How then will any move forward toward reconciliation be possible? By taking the specific requests and language of the Windsor Report seriously and responding clearly and honestly, by saying as a province yes we will sacrifice and do these things or no we will not.
Very simply, we need to say that what we did was wrong in the sense the Windsor Report intends. The Anglican Communion has a mind on this issue. There is such a thing as Anglican teaching and practice in the area of human sexuality, namely the language of Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10. We went against this mind and did something which the large majority of the Anglican Communion believes is a departure from apostolic teaching and practice. We did it, despite the fact that we were repeatedly warned not to do so. As a result, we have torn the Anglican Communion at its deepest level.
We therefore need to say more than that we are sorry others are hurt by what we have done, we need to say that a life of interdependence in the communion matters to us and we are sorry that we went against the mind of the whole church in an area which we believe the whole church should decide on. It is what we have done and the consequences of what we have done which are it issue.
Next, we need to undertake the two specific requests to us with utmost seriousness. First, a moratorium needs to be placed on the election or consecration to the episcopate of any person living in a non-celibate same-gender relationship until and unless a new consensus emerges. Second, we need to place a moratorium on the blessing of non-celibate same-sex relationships in the same time frame.
All three of these requests””the statement of regret and the two moratoria–can be found in the language of the Windsor report.
This raises numerous questions such as, since the Episcopal Church didn’t do these things why are her bishops present at Lambeth? In particular, why are the many diocesan bishops who are in dioceses allowing for same sex blessings present since they are at present contradicting the mind and practice of the Communion? How can the Archbishop of Canterbury call bishops to mutual accountability when he has not modeled it himself in who is actually present at this Lambeth Conference?–KSH
Kendall,
Bravo! You said it simply but pointedly and eloquently — on influential Beliefnet, at that!
w.w.
[blockquote]This raises numerous questions such as, since the Episcopal Church didn’t do these things why areher bishops present at Lambeth? [/blockquote]
Books and books proffering post-morta of the Anglican Communion will discuss that datum most vigorously, I expect. Of course, your snapshot is even more dire when it is put into motion, Dr. Harmon: TEC is moving in precisely the opposite direction it needs to, and its heresies are accelerating. There is no chance any moratorium will be put into place and every reason to believe the fig leaf of B033 will be stripped away by GC09.
Something has kept me from wanting to pay any attention too this Lambeth Conference at all, but my parishioners cannot avoid it in the press, so I have started paying attention. But why should we take this conference seriously, when the bishops who were to be disinvited due to their involvement with making Gene Robinson a bishop were invited anyway, and perhaps 300 faithful bishops of the Anglican Communion therefore could not in conscience attend Lambeth Conference? Are we to practice denial, and pretend that nothing has happened, and to hear gladly their stories of loving one another in spite of their differences, when they are splitting the communion? I don’t believe it is healthy to care about this much anymore. I believe we should just try to practice the faith we have been given and ignore these people as best we can. Why does it do any good to spend any time on Lambeth?
Look at the questions Kendall has asked. The answer to all of them, TEC fashion, is “We will do whatever we want, and you can’t stop us.” There’s the answer; we already know it. NOW the question is, ‘Who will call TEC to account?” Is the answer REALLY “No one”? Kendall’s questions we have heard over and over. But so what? If we do nothing.
If a woman at an “indaba” speaks of Jesus as “She” and another woman is deeply offended, why does not that woman rise in wrath and demand that the speaker retract so offensive and so utterly unscriptural a statement. But she didn’t do that, did she? She merely went away distressed. If we will not call these people to account, we have no complaint because we ourselves are culpable as sin itself. The cult phrase now is “enabler,” and that is what we have become. Larry
Slightly edited.
[blockquote]How can the Archbishop of Canterbury call bishops to mutual accountability when he has not modeled it himself in who is actually present at this Lambeth Conference? [/blockquote]
With all humility, I submit that the Archbishop of Canterbury is hoping that face-to-face discussion, Bible study, and a strong message to Bishops about their unique calling, will help to do what the Windsor Report alone was not able to accomplish: to teach those who forged ahead in 2003 that in doing so they betrayed their very functions as chief pastors, and to enable those who were wounded and outraged to work out those emotions with the very people who provoked them. This is an extremely courageous and noble objective, and it could not have even had a chance of working if the American and Canadian bishops were not all invited. As it is, the fact that it took five years to get from the actions of 2003 to bringing everybody together at Lambeth proved too long for many to wait, and the decision to send a signal by those who have chosen not to attend is probably going to ensure the failure of ++Rowan’s bold plan, which was more than a year in the making.
Maybe some good can yet come out of it, if the Americans and Canadians (especially) will take ++Rowan’s teachings to heart. The [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/teaching-continues.html]Anglican Curmudgeon[/url] has an interesting question for those bishops to ask themselves, after having heard the three days of meditations, done their Bible studies, and prayed in the stillness of Canterbury Cathedral:
[blockquote]If we had attended this conference in July 2003 instead of July 2008, would it have made any difference to how we proceeded afterwards?[/blockquote]
These questions not only need to be raised but answered as well. May the Orthodox present at Lambeth block the advancement of the agenda until these questions be ansered and matters be put right. If that also requires the resignation of the Arcbishop of Canterbury himself, then so be it. The Anglican Communion is hanging by a thread at this point and requires profound solutions if it is to continue as a global Christian witness.
