The long foretold crack up of the Anglican Communion appears to be at hand, as political wrangling and media posturing mark the final days before the start of the 14th Lambeth Conference. Though the programme of the 20 day conference in Canterbury is designed to avoid position statements or divisive outcomes””the agendas brought to the conference by the 600 some bishops present will likely push the Communion farther apart, effectively ending the Anglican project.
While the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has been able to salvage past pan-Anglican gatherings from collapse, the mechanics of the 2008 Lambeth Conference differ from the smaller Primates Meeting and Anglican Consultative Council gatherings. Dr. Williams’ efforts to keep the Communion flag flying will further be hindered by the absence of between a quarter and a third of the Communion’s bishops.
In past international gatherings, Dr. Williams has been able to avert a crack up by resorting to calls for forbearance to conservative leaders and personal pleas to honor the integrity of the Communion. The absence of most African bishops will change the focus of Dr. Williams’ diplomatic efforts, forcing him to turn his attention to the fissiparous American church and seek its pledge of good behavior.
However many of the American bishops, who will comprise 1 in 5 of the bishops at Lambeth, though Americans are only 1 in 40 of Anglicans worldwide””are not seeking preservation of the status quo but sanction for their church’s normalization of homosexuality and will push for approval for gay bishops and blessings.
George Conger wrote:
[blockquote]
However many of the American bishops … are not seeking preservation of the status quo but sanction for their church’s normalization of homosexuality and will push for approval for gay bishops and blessings.
[/blockquote]
To my knowledge TEC has not, in fact, normalized homosexuality. Indeed, General Convention has refused to authorize the development of rites for same sex blessings.
While there is a significant group that wishes such normalization, I believe the most recent theological statement by TEC is the March 2003 [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/theologycomreport.pdf]Report of the House of Bishops Theology Committee[/url] that presents a position of dividedness.
In effect, TEC’s critics are complaining about TEC’s perception, going back at least to the General Convention of 1991, that discernment and possible subsequent revision of views, is required on the question of homosexuality in the light of new knowledge in the areas of medecine and psychology.
The period of discernment is still with us.
I believe that more than half of those who voted consent in 2003 for the election of Bishop Robinson and of those who voted for restraint in 2006 (B033) did not understand these actions to represent the taking of theological positions.
Stabill: It may not have been officially “normalized” but the same sex blessings, and indeed same sex marriages, are in fact being done with no penalty, sanction or other effect.
So it appears, at least from the outside, that TEC does endorse same-sex blessings and marriage.
Same-sex practice is being “normalized” diocese by diocese as more and more people active in sex outside of Christian marriage are ordained. How many dioceses still decline to license self-declared active homosexual priests? The number is probably quite small.
The history of irregular blessings does not establish a [i]norm[/i] for TEC. Only General Convention can do that.
General Convention will rubber-stamp the norm which has been established by facts on the ground. I would guess that the majority of dioceses license actively homosexual clergy, and a sizable minority are already permitting same-sex blessings whether by explicit policy or by looking the other way.
Whether officially “normalized” or not, the rest of the world can see what is happening on the ground. They aren’t waiting for the official “normalization” of same sex blessings. It’s simply obvious that it’s already a done deal.
stabill said:
[blockquote]The history of irregular blessings does not establish a [i]norm[/i] for TEC. Only General Convention can do that.[/blockquote]
Then… is there no [b]discipline[/b] in The Episcopal Church requiring all actions of ordained ministers to follow the “norms” which the church has ratified in General Convention? If an ordained minister held as an official service of his parish and cure a “black mass,” or a wiccan service (the latter is not without some irregular precedent, I understand), when and how would he be disciplined?
Or is each ordained minister in “autonomous union” with TEC, similar to the new proposals for a revised understanding of the Anglican Communion?
#5 Katherine: I agree. We can believe that when we remember how women’s ordination came about. The women were ordained; General Convention rubber-stamped it. Robinson was elected; General Convention rubber-stamped it. And so it will be with the same sex issue. General Convention will make it so. Those of us who watch from the pews have three choices: Like it; Lump it; or Leave it! Goodbye —–
#4 — And GC conveniently happens next summer. As more and more orthodox leave, what will stop the “normalization?”
Stabill,
I think that Conger was referring to a future normalization, and that you’re reading it as if he is speaking of the present. Irregular blessings have not been formally “normalized,” and may not be in ’09. In fact, I doubt they will, since in some, maybe many, dioceses there is no need of a formal normalization that would likely chase off a lot of moderates. In others, it is simply accepted that gay marriage blessings will happen, sooner rather than later. Normalization has become just a matter of self-serving semantics.
I think normalization in 2009 is very unlikely.
Such normalization would require the approval of the House of Bishops.
