“I am delighted that Bishop Whitmore will be joining us in the Diocese of Atlanta,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Bishop of Atlanta, in an article published on the diocesan website. “In our years together in the House of Bishops, I have come to deeply respect Bishop Whitmore for his integrity and his principled way of engaging the full life of the church. He has been faithful over many years in his commitment to The Episcopal Church. He brings gifts that are complementary to mine and will not just fill in around the edges. He will be able to join me in leading the mission and ministry of this great diocese.”
The “Diocese” of Eau Claire has a total of about a thousand people worshiping on a given Sunday. It would be a good time to fold it into Milwaukee, the later’s ASA is drop, drop, dropping and currently stands at about 5000.
Eau Claire used to be one of the dioceses that was opposed to women’s ordination, under Bp Wantland. His successor may have been orthodox, but was not opposed to WO. Now their bishop can bring himself to work with a revisionist in Atlanta. Such are the slippery slopes in ECUSA….
Hakkatan,
You clearly don’t know Bishop Alexander. I do. No one I know who knows +Neil would argue that he is not theologically orthodox. His views on human sexuality are progressive. He preaches the resurrection. That of course is the problem with lumping people into one of two camps. The descriptions don’t always fit.
paxetbonum,
I think perhaps you have an interesting view of orthodoxy. Bishop J Neil Alexander is well aware of the churches in the Diocese of Atlanta that practice the communion of the unbaptized. He has allowed this practice to continue without censure or reprimand. That is but one example of his elastic approach to orthodoxy.
I can cite more, if you wish.
As for adding an assistant bishop, since the diocese has been essentially flat for growth for a while now, why exactly do we need him? I’m sure he’s lovely in every respect, but the expense of two bishops can be quite large. I know the Diocesan Convention approved it back in November but it still seems unnecessary.
Paxetbonum, I do not know Bp Alexander other than hearing him when he spoke at the Anglican Congress in Atlanta in 2002. His sneering attitude towards the orthodox came through quite clearly in his “welcome” to us, a welcome required for us to use the Cathedral as a meeting place.
And what does he mean by resurrection? Does he preach that Jesus rose bodily, such that he could be touched and eat fish, as Luke reports? There are many who affirm the resurrection, but mean nothing like the Apostles meant by that word.
paxetbonum, if Neil Alexander glorifies the radical sexual agenda, he is not “theologically orthodox.”
Phil: you miss the distiniction:
“Orthodox”: In line with the Gospel, as understood by the Church and interpreted throughthe Councils.
“Progressive”: Contrary to the Gospels, as understood by the Church and interpreted through the Councils, but I agree with it.
Robroy: A simple question but who died and left you to decide whether Eau Calire should remain a dioicese or not? Have you ever been to Eau Claire, or to Wisconsin? While like TEC in general Eau Claire has probably lost membership, it never was a particulalry large diocese nor did that region of Wisconsin ever have a huge population. Given the bitter winters, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the decline of agriculture, I doubt if the Eau Claire region of Wisconsin will ever be an area of growth. At the same time, the Diocese of Eau Claire always has had an important mssion and ministry to that region of Wisconsin. You might not agree with its bishop, but maybe you ought to learn a little more about the diocese, the region, and Wisconsin before deciding its future course. The very fact that your suggestion was to “fold it into Milwaukee” shows how little knowledge you have of the region.
[blockquote][b]”He brings gifts that are complementary to mine…”[/b][/blockquote]
Well this is telling! We wouldn’t want a bishop that might have other gifts that are different than bishop Alexander’s now would we? That might be too well rounded and diverse! 🙂
[i] Please lighten up on the sarcasm. [/i]
As someone from another “Biretta Belt” diocese, I have to say that it is a hard situation as far as effective ministry goes. Eau Claire and Fond du Lac are both small dioceses in terms of population, but the area that they cover is huge. (If any two of the Wisconsin dioceses would be merged, it would be more likely Eau Claire and Fond du Lac, rather than either of them with Milwaukee, for reasons of churchmanship, common secular and cultural histories, similarity in economies, etc.). If DioFdL and DioEauClaire were combined, you would have such a huge diocese (over 8 hours by car between geographic extremes) that there would probably have to be a satellite diocesan office, and perhaps even an assisting bishop–in which case, you probably would not accomplish much over the status quo.
These are issues that the Church is going to encounter more and more frequently in the future in those dioceses between the Alleghenies and the Rocky Mountains that don’t include a major metropolitan area–and even in some that do.
As Kevin points out, Fond du Lac is a more compatible merger. But if one looks at a [url=http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/provinces.jpg ]map[/url], a combined diocese of Eau Claire and Fond du Lac is tiny when compared to the Western dioceses.
