(Press Release) More than twenty Executives and Leaders of renewal movements and ministries within the mainline denominations of the U.S. and Canada sent a letter of support today to Bishop Bob Duncan, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh who was “deposed” Friday by the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church at the insistence of Presiding Bishop Katherine Schori. In their letter they also issued a strong rebuke to The Episcopal leadership. Bishop Duncan has been a faithful advocate for Biblical Christianity in the Episcopal Church for over two decades.
The mainline renewal leaders wrote to Bishop Duncan, “We stand with you in solidarity as you endure this trial of your faith. Your patient, courageous, and steadfast witness has been an inspiration to all of us who desire to see our Lord Jesus Christ glorified in his church.” They went on to say, “It grieves our hearts to see those entrusted with church leadership such as Bishop Schori and the Episcopal House of Bishops, engaged in such divisive and destructive behavior. Like other denominational officials in the North American mainline denominations, they have acted with callous disregard for the authority of scripture, the witness of the historic church, and the sanctity of human life, sexuality, and marriage. We are most deeply grieved for the millions of Christian believers who have been forced out of the churches of their childhood by those they trusted to lead.”
Association for Church Renewal President, David Runnion-Bareford said, “This action is tragic for the whole ecumenical church. Katherine Schori and those who voted to depose Bishop Duncan are emerging as the new fundamentalists of the left. Their legalism and separatism appear to be birthed from much the same defensiveness that marked the fundamentalists on the right in a previous generation. Their disregard for faithful submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of scripture, the unity of the church and holy living has divided and torn the church irreparably.”
Signatories included church leaders from the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The United Church of Christ, The Church of the Brethren, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Disciples of Christ.
Matt. 7:15-20. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.
This was the tail end of a [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3067924/Vicar-defies-rules-to-carry-out-church-blessing-of-lesbian-wedding.html ]Telegraph article[/url]:
[blockquote] The bishops of Blackburn, Chester, Chichester, Exeter, Rochester and Winchester released a statement saying they are “deeply saddened and shocked†by the vote to remove Bishop Duncan from his post after he tried to move to the orthodox Province of Southern Cone in protest at the Episcopal Church’s liberal agenda.[/blockquote]
It is sad that ++Sentamu is not joining the protestations but rather all-to-ready to gloss over this latest outrage.
The Church of the Brethren supporting a Creedal Anglican Bishop?
From brethren.org/anotherway
Seriously, all Bishop Duncan had to do is say (and mean) that he will not attempt to lead the diocese out of The Episcopal Church, whether he personally decides to stay and fight or resign his See due to the condition of this Church. There are those who try again and again to make this an act of Church’s leadership purging it of “conservatives” or Bible-believing-Christians. It isn’t. It is about a bishop who intends to end his relationship with the Church that ordained and consecrated him, but retain all the stuff of the diocese of that Church. I respect his theological position and his willingness to sacrifice for it, but I do not respect his attempts to act like a Congregationalist rather than an Anglican.
Of course, when it comes to the term “Bible-believing-Christian,” for certain groups within this Church – and the renewal groups within the other Mainline Protestant denominations mentioned – that term means agreement with particular interpretations of the Bible. If certain other people or groups do not agree with that specific interpretation of the Bible, then those other people are not considered “Bible-believing,” regardless of how those other people or groups claim to regard and handle Scripture. This is not the Anglican way, but the way of the American Culture Wars.
I feel just the same way about the Episcopal Church in relation to the wider Communion. Weird how only parishes and dioceses but not provinces can act in a “congregationalist” manner.
More on the English bishops:
[blockquote][url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4812865.ece ]In an interview with The Times, the Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali said the time had now come for Dr Williams to create a new province for conservatives in the US.[/url][/blockquote]
driver8 – I certainly agree with you on this one, but two wrongs do not make a right.
Bob G+,
Then let the canons be properly obeyed and followed. If you are saying that a sitting bishop, who is ordaining and confirming ministers in The Episcopal Church, USA has left the communion, then I think that you are not sane there.
If, however, +Duncan has violated the “Doctrine, Disiciplen, or Worship of Christ as this Church has received them” (the ordination vows that +Duncan took as deacon, priest, and bishop), then cite the offenses and bring him to trial.
