Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Canon Lorne Coyle has written an important letter to those he believes will be departing from The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Central Florida on July 1, 2008.
I am concerned that several of his statements may not be entirely accurate.
He has said:
1. “Trinity is part of a dying denomination”¦The Episcopal Church is part of a culture which God cannot honor, the culture of salvation without a cross, of grace without sin, of Easter without Good Friday.”
I believe this may well be the theology of some within The Episcopal Church, but it certainly is not the official teaching of TEC. And, more importantly, it is not the teaching of the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which we are a constituent part.
Well they just haven’t changed the formularies to match the reality. If Howe is right then where is the enforcement of those who preach and teach contrary to the Church’s official doctrine? Oh, right there isn’t any. Enough said.
Bishop Howe is being a tad bit Panglossian about the possibility of an orthodox bishop to follow him–there’s simply no evidence that a conservative successor will get consents, particularly given what happened in South Carolina. Of course if he accepts that, he would have to accept compelling need of the parishes to leave while they can, and the wisdom and logic of such action–and that he can’t do. It’s disappointing that Bishop Howe has now apparently joined the anti-Internet crowd of bishops who just wish people would quit reading anything save what goes forth from a bishop. Blogs such as this one have done more than anything else to educate the laity of our church as to what is going on. Does Bishop Howe really lament that?
[blockquote] 3. “The real issue is an agenda which seeks to take away the Godly heritage of Anglican Christianity, to re-write the Bible, and to undo 20 centuries of Christian marriage being between one man and one woman.â€
I think Lorne is closest to the truth here. In my opinion, the House of Bishops as a whole has come to believe that this is the great justice issue of our generation. However, we are still part of the Anglican Communion, and The Episcopal Church is in a tiny minority on this one. Lambeth 1998 voted overwhelmingly to uphold Biblical teaching, as has this Diocese.[/blockquote]
And Bishop Howe is OK with this? Gee, kinda thought a faithful bishop might want to take a stand against something like that.
RSB
You have to respect +Howe for being consistent and staying true to the strength of his convictions, arrived at, I am sure, after much prayer and soul searching. That being said, I am struck by the parallels between what he is advocating and the Lost Cause. His actions remind me very much of Lee’s retreat. Since You Tube seems to always have an applicable video, here it is, IMHO.
BTW, anybody see any parallels between +Schori’s campaign and that of Sherman’s march to the sea?
[blockquote] …Archbishop of Canterbury. He alone defines who is and who is not “Anglican.†[/blockquote]
There it is. For Bishop Howe and many others committed to an institutionalist stance, this is the sine qua non of Anglicanism. The most cogent response to such institutionalism can be found at William Witt’s [url=http://www.willgwitt.org/blog/index.cfm/2007/7/24/Is-it-Necessary-to-be-in-Communion-With-Canterbury-to-be-Anglican]Non Sermoni Res[/url]. I wonder what the good bishop would have to say about that. Surely he has come across the article before now.
I also wonder about his implicit defense of TEC’s almighty polity when it comes to the process of obtaining his eventual successor. Somehow, by the artful magic of the Dio of Central Florida’s considerably greater conservatism a sycophant of 815’s ultra-liberalism will not ascend to the diocese’s episcopacy. Somehow a conservative will get through 815’s barbed wire gauntlet. Such wishful thinking.
By Witt’s well-supported statement is Cantuar (with all his rambling liberalism and dithering indecisiveness) still “legitimately Anglican”?
Bishop Howe is right in one respect. The issues of same-sex “marriage” and women’s “ordination” must be dealt with. I believe in neither. I do not believe that a woman can be a priest, and I believe that we are in violation of God’s law if we sanction anything but the marriage of one man and one woman.
One cardinal sin which he doesn’t mention is divorce; so often the destroyer of families and a terrible influence on children, who are the real sufferers in so many instances.
Interesting. Bishop Howe seems to posit a parallel concept with Catholicism. So being in communion with Canterbury is the dividing line of who is and is not Anglican, just as the Catholic Church claims a similar structure with the Papacy.
Athanasius, to be fair to Prof Witt, one should also read [url=http://www.willgwitt.org/blog/index.cfm/2006/12/21/Why-Not-Leave]this[/url], which seems to be a rather similar stance to Bp Howe, though +Howe is carrying out the convictions within his role as a bishop.
+Howe’s blogging critics seem in general not to understand him very well, and it appears that the sticking point is that he believes in the episcopate (note Molter’s surprise above), while his critics have a generally more pragmatic American ecclesiology. I don’t suggest that all should agree with +Howe, only that many of his detractors operate from a different ecclesiology and thus misunderstand him — as evidenced, for example, by statements which equate an episcopal ecclesiology with “institutionalism.”