Kendall+,
[blockquote]
How can the Archbishop of Canterbury call bishops to mutual accountability when he has not modeled it himself in who is actually present at this Lambeth Conference?
[/blockquote]
Why ask here? Why not ask him? My guess would be my answer below to #3. Also I, as one who lived through the time when TEC was not clean in the matter of racial bigotry, might guess that he wants to err, if at all, on the side of avoiding any possibility of action tinged with bigotry against homosexuals.
(#1, I think the BeliefNet item appeared two years ago.)
#2,
I disagree about the likelihood of stripping B033 in 2009 as [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/14412/#252271]explained here[/url].
#3,
[blockquote]
Why does it do any good to spend any time on Lambeth?
[/blockquote]
Because the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and with each other in Christ.
The AoC has acted with bigotry toward the Primates at every turn, I’ve come to believe he still thinks there is an empire and the colonials should not try to tell the mother church they are wrong.
The sooner he wakes up to the dying western churches and the growing churches to the south the better,
[blockquote]Because the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and with each other in Christ. [/blockquote]
A perfectly wonderful mission. The problem is that Lambeth is validating the heretical words and actions of many of its TEC and ACoC attendees, thus working diametrically opposed to that mission.
Kendall,
Many would disagree that Lambeth 1.10 was authoritative. “Authoritative” implies that it was enforceable. It was an example of a mob – a spiritual one, perhaps.
I think the process is important, here. Because even bishops are easily swayed by mob mentality. If I thought that the “mind of the communion” could be reached by acknowledging that TEC is also an Anglican Church, and also is expressing the mind of God, then we might be able to have a view of what God is thinking through a serious conversation. Instead it has been generally yelling, reactivity, and all sorts of thumping about “sin” which seems more about people’s personal sensitivities and piety than about the work of a Glorious God.
I’m surprised that you don’t really mention how the internet and our system of democracy works in the church. TEC won’t change – not because it is imperialistic – but because it is a democratic church. Process is more crucial than content, but it is less predictable.
I admit, I don’t have any sympathy for those bishops who didn’t go. It was their choice, and they should take responsibility for it, instead of complaining and casting stones.
Process is more crucial than content, but it is less predictable.
That, Fr Gawain, is descriptive of a merely political institution, not a Church. Thank God that, despite the political messiness of the process, the bishops gathered at what came to be adjudged ecumenical councils clearly understood that content was precisely the crucial point. But, if one’s theological and political sympathies lies with the Semi-Arians, then I can understand such approbation of ecclesial decision-making as political process.
Of course, the description seems largely to fit in the case of TEC.
And perhaps I mistake your comment as approbation when it is simple description.
#5 Alfred,
I agree with you. But such workings might only be effective with shepherds, not with politicians. As TEC rolls into Canterbury with its activists and sideshows, I don’t think it can be any clearer to Cantuar that he’s dealing with politicians and not shepherds.
Except that even for content-free process fetishists, it’s not even about the process but the process of applying the process, isn’t it? When the process gets in the way, a new hermeneutic is trotted out and the process redefined without benefit of so much as the revision of a semicolon. Perhaps we can as +Schofield or +Cox how it looks up close.
But when those processes don’t look like they’re going to churn out a favorable result, well, that’s the time the hive begins to hum about the “mob mentality.”
John,
If Lambeth 1.10 were “new” teaching then I would agree with you. But it was not a new teaching. It is not like the Church has been blessing gay sex for 2000 years and Lambeth 1.10 (1998) decided to stop the practice. Lambeth 1.10 simply reiterated what the universal teaching of the Church has always been. Sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong and sinful.
The problem is not just one of sex, but of authority. TEC recognizes no authority outside of itself. I honestly think that General Convention believes itself to have the authority to change the Nicene Creed or to change the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Trinity, or the Virgin Birth. What would stop General Convention from doing that?
Do you want to know what God is thinking? Look at His self revelation in Holy Scripture as well as in the Tradition of the Church. Look at all the anger and strife and party spirit that comes out of the decision to tell the rest of the Communion that they do not matter – only TEC matters – and tell me that you can honestly say that what TEC is doing is of the Holy Spirit.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote]since the Episcopal Church didn’t do these things why are her bishops present at Lambeth?[/blockquote]Because Rowan Williams invited them.
[blockquote]why are the many diocesan bishops who are in dioceses allowing for same blessings present since they are at present contradicting the mind and practice of the Communion?[/blockquote]Because they do not contradict the mind of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[blockquote]How can the Archbishop of Canterbury call bishops to mutual accountability when he has not modeled it himself in who is actually present at this Lambeth Conference?[/blockquote]By being mendacious.
These questions are too easy. Ask something hard.
Even if the Communion had unanimously agreed in 1998 that homosex feelings and acts are ok, that would still not change the facts – it is emphatically proscribed by God and Scripture, and it is not healthy physically, emotionally or spiritually. You can’t change reality by voting.
This disorientation comes from pain, harm, deprivation and unfilled needs and only God with the holy wholesome nurture, love and compassion in His Church can fill, heal and rectify them. It is a shame is that the Western church does not believe people are changed and healed. I Cor. 6:9-11 and Hebrews 7:25 say God can heal us of all sinful desires and give us something better – Himself, an abundant life.
