(The essay subtitle is: On Doing What it Takes to Get What You Want–KSH).
The changes now well underway simply described are these. At present, TEC’s Constitution renders the General Convention and the Office of the Presiding Bishop as instruments of its various Dioceses. The change sought by the Office of the Presiding Bishop and many within the House of Bishops would alter this arrangement by rendering each Diocese a creature of the General Convention. Along with this change comes another. The Office of the Presiding Bishop at present serves to execute the policies of the General Convention but does not stand in a hierarchical relation to TEC’s various Dioceses. The change now in progress would place the Office of Presiding Bishops in a hierarchical relation to these Dioceses, and in so doing give the holder of that office executive powers within the several Dioceses not accorded by the Constitution.
In times such as these actions of this sort are by no means unusual. Times of stress almost always lead those in power to stretch the law in order to achieve their purposes. Churches are no more immune to this temptation than are civil governments. Within TEC, one can see this dynamic clearly at work in two recent incidents, each of which reveals a strategy on the part of the Office of the Presiding Bishop to circumvent the requirements either of TEC’s Constitution or its Canons. I have in mind the replacement of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin and the deposition of Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh.
These claims are both bold and controversial. Of this fact, I am fully aware.
Because the issues involved are so serious, I will do the best I can to make both my claims and the major objections to them as clear as possible. To my mind the objections are unconvincing. However, a grave flaw in TEC’s polity is the lack of a supreme court. As a result, the House of Bishops and the Office of the Presiding Bishop are each left in these matters to be judge in their own case. The implication of this unhappy situation is that if one excludes (as I believe one should) civil litigation as a means of establishing order in the church, the only credible arbiter left in this dispute is the court of last resort, namely, the people of the church, the court of public opinion.
Interestingly, this is similar to the LCMS system – the Districts (like dioceses) are totally creations of the Synod (national church) through the Synodical Convention. The District Convention elects the District President. However, the Synodical President has the power to remove a District President from office for cause (false doctrine, immorality). Where this differs from TEC is that the Synod is a creation of the congregations, not the other way around. Congregations own their own property and are free to leave the Synod if they so desire. Pastors can be removed the the Synodical roster by the District and/or Synod, but only the congregation can remove a pastor from his office in the congregation.
What is the answer? Oh, what ever is to be done? You guessed it. The (drum roll please) Covenant:
[blockquote]The answer to these questions contained in the proposal before the Communion and before TEC is through a Covenant whereby each subjects itself to the others in a fellowship of both truth and love. Is this not in fact a more excellent way than the sovereign assertion of authority and autonomy on the one hand or a reactive attempt to separate from erring brothers and sisters on the other? I believe it is. I believe also that, though it will prove a way of suffering, it is a way that will lead to the development of mechanisms for the preservation of communal order in a way that the creation of new Provinces (on both the left and the right) does not.[/blockquote]
I look forward the the ACI’s implementation and their show of force in the 2009 General Convention..
Turner is partly right: The constitution and canons need some work.
But he is grossly wrong (as is Mark McCall, whom he cites) in arguing that dioceses, not General Convention, are at the top of TEC’s hierarchy. The dispositive facts here are:
(1) the canonical- and BCP requirements that all clergy must vow to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC, and all significant lay ministry must be under the supervision and direction of clergy who have taken such a vow; and
(2) the fact that revisions to the BCP require the approval of two successive GCs.
I find this an extraordinarily helpful analysis. It points out the egregious misuse of canon in her usurpation of power by the PB as well as hoping for a more excellent way. Will it be read and taken to heart by the bishops of our Church? I doubt it as it does not serve their immediate ends. Many will discount it as simply “Pro-Covenant.”
Can we send this to all deputies to the GC 2009?
As to the issues of the civil suit – will the civil courts interpret our constitution and canons or declare themselves unable to interfere? It would be interesting to see the constitutional issues argued in court. However as Dr. Turner points out, St. Paul would not approve. This is all so graceless.
[i] A grave flaw in TEC’s polity is the lack of a supreme court. [/i]
Is there a kangaroo shortage?
This is a very careful and serious piece. However, Dr. Turner’s comments on the lawsuits, like Radner, completely omits mention of the many orthodox parishes that walked away from their property. Why this omission? His failure of imagination on at least some of the benefits of a New Province (which I support) remains a disappointment. I’m not saying a New Province is not without its issues. It is just frustrating to watch groups talk past one another as I’m afraid Turner does here.