+Howe can lead if he sticks his neck out just a bit further…and publicly condemns the brotherhood of frauds and liars in the House of Bishops.
I agree with cookeclan. The good bishop is sincere, but his perceptions are tragic.
However there was one line that took me by surprise. Howe said, “Unless my successor were to do something truly stupid there is no reason to suppose he or she would not be confirmed by the majority of the Bishops and Standing Committees.”
Given the fact that Lawrence’s consent was shot down once, and then on a second try he only barely made it through the ‘process,’ Howe is either naive about the future that awaits his diocese, or he has just (unintentionally, but still effectively) insulted South Carolina.
Here is another glaring error of logic of Bp Howe:
[blockquote]Common Cause is a confederation of Anglican-style entities that are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in my opinion, will not hold together. Their fatal flaw is their disagreement over the ordination of women. Common Cause cannot and will not recognize as valid the priesthood of Valerie Balius. It is not a Communion solution.[/blockquote]
And so by Bp Howe’s logic, the precious Anglican Communion will not survive either because the Anglican Communion is also divided on the issue.
Occasional Reader, I have never equated advocacy of episcopacy with institutionalism, but rather decry the latter as defense of institutional structures, methodologies, and polity as somehow sacrosanct despite significant evidence to the contrary. As an institution, TEC is broken and needs fixing.
1) Episcopacy has stood, and will stand as an ecclesiological necessity. 2) TEC’s execution of ecclesiology, on the other hand, is much shorter lived and is being pretzeled into an unrecognizable blob. Bishop Howe seems to want to defend both. That’s a non sequitur.
Athanasius, OK, thank you for that clarification. I didn’t mean to point my comment at yours as much as it appears (now also to me) that I did. I meant it as a more general observation regarding +Howe detractors. Still, Bp Howe’s engagement with the TEC has been far from uncritical, sometimes rather directly and even harshly so — unfailingly so on matters of theological substance and often so on matters procedural. I just wouldn’t characterize that sort of “loyal opposition” as “institutionalism.”
Occasional Reader #10,
To be fair to myself, there is no conflict between what I wrote in either of my two articles. To my chagrin, many misread the “Why Not Leave” article as an apology for staying within TEC or even within a Canterbury-defined Communion. The target of the “Why Not Leave” article was not those who were leaving TEC, but those who were leaving Anglicanism for Rome or Orthodoxy or Evangelicalism. The article is about not leaving Anglicanism, full stop. It says nothing about Canterbury. Both articles define Anglicanism in terms of doctrines and practices, not ecclesial alliances. Clearly if a Canterbury-defined Communion undermines the doctrines and practices, then remaining Anglican may require leaving Canterbury behind.
a fine letter from +Howe, though, like others here, I see his fatal error as his belief that the bishops and standing committees of TEC would confirm a conservative successor to him. I think the likelihood of that taking place is nil. Otherwise, I think his points are well taken. His course throughout has been honorable, consistent and Christian, even when, at times in my opinion, misguided.
[blockquote]2. “The current Bishop of Central Florida will some day be gone. The process of choosing a new Bishop will be influenced by national church norms.â€
Well, of course this is true, but the Diocese of Central Florida is considerably more conservative than it was nineteen years ago when I was elected, and I cannot imagine it electing some far-out liberal. Unless my successor were to do something truly stupid there is no reason to suppose he or she would not be confirmed by the majority of the Bishops and Standing Committees.[/blockquote]
Well, as others have stated above….remember South Carolina! A very conservative diocese mind you, bishop Howe!
[blockquote]Common Cause is a confederation of [b]Anglican-style[/b] entities that are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in my opinion, will not hold together. Their fatal flaw is their disagreement over the ordination of women. Common Cause cannot and will not recognize as valid the priesthood of Valerie Balius. It is not a Communion solution.[/blockquote]
Anglican style???? What is that??? Is that like a Dooney & Burke knock-off, a faux purse? Last I checked Bishop Duncan, Akerman, & Iker are in the Common Cause Partnership and they are very much recognised by the ABoC! Nice try Bishop Howe, but you missed the red dot in the middle of your target with that jab.
[blockquote]In leaving The Episcopal Church the options before you are to ally with a Bishop who is not recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He alone defines who is and who is not “Anglican.â€[/blockquote]
Wrong-O again…Oh! As our diocese has done and the dioceses of Pittsburg, Ft. Worth nd possibly Quincy, will do is to align with the Province of the Southern Cone which is recognised by the ABoC and is in the Anglican Communion.