Kendall writes: “… we are sorry that we went against the mind of the whole church in an area which we believe the whole church should decide on.” (Emphasis added.)
What John Wilkins said. Moreover, your premise lacks foundation. The whole church could well mean TEC alone, the CofE alone, etc. That’s the most defensible meaning, given our ecclesiology. Or it could mean the entire body of Christendom, including Rome, Constantinople, and all the Protestant bodies.
But it’s wishful thinking to claim that the accident of “communion” with the ABC — whatever that means — mysteriously transforms a disparate collection of self-sufficient, self-governing ecclesiastical bodies (to use the RC phrase) into “the whole church” whose collective “mind” is supposedly entitled to dispositive weight in those bodies’ deliberations.
I think #17’s response nicely encapsulates the contempt TEC and its grandees have shown for the rest of the Anglican Communion lo these past five years, replete with legalese and utter disregard for any common belief of identity. It lacks only the temporary diversionary mendacity and dishonesty that have preceded the heretical actions of Griswold, Schori, etc.
TEC, and by extension its apologists, want AC membership but do not want AC discipline. I’m at a loss as to why anyone puts up with these dirty, loutish TECkies.
I was going to write a comment about trust which has been broken and so forth, but I found that the Bishop of Durham has already said the important things and much better than I could. From a post of his statements over at SFiF: “….A lot of people here have a lot of questions about why the American bishops are here,” he said. “Those questions are in the room.” ” Very very important questions, too.
Brings back memories
Starry, starry night………….
They were not listening
They’re not listening still….
Perhaps they never willlllll… .
#11 Todd, your statement is a serious theological one, and it merits discussion. I think that the Word – and the trinity – and the creeds, are statements about how the Christian community engages each other, and not merely propositional statements about the nature of God. If they were merely propositional statements, everything would be quite easy: they’d be like a boy scout oath or the pledge of allegiance, and have little to do with how we live.
This may seem like a novelty, but an examination of how the church fathers used scripture to defend their view point would reveal a much more … loose use of scripture than modern evangelicals would be comfortable with. I’m not an expert – I rely on mssrs Simonetti and Robert Grant and David Tracy to demonstrate the challenges of believing that the early church had a coherent hermeneutic. I think orthodoxy – in its understanding of Jesus – was right – I have doubts that this translates into a neat interpretation of sexual ethics. The ONLY important thing for the church is who Jesus is. I think that most reasserters have a Koranic, fundamentalist understanding of scripture that is contrary to how the early church understood scripture, and is also useless in our modern age.
Phil snyder, I’m not sure what I disagree with: marriage has been generally defined by the state for most of human history. It is a property relationship. When the state has changed its mind, the church has to figure out what it believes. This is history. If the state justifies marriage as civil unions, then we’re in a bit of a conundrum….
Or Marriage has a certain quality outside the state. What is this quality? I think I’ve seen it in some gay couples. Unless, perhaps, we want to reduce relationships to porn. I think that relationships are about the economy of the household. And that is a more comprehensive view of the institution. Scripture’s understanding of marriage is complex and not single sided.
Is what TEC doing of the holy spirit? That’s a big question. I think so, but that would be an incomplete picture. I think there is plenty wrong with TEC, but I don’t think you would hear it. My impression is that you think it is theology that is the problem. I disagree. I think there are issues with leadership that have inflicted all of mainline protestantism. Is there an authority outside of TEC? Sure there is: time. TEC may die. God may kill it. But we’ll see.
Does TEC have the authority to kill those beliefs you mention? Heh
I doubt they will, for many reasons. Beliefs are easy to hold. It is living with other people that is difficult.
stabill (#7),
Pardon me for picking on you after a number of intervening comments have passed, but as another member of the Diocese of Albany let me reassert “what conservative Episcopalians (like myself) want.” We want REPENTANCE. Genuine repentance. We want the advocates of the false “gay is OK” ideology to admit that they were totally and disastrously wrong. Not just in the way they acted unilaterally. But in acting unbiblically and in a way contrary to the will of God.
We want those who pride themselves in supporting what they mistakenly believe to be a cause of simply and obvious social justice to come to their senses and realize they were completely deceived in so thinking and thus fell into grievous sin in advocating a manner of life blatantly contrary to the express will of God. We want them to confess that ALL homsexual behavior is always WRONG, without exception, resevervation, or qualification. And that has NOTHING to do with one’s sexual orientation, as if that could ever justify such unbiblical behavior (which it can’t).
And we want, and INSIST, that our foes further admit and confess that the pro-gay theology is theologically bankrupt because it contravenes the plain and consistent teaching of Holy Scripture. And this is NEVER permissible. Period. End of discussion.
This dispute is NOT about the mere interpretation of the Bible, because there simply is NO legitimate way to interpret the Scriptures so as to support the pro-gay agenda. Zip. Zilch. None. I do not say that out of ignorance. I’ve read LOTS of attempts by liberals to argue otherwise. All their arguments fail, and they fail miserably, without even coming close to making their case. And that includes the Archbishop of Canterbury. It includes Walter Wink, and Dan Via, and Dale Martin, and Bernadette Brooten etc. etc. I’ve read them all and they all fail to make the case. Badly.
This is not a matter for discussion anymore. It is a matter for the liberals to submit, or not. That is not “biblical tyranny,” as Dr. William Countryman infamously claimed. That is simply a matter of acknowledging biblical authority and submitting to it, or not.
