The Episcopal Diocese of Albany is weighing changes to local church law that will likely touch off fresh controversy around homosexuality and marriage issues when they come up for a vote next month.
One resolution mandates that only a person who is in a heterosexual marriage or “celibate and abstinent” can be eligible for ordination as a priest or consecration as a bishop. Another holds that only heterosexual marriages can be celebrated or blessed in the diocese — and marriage between a man and a woman is the only kind of union permitted on diocesan or parish property.
Clergy and lay delegates will vote on the proposals during the 19-county Albany Episcopal Diocese’s annual convention June 6-8 in Speculator. The debate comes at a time of renewed national attention to gay marriage in the wake of a California Supreme Court decision allowing it.
Homosexuality has been a flash point in the Episcopal Church since the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as its first openly gay bishop, a move condemned by the conservative leadership of the Albany Diocese.
Supporters of the proposals counter that they are consistent with traditional church teaching.
“The national church has gone off the rails,” said Torre Bissell, a lay person who runs a diocesan intercessory ministry and has asked on a blog that people pray for passage of both measures.
I welcome this development. I think the two resolutions will pass easily. Unfortunately, this newspaper article reflects a clear liberal bias. Way to go, Albany!
Now I’d be even happier if only Bishop Love and the Standing Committee would issue a strong letter condemning the pernicious and uncanonical attempts by the PB to depose +Cox and replace +Schofield. I’d love to see my diocese take a clear stand similar to that taken by the bishops and dioceses of SC, W. La, CFL, and now Springfield.
David Handy+
This decision will split the diocese……of that, we can be sure. Nevertheless, it’s the right thing to do, and I congratulate Bishop Love for his stand.
For far too long, we’ve been asked to bow and scrape before the throne of the GC Church, and look at where it has gotten us! No more! It’s over…..finished!
BTW, note that the newspaper headline for the article is misleading. It’s not really the case that the “Rules Could Change” in my home diocese of Albany. Passage of these two resolutions merely codifies the status quo, and thus doesn’t really change anything. Note also the subheading for the article: “Episcopals” will vote on it. Not Episcopalians, but “Episcopals.” Doesn’t sound like the staff writer knows much about TEC.
David Handy+
Ordained in Albany 23 years ago
[blockquote]This decision will split the diocese……of that, we can be sure.[/blockquote]
I seriously doubt it! Regardless of what Via Media Albany would have everyone think, the fairly recent election of Bill Love as Bishop should, in and of itself, tell the story of just where this diocese is really at.
By the way, Marc Parry and the Albany Times Union have a history of being hostile towards the Episcopal Diocese of Albany. Fr. Handy is dead on with his observations regarding this pathetic rag of a paper.
Albeit (#4),
Thanks for the ringing endorsement. Ironically, the Albany Times Union used to have David Kalvelage as its sports editor. And as all old hands in the Diocese of Albany know, David Kalvelage, who has been the dedicated and effective editor of The Living Church magazine for years, was a prominent lay leader at the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany, and for a while, on Bishop David Ball’s staff.
But alas, I must qualify Albeit’s statement somewhat. I regret to say that I think that WHEN (hopefully not IF) Albany leaves TEC, it will indeed lead to a serious split, and I think Bp. Love knows this and thus has been slow to take that drastic step. It’s not so much that there is a strong liberal contingent in Albany, because there isn’t. But just as in San Joaquin or Pittsburgh, I strongly suspect that there would be a significant minority of ORTHODOX clergy and parishes that would feel called or compelled to stay behind to fight the good fight within TEC (or who are simply afraid of losing their property and can’t imagine starting over).
I wish all the orthodox were of one mind on these matters, but the harsh reality is that we aren’t. But we’ll only really know how many will leave and how many will stay when the time comes when every parish and priest is faced with that momentous, fateful fork in the road. But personally, I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
David Handy+
NRA,
[blockquote]
… WHEN (hopefully not IF) Albany leaves TEC, it will indeed lead to a serious split, and I think Bp. Love knows this and thus has been slow to take that drastic step. It’s not so much that there is a strong liberal contingent in Albany, because there isn’t. …
[/blockquote]
(You’re no longer living in Dio Albany, right?)
I agree there’s not a strong liberal contingent, but the center of mass in Dio Albany is moderate, and IMO the Diocese is not likely to split from TEC.
As Fr. Hartt said, the two proposed resolutions to amend the canons represent long-standing policy that is supported by Bp. Love. Personally, however, I think it a bad idea to put something that will have no current effect “on the ground” in the canons. It could come back to bite us later.