[blockquote]The Windsor Report’s recommendations have yet to be adopted by The Episcopal Church.â€
Correct, but they have been fully endorsed and subscribed by the Diocese of Central Florida[/blockquote]
Well that’s great news, unfortunately Bishop Howe, the Diocese of Central Florida is not the whole of TEC!
[blockquote]Our Presiding Bishop said unequivocally at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral that there would be no retreat. ‘All people – including gay and lesbian Christians and non-Christians – are deserving of the fullest regard of the Church.’â€
Of course they are! The question is: does that mean they should have their unions blessed by the church?[/blockquote]
Ah, but Bishop Howe you left out one other important issue regarding this drama….ordaining openly practicing homosexuals to Holy Orders, i.e. Deacons, Priests, and Bishops! TEC has done it and will continue to do it.
Prof Witt, I stand corrected. What you intended by your article became clear to me as I read your comments subsequent. Apparently many of us missed your point. The option of staying Anglican and leaving TEC didn’t come up in the article but was apparently to be inferred as a viable, if less than ideal, option.
“Unless my successor were to do something truly stupid there is no reason to suppose he or she would not be confirmed by the majority of the Bishops and Standing Committees.â€
Like Mark Lawrence? I don’t remember him doing anything “truly stupid,†yet he was within a hair of being cheated of consent – the last orthodox bishop to be confirmed in the GCC, probably.
And, again, I see the problem resides in “the blogs,†even as we shouldn’t worry about the seamier things going on inside the GCC.
[blockquote]and it appears that the sticking point is that he believes in the episcopate (note Molter’s surprise above)[/blockquote]
My surprise wasn’t at all about +Howe’s beliefs in a strong Episcopacy (he’s an Episcopalian and not a Presbyterian for a reason), but that the Archbishop of Canterbury ALONE determines Anglican identity.
Bishop Howe is trying so very hard to have a “separate peace” in Central Florida, and, who does NOT empathize a bit?!
That said, this is a very, very rosy scenario, portrayed by a bishop who surely knows what the score is in TEC. As for “the ABoC determines who is ‘Anglican'”, what will Bp. Howe do when (if?) Rowan Williams conclusively stands with the homosexualists? Will he then still stand with “my ABoC, right or wrong?”
As for his future successor, I agree with others in this comment string: dilution and diminuation of the orthodox voice is a certainty.
The frog will stay lukewarm awhile, then the boiling will be felt!
Apparently, as Howe now seems to see acceptance of WO as necessary facet of Anglicanism, I can only gather that what he imagines as “something truly stupid” for a would-be successor to do is to obstinately hold on to the orthodoxy of the past. Orthodoxy must, in his vision, move with the times. What was once the only acceptable postion became, in 1976 an acceptable minority position. Soon after that it was no longer acceptable. And now Howe, as an “orthodox” Episcopalian, is fine with that.
I wonder what other liberal positions will become so standard in TEO that rejection of them will be “truly stupid” in Howe’s mind.
The city is burning and this father in Christ tells the children not to flee because their house isn’t on fire…..yet.
I wonder if John Howe has had a chance to read the legal briefs being filed by 815 and Mayo House in Virginia for himself. In those briefs the 815 lawyers argue that TEC is hierarchical – that all are under 815 and the Presiding Bishop as primate – that the Episcopal Church is THE communion – Rowan Williams is just a courtesy, a sweet tradition that has no authority. This is what they are arguing (and that Bishop Lee – who once shared John Howe’s assessment of his authority as bishop of a diocese – is going along with it continues to boggle the mind). I heard it again in court last week. That John Howe is maintaining that as long as Central Florida is compliant all is well is simply naive at best. Were that it were so! As long as John remains bishop he may protect the diocese from the intrusion of a militant kind from 815 – because he is careful not to upset the 815 apple cart and not challenge the broken structures of the denomination. But the moment he retires, that pseudo-protection is gone. The laity should not be so naive. 815 and the leadership of the grossly non-democratic General Convention are convinced that they are operating under a new revelation from God. Bonnie Anderson continues to preach this heresy as part of her current road tour. What John is arguing is that the buck stops at his desk because he’s in direct communion with Canterbury – that is not the case as we see with Bishop Duncan or Bishop Lee. That is not what the legal briefs say – and guess what, the court of law is ruling this roost.
