The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane
Bishop of Washington
May 23, 2007
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
I am saddened by the news released by The Most Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding the decision not to include The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, in the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in 2008.
Archbishop Rowan will be meeting with the bishops of the Episcopal Church in September to discuss issues of concern raised by the recent Primates meeting. The issue of Lambeth and his failure to invite Bishop Gene will be a high priority in our time together.
I am deeply troubled by the decision reached by the Archbishop and believe that the real issue is not about Bishop Gene; instead this is about leadership within the Anglican Communion. Until we are able to separate ourselves from our fixation on human sexuality as the root of our divisions and address the dynamics of power and leadership in the Communion, we are doomed to fail in Christ’s call to engage the world in the act of inclusive love and a mission-driven theology that claims justice, the rule of law and the respect for human rights as the core of our work as a Communion.
In Christ’s Peace, Power and Love,
The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, D.D.
Bishop of Washington
I thought that the core of our work as communion, or Christians, is to spread the Gospel.
I guess I didn’t get the memo, that this has changed.
#1 the memo came via +Pike in the mid 60s.
Until we are able to separate ourselves from our fixation on human sexuality as the root of our divisions and address the dynamics of power and leadership in the Communion, we are doomed to fail in Christ’s call to engage the world…
Funny, other Anglicans are not having trouble living out the real mission of the Church. Since Chane can’t seem to carry out what he believes that mission, maybe he should consider the problem lies with him and others like him, instead of with everyone else.
Oh, this is rich, this is! Chane calling out the ABC on VGR. As long as Chane and his likeminded bishops have as their fixation the acceptance by all of their “gospel”, there will be no leadership from them but further fracture, disruption and chaos of the ECUSA/TEC and the Anglican Communion.
I’m sure the ABC is quaking in his boots at the thought of being upbraided by the vacuous arguments Chane adduces. But, perhaps, he can through a pretty temper tantrum? I doubt his performance will stand out from that of the majority of the HOB who apparently think so. The video should be fun, though.
This remark reveals the seriously flawed thinking on the part of TEC bishops.
Point 1: The root of our divisions has little or nothing to do with sexuality or power. It has everything to do with the authority of Holy Scripture and the fact that TEC has insisted upon departing from the faith once delivered to the saints as it has been practised for 2000 years.
Point 2: Christ’s call was never a call “to engage the world in the act of inclusive love and a mission-driven theology that claims justice, the rule of law and the respect for human rights as the core of our work as a Communion.” Christ’s actual call is given to us in Matthew 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe allt hat I have commanded you; . . .”
Point 3: There are already many secular human service organizations doing what Mr. Chane suggests is the “core work of our Communion”. The Peace Corps, Amnesty International, United Way, and the Red Cross all work for justice, the rule of law and the respect for human rights. These kinds of things belong to their core work. One need not be in Holy Orders to do this kind of work.
If the Church won’t answer the real call of Christ, as in Matthew 28:19-20, then who will?
This letter compresses everything that is wrong with TEC in a small space. He will be unaware of it, of course, but the comments above spell out with perfect clarity how little Chane DD grasps the nature of the problem. I do have to add this, however, that sexuality is indeed a major part of the problem; it is mere pussyfooting to pretend that it is not. But in any case, the division is so deep, TEC is so oblivious, there is nothing to be done but let them go their own way. RIP. L morse
I am saddened and distressed that +Chane insists on intruding into an issue which is not his, but rather the appointed task of ABC Williams. Has +Chane become Archbishop of Canterbury?
I am deeply troubled that +Chane believes the issue is a fixation on human sexuality as the root of our divisions. I read in the OT and the NT that the root of our divisions was the sin of Adam, who ate of the fruit he was instructed not to eat. By the way, Adam was a male, and the second created human was a female. One man, one woman, one sexual relationship, from the beginning, forever. Does +Chane not accept the verdict of Jesus that all must repent and believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand? Does +Chane not accept the testimony of Jesus in the NT? Or is it that he does not accept the repeated testimony in the OT that we would need a Savior?
I am shocked, astonished, and horrified that +Chane is being tempted to fail in engaging the world in the act of inclusive love and a mission-driven theology that claims justice, the rule of law, and the respect for human rights which are at the core of his work in the Communion.
Inclusive love? Jesus, in Whose name +Chane signs his letter, describes love in exclusive terms in John 14 – John 17. The exclusive character of the love Jesus asks of His disciples is remaining faithful to ALL of the teachings which Jesus gave. This includes restricting marriage to one man, one woman, until death parts them. It also, as was stated clearly in the first Council in Acts, requires Christians not to engage in fornication.
The mission-driven theology? The mission about which I read in Matt 28:19-20 is to go make disciples throughout the world. What happened to that mission? How did the MDG replace Jesus?
Justice? How can there be Justice without a Judge? Again, Jesus said that He, the Son of Man, would sit in the seat of Judgment. And His judgment would be in accordance with all that He learned from His Father, and which He learned by His study of the OT (which is no longer part of the theology of TEc [See GC 2003 and GC 2006 for details]).
