The General Convention of 1789 met at Philadelphia on July 8, with the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina represented by clerical and lay deputies. For the first time in the history of the American Church a bishop–William White of Pennsylvania–was present at a General Convention. Bishop Seabury, smarting under some question as to the validity of his consecration by Scotch bishops, was absent, as was also Provoost, Bishop of New York “detained by indisposition.” There was no representation from the dioceses of New England. By this time the need for the unity of the church was pressing and the convention was adjourned till September “for the purpose of settling articles of union, discipline, uniformity of worship, and general government among all the churches in the United States.”
When the adjourned Convention met, Bishop Seabury was present together with deputies from Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, this being the first time the New England churches were represented in General Convention. Certain modifications were made in the Constitution to meet the views of New England, and on October 2 it was finally adopted. The Convention then separated into two houses–the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.
The way was now open to proceed to the adoption of a Book of Common Prayer for the American Church. Immediately a difference of opinion manifested itself. The Bishops held that the English Prayer Book was still the Liturgy of the American Church and that “it should be taken as the book in which some alterations were contemplated.” On the other hand, the Deputies took the position “that there were no forms of prayer, no offices and no rubrics until they should be formed by the Convention now assembled.” Hence they appointed committees to “prepare” the various offices.
The revision covered a period of thirteen days….
Those in General Convention this summer who wish to respond to the Marriage Task Force may do best to follow the intentions of the first Book of Common Prayer in America: “The Preface states that it is the general aim of the Church ‘in these different reviews and alterations … to do that which, according to her best understanding, might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the church; the procuring of reverence, and the exciting of piety and devotion in the worship of God; and the cutting off occasion, from them that seek occasion, of cavil or quarrel against her liturgy.’ ”
My, how far we have fallen. And yet, so few from that camp seem to see it or care.
“My, how far we have fallen. And yet, so few from that camp seem to see it or care.”
Hear, hear.
If truly seen, or cared about, they would no longer be in ECUSA.
RE: “If truly seen, or cared about, they would no longer be in ECUSA.”
False, of course.
And trolling again I see.
Luke clearly holds an opinion different to yours Sarah, but that doesn’t make it trolling.
As it happens its different to mine also. Luke: Has it occurred to you that some of God’s people may be called to remain in ECUSA, just as others have been called to leave?
The scriptures don’t always show God’s people being called to leave a congregation or assembly just because the leadership has gone bad. Elijah was called by God to differentiate himself and separate from the rulership of Ahab over Israel, but Obadiah was called by God to remain within Ahab’s rulership and work for his people there. While Elijah cried a public witness against Ahab and Jezebel then fled to the wilderness, Obadiah was called to remain:
[blockquote] “Now the famine was severe in Samaria, and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, his palace administrator. (Obadiah was a devout believer in the Lord. While Jezebel was killing off the Lord’s prophets, Obadiah had taken a hundred prophets and hidden them in two caves, fifty in each, and had supplied them with food and water.)” [1 Kings 18:2-4] [/blockquote]
The example of Naaman the Syrian is even more extreme – he was given God’s permission to enter a pagan temple and take part in idolatrous worship:
[blockquote] ““If you will not,†said Naaman, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.â€
“Go in peace,†Elisha said.” [2 Kings 5:17-19] [/blockquote]
There can be a temptation when we are called upon to separate to think that we are the only ones, to cry out to God as Elijah did:
The Lord informs Elijah that he wasn’t the only one – there were 7,000 others that he didn’t know about (verse 18). The difference between 1 and 7,000 is pretty major!
So we also need to allow for the fact that there are witnesses in places that are not necessarily apparent to us.
