Thursday, October 30, 2003
A Comment on the Task of The Commission requested by the Primates, and appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury on October 29th..
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
(I shall print the text and then make a brief comment.)
The Archbishop of Canterbury requests the Commission:
1. To examine and report to him by 30th September 2004, in preparation for the ensuing meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, on the legal and theological implications flowing from the decisions of the Episcopal Church (USA) to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops, and of the Diocese of New Westminster to authorize services for use in connection with same sex unions, and specifically on the canonical understandings of communion, impaired and broken communion, and the ways in which provinces of the Anglican Communion may relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion.
[Regrettably the Archbishop has here succumbed to the propaganda of the LesBiGays and the Prioritization of the Homosexual issue by the Evangelicals in the way he has stated the issue before and the decision of the Episcopal Church. The issue before the General Convention was whether or not to confirm as bishop-elect a man who is divorced and who is not celibate. Whether his present sexual partner is a woman or man is secondary in terms of his basic status in canon law. The canonical and moral question is whether a divorced priest is a suitable candidate for Bishop, bearing in mind that the Bishop is to be an icon of Christ, the Bridegroom, of the chaste Church, the Bride. The issue in Vancouver, British Columbia, over same-sex blessings is rightly stated; but, the Commission needs to know, that there we have a situation where Archbishop Crawley of BC and the Yukon, now pursuing Bp. Buckle who is seeking to help the “orthodox” in New Westminster diocese, is himself at least twice married and thus ought not to be an active bishop.]
2. Within their report, to include practical recommendations (including reflection on emerging patterns of provision for episcopal oversight for those Anglicans within a particular jurisdiction, where full communion within a province is under threat) for maintaining the highest degree of communion that may be possible in the circumstances resulting from these decisions, both within and between the churches of the Anglican Communion.
[As yet there seems to be nothing in the Anglican Family to equal the C of E system of Provincial Episcopal Visitors – flying bishops. Further, the Commission should address the question of Communion with the Faithful Anglicans who are outside the official Anglican Family of Churches. For example, there are probably 75,000 or more such persons in North America, but also sizeable groups in places like South Africa.]
3. Thereafter, as soon as practicable, and with particular reference to the issues raised in Section IV of the Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion.
[It is regrettable that herein there is no statement that intervention is also for the maintaining of the Reformed Catholic Faith, based on the Bible, the Creed and the Anglican Formularies. It is no good getting unity on false foundations!]
4. In its deliberations, to take due account of the work already undertaken on issues of communion by the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998, as well as the views expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the communiqués and pastoral letters arising from their meetings since 2000.
[Much of the work done on KOINONIA is flawed for it is based upon a doctrine of “the Social Trinity” and from this flawed foundation makes deductions that are false. The Biblical Doctrine of Koinonia, together with the Patristic Doctrine of the Trinity and the use by the Fathers of this word/concept has to be done afresh, if it is to be truly helpful (see my critique of the use of Koinonia in my essay/booklet, “Reforming Forwards? The Doctrine of Reception and the Consecration of Women as Bishops” from the Latimer Trust of London.) ]
The Revd Dr Peter Toon, October 30, 2003
posted by John at 7:32 PM CDT permalink
Are you prepared for All Saints' and All Souls' ?
(Please do not let the "consecration" of Gene R. on Sunday afternoon make you forget that this weekend, apart from having the Lord's Day, also has All Saints' Day etc.)
The arrival in the Christian Year of All Saints' & All Souls' (November 1 & 2) not only causes the devout to think of the Christian Hope, but also of how to relate to & keep these two days (and Hallow-een which is associated) and to examine the biblical and church use of the two key words "saint" and "soul."
Both All Saints & All Souls were fixed Days in the Western Calendar by AD 1000 and the fact that they were put together reveals that they were seen as being closely related.
All Saints with its Gospel as Matthew 5, the Beatitudes, emphasizes the presence of holy men and women in the Church of God on earth and presents them as Christians to emulate, and follow as pilgrims, in this world on their way to heaven. Also the multitude of departed faithful, holy Christians who have gone before us is presented as a source of inspiration & example - see the Epistle from Revelation 7 & the BCP (1662 & 1928) Collect for the Day. Therefore a day of rejoicing, hope and consecration.
All Souls traditionally begins with the Introit, "Rest eternal grant unto them, O Lord: and let light perpetual shine upon them." In the three Collects of the Day in the Western Church there is prayer for the remission of the sins of the departed and that they may enjoy eternal life with Christ in glory. The Gospel is from John 5:25ff which speaks of the hope of resurrection unto everlasting life. Therefore in the western tradition a day of intercession and hope.
While the BCP (1662 & 1928) requires the keeping of All Saints and provides Collect, Epistle & Gospel, it does not mention All Souls. The reason is because of the excessive abuse of masses for the dead in the late medieval period and the decision of the Reformers to cut them out completely from the life of the reformed Catholic Church of England (See Articles of Religion xxxi). Yet, what was removed in the 16th century, has officially returned
in the 20th century for provision is made for All Souls' Day in the new Prayer Books (e.g., the Common Worship of the C of E ). Previously, the Day was kept especially by Anglo-Catholics and they used the Collect, Epistle and Gospel from the old Roman Mass.
How we evaluate these days and the way in which we relate to them and keep them is much dependent upon what provision is made in our parish, as well as what is our doctrine of the Christian Hope.
If we follow the central Protestant tradition and think of the Church as Militant here on earth and Triumphant in heaven, and view the death of the believer, who is justified by faith, as a promotion from the one to the other then we see no need for All Souls' Day. All the elect are at death perfected and cleansed so that they can be with Christ in glory awaiting the full redemption of their bodies at the Final Judgment. So All Saints Day is a celebration of those who are called to be saints on earth, living by grace holy lives of faithful obedience, and those who have been translated to higher life in and with Christ in heaven. Thus it is (from the evangelical viewpoint) the celebration of All Souls' who are in Christ and are (in biblical terminology) his saints, first on earth and then in heaven.
If we follow the central, western Catholic tradition, and think of the Church as Militant here on earth, Expectant in the interim period before the Final Judgment and Resurrection of the Dead, and Triumphant in heaven, then we see the need to keep All Souls' or something like it. Here the focus is Expectancy and the belief is that baptized believers die as not yet pure & perfected for they are not yet fully obedient and fully loving, and their souls are still stained by their own sin. They need to be purged and cleansed by the grace of God in order to enter into and enjoy the blessedness of heaven with Christ, their Lord and Saviour as purified souls. Thus the Church on earth, united to the Church expectant, which is in the intermediate state of purgation, prays for her brothers and sisters that their period of cleansing and sanctification will be swift and so that they enter quickly into the full fellowship of heaven by promotion to the Church Triumphant, where the true saints and martyrs already dwell by grace in glory everlasting.
