An Important Anglican Ink Article on the House of Bishops Communion w/o Baptism Discussion

The level of support for C029 when it was presented to the House of Bishops on 12 July 2012 was markedly different. The Rt. Rev. William Gregg, Assistant Bishop of North Carolina, was the first to rise and offered a strong statement of rejection of the resolution.

It was “not up to one denomination” to change the universal church’s teaching on baptism, Bishop Gregg said.

The Bishop of Southern Ohio, the Rt. Rev. Thomas Breidenthal, agreed the issue needed further study and urged defeat of the resolution….

The Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, Bishop of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, urged his colleagues not to refer the matter to committee but to vote for adoption. There were large numbers of non-baptized people in Europe, he noted, and by recognizing the need for pastoral sensitivity this permitted bishops to address local needs. Without this recognition the hands of bishops were tied, he said….

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, --Gen. Con. 2012, Baptism, Episcopal Church (TEC), Eucharist, General Convention, Parish Ministry, Sacramental Theology, TEC Bishops, TEC Polity & Canons, Theology

7 comments on “An Important Anglican Ink Article on the House of Bishops Communion w/o Baptism Discussion

  1. Ralph says:

    [blockquote]The Rev. Susan Buchanan of New Hampshire…added that she held an open table at her church.

    “We are crazy Christians.” she said and “because we have a crazy God. Many of us do offer open table.”[/blockquote]
    Title IV charges, anyone?

    What the devil does she mean by “we have a crazy God”?

  2. Hursley says:

    #1. I think she tipped her hand more than intended. Things are moving fast, indeed, amongst TEC’s apparatchiks. As Graves has old Claudius say: “Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out!”

  3. Brien says:

    Amazing to hear a member of the House of Bishops reported to have said something about how inappropriate it is for one denomination to change teaching about baptism…but wait…I’m confused…is it ok for one to church to change the teaching about Ordination and Marriage?

    The case might be argued that Baptism is one of the two “generally necessary to salvation” (and the other two are just “commonly called sacraments”), but that would require a retreat into the language of the Thirty-nine Articles…and we all know that is just a dusty historical document–and there is just no telling where such clearly Anglican thinking might end up.

    I”m sure that given time, the bishop who suggested foolishly suggested limiting the unbridled authority of the Episcopal Church with her unique polity will come to his senses.

  4. David Keller says:

    Follow the money. I am still betting some big hitters who are bankrolling some of these dioceses have started to complain about GC, so they used this one to throw a bone to the cash cows.

  5. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Whelon has some sexual behavioral problems among his clergy that need addressing more promptly than his eisegesis on baptism.

  6. Pb says:

    They will do what they want to anyhow. It is great to know that you are right and the others are wrong.

  7. Katherine says:

    Yes, as a former member of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, I’d like to know why Bishop Gregg thinks TEC should not unilaterally change the universal teaching on baptism, but it’s fine that TEC has unilaterally changed the universal teachings on ordination and marriage.