Another point to consider for those tempted to think that everyone in TEC is heathen: When the Global South (20 provinces, i.e. more than half of the Anglican Communion, the vast majority of whom are orthodox in their theology) met in 2010, they issued a communique which excoriated TEC for its heresy, apostasy and lack of integrity. And fair enough too. But it is as well to remember ALL of what they wrote. Note the first sentence of paragraph 19:
[blockquote] “18. Some of our Provinces are already in a state of broken and impaired Communion with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. Their continued refusal to honor the many requests made of them by the various meetings of the Primates throughout the Windsor Process have brought discredit to our witness and we urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to implement the recommended actions. In light of the above, this Fourth South-to-South Encounter encourages our various Provinces to reconsider their communion relationships with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada until it becomes clear that there is genuine repentance.
19. We were pleased to welcome two Communion Partner bishops from The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and acknowledge that with them there are many within TEC who do not accept their church’s innovations. We assure them of our loving and prayerful support. We are grateful that the recently formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is a faithful expression of Anglicanism. We welcomed them as partners in the Gospel and our hope is that all provinces will be in full communion with the clergy and people of the ACNA and the Communion Partners.” [/blockquote]
See: http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/fourth_trumpet_from_the_fourth_anglican_global_south_to_south_encounter
If the faithful Anglican Primates can acknowledge that there are “many within TEC who do not accept their church’s innovations”, and if they can assure those faithful within TEC of “our loving and prayerful support”, then surely we can do no less?
Sarah, you’ll have to define “trolling” for me; the only sense in which I’m familiar with how that term is used is in fishing.
The easiest thing in the world to do when you don’t wish to give serious thought to a questioner is to simply brush him off. That scarcely seems worthy of you.
Michael, I’m very grateful to you for your posts, both in allowing me to present my views, and for your erudition in your points made.
I do not believe I’ve ever stated here or anywhere that I think that everyone in ECUSA is heathen. It is very hard for me, however, to accept that those still there who do not recognize what ECUSA leadership has done to a once-proud, if somewhat stuffy church in adopting a new gospel, have not taken the time to clear their minds and open their eyes.
RE: “The easiest thing in the world to do when you don’t wish to give serious thought to a questioner is to simply brush him off.”
Yes — and as you have been extensively answered by numerous people [including me] over the *years* that you have commented here, it’s pretty clear that the person who’s not interested in “serious thought” is not your old respondents. So . . . briefly and occasionally asserting otherwise, where I find the time and energy, to the same assertions you’ve made over the years is the better and more efficient response and accomplishes just what I wish to accomplish.
RE: “Luke clearly holds an opinion different to yours Sarah, but that doesn’t make it trolling.”
I agree — and that is not why I call what he does on every single thread remotely connected to TEC “trolling.”
Beyond the trolling, he’s also pitching a false and dangerous proposition — that there is even a bare correlation between “not caring” and people remaining within an organization led by corrupt, bullying, lying frauds.
The obvious exhibit A for the falseness of that proposition is that most of the politically conservative commenters here at T19 remain citizens of the United States.
And there are hundreds of other smaller entities and organizations within our country that we can also use as further demonstrations of the falseness of that premise that people who remain in institutions led by thuggish hucksters must, therefore, not care.
Sarah, you make far too great a reach. And, your example of us remaining in our country when dissatisfied with aspects of our gov’t just doesn’t work.
One small example, and most of us can come up with similar ones: our friends who, acknowledging what’s been going on in ECUSA since Dean Pike, have stayed in the local Episcopal church, after joining our ACNA parish, and then leaving, because “our parents were married there.”
RE: “Sarah, you make far too great a reach.”
Not at all. You just don’t like the application of your proposition — [i]people who stay in organizations or entities led by corrupt, bullying, lying hucksters obviously don’t care[/i] — to other entities or organizations beyond TEC.
“One small example, and most of us can come up with similar ones: our friends who, acknowledging what’s been going on in ECUSA since Dean Pike, have stayed in the local Episcopal church, after joining our ACNA parish, and then leaving, because “our parents were married thereâ€.”
Luke, you are within your rights to critique people with those beliefs.
My difficulty is that you don’t seem to acknowledge that there are also people who stay in ECUSA for other reasons, in particular, people who fully acknowledge the problems with it, but stay because they believe that they are called by God to remain there as a witness to the truth.