Evidently not!
I have only glanced through this article, and I have this to say: This exposure…..for that’s what it is…..is likely to cause quite a defensive reaction…..a stir…..from TEC. My own opinion, of course, but it looks to me like Kendall has just aired TEC’s “dirty linen.”
Turner’s analysis, which I read the first section of carefully, is indeed cogent yet it seems to me it may miss the additional effect of what could be in essence a wrecking ball that has been taken to TEC in the following form:
‘Episcopal Public Narrative Project
The Episcopal Public Narrative Project is a collaboration between Marshall Ganz and Bonnie Anderson, the President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church. Bonnie and Marshall met with Presiding Bishop Kathryn Jeffries [i][sic][/i] on September 10, 2007 to plan the project. It will kick off next summer at General Synod meetings for the selection of deputies to the national convention. During the fall of 2008/9, they will conduct a retreat for facilitators to prepare them for leadership roles they will play at the convention – and after. At the convention, four workshops will be held over the course of the 9 day session: one’s own calling, shared calling, call to action, and putting it all together. The breakout groups in which much of the learning will be done can be organized by diocese and synod, so that deputies are working with the same people with whom they came and with whom they will return. If organized in this way, the workshop could be a way to establish norms, commitments, and practices that they can take back with them. Deputy teams will return to their Diocese with the mission of teaching how to do what they have learned to do at the convention.’ [i]from here: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~mganz/practice.htm [/i]
This project will likely allow those that already control the Houses to recognize a ‘community-based’ re-definition of what TEC is, then undertake to replace all the inconvenient canons and so forth that currently (should) govern its operation.
The following comment is offered by Mark McCall:
Far from being dispositive, noting that TEC has a vow requiring clergy to uphold the discipline of TEC merely re-states the question under debate: “what is the discipline (polity) of TEC”? Is that discipline one that has a central hierarchy or one that does not? All religious societies have a discipline of some sort. That fact does not make all of them hierarchical or there would be no Congregationalists or Baptists. If one wants to argue that the discipline of TEC includes a central hierarchy, one must in fact argue for that interpretation, not merely note that TEC has a discipline that all, including the Presiding Bishop, vow to uphold.
In fact, the wording of TEC’s vow demonstrates rather conclusively that TEC does not have a central hierarchy. The primary imperative driving the state churches in America to form TEC after the American Revolution was the inability of American clergy to give the Oath of Supremacy, which was required in the Church of England. That oath was a paradigm of a hierarchical oath; each person was required to acknowledge the monarch as the “only supreme governor” of the church. TEC replaced this [i]hierarchical oath[/i], not with an oath to a different hierarchy, but with a vow of doctrinal conformity –discipline was added later. This demonstrates an intentional omission of a central hierarchy.
It is also instructive to compare TEC’s vow with the “Episcopal-Hierarchical Oath” subscribed by bishops in the Serbian Orthodox Church. It was this oath that was cited by the Supreme Court in its seminal case on religious hierarchies. The Serbian oath required that bishops swear that they would “always be obedient to the Most Holy Assembly,” which was the very body identified in the church’s constitution as the “highest hierarchical body” in the church.
I comment in detail on this point only because it is an oft-made mistake to equate all church discipline with hierarchy. I encourage everyone, however, not to focus on this narrow point but to absorb the broader perspective in Dr. Turner’s profound paper. He is the first person, to my knowledge, to link the polity issues, the widely acknowledged canonical abuses and the fact that significant changes of some sort are inevitable given the current crisis. He invites us all to consider what kind of change is the best response to the crisis.
In my #10, I neglected to note that it was addressed to the critique of Dr. Turner’s paper (and my own thinking) in #3 above.
Mark McCall
If anyone takes time to look at the original canons of their diocese they will quickly see that Turner is right about the order of things. This Church was founded on a state’s rights not federalist model.