I don’t think they would move without a basis for such action from the HoB Theology Committee. I’ve seen no evidence of theological homework to back that.
Beyond that I expect that from here they will want to maintain faith on the issue of bishops who are gay and the issue of gay unions with the bishops of the Church of England and may, for that reason, be unwilling to “make the next move”.
My original point, however, was that normalization is not a present fact, and reporters should not say it is.
I may have missed it but I didn’t see what percentage of the Bishops at Lambeth are from England?
Are there more from the United States than from England?
The current stance of TEC is normalization, de facto if not de jure.
Stabill,
[blockquote]I believe that more than half of those who voted consent in 2003 for the election of Bishop Robinson and of those who voted for restraint in 2006 (B033) did not understand these actions to represent the taking of theological positions. [/blockquote]
Not true of the latter, but most certainly so for most of the former, who tend not to know or care a whit about theology as biblically received. Which is one of the prime reasons we are witnessing such chaos in TEC and the Communion.
w.w.
Exactly, Jeffersonian. My goodness, we have the example of Jon Bruno lying to reporters by saying no SSUs go on in his diocese with his knowledge/permission, which was quickly belied by news articles and “wedding” announcements in the newspapers!
TEC has been playing a game of cat-and-mouse with this and, even when it’s called out, nothing is done about it. The “normalization” is de facto and Conger isn’t fooled.
Actually, the HOB will indeed go along with the status quo and rubber stamp the ‘normalization’ of blessings etc. After all, the PB has been systematically inhibiting any who she thinks are even THINKING of going against such a direction, or who state they cannot go along with such actions due to the abandonment of historic Christian teaching based on Scripture .
Yet no actions or threat of inhibition have even been whispered towards those who have disobeyed the directives that no rites should be undertaken or who hold heretical views of the creeds and doctrines of Christianity.
No, the writing on the wall is clear, and it is NOT in favor of orthodoxy.
Jim Elliott <><
Pin the Tail on the Donkey
On April 29, 1996, Presiding Bishop Browning signed an Interfaith Letter – drafted by The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice – urging the members of Congress not to overturn President Clinton’s veto of the proposal to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. According to The Living Church, the Presiding Bishop felt obliged to do so because of a series of General Convention resolutions (TLC 2-16-97).
Coincidentally, on the same date Bishop Spong appeared before a House Subcommittee and made a forceful appeal for legalizing “assisted suicide,†which was broadcast on C-SPAN.
Following his testimony, the Committee Chairman pointed out that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church had passed a resolution rejecting “assisted suicide.â€
However, both Bishops had signed the 1979 Conscieince Clause declaring House actions as “recommendatory and not prescriptive†so that Bishop Browning could have refused the sign the Interfaith Letter without criticism, and Bishop Spong could have defended the legitimacy of his testimony before the House Subcommittee, which he did not do.
In the 12 years since then I am not aware of any serious effort on the part of the institutional church to bring these matters to the attention of parishioners for their reflection, and this despite what Presiding Bishop Schori has characterized as the “highly democratic polity†which characterizes modern Church governance. To the contrary, in 2003 Executive Council formalized the Church’s membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and efforts to rescind that affiliation failed at the last General Convention. As for Bishop Spong, he has enjoyed “prophetic privilege,†and I think the Church would be hard-pressed to distance itself from his public advocacy.
Statements of conscience, General Convention, Executive Council, “prophetic privilege,,,,all the many doors we must pass through to find the Church’s painful message to women, often the caregivers but always the mothers.
Mary Miserable, post 14,
Here is a little more news about the Episcopal Church and the RCRC:
Bishop Duncan Gray’s letter:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/3678
Just in case you can’t get the url to work, this was TEC’s Executive Council’s National Concerns Committee’s reply:
“The chair of Executive Council’s National Concerns Committee has written to the Bishop of Mississippi informing him that while The Episcopal Church does not support every action of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), Executive Council has no intention of withdrawing its membership.”
You might also be interested in the RCRC’s legal defense of partial birth abortion before the Supreme Court, thankfully, the Supreme Court did not agree.
http://www.rcrc.org/calltojustice/current_cases.php
and this little picture:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_37993_ENG_HTM.htm
In appreciation of the efforts of Betty See and her Bishop:
JUDY’S KILLER BROWNIES
1. Melt 2 sticks butter with 4 squares unsweetened chocolate. Cool.
2. Add, beating well:
4 eggs
2 cups sugar
1 cup flour
dash salt
3. Fold in:
12-oz. package chocolate chips
2 cups miniature marshmallows
Pour into greased 9 x 12 pan and bake at 350o for 25-30 minutes. Cool and dust with powdered sugar.
(Serves a gruzzen do-nups or two bean-aged toys)