In particular, Proposed Resolution 6, “Standards for Clergy”, could turn out to have unintended side effects for married clergy and for unmarried clergy who wish to “date”. So, for example, must the marriage of a clergyman be a Christian marriage? What about a clergyman married only civilly? Or a clergyman married to a Quaker? From conversation I’m convinced that these issues would not be a problem during Bishop Love’s time. But interpretations can change when regimes change.
So I hope our folk at Convention are careful.
I apologize to my liberal friends (if they look here) for saying
“clergyman”. 🙂
Pray for the Church:
[blockquote]
Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it
with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt,
purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is
amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in
want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake
of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.
[/blockquote]
Moderate = slow-moving Liberal!
stabill (#6),
Yes, I freely admit that I haven’t lived within the boundaries of the Diocese of Albany in about 20 years, and I’ve largely lost touch with my old friends there. Moreover, I was a protege of +Dan Herzog, having served as his assistant at Christ Church, Morristown, long before he became the bishop. I was very active in Cursillo and basically ALL my friends were ardent conservatives; none were moderates, much less liberals. (And that basically remains true to this day). So by all means take that into account in weighing what I’ve said above.
The problem is that there is no viable middle ground for “moderates” to occupy in this conflict, at least not long-term. In the end, every parish or mission and every priest is going to have to face an unavoidable hard choice: stay in TEC and face the virtual certainty of being co-opted or swallowed up or corrupted in the long run, or leave TEC and participate in the bold new adventure that I call the New Reformation. It genuinely is an either/or. There is absolutely no possibility for a both/and solution (stay in TEC and remain orthodox while thriving). That is the dilemma we must all face.
David Handy+
Cennydd,
Moderate = conservative with no patience for the radical right.
In Christ there is no left nor right.
NRA (#8),
Have you gone to CANA?
stabill (#9),
Well, that is a game that we all can play. If you won’t take me too seriously, but allow for a rather tongue-in-cheek response, I’d chime in with another option:
“moderate” = lukewarm= very bad thing. Better to be either hot or cold than lukewarm, as Jesus warned the church in Laodicea (Rev. 3:15). After all, “moderation in all things” is a PAGAN Greek ideal, not a biblical one. Now “self-control” is a whole different matter. That’s a fruit of the Spirit, but moderation per se is something altogether different.
Speaking personally, I seek BALANCE, not moderation. And by that I mean something like this. Balance can be achieved by counterbalancing rival, complementary extremes, not be eschewing all extremism. Thus, I actively seek to maintain a careful balance between an ardent commitment to evangelical, catholic, and charismatic Christianity. But that does NOT amount to seeking some moderate, reasonable, restrained version of all of them, i.e., some sort of compromise that tones them all down to make them compatible. Rather I seek to counterbalance an undiluted commitment to being fully evangelical, fully catholic, and fully charismatic, all at the same time or in rapid succession so as to maintain the equilibrium. And as someone with a Ph.D. in New Testament studies I also fully embrace modern biblical scholarship, although in a highly self-critical fashion that recognizes that much of historical criticism is fundamentally alien to orthodox Christianity.
But I freely and openly admit that I myself don’t have a single Broad Church bone in my whole body. I am unashamed to say that I’m an ardent evangelical, a passionate Anglo-Catholic, and a fervent charismatic. And I’m a biblical scholar to boot. But I have absolutely no sympathy for the broad church wing of Anglicansim. I mean zip, zilch, none. My charismatic side has replaced the whole broad church aspect of Anglicanism.
David Handy+
stabill (#10),
No, I’m still technically part of TEC since I remain (as of today) canonically resident in the Diocese of Albany. But if I had ever transferred to either the Dio of VA or Southern VA (and I’ve served numerous parishes in both dioceses as an interim or long-term supply priest or Priest-in-charge), I would have left TEC several years ago, probably in late 2003 or early 2004.
FWIW, I worship at a Ugandan affiliated church in Richmond when I’m at home (Eternity Anglican). Currently, I’ve just agreed to serve an AMiA church in Newport News, VA as their interim, starting next month. But I don’t consider either of these actions “abandoning the communion of this church.”
But emotionally, I left TEC after the disastrous General Convention of 2003. And FWIW, I was there in Minneapolis at +Herzog’s invitation as his personal assistant during that fateful two weeks.
David Handy+
albeit (#4)
[blockquote]
By the way, Marc Parry and the Albany Times Union have a history of being hostile towards the Episcopal Diocese of Albany. Fr. Handy is dead on with his observations regarding this pathetic rag of a paper.
[/blockquote]
I think the TU is a rather good paper, given the size of its market.
