This seems to be a different St. Christopher’s from the church I knew at a distance in the 70s. I was a student at Wofford with a new commitment to United Methodism then. My evangelical friends of other denominations found the rector, Rogers Harris, a bit suspect. I longed for a ride out there. Curse all sprawl, urban and surburban, especially in the south.
Pray for Rogers Harris; he must be saddened by this.
Bishop Henderson did the right thing. He gave his blessing, and said, depart in peace but do not claim to be part of the Anglican Communion here.
The Anglican Communion has always been territorial. Those who left the PEC in the past claimed to be the true heirs of Anglicanism, and I think they had a point. Never, though, until now, were the departers and dissenters adopted and lifted up by Anglican Communion bishops with no jurisdiction in these United States and portrayed as the real Anglican presence.
This is an unprecedented invasion by those claiming to be in communion with us. It destroys the entire nature of a communion in that sense. One may agree with the problem and be outraged by the response.
What outrages others is the breach of communion caused by apostacy and the expectation by the heretics that we all still play along as if heresy and orthodoxy can live together in one church.
#1 There are quite a number of things occurring that are unprecedented. In a sense the communion implies not simply respecting boundaries but respecting the shared rule of faith. Indeed the latter grounds the former. Of course, neither are protected by Communion wide Canon law and the Communion at both levels is based on trust and mutual accountability. Once the trust has gone, then just as some folks feel free to change the rule of faith, so other folks will feel free offer emergency pastoral support even if that means crossing boundaries.
The two in fact have gone together, and it seems willful and destructive of TEC to bemoan boundary crossing, but not the changes of doctrine that brought it about.
Orthodoxy has always lived with heresy in the church. Orthodoxy should dominate, but who has been given the right to define orthodoxy and communion in Anglicanism? By what right do you say that orthodoxy and communion have been breached? Who told you so? Who gave you warrant to misspell apostasy?
I am going to assume that you intend to be taken seriously. Nobody needs a “right” to call a theological position heretical. You can disagree and claim that the novel understanding of the nature of Divine Revelation shared by much of TEC’s current leadership is actually in keeping with what the Church has always believed and taught. You can make the argument that the claims in “To Set Our Hope on Christ” of a new revelation regarding the acceptability of homosexual imitations of copulation is not Montanist or that the repeated setting of the good God of the Gospel against the bad God of Old Testament judgment is not Marcionism, or that the embrace of modern superstitions regarding the ontological centrality of so-called “sexual orientation” is not a modern form of gnosticism. You are welcome to argue that those who make such claims are either misrepresenting the views of TEC’s leadership or that such things are not heretical. You are not, however, furthering conversation, demonstrating understanding, or even scoring valid rhetorical points by insisting that one needs special permission to claim that a position or action meets the objective definition of heresy. Please be more careful in your future discussion of this somber matter.
The actions taken by the parties involved in this sad instance are serious. The actions of St. Christopher’s leadership are at least as respectable as those of Bishop Henderson, who appears, much to his credit, to recognize that in a very significant way, these actions betoken a significant failure on his part. It is yet one more sadness brought on primarily by the faithlessness of his brother bishops.
I intend to be taken seriously and I intend to be taken at my written word and I do not care to see my simple words distorted by anyone else’s wild extrapolations. I made none of the assertions attibuted to me by Daniel Muth, nor do I wish to be associated with them. This is the first time in the frank discussion here that I would like an apology along with a second reading of my message.
#1 I think the Bishops without borders(!) must be the “New Thing” of God’s we keep hearing about. The new Communion will have no geographical, no moral, no theological borders, being finally and truly Inclusive. As to your #4, who do YOU think has the right to define orthodoxy and heresy?
RE: “You are not, however, furthering conversation, demonstrating understanding, or even scoring valid rhetorical points by insisting that one needs special permission to claim that a position or action meets the objective definition of heresy.”
Rataramus, Post 4,
[blockquote] Orthodoxy should dominate, but who has been given the right to define orthodoxy and communion in Anglicanism? By what right do you say that orthodoxy and communion have been breached? Who told you so? [/blockquote]
The answer to your question is simply that the Bible tells us so.