What I have noticed in the Church of England is that where a Church (say a Cathedral or major City church) offers services on both November 1 & 2, the attendance on November 2nd is greater. And the reason seems to be that this is the Day when a lot of people feel a desire to remember their departed spouses & parents and family members, especially those who were killed in war or tragic circumstances. This higher attendance is not necessarily a statement of their belief in purgatory but seems to be a means of keeping with solemnity, reverence and love the memory of the loved one departed. This suggests to me that even Protestant Evangelicals perhaps need to find a genuine pastoral use for All Souls' even if they do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Church Expectant and of Masses & Prayers for the dead.
Hallow-een (= All-hallow-even) is the Eve of All Hallows (Saints), the last night of October. [In the old Celtic Calendar the last night of October was "old year's night", the night of all witches, and the Church sought to purify it by making it into the Eve of All Saints. Yet much of the former revelry and practices remained and they have been revived in modern dress by some people in our modern secular age.] It is best for Christians, I think, to avoid all association with the worldly celebration of Hallow-een and to gather in Church on the Eve of All Saints, for a time of rejoicing and preparation for All Saints' Day.
One sobering and challenging fact about the use of the word "saint" in the New Testament is that all baptized believers are here on earth both saints and called to be saints -- they are sanctified in and by Christ now through His Cross and they are called to be holy through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
Do visit www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:27 PM CDT permalink
Anglican Communion - Commission announced
ACNS 3652 | LAMBETH PALACE | 28 OCTOBER 2003
[ACNS source: Lambeth Palace] The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has announced the makeup and the terms of reference for a Commission to look at life in the Anglican Communion in the light of recent events. It is to be made up of members appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and will be chaired by the Most Revd Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh.
The Commission, which is expected to begin its work early in the New Year, was formed as a result of a request from the recent Primates meeting at Lambeth Palace to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It will take particular account of the decision to authorise a service for use in connection with same sex unions in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, and the expected Consecration of the Revd Canon V Gene Robinson as Bishop Co-adjutor of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church (USA) on Sunday, November 2nd.
Membership of the Commission has been drawn up by Dr Williams in consultation and reflects the breadth and diversity of the Anglican Communion as well as providing substantial canonical, theological and ecclesiological expertise. The Commission was requested by the Primates to report within twelve months (that is, by October 2004) to the Archbishop of Canterbury in preparation for ensuing meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council.
Dr Williams said that the Commission's main task would be to offer advice on finding a way through the situation which currently threatens to divide the Communion:
"The Primates were clear that the Anglican Communion could be approaching a crucial and critical point in its life. The responses of Provinces to developing events will determine the future life of our Communion in a profound way and we need to take time for careful prayer, reflection and consideration to discern God's will for the whole Communion. This Commission, under the Communion's longest serving Primate, is intended to contribute to our finding a way forward."
Dr Eames said he was deeply conscious of the challenge: "I am conscious of the importance and the delicacy of the work the Commission will have to undertake. It is important to see the whole of the task - we have not been charged with finding the answers to the questions of sexuality, but with assisting the Communion to respond to recent developments in our churches in North America in a way which is fully faithful to Christ's call for the Unity of his Church."
The full mandate and membership list follows:
The mandate
The Archbishop of Canterbury requests the Commission:
1. To examine and report to him by 30th September 2004, in preparation for the ensuing meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, on the legal and theological implications flowing from the decisions of the Episcopal Church (USA) to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops, and of the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise services for use in connection with same sex unions, and specifically on the canonical understandings of communion, impaired and broken communion, and the ways in which provinces of the Anglican Communion may relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion.
2. Within their report, to include practical recommendations (including reflection on emerging patterns of provision for episcopal oversight for those Anglicans within a particular jurisdiction, where full communion within a province is under threat) for maintaining the highest degree of communion that may be possible in the circumstances resulting from these decisions, both within and between the churches of the Anglican Communion.
3. Thereafter, as soon as practicable, and with particular reference to the issues raised in Section IV of the Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion.
4. In its deliberations, to take due account of the work already undertaken on issues of communion by the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998, as well as the views expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the communiqués and pastoral letters arising from their meetings since 2000.
The members of the Commission are:
* Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, Chairman,
* The Revd Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director of Faith, Worship and Ministry, the Anglican Church of Canada,
* Bishop David Beetge, Dean of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa,
* Professor Norman Doe, Director of the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University, Wales,
* Bishop Mark Dyer, Director of Spiritual Formation, Virginia Theological Seminary, USA,
* Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies,
* Archbishop Josiah Iduwo-Fearon, Archbishop of Kaduna, the Anglican Church of Nigeria,
* The Revd Dorothy Lau, Director of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Welfare Council,
* Ms Anne McGavin, Advocate, formerly Legal Adviser to the College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church,
* Archbishop Bernard Malango, Primate of Central Africa,
* Dr Esther Mombo, Academic Dean of St Paul's United Theological Seminary, Limuru, Kenya,
* Archbishop Barry Morgan, Primate of Wales,
* Chancellor Rubie Nottage, Chancellor of the West Indies,
* Bishop John Paterson, Primate of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, and Chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council,
* Dr Jenny Te Paa, Principal of College of Saint John the Evangelist, Auckland, New Zealand,
* Bishop James Terom, Moderator, the Church of North India,
* Bishop N Thomas Wright, Bishop of Durham, the Church of England.
The Revd Canon John Rees, Legal Adviser to the Anglican Consultative Council, will act as Legal Consultant to the Commission.
The Revd Canon Gregory Cameron, Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies, Anglican Communion Office, will act as Secretary to the Commission.
posted by John at 7:25 PM CDT permalink
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
North American Anglicanism Not in Communion with Canterbury
(this may help folks understand the complex Anglican situation in the USA and why moves to understanding & UNITY are needed NOW so that in the search for common roots and faith reform and renewal can occur for and in all -- P.T.)
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
North American Anglicanism Not in Communion with Canterbury
By Revd Chris Pierce
North American Anglican jurisdictions not in communion with Canterbury are a varied lot, and almost completely confined to the USA. What one finds in the USA, one finds in Canada, just on a smaller scale. Before the St. Louis Congress in 1977, Anglican jurisdictions not in communion with Canterbury were few in number. The Reformed Episcopal Church of the United States was the most prominent and largest. It broke with the mainline Protestant Episcopal Church, USA (now operating as ECUSA) in 1873 over issues stemming from the advance of the theological peculiarities of the Tractarian Movement.