What do we want? Genuine repentance and conversion. An abrupt U-turn in the scandalous way TEC is behaving. Nothing less will suffice.
“Restoring all people to unity with God and each other” is ONLY possible on the basis of genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. The grand vision of Ephesians 1:10 echoes in our 1979 Catechism is only possible “in Christ.” And the only way to be “in Christ” is through repentance and true faith, on biblical terms.
This vexed dispute is not over a matter of adiaphora. The pro-gay position can’t and must not be tolerated within Anglicanism. All those who advocate it (including yourself, I regret to say, if you persist in this error, and including the Archbishop of Canterbury himself) must be ex-communicated and publicly shunned. On the basis of Scriptures like 1 Cor. 5:11 and Romans 16:17-18.
The bishops who chose not to go to Lambeth were acting appropriately, because they couldn’t “exchange the peace” or share Holy Communion with outright heretics like the Presiding Bishop. I don’t blame Bp. Love of Albany for going, mind you. It’s good that some orthodox bishops from North America go to represent our side. But I sincerely hope he does NOT exchange the peace or share communion with the PB and her ilk.
I regret to be so dogmatic and potentially offensive. But it’s high time to be plain spoken. Two incompatible and mutually exclusive religions cannot peacefully co-exist under one roof. It’s folly to pretend otherwise. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
I don’t say all that to provoke you or others, although I do state it very provocatively indeed. I say it in order to be as clear as possible, in a self-differentiating way. Reconciliation is only possible when the pro-gay side unconditionally surrenders and admits it was wrong, and acts accordingly. Period. Nothing else will do.
That is the bottom line. And it is not negotiable.
David Handy+
Whew. I feel better now, having vented all that anger and frustration. But in my haste and the passion of the moment, there were a number of typos, as is all too obvious. I won’t try to correct them here, but just to apologize for them. And if stabill, or John Wilkins, or other liberal readers of my comment above are offended by it, I regret that. I really do.
In the same way that TEC’s HoB and Executive Council and General Convention “regrets” the controversial actions taken in 2003, i.e., regretting the pain, distress, or anger resulting from them but not regretting the actions themselves.
David Handy+
#17
So why doesn’t TEC “live into” what it claims to believe about the communion? Why flip their lids over “incursions” by foreign prelates if these prelates only represent “a disparate collection of self-sufficient, self-governing ecclesiastical bodies”? Nobody seems to protest that Baptists or Methodists (who are, after all, an Anglican “splinter group”!) are operating in the geographical boundaries of TEC and leading the flock astray. They too are “self-sufficient, self-governing ecclesiastical bodies”.
The reason is, we don’t believe we have any special claim on them in the way that we do with members of the communion. Their actions, even if we don’t like them, and even if they may affect us negatively, don’t provoke a sense of betrayal. TEC’s leaders feel betrayed because they believe other members of the communion owe them something that non-communion churches do not. Hence, they appeal to the ABC to enlist his help in preventing communion members from establishing congregations in the US. The communion, and +Cantaur as its nominal head, are expected to do something when the actions of other members impact us negatively. We are a communion, after all, so we ought to be held to common standards!
Yet, when we do something which other members feel impacts them negatively, suddenly it’s none of their business. We’re a loose federation, after all, and shouldn’t be held to a common standard! This communion business is just an historical accident, so don’t expect us to defer to its authority.
Let’s at least try to be consistent.
Stephen+
It is probably not worthwhile to alter #21’a proposition, but I will try again. He said that marriage is a property arrangement. This is simply false. A civil union is a property arrangement; this is why it is “civil” because civil law governs this partnership. Marriage is a spiritual matter and the Bble makes this pretty clear. In the past, there was no clear distinction made between civil partnerships and marriage; it all was covered by the single rubric. Nevertheless, there two were always distinct, even though it is true that, where wealth and power were concerned, the spiritual elements were a sham. WE note that Christ allowed divorce when the wife was unfaithful; in short he allowed divorce when an invisible bond called trust was violated. He wasn’t concerned with property, but betrayal. What else is this but the violation of a spiritual bond? And He said that, once married you were married forever, and this obviously is not a matter of property.
And we now say, “What God has joined, let no man put asunder” or something with that effect. Hardly a property matter. LM
Hi NRA,
Heh – I’m not offended at all. You state your position clearly. You did it without getting personal, and I’m glad about that. Unlike Jefferson or Christopher Hathaway, you offer very clear propositions.
That’s good. I think, however, that your view probably misstates the best case that we reappraisers make. I think we look at scripture differently: I’m not a fundamentalist, I believe in geological time and evolution, and think the early church fathers had a diverse way of reading scripture. David – since we won’t compromise, doesn’t it seem that both of us are clearly sinners? Because its clearly about us, and our inability to hear each other. With God, however, anything is possible.
I also admit confusion about what the “gay agenda” is. I would admit, I read Romans 2:1 as a way of saying – be careful, David. When we judge, our own soul is at stake.
No church father read Scripture on the subject of same-sex physical relations in any way differently from any other church father. They were also quite clear as to what must have been the teaching and practice of the Lord Jesus Himself in this matter. But then they were not ignorant of New Testament background, unlike so many moderns.