I think the more appropriate response to #4 is that – at least as far as the Anglican Communion is concerned – those determinations and rights are shared by the Archibishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the constituent provinces, and the bishops gathered at Lambeth. (Obviously, I have omitted an “instrument of unity”, the ACC not having any theological role.) The Primates and Lambeth 1998 have spoken unequivocally on both the theology and the effect on communion of TEC’s and Canada’s practices, and the ABC has not contravened.
Of course Henderson’s and indeed the TEC’s position is not logical as they would claim that he is in communion, through the AC, with the very provences to whom these and other priests have gone. As we have commented at length on this forum TEC is arguing out of both sides of its mouth.
Ratramnus is correct when he says: [blockquote] This is an unprecedented invasion by those claiming to be in communion with us. It destroys the entire nature of a communion in that sense. One may agree with the problem and be outraged by the response. [/blockquote]
The truth is that what TEC did was unprecedented. It was a communion breaking step and it caused an otherwise unthinkable reaction. TEC was asked, begged even, not to do what they did, but if pressed they will say that they would willingly do it all over again. They are not repentent, just sorry that they misjudged the reaction.
The other sad fact of life, as we have seen, is the the AC as a body has neither the desire, the ability or the willingness to act. Indeed many are willing to live with heresy if it holds or gives the apperance of holding the AC together. Better false unity than an open split.
That does nothing for the persecuted orthodox in the American provences. All this does is throw them under the bus as sacrificial victims for the sake of this faux unity. That being the case the AC is af little value and it is much better to come under the authority of foreign Bishops.
The simple truth is that the AC is now broken. It is messy because all such situations are messy. It will continue to be messy.
Just asking, Larry. Your metaphor brought me up short on the tether of that scriptural image. Me, i’d like to walk away, briskly, from unfaithfulness, and yet . . .
With the “new sheriff in town”, bishops would have DBB breathing down their necks if they didn’t inhibit and depose priests headed to African oversight. And this modus operandi is apparently supposed to be followed retroactively in that O’Neal of Colorado recently did this to 41 priests years after they had left the TEO. See the story at David Virtue’s. (It is pathetic to see these bishops played like marionettes with strings reaching all the way to 815.)
I think that it shows the fear that these bishops have in losing the “Anglican” monopoly.
And speaking of territorial exclusivity, someone brought up the fact that in the Philippines, there are two Anglican presences, the Philippines Independent Church, and the more recently created (by the TEO) Episcopal Church of the Philippines. And they are “in full communion with each other.” Horror of horrors, this violates ancient traditions!
The problem with the use of marriage, and Hosea, in discussing relations with heretics in the church is marriage portrays a relationship between separate individuals. It is an image of God’s love for His people, between the faithful Lover and His Beloved. The Beloved is seen as Christ’s Beloved, but generally as being faithful. But the church cannot be both the Beloved and the Lover at the same time. If it is acting the part of the Lover toward an unfaithful Beloved, as in Hosea, then the unfaithful element must be seen as separate from the Lover, for the Lover does not love himself, but loves an other.
But the church was not conceived to be made up divided. It is seen as one, by God and ideally by the world. Thus we can never be said to be married to heretics because we were never brought together as such. We were all in the same boat outside the church. And now, if we are inside, we must share the same identity. For us to continue to cling to the heretics in the church out of love is to confuse ourselves, them, and the world about who is of the church and who is not. If we are to love them as God loves the world then we must separate ourselves from them just enough so that it is clear that we are of God and they are of the world. Then, we, as God’s faithful, can love the faithless we the love of God, abd the image of Hosea will be clear.
As I have written repeatedly in discussions on this and other weblogs, if one is going to play the card of the ancient inviolability of episcopal jurisdictions (cf. Constantinople I), then one must be prepared to give an account of the establishment of Anglican and Episcopalians dioceses in geographical territories already under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome and with the Orthodox patriarchates (i.e., most of North America; all of continental Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean; and most of Africa and Asia).
Or, one must be prepared to establish the inviolability of diocesan boundaries in Anglican Churches on other grounds entirely than those of the canons of ecumenical councils.