Its treatment of the Diocese reflects a problem with public perception of the Diocese. How do we get beyond that?
Actually, this is an argument that might be used against the potentially divisive convention resolutions: they are counter evangelical, especially among people under 45.
NRA – Anent your remark in no. 11 that you have no sympathy (empathy?) for the broad church wing of Anglicanism, with which I to a large extent agree, I should add that I have little sympathy or empathy with the Evangelical wing. I assume that the new Anglicanism that you envision will have little space for “broad church” types. Likewise, if you are Anglo-Catholic, I should predict that there will be little place for you either. RK, member of NRAFC.
rob k (#14),
I welcome your comment as a self-differentiating statement. Clarity is always helpful, even when it’s divisive. But I can’t figure out that first word, “Anent.” Even assuming that it’s a typo, I can’t guess what you meant.
As for your suspicion that the New Anglicanism led by Evangelical provinces like Nigeria and Uganda won’t leave room for Anglo-catholics, well time will tell. I guess I’m more optimistic about that. In the Global South, differences of churchmanship don’t tend to mean as much. After all, when you’re confronted by pagan animism or militant Islam, all varieties of orthodox Anglicans find it easier to emphasize what they have in common rather than what divides them.
David Handy+
anent: “Regarding; concerning.” (American Heritage Dictionary.)
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English adds: “anent (prep.): stressed on the second syllable (uh-NENT), is a formerly archaic word that has staged a modest comeback. It means ‘concerning, about’ and, though a useful word, it has a stuffy, impersonal quality, inappropriate in many contexts: ‘We wish to consult you anent [about, concerning] your business in Asia.'”
Editorials on the application of “formerly archaic,” “modest comeback,” and “though useful, has a stuffy, impersonal quality” to various aspects of the Anglican world may be added to taste.
Thanks, Ross. My apologies to rob k for presuming “anent” was a typo. I should have checked a dictionary myself instead of displaying my ignorance. Oh well, it helps keep me at least a little humbler.
See, you can learn new things every day just by watching these blogs. I’ll have to remember “anent” the next time I play Scrabble.
David Handy+
#13. I stand by my statement regarding the T.U.. Not that long ago they took one person’s word for it that the Spiritual Life Center and Diocese were engaged in devious, if not illegitimate, financial practices. It was a hot story for Parry and crew, but unfortunately, it was totally without basis, as subsequent independent audits clearly affirmed. Of course, the good ol’ T.U. never uttered a word of correction, did they? That’s when I quit my subscription with them.
As for Fr. Handy’s reference to “David K. being a Sports Editor for the T.U.,” I’m not certain what that has to do with anything. He left the T.U. when Larry Bird was still playing for the Celtics [i](he retired from the NBA in 1992)[/i]. It’s a much different paper today than when David worked for them, for sure.
I would suggest that you ask some of the parishioners at Christ Church, Schenectady, staff at the Spiritual Life Center, and the Bishop’s staff what they think of the T.U. and Marc Parry. By the way, they’ve been none too kind to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and its Bishop as well.
Albeit (#18),
My mention of David Kalvelage’s stint on the staff of the Albany Times Union in #5 wasn’t all that relevant, I admit. I only meant to underline the ignorance of staff writer Marc Parry that is displayed in this article. That is, in my #3, I called attention to Parry’s surprising subheading that speaks of “Episcopals” voting on these proposed resolutions. Now to be fair, that may not be Marc Parry’s fault. Perhaps it was an editor who inserted that language at the top of the story. But my point was simply that there used to be someone at the paper who thoroughly understood the language and culture of TEC and the Dio of Albany (albeit only a sports editor who wouldn’t have anything to do with editing a news story). That is, David Kalvelage would never have used a term like “Episcopals” but now the TU doesn’t seem to have anyone like him on staff to do a story on the TEC and its local franchise. Or a TEC-savvy editor that a staff writer could run a draft of the story by just to catch glitches like the word “Episcopals.” That’s all.
I was trying to call attention not only to Parry’s liberal bias (to which he’s entitled, though reporters as opposed to editorial column writers are supposed to hold their bias in check). I was suggesting an even more severe journalistic flaw, his incompetence in researching the topic and how he displays a telling ignorance of the group he was writing about. That’s why I ended #3 with a derisive slam, “Doesn’t sound like the staff writer knows much about TEC.”
Anyway, I think I’ve contributed enough comments to this particular thread. I’ll let others have their chance now.