John Wilkins – I have to fight with your premise: “since we won’t compromise, doesn’t it seem that both of us are clearly sinners? “ Compromise and agreement is not necessarily at the very core of true life in God. Take the example of Peter and Simon the former sorcerer, in Samaria. What if Simon had found some way to buy the works of the Holy Spirit (or at least a good facsimile thereof) and was saying “I’m just as good a member of the church as you are – we need to remain in unity together� Are you saying that Peter had no appropriate reason for disciplining him and saying a very clear and definite “no†to him, without compromise, on the basis of the teaching held among the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit which spoke to guide them all? Not that fellowship could not be restored – if Simon repented.
“Its clearly about us, and our inability to hear each other. “ But this situation may go beyond the two of you, and into how God in fact has revealed his will. I really believe that it’s in a willingness for everyone to submit to what Scripture says that you can find unity and brotherhood – without that, division awaits.
26, to point out someone’s error is not judgment. If it were they Paul and Jesus did a lot of judging. However liberals like to say this so they can continue with what they were doing.
TEC won’t change – not because it is imperialistic – but because it is a democratic church. Process is more crucial than content, but it is less predictable. John Wilkins, #10, wrote this. How true. KJS is trying to make TEC imperial, but why should it be domecratic? That implies “rights. What “rights” do we have in God’s Church? NONE. God has given his commands and they should be obeyed. A democracy voting on things leads to revising the church to mirror modern society. This is society revising the church not the Church shaping and molding society. That is the whole problem we see now, society has tried to mold the church into it’s vision rather that accepting God’s vision for society.
I know many will not agree because of the American insistance upon “rights”. God did not ask permission to give his commandments and they do not say “I would like for you to . . . ., they say, “You shall. This is not optional, but is imperative. If we are to be Christian, then “We shall” as God says.
Canon Harmon’s editorial remarks bring into focus the essential differences between modern Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. As an Episcopalian or a member of the present Anglican Communion, he has the ability to challenge the integrity, judgement, and authority of the Archbishop. As a Roman Catholic, he would be silenced, expunged, and in a time not so long ago, burned at the stake or boiled in oil for his impertinence. And yet there are those in his church who seem to long for boilings and burnings, so long as they decide who goes to the stake or the pot. I can wait for God’s judgement, and so should they.
Jeffersonian [#18] writes of my #17: I think #17’s response nicely encapsulates the contempt TEC and its grandees have shown for the rest of the Anglican Communion lo these past five years, replete with legalese and utter disregard for any common belief of identity [sic]. It lacks only the temporary diversionary mendacity and dishonesty that have preceded the heretical actions of Griswold, Schori, etc. ¶ TEC, and by extension its apologists, want AC membership but do not want AC discipline. I’m at a loss as to why anyone puts up with these dirty, loutish TECkies. [Emphasis added.]
Jeffersonian, I hope you don’t interpret every disagreement with your view as contempt. If you do, I’m guessing you must not have a lot of friends, or at least not a lot who are willing to disagree with you.
As to wanting AC membership but not AC discipline: Historically, the churches in the AC have been cousins — not, repeat not, spouses. If some of my cousins were to insist that my wife and I must accept their “discipline” about how to raise our kids, we would have politely told them to mind their own business. (Actually, my family is feisty enough, and loving enough, that I probably would have phrased it in more … anatomical terms.) TEC should respond in the same way to the discipline desires of our scripturalist cousins; on that point it seems to me that +KJS is hitting just about the right note.
#32,
Again, if we’re all self-sufficient, independent churches, who cares about communion discipline? So some of my cousins think I’m a crummy father and don’t invite me to their family dinners anymore. You know what I do to that? I don’t go to their dinners. It hurts, I miss getting turkey the way cousin fanny used to make, but my second cousin once removed still likes me and cooks a mean roast. I go there for thanksgiving instead and tell the other cousins to go jump in a lake. You know what I don’t do? I don’t demand the cousins recognize my “cousinship” or that they let me join in family councils.
If the communion decides to discipline TEC, it isn’t going to send in the SWAT team to depose the PB. It simply won’t invite them to participate in the councils of the church. That’s only discipline if you believe decision-making is something the communion should be doing. Since you don’t think it is, where’s the problem?
It seems to me that if this happens, TEC is getting what it claims to want: a federal status in which it only gets along with with the “cousins” it wants to get along with. No need to listen to the ignorant fundies, and no implied authority to the communion’s instruments. Win-win for everyone!
Stephen+
Stephen+ [#33] writes: “So some of my cousins think I’m a crummy father and don’t invite me to their family dinners anymore. You know what I do to that? I don’t go to their dinners. … You know what I don’t do? I don’t demand the cousins recognize my ‘cousinship’ or that they let me join in family councils. ”
Apart from Lambeth, we’re not talking family dinners hosted by one particular cousin who thereby gets to determine the guest list. We’re talking periodic family-wide reunions where the only admission ticket is that you happen to be descended from a particular set of grandparents or great-grandparents or whatever. (And in my extended clan, the definition of “family” isn’t even that strict.) Any attempt by one group of cousins to tell another group they shouldn’t come to these reunions, for any reason at all, would rightly be the subject of incredulous laughter from the rest of us.
And as to family councils: What family councils? My clan doesn’t have them, because there’d be nothing for them to decide, except what city the next reunion will be in and which families will do the cooking on which nights. (My clan’s reunions, like many, seem to consist mainly of cooking, eating, and incidental activities in between.)