Otherwise the assertion is merely an instance of special pleading.
It does seem as if the parties in question did handle themselves well. It is sad, however. God bless them, the diocese, and the priests. I’m sure God will care for them.
One joke I heard when I moved from Maryland to North Carolina 34 years ago is about the new resident of heaven who asked about the tall brick wall. “Oh,” he was told, “that’s for the Baptists; they don’t think there is anyone else up here!” So long as the General Convention church pretends that it is the only Anglican church in the United States there will be enmity and confusion Once the dog jumps out of the manger there can be spiritual peace and growth. For an example look at our Lutheran and Presbyterian fellow Christians.
I have re-read your #4 several times and do not see where I made wild extrapolations. I cited instances (admittedly in a sort of rhetorical shorthand that may be easily misunderstood) of at least arguable heresies that one may point to as justifying the sort of broken communion that you seemed to indicate should not result in border crossings by foreign bishops. You appeared then and appear on the sixth re-reading of your text to be saying that those who claim the actions of TEC are heretical have no right to say so or at least to act upon it. I think that you are wrong and are not helping the conversation by making such claims without any supporting argument (your last question in #4 seemed to these eyes to bespeak a lack of seriousness). I regret that my post offended you. I do not, however, see that I owe you an apology. I stand by what I said about both your posts and the topic at hand and wish you well.
This breaks my heart. I spent the summer in Spartanburg 8 years ago. St. C’s was a full, vibrant, and beautiful parish. And they gave this Left Coaster a most warm welcome.
My list of “as long as there is a parish like this in TEC, there’s still hope” now lacks one more entry. I’m absolutely sick.
This seems to be a different St. Christopher’s from the church I knew at a distance in the 70s. I was a student at Wofford with a new commitment to United Methodism then. My evangelical friends of other denominations found the rector, Rogers Harris, a bit suspect. I longed for a ride out there. Curse all sprawl, urban and surburban, especially in the south.
Pray for Rogers Harris; he must be saddened by this.
Bishop Henderson did the right thing. He gave his blessing, and said, depart in peace but do not claim to be part of the Anglican Communion here.
The Anglican Communion has always been territorial. Those who left the PEC in the past claimed to be the true heirs of Anglicanism, and I think they had a point. Never, though, until now, were the departers and dissenters adopted and lifted up by Anglican Communion bishops with no jurisdiction in these United States and portrayed as the real Anglican presence.
This is an unprecedented invasion by those claiming to be in communion with us. It destroys the entire nature of a communion in that sense. One may agree with the problem and be outraged by the response.
What outrages others is the breach of communion caused by apostacy and the expectation by the heretics that we all still play along as if heresy and orthodoxy can live together in one church.
#1 There are quite a number of things occurring that are unprecedented. In a sense the communion implies not simply respecting boundaries but respecting the shared rule of faith. Indeed the latter grounds the former. Of course, neither are protected by Communion wide Canon law and the Communion at both levels is based on trust and mutual accountability. Once the trust has gone, then just as some folks feel free to change the rule of faith, so other folks will feel free offer emergency pastoral support even if that means crossing boundaries.
The two in fact have gone together, and it seems willful and destructive of TEC to bemoan boundary crossing, but not the changes of doctrine that brought it about.
Orthodoxy has always lived with heresy in the church. Orthodoxy should dominate, but who has been given the right to define orthodoxy and communion in Anglicanism? By what right do you say that orthodoxy and communion have been breached? Who told you so? Who gave you warrant to misspell apostasy?
“Ratramnus” #4 –
I am going to assume that you intend to be taken seriously. Nobody needs a “right” to call a theological position heretical. You can disagree and claim that the novel understanding of the nature of Divine Revelation shared by much of TEC’s current leadership is actually in keeping with what the Church has always believed and taught. You can make the argument that the claims in “To Set Our Hope on Christ” of a new revelation regarding the acceptability of homosexual imitations of copulation is not Montanist or that the repeated setting of the good God of the Gospel against the bad God of Old Testament judgment is not Marcionism, or that the embrace of modern superstitions regarding the ontological centrality of so-called “sexual orientation” is not a modern form of gnosticism. You are welcome to argue that those who make such claims are either misrepresenting the views of TEC’s leadership or that such things are not heretical. You are not, however, furthering conversation, demonstrating understanding, or even scoring valid rhetorical points by insisting that one needs special permission to claim that a position or action meets the objective definition of heresy. Please be more careful in your future discussion of this somber matter.