Prior to the St. Louis Congress, keeping up with those jurisdictions not in communion with Canterbury was fairly simple. Since the St. Louis Congress it is anything but simple. Indeed, frustrations build quickly in trying to keep details straight...the easy thing would be to adopt a conspiracy theory approach and say the whole matter is a joint effort between Wippell’s and C.M. Almy to increase the sales of clerical haberdashery, but to do so would be a grave injustice to all involved. Various press reports put the number of “continuing” Anglican jurisdictions somewhere between 20 and 40.
Before going further, let’s define some terms. Many people call all Anglicans in North America, not in communion with Canterbury, Continuers, or Continuing Anglicans.... generically speaking they are referred to as belonging to the “Continuum.” Such an approach is incorrect. The “Continuing” jurisdictions are those that are outgrowths of the St. Louis Congress of 1977 convened after the first ordinations of women to the diaconate and presbyterate.
The Reformed Episcopal Church is in similar circumstances to that of the Free Church of England and the Church of England in South Africa and is rightly termed as a “separated” Anglican body. The REC doesn’t ordain women to either office but does have a lay order of deaconesses. Ironically, the REC, as a separated Anglican body, has identical theological commitments on paper (and historically) with the C of E. Its Prayer Book is the 1662 BCP with a few additions from the 1928 PECUSA Prayer Book although parishes may still use the previous REC liturgy. Its Articles of Religion are the XXXIX Articles of Religion of the C of E (subscription, not assent is required), adapted only to its non-established situation, yet the REC isn’t officially recognised by Canterbury.
An aside.... before the vote was taken on Vicki Gene Robinson’s election to the bishopric of New Hampshire, the last ECUSA General Convention passed a resolution acknowledging the work of the ECUSA House of Bishops in the early 1940s regarding the positive validity of REC orders. It called for further discussion and a final report to be brought to the next GC. After the consent was given to Robinson’s election, the bishops of the REC publicly suspended all discussions with ECUSA.
The much cussed and discussed Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) falls in an altogether different category.... physically located in the USA, but technically a mission, sponsored by and answerable to, the Archbishop and Anglican Province of Rwanda and the Archbishop of Southeast Asia.
The bishops of the AMiA have not ordained women as yet, and may never. AMiA has allowed for a couple of self professed evangelical ECUSA female clergy to come under its care pending the outcome of the group’s two year long theological study of the matter..... which should be made public before many more weeks. AMiA parishes may use any BCP so long as its teaching is in agreement with the 1662 book. AMiA also requires subscription to the XXXIX Articles of Religion. AMiA, although not recognised by Canterbury as an official work, still considers itself in Communion with Canterbury through its sponsoring archbishops and province. This author’s personal speculation is that AMiA will conclude that female ordination to the priesthood is beyond the pale of biblical orthodoxy.
According to Mrs. Auburn Traycik publisher of, “The Christian Challenge” (a four decade old periodical with wide circulation amongst the jurisdictions of the Continuum), the major bodies that were formed out of the St. Louis Congress were: the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC); the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK); and the Anglican Church in America (ACA). The Anglican Province in America (APA) was formed out of an early re-alignment from within the original “Continuing Movement.” In a recent story, Mrs. Traycik estimated that the APCK has membership of 7,000, and that the ACC and ACA have membership in the USA between 5,000 and 6,000 each.
The ACA is also part of the international, Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). Internationally, the TAC claims over 100,000 members. Eighty thousand are found in India; 20,000 in South Africa; and Australia has a TAC membership of 5,000. An Australian, The Most Revd John Hepworth, is Primate of the TAC.
Almost all of the continuing jurisdictions point to the theological statement formulated at the St. Louis Congress of 1977, the Affirmation of St. Louis, as a point of common ground between themselves. (See www.anglicancatholic.org/stlouis.html) Most use the 1928 BCP. There are however, some parishes that use the Anglican Missal (of Roman Catholic origin) for their liturgy...but this is also true of Anglo-Catholic parishes within the ECUSA.
The Revd Dr. Louis Tarsitano, Rector of St. Andrew’s Anglican Church in Savannah, Georgia, is a self described Prayer Book evangelical. In addition to his pastoral responsibilities, he is or has been, an author (of several books), educator (seminary and college Prof.), and an associate editor of, “Touchstone” magazine. He was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. While in RC minor seminary, his studies brought him to the scriptures and the BCP so he converted. He was ordained in the ECUSA, but was eventually driven out over the ordination of women and the forced adoption of the 1979 Prayer Book. Before leaving ECUSA, Tarsitano was the rector of a 1,200+-member parish in Denver, Colorado. Having been on both sides of the fence (in ECUSA and now out), he is a clear-eyed observer of North American Anglicanism.
Tarsitano, now canonically resident within the Anglican Church in America, had the following to say when asked for his take on Continuing Churches.
“One of the realities, and complicating factors, of the formation of the Continuing Churches after 1976, was that the greater number of the clergymen involved were Anglo-Catholics, rather than Evangelicals. Most American Evangelicals would not stick their necks out or lose their positions and benefits over an arguably heretical replacement Prayer Book or the "ordination" of women. Philip Edgecumbe Hughes was a notable exception, along with rectors like Houston's Robert Ingram. Thus, while perhaps a majority of the laity that joined the Continuing Churches were ordinary Prayer Book Churchmen, and likewise a minority of the members of the clergy, there was very little in the way of classical Evangelical or classical Prayer Book Anglicanism in the leadership of the new jurisdictions. This imbalance has been the major source of turmoil within and among the Continuing Churches.”
It would seem to any serious observer that the matter of women in ordained ministry is a major point of conflict between Continuing jurisdictions, the REC, and Evangelicals still left in ECUSA. The REC and the jurisdictions of the Continuum are firmly opposed to the practice. Evangelicals still in ECUSA generally support it.... and if they don’t support it, almost without exception they maintain a silent opposition. It is my experience that many Evangelicals remaining in ECUSA have no idea as to how strongly their “separated” and “continuing” Anglican (Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic alike) brethren oppose the ordination of women. They are flummoxed when the depth of opposition finds voice, and few can articulate it more clearly than Tarsitano.
“American Evangelicals in ECUSA have still not faced the fact that their acceptance of an unscriptural innovation such as the "ordination" of women was the necessary prelude to the unscriptural innovation of approving homosexual relations.”
He continued:
“American Evangelicals have generally not been able to cooperate with Continuing Churchmen or with the Reformed Episcopal Church because of the selectivity of their faithfulness to the Bible. Many ECUSA Evangelicals treat concerns about the lack of Scriptural warrants for the "ordination" of women as a trivial eccentricity, while demanding that all share their primarily emotional response to the current abomination of baptizing homosexuality.