Until there is a vast overhaul of the systems and structures of TEC, there will be no recovery. The breakdown is massive, like a cancer that has spread to the bones of the church.
Wishful thinking does not work (believe me, we’ve tried that for years). What John describes may have once been true (in theory) – but it is not true any more (unless we are successful in our defense in Virginia – then everything changes, which may be why 815 is fighting so hard?). I hope he’s reading these legal briefs being prepared by the 815 lawyers. If he’s not doing it, I hope the laity of Central Florida are. There is no longer protection for us from our diocesan bishops. Those days are over.
bb
Chris Hathaway,
I usually agree with your posts but I don’t see +Howe saying acceptance of WO is necessary to being Anglican (and I am personally completely oppossed to WO) and I think he’s correct in stating that the lack of consensus on WO is the elephant in the room for Common Cause and any emerging united Anglican entity in this country.
I must have a merry prankster computer. Each time I connect to the link provided I see the text for a brief moment and then it “poof “vanishes. Is there a link to Canon Coyle’s original letter and another link to Bp Howe’s response?
Thanks.
[i] Bp. Howe’s response: http://web.mac.com/kyleball/stayingtrinityepiscopals.com/Bishop_Howes_Response_to_Canon_Coyles_Letter_to_the_Leavers.html
Canon Coyle’s letter: http://www.christchurchvero.org/FAQs.html [/i]
Evan, this is what he said that leads me to that conclusion.:
[blockquote]Common Cause is a confederation of Anglican-style entities that are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in my opinion, will not hold together. Their fatal flaw is their disagreement over the ordination of women. Common Cause cannot and will not recognize as valid the priesthood of Valerie Balius. It is not a Communion solution.[/blockquote]
He doesn’t say they are divided amongst themslves over WO. They are, of course, but his point was that they are in disagreement with the accepted position in favor of WO. His point about Common Cause not reocgnizing Valerie Balius makes that clear. The point seems obvious; reject the accepted practice of WO and you can’t be part of the Communion.
Common Cause is going to have to work out its differences over WO. But Howe is making clear that in his mind there isn’t any room for that argument any more in Anglicanism. WO is accepted. It is now Anglican. This frog is getting closed to cooked.
Paula,
Hope [url=http://www.christchurchvero.org/FAQs.html]this[/url] and [url=http://web.mac.com/kyleball/stayingtrinityepiscopals.com/Bishop_Howes_Response_to_Canon_Coyles_Letter_to_the_Leavers.html]this [/url]will help.
On another note, I wonder what Bishop Howe’s response to fellow HOB member, Bishop James Adams’s “[url=http://descant.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/bishop-james-adams-western-kansas-why-some-may-say-that-the-episcopal-church-is-no-longer-a-member-of-the-anglican-communion/]Why some may say that the Episcopal Church is no longer a member of the Anglican Communion”[/url] would be?
Grace & peace,
AR
Thanks all. The link to Coyle’s letter worked but the link to Howe’s response takes me to the original link provided and the text still does that vanishing act. I will try the Diocese of Central Florida website later.
Paula,
Hope this helps (copied from the web link – some formatting may be lost):
June 2, 2008
To All the Members of Trinity Episcopal Church
2365 Pine Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-0528
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Canon Lorne Coyle has written an important letter to those he believes will be departing from The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Central Florida on July 1, 2008.
I am concerned that several of his statements may not be entirely accurate.
He has said:
1. “Trinity is part of a dying denomination…The Episcopal Church is part of a culture which God cannot honor, the culture of salvation without a cross, of grace without sin, of Easter without Good Friday.â€
I believe this may well be the theology of some within The Episcopal Church, but it certainly is not the official teaching of TEC. And, more importantly, it is not the teaching of the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which we are a constituent part.
2. “The current Bishop of Central Florida will some day be gone. The process of choosing a new Bishop will be influenced by national church norms.â€
Well, of course this is true, but the Diocese of Central Florida is considerably more conservative than it was nineteen years ago when I was elected, and I cannot imagine it electing some far-out liberal. Unless my successor were to do something truly stupid there is no reason to suppose he or she would not be confirmed by the majority of the Bishops and Standing Committees.
3. “The real issue is an agenda which seeks to take away the Godly heritage of Anglican Christianity, to re-write the Bible, and to undo 20 centuries of Christian marriage being between one man and one woman.â€
I think Lorne is closest to the truth here. In my opinion, the House of Bishops as a whole has come to believe that this is the great justice issue of our generation. However, we are still part of the Anglican Communion, and The Episcopal Church is in a tiny minority on this one. Lambeth 1998 voted overwhelmingly to uphold Biblical teaching, as has this Diocese.