However, do not invoke IV.9 for something that +Duncan may in the future do. Depose him now with a trial, don’t just declare that he has left the communion and then violate the plane language of the canons to say that it has happened.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
8. Philip Snyder (Dallas):
It seems to me that you are asking Bob+ to advocate following Church canon when Bob+ has stated in an earlier post, “If certain other people or groups do not agree with that specific interpretation of the Bible, then those other people are not considered “Bible-believing”. My thought is just how do you expect Bob+ to urge following canon law when he seems to see no authority in Scripture?
Hey, words mean whatever they mean to me! Who are any of you to say that the words of either canon law, Scripture, or Bob+ mean anything else to me other than what I say they do?
Existential world,
Don
Phillip – There are legitimate disagreements on what the Canons actually call for and the way the dispositions of Scofield and Duncan have been handled. This is classic – each side is going to align with the definition that fits their already determined perspective on what is right or not with regard to the conflict and the Canons – the bishops that are attempting to take their dioceses out of TEC is the pressing conflict in this case.
As is always the case, some group will make the final decision, and then we will see whether there remains a “loyal opposition” that is an absolute necessity for a democratic form of governance to function (whether ecclesiastically or civilly). The bishops have spoken and decided, whether rightly or wrongly is yet to be determined. Will there remain a loyal opposition that is large enough to make a difference in the long run, or will their just be flight?
A bishop cannot take his/her Episcopal diocese out of The Episcopal Church. It is the interpretation of the Canons by our Tradition and by the majority of bishops. No matter even if the civil courts make a judgment supporting this interpretation, those who support re-alignment or have already decided to leave TEC will not agree with or abide by the decision. In their minds, the issue is settled and nothing will change their minds. So be it. The accusations will continue to fly. If the “re-aligners” had their way, there would be a vote to dispose the bishop of New Hampshire.
As I wrote above, bishop Duncan only had to say and mean that he would not attempt to take his Episcopal diocese out of The Episcopal Church. No one is stupid, everyone knows that if the vote was not taken now, it would have to be taken in a couple months because Duncan is intent on trying to take his Episcopal diocese out of The Episcopal Church. He has said as much.
Bob G+
Only by the most “post-modernist” reading of the canons and by relying on penumbra and emanations from the canons can they be interpreted the way that +Shori et. al. interpreted them. What happened with +Duncan is similar to driving over to another person’s home and shooting him there because he said he planned to rob your home. If the canons need to be changed, then change them. If the Church no longer desires the phrase “the inhibited bishop” (indicating that the bishop must be inhibited before the vote is take by the HoB) then change the canons – if you can get the necessary votes at GC. Likewise if they want to change the number of votes to depose from a majority of the number of bishops entitled to vote to a majority of the number of bishops at the meeting, then change the canons. [b]But do not just say that the canons mean what you want them to mean![/b]
If I were a bishop, I would welcome +Duncan into my diocese and invite him to celebrate, preach, and possibly ordain because the vote to depose simply failed.
If the matter were brought to the HoB after Duncan left TEC, then I could support removing him from the TEC HoB. But the truth is that +Duncan did not leave TEC. He may have intended to do so. but the law does not sentence us for our intentions. You cannot punish a person for what he intends to do, only for what he has done.
Did +Duncan ordain someone for the Roman Catholic church or any other church outside of TEC? Did he openly renounce the Doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church? Is there anything that +Duncan actually did that could not have been handled under the normal disciplinary rubrics that permit a trial for the Bishop?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Let’s be clear. TEC has left Bishop Bob Duncan. It’s not the other way around.
Bp. Pike should have been deposed. Jack Spong. Others. But not Bps. Schofield, Cox, and Duncan.
TEC has left the Anglican Communion. Time for that second province, the sooner the better. Let the laity and clergy choose sides, and take their property with them.
In choosing the wording of her cover letter to Bp. Duncan, the PB has lit a candle that will not be extinguished in our time. There will be no unity in our generation. It may take decades, or centuries, to heal the damage that she and her minions have done. Worldwide, Anglicanism is undergoing a New Great Awakening that TEC will have no part of, nor tolerate. Thus, TEC will be left in the dust as an historical curiosity. Babylon the great has fallen.
This PB and her minions could have prevented it, but they have chosen not to do so. So goes the course of history.
#10
1. The Canons seem pretty clear to me (eg the demand for inhibition before deposition). The PB ignored their requirements to suit her purposes. That the HOB went along with it is deplorable.