The diocesan plate and pledge income of Eau Claire is only a million. If 10% goes to the diocese, that covers the bishops salary but he would have to answer phones himself, etc. Assuming that the mission of the Church is to spread the gospel, it is a a big waste to have these micro-dioceses. (The new reconstituted diocese of San Joaquin promises to have 500 or so members, a nano-diocese.) And Will B, the diocese can do what it wants. I only look at the stats and make observations.
#4:
One of those churches that practices open communion is his very own Cathedral.
I haven’t kept up with numbers in Eau Claire, but having lived and worshipped in that diocese I can tell you that its impact on the region for God’s work is much beyond my current parish, which has full numbers for three services every Sunday morning but such slight impact outside that room that it is a genuine shame. Eau Claire’s Bishop Atkins and Bishop Wantland, true men of God, are models for what a bishop should be and do: faithful, caring, educated, loving, and strong leaders/pastors. Few, including perhaps the next assistant bishop of Atlanta, can do as much or as well.
I knew that Eau Claire like Fond du Lac (the see of St Tikhon’s good friend Charles Grafton) and I’m fairly sure Milwaukee used to be Catholic.
+Atlanta and sometime +Eau Claire his new assistant sound like the very model of Episcopalian moderates (talented lyricists/parodists can take up the Gilbert and Sullivan challenge here): orthodox on the creeds (radical unbelief like Spong’s is passé), fashionably liberal on Controversial Issuesâ„¢.
I wish them well.
But the Catholic faith that gave the biretta belt so much potential (as St Tikhon once envisaged) and I’m sure enabled it to do so much good has no future in TEC and is all but gone there.
It would be difficult to question Bishop Whitmore’s decision to depart. From 1996 through 2002 membership declined by about 1 percent and from 2002 through 2006 declined about another 5 percent. Plate & Pledge from 1996 through 2002 increased a healthy 39 percent but from 2002 through 2006 increased only about 1 percent. Statmann
If loss of membership and slow if any growth in plate&pledge;are the measures, how many ECUSA bishops would be staying where they are over the past decades? Use those criteria and Schori herself would be moving on (or perhaps never elected). If it is the case that Whitmore led Eau Claire from its strong Catholic faith, his personal escape to what for him will be greener, more comfortable pastures leaves his former flock to suffer his consequences and makes no real promise to Atlanta. Sad for everybody concerned.
Oh Claire! Are you “fond of lace”*? Their combined size would be smaller than Minn. and about the same as Iowa, both next door.
*Do all the lay folks know this version of the neighboring diocese’s name?
Mousetalker,
Atlanta is a two bishop diocese. There are essentially 94 congregations with 50,000+ Episcopalians. During Frank Allan’s Episcopate there was always an assisting Bishop. There is more than enoung rationale for Atlanta to have an assisting bishop.
So far as +JNA’s orthodoxy, having studied with him, I know his theology quite well and it is thoroughly creedally orthodox.
And to all of you who have raised ire about my use of orthodox… I am in no way willing to concede that a traditionalist perspective on human sexuality = orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has to do with theological formulations related to the creeds and councils, dogma and core Christian doctrine. Church teaching about human sexuality is a different subject. At the end of the day, I am sorry but the center of our faith is the Risen Lord Jesus Christ, not what Jesus thinks about people having sex.
I wonder if any of this has to do with retirement planning. I know of two bishops ordinary who transferred cures specifically to goose up their retirement benefits. In one case, it involved a change in status from bishop ordinary to another, “lesser” episcopal status, but in a much bigger diocese; in another, it involved moving from an off-shore cure to service within the continental US. Before being Bishop of Eau Claire, +Keith was the Dean of the Cathedral at Salina, Kansas, and his move to the episcopate probably did not involve that big of an increase in his compensation.
Sorry to suggest that crass commercial factors might enter into issues of spiritual call.
I am still laughing at, “Oh, Claire, are you fond of lace?” Did they ever take the Articles of Religion at face value up there?
Shouldn’t subscribing to the Articles and believing in the Creeds, Apostle’s, Nicene, and, dare I say it, Athanasian, as literal statements of faith be enough to unite us in orthodoxy? That would be so much more than we have now in this country, where we consistently mistake interpretation for belief.
Perhaps I meant Apostles’ Creed
Kevin,
That doesn’t sound out of line. The pension fund bases benefits on the seven years of Highest Average Compensation.
I believe that contrary to being a bad fit for ATL, +Whitmore is a good fit. Contrary to the hype, +Alexander and +Whitmore are both centrists in their approach, +Whitmore further to the right and +Alexander a little further to the left. Neither are lunatics. +Whitmore will be respected and honored if its anything like the diocese I served five years ago.