Excellent essay!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] [E]ven if a majority of the Primates were to give approval to a separate Province within North America what of the other “Instruments of Communion?†What would be the reaction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council, even the Lambeth Conference itself? In short, the “outside strategy†[i.e., forming a new North American province] has the potential of weakening, even dividing, the very communion it seeks to strengthen. [/i] —Dr. Turner
But this brings us back to the basic problem of Abp. Williams’ misleadership. He has [i] made [/i] it difficult for the communion to deal with ECUSA. Over the past 5 years he has repeatedly stymied action by the primates. He turned Lambeth 2008 into a cynical farce, jointly choreographed with ECUSA.
Williams has used the proposed covenant as bait for these manipulations. Why trust him? Why play into his hands?
The Communion Partner Rectors and Bishops had better be extremely well-organized at CG 2009. Even if they are, they’re likely to be steamrolled, but if they’re not, their goose is surely cooked.
14, given that the delegates have already been chosen, the proven track record of TEC’s liberal political organization, the loss of 4 diocese worth of conservative/orthodox votes, the absence of the AAC organizational presence and the shere raw numeracal advantage of liberal delegates and votes available, just what is the practical and political presence that the ACI and the Common Partner Rectors plan on bringing to bear to stop GC 2009 from doing what ever it wants to do?
If the Common Cause Rectors are just now getting organized then it is way too late. GC 2009 is a political fight with an overlay of “God talk”. If the ACI and the Common Cause Rectors are not prepared for this political battle, if they do not have the organization and votes and if they are not prepared to fight and win this battle on the liberals own ground and rules then they are going to loose. They are in effect bringing a knife to a gun fight.
A very useful contribution.
Might I just say one thing to ACI [and were they to be listening, Lambeth Palace – I wish!] -support for the Covenant and Communion Partners is worthy but one should be careful of what one says about those who have left TEC and are seeking oversight and support in new structures.
If it is correct that there are 100,000 in this group then they are larger than the provinces in Scotland and Wales combined. If unsupported then it is possible that places like Fort Worth might consider alternatives such as Rome [where some speculation continues] who are nothing like as half-hearted in their support of Anglicans in trouble.
Looking at TEC’s figures for 2007 if where ASA was listed at 727 thousand odd, then if one takes into account leaving dioceses and parishes since then, and possibly the counting of individuals who have left in figures] then a figure approaching 600,000 would appear more likely – a church in meltdown which will at some point approach the tipping point.
Granted that I would encourage everyone to be more charitable and supportive towards those taking a different path [instead of assuming they are mutually inconsistent] and for everyone to continue to encourage TEC not to keeping making the same old mistakes over and over again – something we are all inclined to do.
Link fixed – elf
SAe#15. He has made the important point. What is coming has nothing at all to do with religion except in its superficies. This is hardball politics with fairly big chips on the political table. CCP had better play it this way. There will be little charity and love and forgiveness and turning of other cheeks. If CCP does not have the organizational muscle, it should stay away from GC 2009 and exercise at home. LM
I agree – #15’s point “GC 2009 is a political fight with an overlay of “God talkâ€. ” hits the nail on the head.
D.C. I ask you – which existed first? The congregation or the diocese? The diocese or the National Church?
IIRC, dioceses were formed when one congregation in a city was not enough. Provincial churches were formed after that. In the case of TEC, dioceses have be formed prior to being admitted to union with the General Convention. Congregations, on the other hand, are officially formed and recognized by the Diocese.
When a priest or deacon is examined by the Bishop at ordination, he is asked “Will you be guided by the pastoral direction of your bishop?” He is not asked about being guided by the pastoral direction of the Presiding Bishop or the General Convention.
As to your point about pledging to be conform to the “doctrine, discipline, and worhsip of the Episcopal Church,” that is in response to the question: “Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worhsip of Christ as this Church has received them?”
So, if the Church itself is not being fiathful to the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ” then where does the loyalty of the clergy lie? Does it lie with the apostate church or with what has been received. The promise is dedicated on the fact that the Church will continue to proclaim what has been received, not what it construes.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Mark McCall [#10] writes:
Your counterexamples notwithstanding, I don’t understand what exactly you mean by a “central” hierarchy, nor why you think it matters that TEC supposedly doesn’t have one.
In TEC’s polity, dioceses and their bishops certainly have their respective duties and authorities, just as states have theirs in the U.S. federal system. But there’s no room for doubt that TEC generally, and General Convention in particular, sits ‘above’ dioceses in the hierarchy, just as the federal government does with respect to the states. In TEC, for example:
• Const. art. X requires all dioceses to use the Book of Common Prayer approved by General Convention; any special non-BCP services must have the approval of the bishop — who is required by the BCP to take the discipline vow.