The rule of law? I regret to inform +Chane that the rule of law no longer applies in TEc, as GC 2003 turned down the opportunity to give its assent to the OT and the NT, which contain the Law and the Prophets.
The respect for human rights? What is a human right? Apparently human rights do not apply to unborn humans, as they can be killed (according to the gospel of +Chane) without penalty. Apparently human rights do not apply to women, whose suppression draws no rebuke from +Chane throughout the Islamic world. Apparently human rights do not apply in the Sudan, where +Chane does not condemn genocide or slavery. Apparently human rights do not extend to orthodox Anglicans in the United States, where Priests are deposed and defrocked, and Believing Anglicans have their property seized and their Vestries summarily removed from office. I could go on for pages, but I think you get the point.
To sum up, the Christ in Whom +Chane wishes us Peace, Power and Love is a Christ Who is not part of the OT, the NT, the Ancient Creeds, the writings of the Fathers, the XXXIX Articles, or even the history of ECUSA.
The Christ of +Chane is a new thing. The New Thing was announced to us by former PB Griswold, and is part of the teachings of our Episcopal seminaries. And Jesus warned us about false Christs and false Messiahs. I regret being harsh, as +Chane has been quite receptive to offering my own parish alternative oversight, as I reside in the Diocese of Washington.
I wonder if Jim Naughton will post a story questioning when Bishop Chane seized the authority over the church to dictate what is and isn’t a priority of the House of Bishops. The nerve of some people, stepping all over our Presiding Bishop’s toes! Doesn’t he understand TEC polity?
A couple of things. First it is the reappraisers who have constantly brought the sexuality issue forward. So long as they obsess over it and over the communion’s lack of acceptance of their new thing, we will always fall short of the call of the Gospel. Second, the primary mission of the Church is to reconcile the world to God in Jesus Christ. Justice is not a goal. Human Rights are not a goal. MDGs are not a goal. Making disciples that are reconciled to God in Jesus Christ is the goal! Reaching for this goal will acheive Justice and Human Rights and MDGs. Reaching for Justice will not acheive even that and will not acheive reconciliation with God.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Delusional newspeak. Using the language of mission doesn’t make it so. TEC is dying at an ever-accelerating rate; pretending that chatter will make a difference won’t work this time. We’ve had years of bogus theology, bogus exegesis, bogus ecclesiology, and bogus dialogue…this statement is just more of the same drivel about “dynamics” and “root causes” by one of the people whose fixation on doing what demonstrably doesn’t work and isn’t getting God’s blessing is pulling us apart. What is needed is deep intellectual integrity (not a political interest group by that name), humility before our brothers and sisters who are poorer and probably more deeply faithful through testing and persecution in ways that we (generally cannot imagine), a solid grounding in the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Liturgy, and a culture of prayerful trust. That will yield a “fixation” on the one thing needful: Christ Jesus our Lord.
😉 DaveW and Mathman…right on target.
As for Chane…BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, another heretic bites the dust!
Peace,
Barry
I’m normally not at a loss for words, but my fellow posters here have said it all, and quite eloquently. The only thing that I would add is that this reminds me of what Ronald Reagen said about his switching his political party affiliation so long ago:” I didnt leave the Democratic party; the Democratic party left me.” I think this would describe the current situation rather well. Its not a matter of true Christian Anglicans leaving TEC; TEC has left them.
This sums up very clearly just how different the reappraiser/reasserter divide is.
As one of the former, i fully agree that we have two totally different worldviews, but remember that both are present in the Church of England. That being the case, RW is hardly going to pretend that he is in a position to throw out all reappraisers without splitting his own church – to which he must have primary allegiance.
I don’t know about you, bu I am growing weary of reading the endless Chane-like essays that say, one way or another, the same thing. You have all read the OCD repetitions, a kind of perseveration that is neurotic rather than argumentative. We must have other, better things to do.
I am thinking about the most recent posting of KH re Heaven and Hell and the conversation this generated. There was substance here. Clearly Chane is without substance; this is a rare case of the weakest link being the entire Chane. WE really need a broader range of posting to engage the mind.
LM
#13 – true, but he also does not have to reject the US evangelicals, and if the ABC’s rejection of Minns stands, that is what he is doing. And I do not know that the evangelicals in the UK are likely to take that lightly. They may not be a majority, but I do not know that the ABC can well stand their open opposition, either. Personally, I would have thought, taking his efforts to have everyone at the table at face value, he would have invited everyone and let people decide to come or not. In fact, I wondered if he might invite VGR, Minns, and the REC and AMiA bishops all as observers. Now that would be a difficult meeting for all not to attend. But it appears he has instead called the question on communion membership, whether he intended to do so or not.
Is it just me, or is it somewhat one-sided of the VGR defenders to not mention the exclusion of Bishop Minns? If they’re so hot and bothered about the theology of inclusion, why are they seemingly tone-deaf towards the fact that others were excluded as well? Is Chane at all concerned that not all voices are being heard at the table? Hm?
Does it ever bother anyone when a bishop adds his honorary degree behind his name–as though it means something?
Sorry, Bishop Chane, but I strongly disagree with you about everything.