“The insistence on the part of many ECUSA Evangelicals that any effort to address the current apostasy of the ECUSA must include women ministers is guaranteed to divide Anglican traditionalists and conservatives in America. They have, ironically, rediscovered the formula for creating a divided ‘continuing church,’ with the new dividing factor being the split between ‘progressive’ Evangelicals and the rest of the Anglican spectrum: traditional Evangelicals, Prayer Book Churchmen, High Churchmen, and Anglo-Catholics.”
As large an impediment to unity as female ordination happens to be…another, perhaps larger long-term impediment, is that of the widespread divorce and remarriage amongst clergy and laity. Sadly, neither clergy nor laity who divorce and remarry (in ECUSA or Continuing Churches) are an oddity.
In 1998, pollster George Barna found that 25% of all mainline Christian church members have been divorced and remarried (he found that only 21% of Atheists and Agnostics had been ). Further research in 2001 showed that 12% of all senior pastors have been divorced and all but 3% had remarried. I couldn’t find data on associate clergy. It would seem, at least statistically speaking, that the sins of divorce and remarriage of the clergy and laity are sins of larger numerical proportions within the life of the church than the sins of homosexual priests or couples.
It is transparently clear that the pro-homosexual lobby is correct in crying hypocrisy when self described “evangelicals”(publicly holding to a high view of scripture) use the Bible to point out their sexual errors, yet refuse to bend their knees to the clear biblical prohibitions against female ordination and divorce and remarriage. Pro-homosexual forces see little difference between their cultural contextualisation of their pet sins, and the contextualisation done by evangelical and continuing Anglicans with their own. They argue that Evangelicals and Continuers are only against homosexual sins, not those committed by heterosexuals.
The story of North American Anglicanism not in communion with Canterbury is just as was stated earlier, a varied one. Criticisms on some points are thus quite justified. Hopefully, there will be a successful move in the near future to re-establish the historic Anglican Formularies in their rightful....and needed positions of influence and authority.
As confusing and disorienting as all of this can be, Tarsitano offers a sage-like assessment:
“The Continuing Churches are not ends in themselves, but part of the recovery of traditional Anglicanism in America. Complaints that these people are disorderly, coming from members of today's ECUSA, are rather like complaints that, denied the use of the lifeboats, the steerage class passengers have tried to lash together a raft in the hope of eventually being rescued. So far, however, that rescue, which needs to come from other Anglican national churches, has never come.”
In spite of some of the problems, the Anglican expression of the Christian faith on this continent is a vibrant one. There are movements afoot to encourage greater unity. There are some signs that such efforts are gaining traction. For instance, a retired conservative ECUSA diocesan bishop participated in the ordination of a priest in the REC.
There are other churchmanship and theological issues that will have to be squarely faced if ever true unity is to occur. However, at the moment, all of N. American Anglicanism is abuzz over the recent actions of the ECUSA General Convention. Evangelicals still in ECUSA have scheduled a meeting in Plano, Texas, for early October to try to find a path forward. This might prove productive, coming as it does on the heels of the General Convention 2003 and the U.S. Anglican Congress from last December. That meeting was a trans-jurisdictional conference which saw episcopal, presbyteral, and lay leadership from most of the Anglican bodies in North America. Many of those in attendance believe that something great happened as a result.
Perhaps we're on the cusp of a true reformation within Anglicanism in North America....only time will tell.
posted by John at 12:15 PM CDT permalink
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
SACK-CLOTH & ASHES for November 2nd, 2003
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
Although November 2nd is the Lord's Day and thus not a day for fasting, it will be most appropriate in the afternoon of that day - 2.p.m. Eastern Seaboard Time, USA - for Evangelicals & Charsimatics (& others) to cover their heads in ashes and their bodies with sack-cloth.
The penance and mourning before God, the Lord, will be in part because at this time Gene Robinson, the "gay" activist, will be "set apart" and "consecrated" as bishop of the ECUSA diocese of New Hampshire.
The greater part of the penance should be by Evangelicals etc. because they have provided world-wide publicity for the "gay" cause within the liberal denominations and in western society. They fell for the LesBiGay way of describing the controversy in New Hampshire and in the General Convention of the ECUSA and, thereby, they aided and abetted in a massive way the publicity of this group. Further, they united the election of Robinson with the "gay" blessings in Vancouver Canada and again served the LesbiGay cause by this bringing together of different issues!
Consider this. Had the opposition to the election and the confirmation of Robinson been on the basis that he was disqualified by being a divorced man and that this disqualification is compounded by his not living a chaste life now, then the whole controversy and debate would have been different. It would have been on the biblical validity of the ancient canons concerning candidates for the Ministry that divorce is a barrier; on whether or not a divorced man can be a right icon for the Church wherein Jesus is described as the Bridegroom and the Church as his Bride; on whether a divorced man is the right person to give pastoral advice on Christian marriage within a dominant divorce culture..and so on. Thus it could have been a serious debate on whether or not the ECUSA had made a massive mistake by inviting so fully into its midst the divorce culture of the post 1960s and what can be done to recover the doctrine of Christian Marriage.
Yet the Evangelicals, the AAC, the FinF NA and so on chose to adopt the agenda favored by the LesBiGay movement and to make it all a debate as to whether a "gay" man in a "faithful" partnership is an appropriate person to be a bishop. And they got the Primates (who come from a different culture and hardly appreciate how deeply the divorce culture is accepted in the Churches of the West and how it is utilized by American and British Evangelicals etc.) also worked up about it. The Primates should have been rightly concerned about the "gay" issue in New Westminster, Canada and elsewhere - e.g. in many ECUSA dioceses -- but they should have seen this Robinson issue for what it really basically is, at least in terms of historic Christian moral theology and canon law. A divorced man ought not to be a bishop & a divorced man who is not chaste certainly ought not to be a bishop. But the modern evangelical doctrine seems to be that a divorced man can be a bishop if he is not "gay". Evangelicals could have said: we discuss only his being divorced for this is an insuperable barrier to his being a bishop if we are to keep to historic Christian standards within the Anglican Way.
Therefore the Evangelicals & Charismatics have yet to face the basic questions about Christian Sexuality and what is pleasing to the Lord Jesus for members of his Church. They all agree that "gay" stuff is sinful, but do they all agree that marriage discipline is virtually absent from the ECUSA and from their own ranks, and that until they face up to this there can be no genuine reform and renewal of the Anglican Household in the USA?
WITHOUT PAIN THERE WILL BE NO GAIN.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 12:10 PM CDT permalink
Monday, October 27, 2003
REBUILDING THE AMERICAN ANGLICAN HOUSEHOLD
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
Proposal for initial Meeting of members of this Household.