(These requirements are very roughly analogous to two of the ‘hierarchy’ provisions of the U.S. Constitution: The Supremacy Clause, which generally speaking says that federal law trumps state law; and the Oath of Office Clause, which requires every person holding any state- or federal office to take an oath to support the Constitution.)
• If memory serves, any candidate for bishop who is elected within the 120 days before a General Convention must be approved by the General Convention itself, and not just by the several bishops and diocesan standing committees.
• You bring up Congregationalists and Baptists — I’m not aware that they require their clergy to vow conformity to the discipline of their respective national- or even regional bodies. I couldn’t find anything online to indicate that they do. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Web site says that ordination is a purely local matter: “… the SBC cannot ordain anyone. The matter of ordination is addressed strictly on a local church level. Every Southern Baptist church is autonomous and decides individually whether or not to ordain, or whether to require ordination of its pastor.”
• For the sake of argument, let’s grant your assertion that the word “discipline” was not part of the original language of the ordination vow. That just underscores the significance of the word in the later-day language of the vow: Obviously the Episcopal Church thought it important to add the word.
So I’m sorry, Mark McCall, but I don’t think you get very far with your anti-hierarchy argument; the evidence seems squarely to the contrary.
Phil Snyder [#19] writes: “I ask you – which existed first? The congregation or the diocese? The diocese or the National Church?”
IIRC, for all but the nine original dioceses, the national church existed first. And the original nine surrendered their autonomy to the national church: maybe not at the beginning, but certainly over time by assenting, or at least acceding, to the various amendments that, cumulatively, have produced the present-day constitution and canons.
——————
Phil Snyder writes: ‘So, if the Church itself is not being fiathful to the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ†[as this Church has received them,] then where does the loyalty of the clergy lie? Does it lie with the apostate church or with what has been received.‘
Before we can address that question, we have to ask: When people disagree about the meaning of “the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them,” whose interpretation will each of us adopt to guide our individual actions?
Majorities of both the House of Bishops and the House of Delegates in General Convention duly declared (for example) that Gene Robinson was eligible for episcopal ordination. In essence, they implicitly declared that, on that particular issue, the so-called reappraiser interpretation was dispositive.
Dissenters who wish to act with integrity have basically two choices: • They can accede (and can try to overturn the GC decision, e.g., by seeking to duly amend the canons). • Or they can cease to act under claim of TEC authority, either (i) by ceasing to act entirely (the approach of those who retired or left the ministry rather than be associated with TEC’s actions); or (ii) by continuing to act but claiming some other authority (the approach of Iker, Duncan, Minns, etc.).
Those who continue to act, but under claim of another authority, and who try to keep control of property they used while acting under TEC authority, should not have their feelings hurt if TEC opposes them.
You may not like it, but DC accurately sets out the position of TEC. Not only does TEC have the votes to up hold it at GC2009, they even have the votes to change it or ignore it. He also accurately demonstrates the raw political power they wield. In short it has the ability to act as a kangaroo court, as we have seen, and to excuse itself from any violations of any canons it may make. It will be so because they will make it so.
Where then does Fr. Turner presume that the votes to pursue a successful inside stratagy will come from?
I think the debates in this thread are interesting and I don’t want to discourage them, e.g. between people like Charles M and Philip Turner and others on one side and people like DCT (and others) on the other.
I would like, however, to take a moment and give a Law/Gospel take on the discussion for a second — and point out that such a debate is all Law centered with zero gospel. There’s nothing wrong with that in principle — there’s nothing wrong with spending time to get an issue clarified in every aspect in its Law aspect. And to the extent that we are trying to debate whether a diocese like Pittsburgy or Quincy has a “right” to do the things it has done, and whether TEC’s leadership since the ascension of KJS has a right to do the things it has done — we are operating 100% inside the theological sphere of the Law. We are thinking: who is right? But as Christians we should always be able to additionally think about a thing from a Gospel point of view, which has nothing to do with deciding who is right and who is wrong, and everything to do with giving love and pardon to those who are NOT in the right.