I still think we’re missing something about why he left.
OK, help a dullard out here:
I used to live in Minnesota, I still have a cabin in Hayward, I’m lying in bed with my densely anglocatholic wife who was born in Sheboygan and I don’t get the whole “oh clair, are you fond…” thing. ?long lace? what?
#24, You are right, we are still missing something about why he left. It would be nice to know the facts behind the rhetoric.
Eau Claire = Oh, Claire Fond du Lac= fond of lace
It is an irreverent, impish, and probably unfair joke from the Protestant side about fancy vestments, fancy services, and fancy priests. Just about everybody back East thought they had solved the Ritualist problem by sending those boys out to the Wisconsin Territory to convert the Indians or be scalped trying. Imagine the disappointment when they did they former, not the latter.
Mousetalker…
Don’t you have a blog? If so, how do I access it?
#26,
http://www.billyockham.blogspot.com
#19,
I notice you deflected the conversation over to sexuality and ignored the communion of the unbaptized. Again, permitting the unbaptized to partake at the Lord’s Table is in no way orthodox practice or belief. It also contravenes the canons as they are currently written.
For those of an ecumenical nature, my benchmark for quick and dirty evaluation of orthodoxy is whether the Greeks and the Romans agree. If they do, then there you are. If they do not, then it’s probably not proper doctrine.
Barring any actual belief in Tradition, which I know few on the reappraising side have, I question the ecumenism of anyone who actively seeks to drive the Episcopal Church away from its older siblings.
Ratramnus in 21 brings up an interesting point not really related to sometime +Eau Claire’s move.
By separating the words and meaning of the Articles of Religion from the intention of their framers, even though his intent was conservative and Catholic as indeed all us trad Anglo-Catholics were like in ‘Oh, Claire’ and ‘Fond of Lace’, was Newman in Tract XC unwittingly paving the way for Modernism in Anglicanism? Was he one of the first deconstructionists?
Rereading the Articles at face value it’s obvious to this Catholic why Anglicanism from a Catholic view didn’t work: why Catholic Anglicanism eventually came crashing down. (Why it happened in my lifetime I don’t expect to have answered here but I want to ask in the hereafter.) They say church councils err. No infallible church means no Catholicism. When all else seems equal – belief in creed, episcopate and sacrament and a liturgical approach to things – it’s how you can tell Catholics from high-church Protestants. There are lots of the latter in Episcopalianism including (getting back to the original topic) the two bishops in Atlanta. Being orthodox on the creeds but liberals on fashionable upper-middle-class issues (that means sex) is becoming the mode there.
So no, the answer is not to hew to a literalist interpretation of the Articles because just like Spong’s or Schori’s theology it’s man-made, simply opinion or private judgement. The Anglicans liberals get this so in a way they’ve been completely logical ever since the ‘Enlightenment’ sceptics like America’s founding fathers: the first Broad Churchmen. The Puritans turned into Unitarians. In a few generations Ian Paisley’s people will probably have gay weddings.
Protestantism, even episcopal, sacramental, liturgical Protestantism, is fatally compromised regarding authority.
So you’ve got to go back further, beyond Protestantism, like Newman did: to the Fathers, to Orthodoxy and to Rome.
I believe in an Anglican ethos that’s really the best of English culture fitted to the Catholic faith – the architecture, the classic English, the music, the tolerant conservatism (don’t ask, don’t tell, God forgives) – not in a theological system or church called ‘Anglicanism’.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]Blog.[/url]
Communing the unbaptised makes no sense. If it’s true that Episcopalians in Atlanta do it (proof?) and get away with it then no, they’re not orthodox.
#29,
Here ya go. Check out #7, at the bottom of the page.
Re: #29 (and others),
A couple of years ago I wrote an essay for the late lamented “Pontifications” blog, “Can the 39 Articles Serve as a Confessional Standard for Anglicans Today” that considers, obliquely, your question, along with much else. That original posting was lost with much of the Pontification archives when CaNN was taken out. It may have been taken up by other blogs (“Confessing Reader,” perhaps?) but I’ve lost track of its wanderings online. I still have the original version on my word processor, and I will gladly attempt to e-mail it (by cut-and-paste) to interested parties. You may ocntact me at tighe.at.muhlenberg.edu if interested.
So I think you are taking Creedal Orthodoxy and turning thecquestion of whether someone is orthodox or not to issues of human sexuality and the administration. I would not agree with CWOB, however I am well aware that some of those who do practice CWOB are doing so trying to draw people into the Christian community… out of their desire to support the church’s mission.