The American Anglican Household in 2003 could be likened to an apartment complex where the inhabitants of the apartments hardly know each other and have little do with one another. They use the same address, the same electricity, water and gas supplies, but they have little else in common in a practical way.
The time has come, the time is ripe, and the external need is great, for them to begin a process of meeting together in the Lobby. This coming together to get to know one another cannot be rushed and it needs to start from small beginnings.
Thus instead of everyone who lives in the complex crowding into the Lobby there should be first of all a meeting of representatives from the various floors of the building. And when they have met, recognized how much they have in common and the pressing need for them to get to know each other better, then a larger meeting of more residents can be called and can meet in the hall next door.
We propose that the Anglican groups/societies/organizations/jurisdictions, that presently represent what may be called the faithful Anglican remnant in the U.S.A. (the ECUSA being generally apostate or nearly so), begin slowly and surely to get to know each other, to find common ground, and to move towards some kind of union, which can be the basis (God willing) for a new Province of the Anglican Communion in the USA. This process to run parallel to the Commission of the Primates which is looking into ways of bringing help and discipline to provinces that are in disorder right now.
To this end, we propose that there be a Fri/Sat Meeting in January in Atlanta (where bad weather should not be a problem) of two representatives from each of the following -- American Anglican Council, Forward in Faith North America, the Anglican Church in America, the Anglican Catholic Church, the Province of Christ the King, the Episcopal Missionary Church, the Anglican Mission in America, and the Reformed Episcopal Church.
Further, we propose that this Meeting:
•have as its Convener a person who is respected by all and is outside the American scene, but who has an understanding of it.
•begins on a Friday afternoon and lasts till Saturday afternoon.
•has no Eucharist but uses Morning and Evening Prayer.
•uses only a Prayer Book and a Bible for the services which were in existence before 1960 (thus classic BCP and KJV or ASV or RSV).
Also, we suggest that, if there be agreement that a further Meeting should occur, then that Meeting be in Philadelphia in the Spring, for Philadelphia has great symbolic importance -- it is where the PECUSA officially began in the 1780s. Further, we suggest that each participant pay for his own travel and hotel for the Atlanta meeting, and that a contribution be made by all groups involved to pay for the fare and hotel of the Convener and also of any consultant he cares to bring with him or to use.
Explanations
There are probably 75,000 active Anglicans/Episcopalians outside the ECUSA. The recent publicity of the AAC does not seem to have made this fact clear either to the Primates or to the Anglican Communion generally or even to the American people.
Anglicans outside the ECUSA tend to think that the conservatives left within ECUSA have compromised too much and diluted the received Reformed Catholic Faith.
Anglicans inside the ECUSA tend to think that Anglicans outside have a tendency to schism, to making too many bishops and to lowering the standards of clergy education.
Misunderstandings increase when people do not talk and pray together. The time has come for the talking and praying in a responsible and devout way to begin!
The time has come under God for the re-forming, re-ordering, re-uniting and renewing of the American Anglican Household on sure foundations.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon & The Revd Dr Louis R Tarsitano (October 27, 03)
posted by John at 8:10 PM CDT permalink
Sunday, October 26, 2003
A SAFE HAVEN: The American Anglican Council & Realignment of American Anglicanism
In a recent press statement by Bruce Mason for the AAC we were told that the AAC Board moved forward with the establishment of a "Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes" in the Episcopal Church as the first component of the new realignment planned by the AAC. He cites the President of the AAC, David Anderson, who said that: "This network is intended to be a safe haven for all those Episcopalians who are distressed by the direction that the Episcopal Church has taken over the past 30 years - actions that culminated in the grievous decisions of General Convention this past August."
A Safe Haven
There is general appreciation in the Anglican Communion that a group of concerned churchmen are taking most seriously - as a duty before the Lord - the search for right doctrine, order and unity, as well as seeking to help parishes which are persecuted by radically liberal bishops of the ECUSA.
There is also appreciation by those who have suffered at the hands of the bishops of ECUSA since the 1970s that the AAC President now publicly recognizes that the present "gay" issue is not an isolated matter but is related to at least thirty years of innovations by the General Convention & National Church, that is by the center of the ECUSA, and by the diocese in turn.
I ask:
Does the AAC realize that there are up to 75,000 faithful Anglicans outside the ECUSA and the majority of them left It because of the innovations of the 1970s - the innovation of women priests (then later of bishops) and the innovation of new formularies (including the rejection of the classic formularies of the PECUSA and the Church of England). These Anglicans are committed to that which was the general commitment of the Episcopal Church before the 1970s.
Does the AAC realize that the present doctrinal basis of the AAC commits that organization to the very thing that caused the exodus of these 75,000 or so people and the formation of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions (which, I accept, regrettably have been too prone to internal division and need to be recalled to unity). Unless I am mistaken, the AAC's foundation recognizes that the 1979 Prayer Book is a genuine Book of Common Prayer and is THE Formulary on which it stands. Further, there is a general commitment in the AAC to the innovation of women priests and this is something that the Continuing Anglicans find difficult to accept as of the Lord.
Does the AAC Board have any sense of vocation for the unity of all Anglicans -- to meet with representatives of the Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions, the Reformed Episcopal Church, the AMiA and other groups in order to find a way together to unite the faithful Anglican household of America on a sure, biblical and classical foundation for the glory of God, the edification of all concerned and the positioning for help from the Primates after their Commission reports in 2004? I submit that the 1979 Prayer Book and its Catechism are not sound formularies on which to build a reform movement!
There is much that the AAC can do. It has made a good beginning but has given the appearance of acting as if the only faithful Anglicans are in the ECUSA and, further, that the foundation on which these Episcopalians now stand is a firm and good one! Let the AAC broaden its vision and change its foundation from one of sand to one of rock (the Sacred Scriptures, the Creeds, the classic Formularies [BCP 1662/1928, Ordinal and Articles and Canon Law as it was in the 1950s/1960s].
The American Anglican Household is called to unity in truth and truth in unity.
TAKE A LOOK AT www.american.anglican.fsnet.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 1:37 PM CDT permalink
Thinking of Gene Robinson as a divorced man
Adelphoi,
Along with my learned friend, Lou Tarsitano, and a few others who have communicated with me, I feel as though we must be the only people in Christendom who think that the primary reason why Gene Robinson should not be in ordained Ministry and certainly not made a Bishop on Nov 2 is because he is a divorced man -- and not only a divorced man but one who is not chaste, for he is living with another person (who happens to be a man but could be a woman).