Full disclosure: I’m a traditionalist and was deeply disturbed by the actions of GC 2003. And in many respects I quickly reached the same conclusions that many traditionalists reached as far as ecclesial solution: which is that TEC should respond by giving traditionalists huge amounts of space, give them everything they perceive they need: e.g. whatever alternate episcopal or primatial oversight they wanted, even negotiated departures and settlements if it came to that (as Griswold helped with prior to KJS).
But here is the interesting thing: I didn’t think that because I had proof that dioceses had a right to do it — e.g. a deep careful argument about polity and history of the sort Charles M and Philip Turner have made. I didn’t even think that because I believed I was in the right on the current presenting issue of human sexuality (though I did think I was right there as well). In short, I didn’t TEC think should make this response of graceful unconditional support because the reasserters were Right and TEC was wrong. Rather, I thought TEC should do this because it was simply so obvious to me that this was the Gospel thing to do. It was OBVIOUS that Grace indicated to the victors of GC 2003 that they should immediately tell the losers that they loved them and knew how deeply they had been damaged and that they would do anything they needed — even if was a thing that (from a Law perspective) TEC didn’t HAVE to do.
I was blessed at the time by having my vague “gospel” thoughts expressed far better than I could have by ECUSA’s beloved Paul Zahl. I’ll give an extended quote from his address on Feb 4, 2004 below. I remain amazed by how timeless and now prescient his remarks were.
I give this for two reasons: for everyone on the thread just so we can be reminded how its possible to approach this in a way that has nothing to do with Law, and for reappraiser like DCT just so he can hear a line of thinking that gets to the same place but without a debate about who is in the Right. I firmly believe that if I were a reappraiser (e.g. supporter of gay ordinations) I would absolutely STILL feel the same way: which is that I as the victor should give the losers in this struggle everything they perceive they need. We are only at this place now because Zahl’s advice was not heeded. It’s still not too late (in principle) for KJS and Beers to drop their whole program, admit that their new direction has hurt people of conscience, and that they need to support them in doing whatever they feel they need to do.
Here’s what PZ said almost 5 years ago:
For anyone interested in reading PZ’s Feb 2004 address in full, it can be found here:
http://www.adventbirmingham.org/articles.asp?ID=1625
Christ built His Church thearchical.
The Brits made her monarchical.
Brit priests aristarchical.
TEC claims hierarchical.
Her populus is gynarchical,
But becoming ethniarchical,
And her actions are anarchical,
Heresiarchical,
Plutarchial,
and very very very oligarchical.
Problem is, Jon, as it stands right now in TEC, the powerful agendites are validated and empowered by the continued presence and resources of the compliant faithful and by the mis-appropriation of the Name of Jesus Christ – which is a far more serious matter.
Without discipline, they will continue to use both as fuel and a vehicle for their propaganda and purposes.
Both defiling and not defending the Name of Jesus Christ are evil, one by commission and one by ommission.
Jon [#23], I well remember Paul Zahl’s essay, and had much the same reaction to it that you do. Some 18 months ago I argued that the property of departing congregations ought to go where it can best be used to bring people to God.
While D.C. has several reasonable points, I cannot decide whether his justification of VGR is circular logic or classic bootstrapping. But it does not stand.
It is not disputed that VGR for many years had openly violated the doctrine, discipline and worship of TEC. D.C. believes that VGR’s GC ’03 approval implicitly found that he had not and/or changed the interpretation. But even if GC made an implicit change, that did change the fact that VGR had knowingly violated the standards at the time. Waving TEC’s magic wand of GC did not undo those violations (i.e. no reverse ex post facto).
However, I submit that DC’s claim of implicit change by approving VGR also fails. In GC ’00 and ’03 GC passed D-039 (less the 8th Resolve) and C-051, respectively. Those resolutions, taking tentative, but incomplete steps towards acceptance and recognition of gay relationships were pointless (in ’03) if VGR’s approval was already an implicit acceptance of VGR’s lifestyle. Therefore, TEC was in the incongruous position of implicitly holding that VGR was within and without TEC’s doctrine, discipline, and worship.
Indeed, some reappraisers have admitted that the approval of VGR was improper. They note that the proper way was to change the lifestyle rules; only THEN could VGR be approved. (Of course that still begs the question of the prior willful violations.)