#34
[blockquote]Any attempt by one group of cousins to tell another group they shouldn’t come to these reunions, for any reason at all, would rightly be the subject of incredulous laughter from the rest of us.[/blockquote]
You will recognize, I am sure, that we need to do some precious “contextualizing” and admit that even if this may be the norm in North America, it isn’t so elsewhere. Extended families tend to have much more collective decision-making in other cultures than ours. Indaba comes to mind! This seems at least partly due to the fact they see ancestry as bringing more baggage and responsibility than you give it credit for.
Not all see ancestry as meaningless accident, and I think if most of us are honest, we exhibit more concern for our cousins than we do for the average guy on the street. We may not like it, but if our cousins are deeply offended by us, it generally matters more than if we offend the person behind us in the checkout line. Despite the fact that my cousin is my cousin “by accident”. If it really does imply some heightened responsibility then, why is it so bizarre that an extended family should hold other members to account for failing that responsibility?
[blockquote]What family councils? My clan doesn’t have them, because there’d be nothing for them to decide, except what city the next reunion will be in and which families will do the cooking on which nights. (My clan’s reunions, like many, seem to consist mainly of cooking, eating, and incidental activities in between.)”[/blockquote]
If that’s the case, I still don’t understand the problem. A group of your cousins turn out to be jerks who want to harsh the mellow gatherings you’re used to. To be accurate to the current Anglican situation, the metaphor would need to stress that it’s more than half your cousins (GAFCON represents more than 50% of Anglican membership). The gatherings stop being fun. So why put so much value on hanging out with folks you have no particular attachment to? Why not just hang out with the cousins you like and set the terms of your own gatherings without being hassled by the Philistines? How does that constitute punishment?
The problem is, we don’t really believe we’re an accidental conglomeration with no responsibility to each other. We keep arguing our case for a federal status because it matters to us that the rest of the communion agrees with us. We care about what they think, and realize something will be lost if we are on the outs with the communion as a whole. Methinks we doth protest too much.
Yours in Christ,
Stephen+
I think that the answers to the questions are a little obvious.
This raises numerous questions such as, since the Episcopal Church didn’t do these things why are her bishops present at Lambeth?
The problem with the question is in the statement “the Episcopal Church didn’t do these things.” In regard to the invitations to Lambeth the ONLY person capable of deciding what the Episcopal Church did or did not do is ++Rowan. He has stated unequivocally that TEC has done all that they are capable of doing and he is satisfied with that.
In particular, why are the many diocesan bishops who are in dioceses allowing for same sex blessings present since they are at present contradicting the mind and practice of the Communion?
Again, this is by Kendall+’s definition. How many bishops are present who have actually sanctioned a new liturgy for SSBs? None.
How can the Archbishop of Canterbury call bishops to mutual accountability when he has not modeled it himself in who is actually present at this Lambeth Conference?
see above.
We here these refrains periodically from the reasserters. It is the old “there is only one truth” argument applied to Windsor. Here’s the upshot of that argument: you want to say “At least I follow the truth and hold people accountable,” but you fail to take into consideration reality (alas there are no pragmatic reasserters). Once you factor in reality, the questions become irrelevant. How is this possible? How is that possible? It’s possible because it has happened – past tense.
NRA (# 22),
Wow! I’m stunned.
[blockquote]
This vexed dispute is not over a matter of adiaphora. The pro-gay position can’t and must not be tolerated within Anglicanism. All those who advocate it (including yourself, I regret to say, if you persist in this error, and including the Archbishop of Canterbury himself) must be ex-communicated and publicly shunned. On the basis of Scriptures like 1 Cor. 5:11 and Romans 16:17-18.
[/blockquote]
1 Cor. 5:11
[blockquote]
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
[/blockquote]
Romans 16:17-18
[blockquote]
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
[/blockquote]
The position you have staked is far to the right of Lambeth I.10 (which you may need to re-read in its entirety).
In fact, at the conclusion of 1998 Lambeth Archbishop George Carey wrote a pastoral letter in which he said:
[blockquote]
But the result of those discussions was a Resolution, passed by a huge majority, that ‘this Conference, in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage’. In the same Resolution we also affirmed that we would ‘commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ’.
[/blockquote]
Are you [b]sure[/b] that you want to advocate the [b]excommunication[/b] of sexually active gays [b]and all who support them[/b]? Including Archbishop Rowan Williams?
Really ?!!?
And are you [b]sure[/b] that there is nothing more to be discussed?
[blockquote]
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
[/blockquote]
SHSilverthorne [#35] writes: “… even if this may be the norm in North America, it isn’t so elsewhere. Extended families tend to have much more collective decision-making in other cultures than ours. Indaba comes to mind! This seems at least partly due to the fact they see ancestry as bringing more baggage and responsibility than you give it credit for. “
“Other cultures” who protest so loudly about American interference in their ways should remember that that particular door swings both ways. If we choose to duly elect and confirm and consecrate a partnered gay man as a bishop, it’s none of +Akinola’s or +Nazar-Ali’s or even +Williams’ [expletive] business. If they’re so offended by our actions that they no longer want to associate with us, fine — we’ll find other ways to get our financial support to their needy.
D.C. Toedt (# 38),
[blockquote]
If we choose to duly elect and confirm and consecrate a partnered gay man as a bishop, it’s none of +Akinola’s or +Nazar-Ali’s or even +Williams’ [expletive] business.
