim that even in strong reasserter dioceses, the ignorance is astounding. As a native daughter of Dio Pgh, I know for a fact that he does not represent your “brightest & best” and I certainly hope that one who does so will take him to task.
Right on #9.
So, if I understand Robison correctly, Bowyer is in error, Duncan did not “instruct” parishes to omit KJS in the Prayers of the People- he merely “recommended” it.
#21 — Unless the canons have been secretly revised, bishops have no authority to “instruct” rectors of parishes not to use the Book of Common Prayer, and the parenthetical petitions in the forms for Prayers of the People are always available. I believe the letter of instruction to St. Stephen’s related to an ordination held there recently, a service at which the bishop presides–and where he is therefore the liturgical officer. I suppose Transitional Parishes (what we in Pittsburgh call “aided” or “mission” parishes), where the bishop is canonically the rector, and the Cathedral Parish, where he is presently also functioning as Dean, would also be required to follow his direction in this matter. But, again, not rectors of parishes, so long as we remain within the BCP parameters.
Per #19, I always think “with all due respect” is kind of an odd thing to say, especially about someone not known to the speaker, but my sense is that Jerry Bowyer is a well-known and respected leader here in Pittsburgh’s civic life. You could of course give him a Google search. He is controversial in that he is a political advocate, and I’ve sometimes disagreed with him (especially, a few years back, on the question of public funding for regional assets like PNC Park)–but, again, he is a significant figure in the wider community.
I think there are a couple of problems with his article. The point about the “instruction” from the bishop about prayers for the Presiding Bishop is clearly a partial misunderstanding. (What was a direction for one service in particular he is assuming to be a general directive for all services, which, as I indicated above, is clearly not the case.) Likewise, I think the question of polygamy in the African Church is one that always generates more heat than light. The more I’ve looked into the question, the more difficult it seems to get a clear handle on it. The bishops at Lambeth have given the African Churches some fairly clear directives about how to deal with polygamy–directives more generous than some conservatives would like, but more limiting than is sometimes suggested by liberals who wish to discredit the African Churches. At the same time, how these directives are actually implemented, and what kinds of informal accomodations are made at the local level, is not something that folks trying to run agendas from either point of view have been able to demonstrate with clarity. There is some evidence in both directions, but not enough to be conclusive in either.
That said, what should be understood is that when the dust settles and the smoke clears, there are numbers of moderate and conservative clergy and parishes here in Pittsburgh who identify and sympathize with many aspects of our bishop’s direction and leadership, but who have determined that the action of “realignment” is not pastorally or theologically appropriate in the present context. I know most of the readers of this site will disagree with this, and in fact the majority of our clergy and congregations here in Pittsburgh will, I think, follow the bishop in his efforts to create a “realigned” diocesan entity. However people of orthodox faith and good will are also making a different decision. My sense is that it is very important for us here within our diocese and I hope in the wider church to acknowledge that faithful, orthodox Christian people with reason and integrity may be choosing different paths for their lives and ministry. I think it’s entirely appropriate that we try to explain ourselves to each other. But I think it’s inappropriate to cast aspersions upon the integrity of the good people who may be choosing to walk a different path. In my view, both ways forward on offer right now are seriously flawed, and, again, good people are trying to do the best they can in a difficult situation. Not a bad time to cut each other a little slack.
Bruce Robison
Ah, so happay to hear of further limitations of the abilities of “bishops”. Certainly takes the sting out of ‘episcopal’ and ‘hierarchal’. Gloria generalis conventionalis! (except when we don’t like the resolutions or votes or mandates and ignore them regarding communion, ordination, homosexuality, and proper procedures).
Agreed BMR+, things will only get more tense in Pittsburgh, especially when the lawsuits get cranking. Those “orthodox” choosing to stay will be choosing a side in the legal battle whether they like it or not, and it will be hard for those leaving to feel charitable towards them- and obviously vice versa. I didn’t particularly care for the tone of Mr. Bowyer’s piece but he is without a doubt “orthodox” in theology…
I do wish he hadn’t brought up the polygamy issue, as repeated challenges to those making the accusation have never produced a shred of proof beyond hearsay and anonymous, yet “credible”, gossips.
#22, BMR+, thank you for your comments. Even in very reappraising dioceses, like mine in Atlanta, there are many of us staunch reasserters who are determined to stay. We must remember that the vote for Gene Robinson’s approval was 3/5 vs 2/5. With folks leaving, what would the percentage be now? But if the 2/5 stayed and encouraged more active participation in diocesan affairs by their fellow travelers, to the point of capturing GC delegations, why could things not turn around? When folks of our persuasion leave, it certainly makes it harder for us to hold the ground we perceive the Lord has laid out for us. But we have to respect their decision to leave, the same as we would request them to respect our decision to stay. I have firm faith that our Lord will not abandon us who stay in TEC. The pendelum will swing, as it always does, and there will have to be someone who has held the reasserting ground. It may not be in my lifetime, but it shall surely happen for my children and their children, if the ground is held. If the fruits TEC is currently sowing are of God, they will flourish. If not, they will wither and die and the ground we hold will once again be the ground on which a church of our Lord’s choosing will be built. I firmly believe that. I wish everyone did.
[i]My sense is that it is very important for us here within our diocese and I hope in the wider church to acknowledge that faithful, orthodox Christian people with reason and integrity may be choosing different paths for their lives and ministry. [/i]
Indeed. Which is why it is rather disturbing to see someone use a falsehood in the local press to characterize his bishop. I would cut the man slack for something that was an obvious misinterpretation. However, he is a journalist and a politician – to fail to research several of these points and furthermore to use them to discredit his bishop are inexcusable. Honest disagreement is one thing – back-handedness is quite another. Mr. Bowyer may continue to disagree with Bp. Duncan – but he owes him an apology for this.
[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7558/#143731]An interesting thought for those who are not standing with Bp. Duncan to consider.[/url] Duncan may not be 100% right, but a scenario like this is wrong, scary, and a true posibility.
Thanks, MJD. I agree that there are a lot of risks. My “nose-count” at the present time would indicate that the conservative-moderate parishes and clergy will still be in the majority in the “non-realigning,” continuing Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, so the imagined scenario is unlikely. My hope is that there will emerge a new spirit of mutually respectful collaboration. However, things can change. I will not be surprised if some folks who may not join in the realignment initially don’t eventually decide to go, and if likewise some who initially go will likely decide to return to the Episcopal Church. There are lots of unknowns, with, as we would agree, imperfect-at-best choices, so things will evolve experimentally. In all, I hope, we will find in ourselves a generosity of spirit to allow each other the space to discern what is right and good and of God. There may be some Martin Luthers out here, at the headwaters of a new stream. But there may also be some John Wesleys–who will remain and be faithful, unappreciated and even rejected in the contemporary moment, but preparing the ground and planting the seed for later harvest.
Bruce Robison
27, BMR+ – Amen and amen!