The actions taken by the parties involved in this sad instance are serious. The actions of St. Christopher’s leadership are at least as respectable as those of Bishop Henderson, who appears, much to his credit, to recognize that in a very significant way, these actions betoken a significant failure on his part. It is yet one more sadness brought on primarily by the faithlessness of his brother bishops.
I intend to be taken seriously and I intend to be taken at my written word and I do not care to see my simple words distorted by anyone else’s wild extrapolations. I made none of the assertions attibuted to me by Daniel Muth, nor do I wish to be associated with them. This is the first time in the frank discussion here that I would like an apology along with a second reading of my message.
#1 I think the Bishops without borders(!) must be the “New Thing” of God’s we keep hearing about. The new Communion will have no geographical, no moral, no theological borders, being finally and truly Inclusive. As to your #4, who do YOU think has the right to define orthodoxy and heresy?
RE: “You are not, however, furthering conversation, demonstrating understanding, or even scoring valid rhetorical points by insisting that one needs special permission to claim that a position or action meets the objective definition of heresy.”
Thanks, Daniel Muth.
Rataramus, Post 4,
[blockquote] Orthodoxy should dominate, but who has been given the right to define orthodoxy and communion in Anglicanism? By what right do you say that orthodoxy and communion have been breached? Who told you so? [/blockquote]
The answer to your question is simply that the Bible tells us so.
I think the more appropriate response to #4 is that – at least as far as the Anglican Communion is concerned – those determinations and rights are shared by the Archibishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the constituent provinces, and the bishops gathered at Lambeth. (Obviously, I have omitted an “instrument of unity”, the ACC not having any theological role.) The Primates and Lambeth 1998 have spoken unequivocally on both the theology and the effect on communion of TEC’s and Canada’s practices, and the ABC has not contravened.
Of course Henderson’s and indeed the TEC’s position is not logical as they would claim that he is in communion, through the AC, with the very provences to whom these and other priests have gone. As we have commented at length on this forum TEC is arguing out of both sides of its mouth.
Ratramnus is correct when he says: [blockquote] This is an unprecedented invasion by those claiming to be in communion with us. It destroys the entire nature of a communion in that sense. One may agree with the problem and be outraged by the response. [/blockquote]
The truth is that what TEC did was unprecedented. It was a communion breaking step and it caused an otherwise unthinkable reaction. TEC was asked, begged even, not to do what they did, but if pressed they will say that they would willingly do it all over again. They are not repentent, just sorry that they misjudged the reaction.
The other sad fact of life, as we have seen, is the the AC as a body has neither the desire, the ability or the willingness to act. Indeed many are willing to live with heresy if it holds or gives the apperance of holding the AC together. Better false unity than an open split.
That does nothing for the persecuted orthodox in the American provences. All this does is throw them under the bus as sacrificial victims for the sake of this faux unity. That being the case the AC is af little value and it is much better to come under the authority of foreign Bishops.
The simple truth is that the AC is now broken. It is messy because all such situations are messy. It will continue to be messy.
Messy indeed. Ok, here we are. We are married to a tramp who cheats on her vows. How do we divorce her? Just tell me how. LM
Or, are we called to the ministry of Hosea?
Just asking, Larry. Your metaphor brought me up short on the tether of that scriptural image. Me, i’d like to walk away, briskly, from unfaithfulness, and yet . . .
#6 The first rule of grownups is that no one plays the offense card and we get on with the discussion.
With the “new sheriff in town”, bishops would have DBB breathing down their necks if they didn’t inhibit and depose priests headed to African oversight. And this modus operandi is apparently supposed to be followed retroactively in that O’Neal of Colorado recently did this to 41 priests years after they had left the TEO. See the story at David Virtue’s. (It is pathetic to see these bishops played like marionettes with strings reaching all the way to 815.)