[/blockquote]
This may be correct at the present time under the TEC Constitution and Canons, but I think it is at odds with the mission of the Church (as found in the Catechism) and with the long term goal of Christian unity, which I hold to be important.
We might also notice that the planet we inhabit is becoming smaller (travel is easier) and more crowded (our neighbors around the world meet us more often).
#38
[blockquote]If we choose to duly elect and confirm and consecrate a partnered gay man as a bishop, it’s none of +Akinola’s or +Nazar-Ali’s or even +Williams’ [expletive] business. If they’re so offended by our actions that they no longer want to associate with us, fine — we’ll find other ways to get our financial support to their needy.[/blockquote]
Sweet, sweet clarity! If only TEC’s leaders would be so forthright and stop it with all the complaining about the communion’s pretentions at discipline. As you see it, they couldn’t care less what anyone else thinks, so why keep up with the drama?
Thanks for the refreshing honesty.
Yours in Christ,
Stephen+
#36
[blockquote]alas there are no pragmatic reasserters[/blockquote]
Nope, I don’t see any all-encompassing truth claims around here. But then, being a reasserter, I’m just a head-in-the-clouds idealist. In fact, I’m so disconnected with reality that when I read of a same-sex blessing advertised publicly as happening in a TEC church, I actually think it is occurring!
Bad reasserter! Bad!
stabill (#37),
Thanks for a gracious, non-incendiary response to my highly inflammatory posts above. Let me make clear that I really have nothing against you personally. We haven’t even met, and I was only using you as a representative example, and I only chose you because we are both part of the Albany diocese. I recognize that you aren’t as liberal as John Wilkins or D. C. Toedt on this thread, or countless other figures in TEC, and so it was probably unfair to pick you the way I did.
I did speak very provocatively indeed in my #22 above. It’s not surprising that you’re stunned by such harsh, uncompromising, and highly divisive words. So let me clarify myself.
Basically, yes, I did indeed mean just what I said, hard as that may be to comprehend. But I hope it didn’t come across as reflecting some kind of “fear” of different opinions, or unfamiliar lifestyles, or extreme hostility to my theological adversaries etc.
Look again at Rom. 16:17-18, which I cited above and you helpfully quoted for all to see without having to look it up. Paul urges the new Christians in Rome to shun false teachers, who by their smooth talk are beguiling and leading astray members of the Church. I think that very definitely applies to the advocates of the “gay is OK” delusion, and the relativist theology and morality that underlies that false teaching.
Let me be perfectly clear here, lest there be any misunderstanding. I am indeed claiming that there is no place for the advocates of the pro-gay theology in Anglicanism. It is a forbidden position, clearly contrary to the consistent teaching of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Therefore all adovcates of that false teaching should be ex-communicated and publicly shunned. And yes, that does include the Arhbishop of Canterbury himself, if he fails to repent of his false teaching. I really do mean that, in all seriousness. This matter is NOT open to debate anymore. As Lincoln said with regard to our American Civil War, this nation cannot continue half slave and half free. Well, likewise, the AC cannot continue part pro-gay and relativist, and part orthodox. I am indeed forthrightly insisting that there is no legitimate place for the pro-gay ideology in Anglicanism. Period.
Listening to the experience of members of the church or our wider society who struggle with SSA, same sex attractions, is one thing. That is a matter of learning how to minister to them and support them with understanding in the midst of their struggles to overcome that temptation, with all that goes with it, including compassion for dealing with the very real prejudice and misunderstanding that still surrounds homosexuality even today in our permissive western societies. But that is a matter of pastoral care, not of determining the morality of homosexual behavior. That matter is SETTLED, and closed.
In other words, yes, I am indeed a theological and moral hardliner, albeit a very scholarly one and not a fundamentalist by any means. I do indeed believe that we shouldn’t have double standards in the Church. If active, unrepentant homosexuals shouldn’t be ordained or allowed to function as bishops, and they shouldn’t, then neither should they be ordained or allowed to function as priest or deacons, or Sunday School teachers, or organists or any other position whatsoever in the community of disciples of Jesus Christ. I really do mean that in all sincerity.
Are you shocked? Still stunned? Well, if so, it may be because people like me haven’t been as clear and forthright as we should have been. And I’m sorry for that. Clarity is always good, even when it’s highly divisive.
Reconciliation is a very desirable goal indeed. But true reconciliation is only possible on the basis of common faith in the authentic gospel. Yes, we are all sinners, with an imperfect grasp of all that the gospel means and implies. Yes, we are all in need of mutual correction and encouragement and accountability and discipline, myself included. But none of that discounts in the least the fact that true Christian unity is firmly rooted in receiving and living out the authentic gospel of redemption through Christ, as disclosed in the Scriptures. The pro-gay ideology is flatly contrary to that gospel and to the clear and consistent teaching of the Scriptures as God’s Word written, and therefore it is plainly and indisputably ruled out. Totally and categorically.
I sincerely hope that sheds more light than heat. I’m glad John Wilkins didn’t take offense (#26), and I hope you didn’t either, even though you found my dogmatism stunning. There was certainly nothing personal about it.
David Handy+
Admittedly, a hardcore doctrinal and moral hardliner
[blockquote]
Look again at Rom. 16:17-18, which I cited above and you helpfully quoted for all to see without having to look it up. Paul urges the new Christians in Rome to shun false teachers, who by their smooth talk are beguiling and leading astray members of the Church.