2. The actions of folks like Bishop Duncan (with which I too disgaree) – is caused by the “congregationalism” of the TEC leadership. I suggest speaking to the cause, rather than the effect might help in your thinking about how to move forward.
Ralph – you wrote, “Let’s be clear. TEC has left Bishop Bob Duncan.”
I want to touch on this. My sense is that in this kind of statement there is a misunderstanding of what it means to be Anglican (or a willful disregard for the Anglican Tradition). Priests, of which I am one, have done a terrible job over the last 40 years conveying the Tradition; to take seriously their teaching function with regard to the Cure of Souls and passing on the Tradition within both the Anglican-Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic wings of this Church. I’m sorry if that offends some people, but it is the truth. For example, there has been historically a big difference between American-Evangelicals and Anglican-Evangelicals, but sadly the difference has been largely lost over the last few decades in the U.S. We are now acting like American-Evangelicals (the tradition of my early adult life).
One aspect of Anglican Tradition is a wide berth with regard to theological position and opinion even at the extreme ends, yet a remaining together ecclesiastically. Fight as we may, Anglicans still come together – and to know Anglican history is to know that those fights have been severe and the theological differences profound.
We are not like the Protestants that because of disagreements over piety or belief simply go off and start a new denomination (or at least we have not been like them in the past). We are also not like Roman Catholics that through their Magisterium dictate what will be believed by all (and in some quarters, we now want our own Magisterium). We are acting like we don’t know our own Tradition, or else we are being co-opted by those within Anglicanism that are determined to make us either more Protestant or Roman.
What we have done over the last 40 years is allow the extremes to take control of the Church – either extreme “conservatives” or extreme “liberals” – rather than the vast majority in the middle tolerating the extremes on the edges of Anglicanism and allowing their perspectives to challenge us and keep the whole Church in balance. The middle has remained silent and capitulated, sadly, and as a result we are being pulled apart by the extremes.
We are very out of balance right now, and herein lies our need for a “loyal opposition” that will remain. In time, the “conservatives” will again hold the levers of governance and the “liberals” will have to be the “loyal opposition,” unless of course we continue as we are by not acting like Anglicans and just shatter into pieces. We need to know our history and Tradition! There is no need to try to transform Anglicanism into being like other denominations – whether the Assemblies of God or the Unitarian Universalists.
Because of all this, saying that the current leadership of this Church “left Bishop Duncan” is not accurate in my opinion. Yes, of course the more liberal leadership has theological opinions that are definitely not in line with the theological opinions of the conservatives, and visa-versa. Again, this has always been the case within Anglicanism, although perhaps over different issues. The difference now is that some bishops and priests are determined to split away from the main body and form their own new and improved and purer denomination. This is very Protestant, very American-Evangelical, very Congregational, but not very Anglican.
#13; driver8 – Both sides are interpreting the Canons to suit their own purposes. Nothing new in this. Yet, in a democratic system the majority rules (which at some point even ancient Synods and Councils decided things by a vote and majority rule). Right now, the majority of bishops in TEC have ruled that the way the U.S. Canons are being interpreted by the national leadership is correct. This has been the process within the Anglican tradition within the national Churches, except that now when one side doesn’t get its way rather than being a loyal opposition and continuing to argue its perspective from within, it decides to take the marbles and go form another denomination.
This Province is doing a similar thing within the greater Communion (although TEC is not trying to break away, but in our American hubris is just not listening very well), and these few diocese in their own hubris are trying to break away from TEC. Few are handling the situation with much dignity or integrity, IMHO.
Philip (#11) – I agree with you about going through the process to change the Canons. The same thing can be said for “open communion,” etc.
[i]One aspect of Anglican Tradition is a wide berth with regard to theological position and opinion even at the extreme ends, yet a remaining together ecclesiastically. [/i]
Actually, that’s not historically true. Anglicanism has always been centered around orthodox Christian belief. What was open was practice and trappings. Thoelogy was a given (hence the ‘homilies’ and the 39 articles), but what one did after that was open — that is, you could have Morning Prayer 3 Sundays a month and Eucharist once, or have Eucharist every Sunday and Wednesday afternoon and still be an Anglican. You could vest fully or just have the stole; you could have all the altar trappings or just a simple cross; etc. etc. etc.