However, the bottom line is that the debates over the rules is academic; TEC has demonstrated that it will do what it wishes, regardless of how strained its justification is. I appreciate that DC has, on occasion, admitted the canonical impropriety of some of TEC’s actions.
#22: If you read the whole piece, you will see that Turner does not have any illusions that the “inside strategy” will be able to force things to go right. Instead (along with Radner) he is commending a way of following Christ who humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death (Phil 2:8) (figurative death, I hope, for us). This also is the course Jeremiah recommended. But no: the remnant rebelled against their Babylonian overlords and ran off to supposed safety in Africa.
[i] This also is the course Jeremiah recommended. But no: the remnant rebelled against their Babylonian overlords and ran off to supposed safety in Africa. [/i] —John Boyland
John [#28]: Speaking through Jeremiah, the Lord [i] commanded [/i] the Israelites to accept Babylonian rule and not to go to Egypt. Jer. 42-43.
Do you contend that the Lord is commanding all of us to remain in, or return to, ECUSA?
#29 wrote
[blockquote]
Do you contend that the Lord is commanding all of us to remain in, or return to, ECUSA?
[/blockquote]
No, I do not. I do not think we’ve heard a (true) prophetic word on this topic. However, we can be guided by Scripture, even by analogy/metaphor.
As is always the case with Philip Turner’s writings, there is excellent analysis of the state of church affairs and a charitable spirit to all. I just want to raise some questions about his “more excellent way.â€
If one grants the conclusion that the diocese is the constituent unit according to the Episcopal Constitution and the assumption that the Communion will grant dioceses the right to opt in or out of the Covenant, where does that leave parishes in hostile dioceses? The problem of “beleaguered†or “frontline†parishes plagued the American Anglican Council in 1996 and has continued to plague the Anglican Communion Network. These parishes have most often been devoured by the dioceses or have departed, in most cases walking away from their property. I don’t see how Dr. Turner’s “way†offers them much consolation, especially in terms of Anglican Communion recognition.
I don’t even see much long-term hope for the dioceses that remain. If as Turner has shown, the PB and her minions are prepared to rewrite the constitution and canons to take over the dioceses, will they not eventually take over the witnessing dioceses, which will then withdraw from the Communion Covenant? Perhaps that is what he means about “suffering the consequences,†but in that case the passing of a Communion Covenant will be of little avail.
Finally, it strikes me that Dr. Turner’s description of the property wrangles as a two-way street with blame on both sides is unfair. In almost all cases, dissenting parishes have offered to make settlements with the existing dioceses, only to be rebuffed, and the four departing dioceses have offered their own dissenting parishes the right to keep their property. Jesus’ and Paul’s view may well be to settle out of court, but it is not self-evident that if that option is foreclosed by one party, defending oneself in court is an ungodly act. It may bring shame on the name of Christ and the church but the fault lies with the aggressor.
John, I do not understand this. Prayer and turning to the Scriptures is required, but there is something that humans must do.
[blockquote] Luke 14:5-6 5 And he said to them, “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?” 6 And they could not reply to these things. [/blockquote]
If you are going to open a soup kitchen to feed the poor do you not:
Select a leader
Get voulnteers
Get a location
Plan
organize
cook soup
open the doors
serve the soup etc.
The one thing that you do not do the exclusion of all else is sit and wait for the Lord to supernaturally do it for you.
Likewise if you are going to study Scripture don’t you at least open the Bible? And doesn’t even the Great Commission require human action:
[blockquote]Matthew 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 [b] Go[/b] therefore and [b] make disciples[/b] of all nations, [b] baptizing[/b] them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 [b] teaching[/b] them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”[/blockquote]
These all seen to be active, not passive verbs and in the Greek may even be considered to be imperatave (note found the the New Engliush translation). But if Radner’s call is to mayrterdom why is he even bothering with a Covenant?
Br. Michael (#32), yes, we are to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to do everything Jesus has commanded. It was not my intent to say that the “inside strategy” meant to do nothing; it just is that the “inside strategy” has no illusions about the hegemony enjoyed by the progressives in TEC. Why should we support the covenant even when it probably won’t help beleaguered conservatives (with the possible exception of SC, Albany)? Because it might yet be God’s way to preserve the Anglican Communion. It also might be a means to convict TEC with regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.
As is usual with the ACI, the people who need to be influenced by this won’t bother to read it. The ACI only makes things worse.