4. “A number of options are emerging, including the exciting Common Cause Partnership formed in late September 2007 in Pittsburgh.â€
Common Cause is a confederation of Anglican-style entities that are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in my opinion, will not hold together. Their fatal flaw is their disagreement over the ordination of women. Common Cause cannot and will not recognize as valid the priesthood of Valerie Balius. It is not a Communion solution.
5. “As Anglicans of the apostolic and catholic tradition, we want to have a Bishop.â€
In leaving The Episcopal Church the options before you are to ally with a Bishop who is not recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He alone defines who is and who is not “Anglican.â€
6. “All Episcopalians are Anglicans.â€
Agreed.
7. “The Windsor Report’s recommendations have yet to be adopted by The Episcopal Church.â€
Correct, but they have been fully endorsed and subscribed by the Diocese of Central Florida.
8. “Our Presiding Bishop said unequivocally at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral that there would be no retreat. ‘All people – including gay and lesbian Christians and non-Christians – are deserving of the fullest regard of the Church.’â€
Of course they are! The question is: does that mean they should have their unions blessed by the church? The answer for this Diocese is unambiguous. As a matter of canon law, since 1991 we have stated that “All members of the clergy of this Diocese, having subscribed to the Declaration required by Article VIII of the National Constitution, shall be under the obligation to model in their own lives the received teaching of the church that all its members are to abstain from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony.â€
More recently we have added this provision, “All members of the clergy of this Diocese may allow to take place in their cures, officiate at, bless or participate in, only those unions prescribed by Holy Scripture: the wedding of one woman and one man. Said clergy are forbidden to allow to take place in their cures, officiating at, blessing or participating in any other unions, as proscribed by Holy Scripture.â€
9. “St. Augustine’s in Vero Beach and St. Elizabeth’s in Sebastian are both served by Godly priests. St. A’s has Fr. Michael Goldberg and Pr. Deborah Vann. St. E’s has Fr. Dave Newhart. All are priests of the Episcopal Church in good standing and all are good pastors.
Amen.
10. “Being Anglican will mean being subject to a spiritual authority which is grounded in the Bible and the tradition of the ages, being freed from the political battles still facing The Episcopal Church; being connected to Canterbury, being allied with the best, the brightest, and most generous clergy and laity in the US…â€
Maybe. If you read the blog sites you will find some of the most vicious and unsavory comments you have ever read. And the problem, as I commented above, is that you will NOT actually be connected to Canterbury. Neither the present nor the former Archbishop of Canterbury has recognized AMiA, CANA, or any of the other border-crossing ventures into the United States as legitimately Anglican.
11. “The leadership of Christ Church is committed first to building a Church, not a building.â€
And I want to wish them every blessing from God. I have told Lorne that if I can ever be of help to him and them – in the next few months or in years to come – I am eager to do so.
12. “Things are developing rapidly for Christ Church.â€
So it seems. One of the greatest sadnesses of my episcopacy is that we have come to this point. Trinity Episcopal Church was the first church to welcome me to this Diocese. I have always felt that visiting Trinity was “coming home.†I have told Lorne that I wish all of our churches could have the same spirit and style that Trinity enjoys. I have told him that in many ways I wish I could go with him. But I think it is an unnecessary venture. And I hope that Trinity communicants will see it as such.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
1017 East Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801
407-423-3567 BCF3@aol.com
A.R., thanks so much for your post. My first reaction upon reading Howe’s letter is one of deep sadness. I have family in the Diocese of Central Florida and I am grateful they are in an orthodox parish with a very godly pastor. But how long will they be safe?
I honestly think Bp Howe is not facing reality. At some point staying with TEC goes beyond trusting in the providence of Christ to enabling heresy to flourish. Good orthodox Bishops such as Howe need to ask if staying allows TEC to justify its agenda to thumb their noses at 2000 years of Christian teaching.
At this point I believe it does.
Staying with TEC is like owning a run-down rattletrap car or truck: Spending money on it to keep it running is like throwing good food in the garbage can…….it’s a waste!
Well, it is a sincere, but obscurantist, view of what is happening in TEC. Howe overlooks the trashing of the HOB Theological Commission’s report on sexuality of which he was supposedly a key leader. It can only be that the pain of his church in heresy has turned him inside/out. The response is pablum; smoke and mirrors. He attempts to grab at any straw which will validate his stance of somehow remaining within the structures of a church turned to the dark side. He is isolated and he will end so. It is a very great disappointment.