But you had to believe in the teachings of Christianity.
Bob G+
The rule of Law is not Majority Rule. It is the rule of law. What happens when the majority of people charged with enforcing the rules decide not to? What you have then is no longer the rule of law, but the rule of personality – the “side” with the most supporters wins. What, then, is the purpose of the canons? If they can be overriden by a simple majority of a quorum, then do they serve any purpose at all?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Philip – I am certainly sympathetic with your worry that it may be too easy to simply override the customary understanding of laws by a majority vote, and that is a reason why we don’t have direct democracy in this country or this Church. We are supposed to be protected against the Tyranny of the Majority, but what we now have is a tyranny of minorities from both the conservative and liberal sides. Discipline is shot.
Law is set by precedence, so we have to ask how the House of Bishops has interpreted those same Canons in the past. Concerning recent dispositions, for example, has the House of Bishops in the past demanded a majority decision by a quorum of all bishops with jurisdiction or just a quorum of those bishops present at the time of the vote? I don’t know the answer. And, I suspect that certain people in national leadership may well wish to circumvent the precedence of past procedure, on both sides of the issues. Why not a trial? I don’t know other than those charged with interpreting and enforcing the Canons have deemed that a trial is not necessary, controversial as the decision may be.
The Rule of Law is to follow the laws established. When there is discrepancy concerning what a law actually means or the intent of an established law, then there is a call for interpretation of the law. Various groups will campaign according to their predetermined opinion or out of self-interest before those who will arbitrate and make the final interpretive decision. At the national level, the Supreme Court in the end takes a vote, and the majority rules.
The reality, whether positive or negative, is that laws are always interpreted – and the majority’s interpretation is what rules the day. The first Council of Nicea by majority vote of the bishops present decided that Arius was incorrect in his interpretation of Scripture concerning the divinity of Jesus. We may or may not like the final judgment, but the important issue is what do we do, then? If the decision goes against us, do we remain a loyal opposition, continue to advocate our position, and maintain unity? If we disagree with the Supreme Court do we decide that we are no longer Americans and try to form our own country within the geographical boundaries of the State? If we disagree with the House of Bishops, do we declare that we are no longer Episcopalians and decided to try to start another province with the already officially recognized one?
In The Episcopal Church, the House of Bishops interprets the Canons and the majority interpretation rules the day. This is how it has always been. Who else is there to interpret the Canons – your group, my group? We are an episcopal church; the bishops rule (within the confines of General Convention) whether we like it or not. The question is how we each or as groups will respond.
Bob,
I am glad that you agree with me 100% and don’t believe +Duncan to be properly deposed. (That is my interpretation of what you said.)
This whole business of “activism theology” is a symptom of a larger problem – we can’t wait on the proper processes to work themselves out before implimenting our desired changes and, thus, we put “facts on the ground.” The largest boost to this method of activism started with the ordinaiton of women. While it was still against the canons, several bishops decided to ordain women – and they were rewarded for it! The women were rewarded by having their ordinations “regularized” and the bishops were never disciplined. Fast forward to the blessing of same sex unions or ordination of practicing homosexuals. All the statements of General Convention and the Anglican Communion were against ordaining practicing homosexuals or blessing same sex unions, but the reappraisers did not do the work of getting communion or even TECUSA to agree with them first. The [b]acted[/b] first, and have been rewarded with having a practicing homosexual as the bishop.
It seems that acting on your “new understanding” is rewarded in TECUSA. Doesn’t it seem logical that the reasserters would follow the same play book that the reappraisers did? I don’t see what moral standing the reappraisers have to complain when the reasserters simply use the same tactics that the reappraisers did.
It seems that discipline is broken and the fault of that can be laid at the Hob. By not enforcing discipline earlier in the life of the Church, they have left us where we are today – the only discipline is power. “There is no good or evil. There is only power” (Voldemort to Harry Potter).
I do not mind interpreting the laws. What I mind is that their “interpretation” violates the plain meaning of the laws and they did so for purely political purposes.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#17. libraryjim wrote, “Anglicanism has always been centered around orthodox Christian belief.” You’ve mentioned trappings of Anglican piety, but not the vast differences always present concerning theology within Anglican development. Whose definition of orthodox beliefs? Variants of Puritan-Calvinists, Lutheran reformers, Arminians, all represented in Anglican development. What about Protestant or Roman Catholic differences in understanding the Eucharist all present among various groups within Anglicanism – Evangelical vs. Anglo-Catholic?