In simple terms, I believe that he is not eligible to be a Bishop because he is divorced and this is compounded by the fact that he is not a chaste, divorced person. That his fornicating is with a man and not with a woman is secondary here - he was disqualified by traditional canon law and before God by being divorced.
If one sees the matter in these terms then there is no prioritizing of the homosexual issue as such and one can condemn the action of the ECUSA in blessing homosexual unions within the context of a holistic view of sexuality, which view also condemns the lax attitude to divorce with remarriage in the ECUSA.
How different would have been the Primates' Meeting if the whole matter had been seen in these terms! Perhaps I should rewrite their Statement on this basis as an exercise in pastoral theology! Evangelicals may have served the Lesbigay cause in ways they were not aware of by making the issue that of homosexuality instead of divorce and fornication -- think of the massive friendly publicity given to the "gay" cause by the media all over the western world.
Of course homosexual activity is sinful before God but so is the fact of divorce and so is adultery; by God's mercy most sins can both be forgiven and healed. But sometimes, even when forgiveness is granted by heaven, a person is barred by God and his Church from certain positions of pastoral responsibility & care. So it always was with divorce in the Anglican Way until very recent times in the Provinces of the West/North, especially in the ECUSA.
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 1:36 PM CDT permalink
Friday, October 24, 2003
The Vocation of faithful Americans of the Anglican Way for the year beginning October 03
At present, faithful Americans of the Anglican Way, whatever their jurisdiction, have before them a double task. The first part of this task is to interpret with both a charitable and a discerning spirit the statement issued by the Anglican Primates on October 16, after their recent emergency meeting at Lambeth. Did the Primates respond adequately to the crisis of authority provoked by the General Convention’s approval of the election of a divorced, non-celibate man, living with a same-sex “partner,” to be the Bishop of New Hampshire? Was it clear enough that the Diocese of New Westminster has left both Christian and Anglican ground by adopting the formal blessing of same-sex relationships, despite the Scriptural teaching that absolutely forbids such arrangements? Did the Primates leave an opening for the American faithful themselves to address these matters and to act in support of traditional Christian doctrine and morality?
We believe that they did (please see our earlier paper, “Rebuilding the Anglican Household in America – a task for 2004: A response to the Primates’ Statement of October 16, 2003, and a vocation for faithful Anglicans”). Thus, the second part of the task that confronts the faithful in America is to determine for themselves whether or not they are capable of organizing an actual province-in-being of the Church, as a traditional canonical basis for seeking fellowship with the Anglican Communion or the several Provinces that make up that communion.
Can the currently dispersed elements of the faithful Americans of the Anglican Way, whether Anglicans in ECUSA, Anglican exiles from ECUSA for conscience’ sake, members of the Anglican Mission in America, or the Anglicans of the Continuing Churches and of the Reformed Episcopal Church, find a center of faith and practice that will hold them together as one household of Christ? Can the Americans accept the hard work of cleaning their own house?
We believe that they can, but only when action comes from clarity of thought, rather than from reaction to the errors of others. We offer the following propositions and observations to foster further discussion and to pursue that clarity of thought.
1. The secular political model of “winners and losers” does not fit ecclesiastical circumstances, and should not be applied to the issuance of the Primates’ statement of October 16. No spiritual problem has a political solution, and thus, the more godly a primate, the less likely he is to be an effective politician or to produce documents of a political nature. Jesus Christ has won the only victory that matters, and it is our calling to witness, preach, and manifest that one victory, until the Lord returns in glory.
2. Ecclesiastical reality, however, does not exclude the possibility of there being genuine opponents of the Gospel or self-conscious defectors from the Lordship of Jesus Christ in our midst. As St. Paul warns, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). Since St. Paul concludes this discussion with the words “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15), we know, as a matter of fact, that every form and method of resistance to error is available to us, except hatred and enmity.
3. The pastoral and parental vocations contain within them a duty to protect the flock of Christ, and children in particular, from exposure to uncorrected error and sin—from “every brother that walketh disorderly.” While the conduct of major reformations and renewals of the local churches on earth, including the disposition of their temporalities, may be a slow process, the pastoral and parental duties of protection are immediate and incapable of postponement. The flocks must be protected now, if necessary at the expense of their corporate temporal property, since the gain of the whole world is not worth the price of their souls.
4. No governing body of a local church in need of reformation, of whatever size and scale, has ever given the faithful permission to engage in reformation. If the governors were orthodox and promoting Scriptural orthodoxy, there would be no need for reformation.
5. The English Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries was premised on the claim that national churches, such as the Church of England, have an inherent right and obligation to reform themselves, regardless of their other ecclesiastical associations, past or present.
6. It follows, then, that the Church in the United States or the Church in Canada has the same right and obligation of reform, regardless of what any other national church or communion of national churches has to say. Furthermore, even if the various other Anglican national churches of the present day have forgotten the historical and theological basis of their self-government under Christ, as opposed to their obligatory submission to a centralized ecclesiastical polity, the American and Canadian churches can lose their innate authority to reform, and if necessary to reorganize themselves, only if they repudiate the Anglican Reformation itself.
7. If, therefore, we insist that the bishops and primates of other national churches take on the duty of reforming the American churches, we also ask them to deny basic Anglican principle. It is the duty of the faithful people in the United States and Canada to present themselves to Christ and to the world as faithful churches, and not the duty of the churches in other nations. We may certainly ask them for help, and we ought always to seek their fellowship in the true faith of Jesus Christ, but we cannot demand that they protect us absolutely from the sacrifices and labors of our own national duty to Christ.
8. Those who believe that their calling is to be Anglicans must persist in the Anglican Way, as epitomized by the historic formularies that are our basic statements of self-definition as servants of Jesus Christ in the Anglican Way.
9. Without rancor, if only because as Anglicans we do not believe that membership in a particular sect is necessary for salvation, we plead with those faithful people who cannot in conscience follow the Anglican Way to seek the peace of their consciences in some other household of Christ’s Church. Those whose consciences affirm the central government and authority of Rome should embrace Rome. Those who wish to live the life of the Orthodox should find a place in one of the Orthodox churches. Those who desire to live under a Presbyterian polity or according to the beliefs of modern Open Evangelicalism should join with their brethren in faith, rather than wearying their souls by fighting both the opponents of historic Anglicanism and historic Anglicanism itself at one and the same time.
10. The Anglican Way is a reformed catholic faith and discipline. Even allowing for different emphases, we must come to see that one cannot be an Anglican without embracing both the Reformation and the catholic faith of the undivided Church of Jesus Christ.
11. It is time to notice how much of current practice, even among those who would call themselves “low church” or “evangelical” is derived from Vatican II and its aftermath in the Roman Church. The various innovations that proceed from this source ought to be evaluated for their consistency with a reformed catholic faith and discipline.