Now I am guessing the clergy among us are doing credentialing at the rail as I am not. My service leaflet says all Baptized Christians of any age are invited to receive holy communion. What I find fascnating is that among the “orthodox” there are those will not actually invite all baptized Christians, creating artificial age limits, precluding infants from the table in spite of the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy does so.
So far as using Rome an the East as the measure of whether we should do something, I think you can use that measuring stick again for dogma and core doctrines (from creeds and councils) but not for basic church teachings.
With the Cwob argument it is very ancient practice to exclude non believers. The practice of who receives and how often has varied widely over the course of church history. Whether someone has to be confirmed or not, whether someone has to be in first grade or not, whether someone is ordained or not, and whether the community knows you or not have played in to whether or not people have received the Eucharist over the ages. With the diversity of praxis over the ages, one wonders why if a bishop allows a diversity of practice in his diocese one would consider him or her orthodox or not.
The question here too is how theological change happens. It makes a good number of folks anxious to think that we didnt collectively decide at a synod to change our approach to who receives. Part of our question then is necessarily, “Can we deal with organic change from the bottom up, rather than from the top down?”
I’ve not seen a theological rationale for CWOB yet by liturgical scholars. We may decide that this practice is misguided ultimately. On the other hand, we have the opportunity to have an engaging theological discussion rather than a fight. I am sad to say that there seems to be a great tendency toward the former than the latter.
administration of the Eucharist is what I meant to say. Sorry typing on my iPhone isn’t necessarily the easiest.
[blockquote]What I find fascnating is that among the “orthodox†there are those will not actually invite all baptized Christians, creating artificial age limits, precluding infants from the table in spite of the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy does so.[/blockquote]
Orthodox babies are both baptised and chrismated (confirmed) before being communed.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]Blog.[/url]
On the subject of communion of the unbaptized, let me say at the outset that I am utterly, inalterably opposed to it, not simply because it violates the canons, but because it is a deviation from the consistent practice of catholic Christianity through the centuries. It obscures the meaning both of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism and of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and the manner in which all of the sacraments bracket and define the Christian life. Communion of the unbaptized is horrible theology and a violation of catholic order.
That said, it is not strictly correct to say that communion of the unbaptized is a violation of orthodoxy **unless** one subscribes to the view that orthodoxy only exists amongst Christians who view the sacraments through the lens of catholic Christianity (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, most Anglicans and most Lutherans). I suspect most Anglicans would consider many forms of classical Protestantism to be “orthodox” despite anything approaching a catholic understanding of the Sacraments in their theology. To many Protestants, who may be credally orthodox in every way, the relationship and the ordering of the Sacraments is not of the same consequence it is to catholic Christians. Particularly among Protestants who practice late-childhood Baptism, communion of the unbaptized is not — and has never been uncommon because when one begins stepping away from a catholic theological understanding of the Sacraments, the real presence of God therein, and their necessity in the economy of salvation, the various catholic canons regarding the ordering of the Sacraments become far less important.
Is this bad theology? Yes, in my view it is, which is why I am an Anglican and not an evangelical Christian or other form of Protestant. But is it a violation of orthodoxy? In my view it is not.
(Think of it another way: if orthodoxy were meant to encompass a catholic understanding of the Sacraments, most Anglicans — at least until the mid-20th Century — would fail the test, not necessarily because of their views on Baptism and the Eucharist, but rather because of their views on the other five rites held by catholic tradition to be Sacraments. Private confession was very uncommon amongst Anglicans prior to the 20th Century, unction of the sick even more so. Confirmation existed, but not in the form — the sacramental use of oil — classically understood in both the East and West to confect the Sacrament. Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony of course existed, but the 39 Articles plainly understand them not to be numbered among the Sacraments of the Gospel. And today, of course, there is the matter of women’s ordination, which a number of Bishops who consider themselves orthodox — Duncan, Orombi, Ackerman etc — practice. So, if one uses sacramental praxis as one of the indicia of orthodoxy, who gets to set the rules for what is kosher and what is not? Why is a post-Reformation understanding of the five “minor” sacraments, or a modern Anglican understanding of women’s ordination, any more kosher than an understanding of the Eucharist that discards the ancient canon of Baptism as a prerequesite for admission to the Sacrament of the Altar?)
Orthodoxy, properly understood, deals with those matters about the nature of God addressed in the Nicene Creed. Things like the manner in which God operates through the Sacraments, or the proper usages of human sexuality, are theological issues — and vitally important ones at that — but are not properly matters of orthodoxy.
Thus, one can properly use questions of sexuality and sacramental praxis to question the theological soundness of Bishop Alexander, but one simply cannot use them to question his orthodoxy.