As a group and for the most part, Anglicans have been latitudinarian. We are not creedal or doctrinal. The 39 Articles were never really considered very important as a requirement of anything – not a creed or a confession. The Lambeth-Chicago Quadrilateral is sufficient, IMHO.
Bob G+
Your definition of Anglican as neither creedal nor doctrinal would not pass muster with the Caroline Divines nor with the Cambridge Movement nor the Oxford Movement nor with any other reformation of the Church in history.
The truth is that the church (and not just the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion), from time to time, drifts into latitudinarianism – with the “latidudes” getting wider and wider and the church falling further and further into error and apostacy.
Then, when the Church is beyond all human reformation, God raises up reformers and calls the Church back to Himself. St. Anthony was a reformer. St. Athanasius and the Cappodicians were such reformers. St. Hillary of Potiers was one. St. Patrick was one. Radbertus and Ratramnus were men who brought reform to the Church. Dominic and Francis were such reformers. Luther and Cramner, Latimer and Ridley, Cosin, Jewel, Hooker, and the Caroline Divines brought reform to the Church. Wesley brought reform to the largely latitudinarian CofE and that reform sparked Pusey’s and Newman’s Oxford Movement reformation.
Unfortunatley, reformers often face anger and hatred by the latitudinarians of the day (such as +Shori and most of the HoB). They face judicial railroading and exile. But God is on their side and they often triumph in the long run.
I urge you to reconsider whether God wants a Church that is latitudinarian (e.g. luke warm) or whether He wants a Church that is true to the Creeds and Doctrines (= teaching) that He has revealed to us.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
What Phil said.
Not to mention that it was only recently that The Episcopal Club decreed the 39 articles to be historical curiosities.
Before that they were held in high regard throughout the Anglican Communion. In fact, priests were required to declare “I assent to the 39 Articles of Religion” at their ordination.
The relegation to the ‘historical documents’ is the oddity, not the high regard.
His Peace
Jim E. <><
Phi – If we narrow our focus to this group or that, then yes we will see particular groups lifting up certain aspects of the faith to focus on, to be their “creed” or declaration of what is essential to believe. So, if we look at the Caroline Divines, the leaders of the Oxford Movement, the Puritans, the Laditudinarians (the started as the Low-Church party and developed into the Broad Church) – all had specifics that they held up and aspects of the other parties they decried. Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics certainly do not agree on a whole host of things. Yet, yet, yet, they were (are) all part of the same Church – space was made for them in the same Church. This is quite unique in world Christianity and essential to understand the development of Anglicanism.
This is what we are losing. For Anglicans, the Lambeth-Chicago Quadrilateral is our standard declaration of what we uphold as essential.
I never said that I did or did not want this Church to be laditudinarian, but that historically this is what it has been and is. Laditudinarianism does not equal lukewarmness, at least with regard to everything I’ve read about this part of Anglican development. There are those within all the parties that have been and are lukewarm – Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, Broad-Church, etc.
23. libraryjim: Yes, the resulting 39 Articles (after the 10, 6, and 42 articles) have been important in many ways, but they have not been a confession or a creed. English clergy and even for a time civil magistrates were “required” to adhere to the Articles (which history shows was not really enforced). I am not aware of anywhere else in the Communion where this has been the case. And, we know that The Articles are somewhat different between the Provinces.
Simply put, the Articles provided a way to clarify the English Church’s doctrinal differences with regard to the Calvinist Continental Reformers and Roman Catholics that had been fighting for control of the English Church.
Certain parts of the Articles are strongly Calvinistic, but Anglicanism generally has not supported Calvinism (aside from the Puritans who eventually left the CoE, the Kirk in Scotland and today’s Presbyterians are the result). Most of today’s Anglican-Evangelicals align more with Fr. Wesley’s influence and are Arminian. Yet, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or Catholic, all have traditionally had a place in this one Church.
We need to be aware of the scope of Anglican history and development and be careful not to simply focus on the one group (or groups) within world Anglicanism that we agree with and then declare it to be the one, true form of Anglicanism.
#24 – Sorry, Phil. I missed the “l”!