David Handy+
Albeit (#18),
I agree that we’ve had bad press under Parry’s byline. Part of it is, I think, unfortunately, a perception in the Capital District community that the Diocese has been less than fully welcoming to all. While I think that is not correct, it is the perception, and I understand how it has arisen. I think we need to do what we can to get past it without compromising our corporate self.
So what I am suggesting is that if proposed resolutions 5 and 6 pass, there will be more negative press even though nothing has really changed and nothing is likely to change here in the next 10 to 20 years. On the other hand, if they are tabled, it’s just possible the Diocese will get better press coverage even though nothing will change on the ground.
As our former Bishop Daniel Herzog said prior to the convention several years ago, resolutions of this type don’t really help. So, in that spirit, I would suggest that proposed resolutions 5, 6, 7 and 8 all be tabled. But I’m not a deputy, so someone else will need to pick up the ball.
Stabil #20: I doubt that Bishop Hubbard (R.C.) has a very high regard for the T.U. either. They’ve been hard on the R.C.’s as well. In fact, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the T.U. is hostile towards any religious organization that isn’t progressive enough for them.
The thing that really bothers me about what you have said is that this leaves the Church cowering in the shadow of what kind of press they will get. The net result is that it’s the Time Union [i](and other press) [/i]who would influence Church policy and mission. “Gee, we wouldn’t want to get on their (the Press’) bad side. Imagine the bad press!”
Well, maybe you don’t have a vote at Convention, but I do [i](and so would Fr. Handy, if he’d choose to show up)[/i]. I say, “vote them up [b]^[/b] or vote them down [b]v[/b]” I would hope that we would not find ourselves cowering to various threats or fears by tabling the resolutions. I, for one, have no desire to defer to the General Convention 2009 or the P.B., in one of her moments of super-activism, to define these matters on our behalf, absent our own diocesan actions.
to Ross (no. 16) – Thx. for your clarification. and to NRA also anent my use of “anent” ( my little joke) – I wasn’t trying to sound stuffy, but I admit that, on reading my own post, maybe it does sound a little bit that way. It is, though, an expression I have used in the past. Sorry for being off-topic.
Albeit (# 21),
Why do you say “cowering”? Doesn’t a negative perception of the Church in the community beyond the Church obstruct evangelism? Do you see the Church as an organization behind walls that has no need to be concerned with the world outside?
In reference to Bishop Jefferts Schori, what history of “super-activism” do you have in mind? What might General Convention do in 2009 that you see providing justification for these proposed resolutions that in present time amount to no more than grandstanding?
The last part of Sunday’s Gospel from Matthew 6:
[blockquote]
32 For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.
[/blockquote]
#23 Stabill:
[blockquote]Doesn’t a negative perception of the Church in the community beyond the Church obstruct evangelism?[/blockquote]
“Obstruct Evangelism by the Episcopal Church?” Are you kidding? This denomination is sinking like a stone. “Evangelism” by Episcopal Church definition, is “an embarrassing concept that we would rather reserve for those who are more of a Baptist persuasion.”
Yes, I’d say that ++KJS has been extremely active in, shall we say, very innovative ways. However, when it comes to the embodiment of compassion, she’s no Dalai Lama. I can’t see a Nobel Prize in her future.
Regarding you G.C. 2009 question: Personally, I think that there will be a whole lot of “clean up resolutions” aimed at finishing off the orthodox still residing within TEC. I also expect the marriage rite, along with other rites, definitions and rubrics, to be radically altered. Add to that extensive efforts aimed at weaking the authority of Bishops and Dioceses in order to consolidate and expand the power base at 815. I would anticipate that G.C. 2009 will be so hostile that the wheels will finally come off the TEC train.
As for Holy Scripture, I would suggest that you consider the sage advice found in [b]Colossians 2:8
[i]See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.[/i][/b]
What this generation of liberal activist has the arrogance to believe — and impose — is a vision of pseudo-reality that began with “the summer of love” hippiedom and has mutated since then into every-increasing resistant strains of cultural VD. No doubt they’ll “win.” But first the patient goes insane from the syphilis (already happened), then next the patient dies (we’re in hospice now).
As one controversial talk show host puts it, and he’s right on this point, liberalism is a mental disorder.
[b]Albany Resolution No. 4: A tithe for CANA?[/b]
I have no reason to conclude that there is a hidden agenda.
Now that the point has been raised, however, it would be good to reconsider the language of the resolution toward making it more specific in regard to possible recipients of Diocesan largesse.
See the commentary by drbones at
[url=http://drbones.typepad.com/openly_episcopal_in_alban/2008/05/resolution-4-a-pig-in-a-poke.html]Openly Episcopal in Albany[/url]