12. It is also time to notice that the so-called “doctrine of reception,” which has been used thus far to justify the innovation of ordaining women, is inconsistent with Biblical Christianity because its essential premise is a trial usage of what is perceived by large numbers of the faithful as a departure from Scriptural authority, on the dubious basis that in the indefinite future agreement among members of the Church will be reached and that agreement will obligate God’s acceptance of the new practice.
13. It is useless to propose new, self-governing provinces of the Church in North America, if those provinces are expected to begin with an internally impaired communion among their own members.
14. When the American and Canadian households are in order, there will be plenty of time and opportunity to pursue fellowship and communion with either the Anglican Communion or its faithful remnant. Just as civil governments cannot recognize nations that have yet to come into existence, so, too, other national churches cannot recognize or enter into formal communion with the Americans or Canadians until they constitute existing and coherent national churches themselves.
The Rev’d Dr Louis R Tarsitano & the Rev’d Dr Peter Toon October 21, 2003
posted by John at 9:10 PM CDT permalink
New Website: A RESPONSE TO THE PRIMATES STATEMENT
A new website A RESPONSE TO THE PRIMATES STATEMENT of October 16th
by Lou Tarsitano & Peter Toon is now open
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
please pay a visit
Here we post our writings on the Reforming of the American Anglican Household towards a new Province in America
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:25 PM CDT permalink
Primate Griswold to the World
(Here, Frank Griswold tells the world that the consecration at which he will preside will go ahead in 9 days. Let us all be clear that this event is but the PRESENTING problem in the ECUSA where the spirit of the age, personal rights and individual autonomy have come to determine the nature and content of morality, and where God is a fuzzy God of love who exercises justice only in order to achieve in humankind, individual rights and autonomy! Thus merely to oppose Robinson and his consecrators is to miss the mark - even though what they do is against the will of God for His Church. Reform is needed root and branch!)
ACNS 3646 | USA | 24 OCTOBER 2003
For the Primates of the Anglican Communion
by the Most Revd Frank T. Griswold
[ACNS source: Episcopal News Service]
My dear brothers in Christ,
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I returned home from our meeting at Lambeth grateful for the spirit of candor in which we shared our thoughts and feelings. I thank God for the opportunity to come together in Christ's name and for the strong bonds and mutual affection that exist between us. I pray that our common commitment to mission and God's ongoing work of reconciliation will continue to bind us together in Christ in the days and years ahead. I remind myself that the church is not our possession but the risen body of Christ of which each one of us is a limb and member in virtue of our baptism.
As I tried to make plain in the course of our meeting, we in the Episcopal Church have been dealing openly with the place of homosexual persons in the life of our church for at least thirty years. Though the question still remains unresolved, the presence among us of deeply faithful men and women whose lives reveal the fruit of the Spirit, and whose primary affections are ordered to persons of the same sex, has brought us to this difficult, and very public, moment. I recognize that while many in our church give thanks for where we have come, many others are deeply pained and distressed. I further recognize how our decisions have also affected you and I hope you know how profoundly I regret the pain our Province's action has caused many of you.
One of you once said in the context of our Bible study: "The Holy Spirit can be up to different things in different places." As hard as it might be for sisters and brothers in Christ in other contexts to understand and accept, please know that broadly across the Episcopal Church the New Hampshire election is thought to be the work of the Spirit. This does not mean everyone in our church is of that mind. There are also those who honor the decision of New Hampshire but are not sure it is of the Spirit. As well, I am keenly aware that there are faithful Episcopalians who are deeply unsettled and believe what we have done is contrary to God's will. However, for the greatest part, these persons are committed to remaining within the Episcopal Church and, in a spirit that is truly Anglican, believe that those with divergent points of view can live and pray together within the same household of faith.
As I promised you, upon my return to the United States I spoke with Canon Robinson and shared with him the deep concern that so many of you expressed and the gravity of what may lie ahead. In my conversation with him, and in public comments, he has expressed both his anguish and his continuing sense that he is called to go forward.
I must tell you that at this point there is every reason to believe the consecration will take place on November 2 as scheduled. I appreciate that when the consecration takes place, as we said in our statement: "We will have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion." As much as this is true, the prediction made in the statement that the Communion's future "will be put in jeopardy" will not, I pray, come to pass. I believe it is for us to live into this unknown future in faith knowing that, as we declared in our statement, "What we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us." It is my hope and my prayer that the Spirit of truth, who makes known to us the mind of Christ, will be our guide as each of us in our own context seeks to embody and proclaim the gospel of the One who is our Truth.
I much valued Archbishop Rowan's comments about the nature of communion. I agree that communion is not primarily about structures. Communion is a gift from God manifested in the various webs of relationship among and between us. Our communion strengthens us so that we can carry out God's mission on earth. Though we affirm our allegiance to the Scriptures and the Creeds, our unity in the body of Christ does not mean we have only one way of reading the Bible, nor do we need to be in agreement about all of the contemporary issues with which we are called to struggle. Concerns of sexuality present themselves differently in our various contexts. I believe that as we continue to struggle deeply and honestly with matters of sexuality we will have much to learn from one another and we will become more mutually responsible and interdependent in the Body of Christ. Being in communion, however, does not in any way mean that you as Primate or your Province necessarily agree with the actions taken by the Diocese of New Hampshire or the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
Please be assured of my prayers for each one of you. Please pray for me as I try to oversee the life and witness of this Province and as I seek in these difficult days to advance God's ministry of reconciliation.
Yours ever in Christ's love,
The Most Revd Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:22 PM CDT permalink
Difficulties many and Problems galore - give up? No!
(October 24)
Dr Tarsitano & Dr Toon have proposed that the vocation of faithful Anglicans & Episcopalians in the USA (whether they are inside or outside of the ECUSA - and there are as many outside as inside)following the message of the Primates on October 16th is this. Together to rebuild the Anglican Household in order to become together by God's good ordering a new province in the Anglican Communion with the special help of the Primates in a year's time.
Many have sent messages of encouragement but others have rehearsed all the difficulties and problems that this Vocation contains. (In comparison, the AAC congress of October 7 from which a majority of faithful Anglicans were excluded, was relatively easy to pull off; but what it achieved was in many ways an avoidance of the Problem for it dealt only with one of the presenting problems of ECUSA by majoring on the homosexual issue.) We are aware of a multitude of things that make this Vocation difficult, even impossible. Never before have the representatives of ALL the "faithful Anglicans" of the USA even attempted to meet for prayer and dialogue with a view to serving the Lord together. The dynamics of the American supermarket of religions are such that centrifugal forces usually triumph over centripetal ones. But the Lord prays for the unity of his people.