I think that it shows the fear that these bishops have in losing the “Anglican” monopoly.
And speaking of territorial exclusivity, someone brought up the fact that in the Philippines, there are two Anglican presences, the Philippines Independent Church, and the more recently created (by the TEO) Episcopal Church of the Philippines. And they are “in full communion with each other.” Horror of horrors, this violates ancient traditions!
Robroy, no one has ever accused TEC of consistancy.
The problem with the use of marriage, and Hosea, in discussing relations with heretics in the church is marriage portrays a relationship between separate individuals. It is an image of God’s love for His people, between the faithful Lover and His Beloved. The Beloved is seen as Christ’s Beloved, but generally as being faithful. But the church cannot be both the Beloved and the Lover at the same time. If it is acting the part of the Lover toward an unfaithful Beloved, as in Hosea, then the unfaithful element must be seen as separate from the Lover, for the Lover does not love himself, but loves an other.
But the church was not conceived to be made up divided. It is seen as one, by God and ideally by the world. Thus we can never be said to be married to heretics because we were never brought together as such. We were all in the same boat outside the church. And now, if we are inside, we must share the same identity. For us to continue to cling to the heretics in the church out of love is to confuse ourselves, them, and the world about who is of the church and who is not. If we are to love them as God loves the world then we must separate ourselves from them just enough so that it is clear that we are of God and they are of the world. Then, we, as God’s faithful, can love the faithless we the love of God, abd the image of Hosea will be clear.
The ancient canons of the Church notwithstanding, St. Athanasius crossed boundaries as needed to minister in Arian territories.
As I have written repeatedly in discussions on this and other weblogs, if one is going to play the card of the ancient inviolability of episcopal jurisdictions (cf. Constantinople I), then one must be prepared to give an account of the establishment of Anglican and Episcopalians dioceses in geographical territories already under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome and with the Orthodox patriarchates (i.e., most of North America; all of continental Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean; and most of Africa and Asia).
Or, one must be prepared to establish the inviolability of diocesan boundaries in Anglican Churches on other grounds entirely than those of the canons of ecumenical councils.
Otherwise the assertion is merely an instance of special pleading.
And Christopher Hathaway’s understanding of the ecclesiological significance of Hosea is right on the mark.
There is another alternative to what I posed in #19; viz.:
Or one must be prepared to assert that the Catholic Church subsists in the Anglican Churches, just as the Roman Catholic Church teaches of itself.
My apologies for posting thrice in a row.
It does seem as if the parties in question did handle themselves well. It is sad, however. God bless them, the diocese, and the priests. I’m sure God will care for them.
As He will for TEC.
One joke I heard when I moved from Maryland to North Carolina 34 years ago is about the new resident of heaven who asked about the tall brick wall. “Oh,” he was told, “that’s for the Baptists; they don’t think there is anyone else up here!” So long as the General Convention church pretends that it is the only Anglican church in the United States there will be enmity and confusion Once the dog jumps out of the manger there can be spiritual peace and growth. For an example look at our Lutheran and Presbyterian fellow Christians.
“Ratramnus” #6 –
I have re-read your #4 several times and do not see where I made wild extrapolations. I cited instances (admittedly in a sort of rhetorical shorthand that may be easily misunderstood) of at least arguable heresies that one may point to as justifying the sort of broken communion that you seemed to indicate should not result in border crossings by foreign bishops. You appeared then and appear on the sixth re-reading of your text to be saying that those who claim the actions of TEC are heretical have no right to say so or at least to act upon it. I think that you are wrong and are not helping the conversation by making such claims without any supporting argument (your last question in #4 seemed to these eyes to bespeak a lack of seriousness). I regret that my post offended you. I do not, however, see that I owe you an apology. I stand by what I said about both your posts and the topic at hand and wish you well.
This breaks my heart. I spent the summer in Spartanburg 8 years ago. St. C’s was a full, vibrant, and beautiful parish. And they gave this Left Coaster a most warm welcome.
My list of “as long as there is a parish like this in TEC, there’s still hope” now lacks one more entry. I’m absolutely sick.