[/blockquote]
So Rom. 16:17-18 applies only to clever reappraisers, not to charismatic reasserters? 😉
[blockquote]
Therefore all advocates of that false teaching should be ex-communicated and publicly shunned. And yes, that does include the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, if he fails to repent of his false teaching.
[/blockquote]
Are you saying that 1998 Lambeth I.10 is a false teaching insofar as it asserts that baptized gays are full members of the Church?
[blockquote]
The pro-gay ideology is flatly contrary to that gospel and to the clear and consistent teaching of the Scriptures as God’s Word written, and therefore it is plainly and indisputably ruled out.
[/blockquote]
Quibble: while the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments set forth the Word of God, they are not identically the same thing as the Word of God. (See John 1.)
When you say “contrary to the Gospel”, i.e., contrary to the Good News of God in Christ, are you saying that an active homosexual is beyond the reach of God’s love? Remember Romans 8:38-39:
[blockquote]
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[/blockquote]
stabill (#43),
Well, you don’t seem stunned or shocked or upset, just perplexed at what I really mean. If so, I’m glad if I haven’t caused offense, even if I may be provoking some dismay or amazement that someone who is as theologically sophisticated as I am is simultaneously so ultra strict (at least for an Anglican).
That is, there is more to this vexed, prolonged debate than just where people stand along the conservative to liberal theololgical spectrum. There is also the related but separate matter of where we all stand on the strict to lenient spectrum.
There are actually LOTS of orthodox Anglicans who are more conservative than I am. However, there are very few who are STRICTER than I am, which is another matter entirely. For example, I strongly support WO; I’m also trained as a biblical scholar and quite at home with modern biblical scholarship etc. So I think it’s fair to say that I draw the line farther to the left on some issues than many of my fellow upholders of orthodoxy in North American Anglicanism. But I would then ENFORCE that line with a strictness that is much more typical of Roman Catholicism than of Anglicanism, and I freely admit that. That’s some general background information that may help clarify what I mean (and don’t mean).
But to answer your specific questions in your follow up #43, here are a couple brief responses.
First, it seems that we don’t agree on the implications of Lambeth 1998’s famous Res. 1.10. The statement of fact that there are active gay people who are members of Anglican churches is just that, an acknowledgment of the fact that they exist among us. But I do NOT see that as implying any condoning of homosexual practice, as if it were someone acceptable for lay people but unacceptable for the ordained leaders of the Church.
So let me put out a rhetorical, hypothetical question that may help how I would interpret that much maligned and ignored resolution from the last Lambeth gathering.
Would I, as a priest, insist that a man or woman who had never been baptized and was seeking admission to the Church but who was involved in an active homosexual lifestyle demonstrate their sincere desire to live as a follower of Jesus Christ by repenting and abandoning that lifestyle before baptizing them?
Answer: Yes, I would. Absolutely. And I would likewise insist that ANYONE having sex outside of marriage demonstrate genuine repentance before being baptized. Do you find that surprising, or objectionable? This is part of what it means to abandon our Christendom style of church life, and return to a pre-Constantinian sort of Christ-against-culture style of Anglicanism.
Full members of the Church do, of course, fall into sin, myself included. But we are all called to perpetual repentance and renewed obedience to the way of life Christ commands. And while that involves much more than sexual purity, it certainly does include a sincere commitment to refraining from immorality. And from gossip. And from greed etc. etc.
So, no, I don’t think that Lambeth 1998’s Res. 1.10 constitutes false teaching, because I don’t see it as in any way in conflict with the position I’ve just described myself as holding.
Second, you asked, “are you saying that an active homosexual is beyond the reach of God’s love?” And the obvious answer is, “No, of course not.”
No one is beyond the reach of God’s love, including vicious murderers, or brutal political tyrants such as Zimbabwe’s notorious president, Robert Mugabe, or the even more wicked and murderous dictator of Sudan, Omar al Bashir (a fanatical Muslim). But I fail to see what connection or relevance that has to this whole debate. God loves every human being without exception, but that has nothing to do with the morality of their actions, and implies no approval whatsoever of those actions.
Anyway, I’m glad if you could tease me a bit in your last post. I take that as an ecouraging sign that communication hasn’t broken down completely. In claiming that the THEOLOGICAL question of the morality of same sex behavior is settled and closed, I do NOT by any means intend to imply that all discussion of these complex and difficlt matters is therefore pointless and that all questions about how to minister to people struggling with unwanted same sex attractions have been answered etc.
I didn’t intend to shut down the whole discussion completely. I’m just insisting that the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition should not, and must not, be set aside and overruled on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience. As TEC has lamentably done. The “progressive” side bears a very heavy burden of proof here. The traditional Christian view must be assumed correct until PROVEN wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. And the reappraisers haven’t even come anywhere close to doing that. Instead, the scientific and pastoral evidence is piling up that supports the universal consensus of the Church on this matter. The liberals haven’t even come remotely close to “unsettling” that consensus, except among the very large number of westerners who have uncritically swallowed the post modern and relativist cultural assumptions of our time.
I hope that clarifies things. I’m glad if my highly dogmatic statements above didn’t lead to a complete breaking off of the discussion here.
David Handy+