We think that what people of good and ill will are missing in making negative comments on this Vocation is that in the sort of real world presented in the Scriptures, and seen in Christian history and experience, one does not know the outcome of an event or activity until God gives it conclusion. Recall David, who fasts before the death of his first child by Bathsheba, but once God renders his judgment in this world, David goes on to other business, admittedly in sorrow.
If God should tell Anglicans "no," in terms of their becoming one comprehensive province on a sure doctrinal basis, then we will live with that "no" and seek his further will. But until we have together asked him, and at least met together for prayer and dialogue, it is arrogance and presumption to answer for him, no matter how tender our feelings, hurts, aspirations, and experiences.
In order to facilitate the first meeting of ALL the representatives or delegates who believe that they are faithful Anglicans, the Lord must provide through his people the means to accomplish it. Neither Toon nor Tarsitano has money & have only very limited, voluntary secretarial help - we merely have prayers, thoughts, computers and e mail!
Let us pray for eyes to see the provision of the Lord for this Vocation.
Tarsitano & Toon
posted by John at 8:19 PM CDT permalink
Dr Philip Turner -- wise words to ponder
Adelphoi,
(This is part of the paper circulated in the Jacksonville Diocese recently. I worked with Dr Turner on the Primates' project that produced "To Mend the Net". Here he speaks words that we can all can benefit from, I believe. The full paper is available from the diocese.)
Dr Philip Turner on the real background to the Gene Robinson election:
The Robinson election in fact serves to highlight the primary challenge all the churches in America face; be they Catholic, Orthodox, "mainstream" Protestant, Evangelical, or Charismatic. I speak of the subversion of Christian belief and practice by the logic of autonomous individualism, and their transformation into simulacra. For one should make no mistake! What has happened in ECUSA is not the particular problem of a once (overly) proud denomination. Rather, it provides an exemplary case of the sort of subversion and transformation that, in one way or another, threatens all American's denominations.
To display this point with some clarity, I will freely borrow from the account Alasdair MacIntyre has given of the tradition of liberalism in Whose Justice? Which Rationality? The present economic and political cultures of America plainly stem from this tradition, and it is this tradition that currently is bringing all its force to bear (in a hostile way) on more traditional forms of Christian belief and practice. MacIntyre notes that the tradition of liberalism cannot allow for a single notion of good to possess "the public square." Liberal society must remain neutral in respect to the good. What one can express in public are not notions of good but preferences. Of course, some way must be found to order preferences both in respect to individual life and to social policy. No rational way can be found to achieve this goal, however, because there is no common notion of good to which appeal can be made when it comes to sorting out conflicting claims. Thus, the way in which one establishes preference in the public arena, if it cannot be done by force, is by bargaining. Everything, both in respect to private and public life becomes a "trade off." Social life becomes a sort of free trade zone for preferences. All one needs to be able to play the game is the ability to bargain.
There are two things in particular to be noted about this form of social economy. The first is that theories of justice abound. They must for the following reason. To have one's preferences excluded is to have one's rights denied. Then the question arises of how one person's right to his or her preference is to be balanced against a contrary right claimed by someone else. At this point, some theory of justice must be invoked, but in a liberal social economy of preferences, no one theory can establish itself. Theories of justice simply multiply exponentially and interminably. Given this social reality, one can see easily why supporters of Gay rights hold ordination and the blessing of Gay unions to be matters of justice. One can see also why supporters of Gene Robinson hold that his election was above all "a justice issue."
The dominance in America of a liberal social economy also provides another reason for regarding the Robinson election and the permission given for Gay blessings to be more than an Episcopalian anomaly. Within a liberal social economy there comes to be a view of moral agency that gives special significance to sexual preference and sexual satisfaction. The denizens of a social order based upon competing preferences think of themselves not as inhabitants of a pre-established moral order but as individuals who are utterly unique, as selves that have particular personal histories and needs, and as persons who have rights that allow them to express their individuality and pursue their personal well-being within the social world they inhabit. For moral agents who think of themselves as individuals, selves, and persons, sexuality becomes, along with money, both a marker of identity and a primary way of expressing the preferences that define identity.
It is precisely this notion of moral agency and personal identity that makes the Robinson election so understandable. Here is a unique individual, who is a self with a particular history and a person with a right to express his preferences and put his talents to work in the social world he inhabits. To deny him that right on the basis of sexual preference is, at one and the same time, to deny his personal identity. This notion of moral agency also makes understandable why the issues of abortion and euthanasia take their place alongside self-chosen sexual expression as centers of moral controversy both within the churches and without. At the basis of each of these arguments lies the characterization of moral agents as individuals, selves, and persons who have the right to pursue the preferences that provide them with personal identity. In the culture wars that rage over abortion, euthanasia, and sexuality defenders of more traditional Christian teaching and practice often miss the fact that they must confront American culture on a deeper level than any of these specific issues. If they are to be effective, they must take on the very way in which Americans think of themselves as moral agents. The "socio-logic" that stands behind ECUSA's recent action beckons thinking to an even deeper level than the sad history of this Church's search for a distinctive place on the spectrum of America's denominations. It calls Christian thought to confront a perception of moral and social life that runs counter to the very foundations of Christian thought and practice. It raises the question of whether we inhabit a moral universe with an order we are called upon to understand and to which we are required to conform, or whether the moral universe we inhabit is properly the creation of preference pursuing individuals, selves, and persons who create a social world suited to their self-defined goals through an elaborate process of moral bargaining.
The Robinson election in fact manifests the social forces that at present erode the ability of America's denominations to act like churches: that is to say, to form people in a pattern of belief and a way of life which may run against preference but nonetheless accords with what Christians have, through the ages, held to be the truth about God and his intentions for human life.
It is important to recognize these social forces, but it is important as well not to conclude that the recent actions of ECUSA can be adequately explained by the play of these forces alone. Christians through the ages have faced social forces that threaten to compromise the truth they have been given to live and proclaim, but they have not always succumbed to them. To think well about what is happening in ECUSA one must ask why the sirens of modernity have sung so sweetly in ECUSA's ears.
My belief is that a religious rather than historical or sociological answer must, in the end, be given to this question. The English theologian P. T. Forsythe once wrote, "If within us we have nothing above us we soon succumb to what is around us." The history recounted above suggests that the internal life of ECUSA may well lack a transcendent point of reference-one that can serve as a counter balance to the social forces that play upon it. A certain vacuity at the center is suggested also by an analysis of the theology that currently dominates ECUSA's pulpits. The standard sermon in outline runs something like this: "God is love, God's love is inclusive, God acts in justice to see that everyone is included, we therefore ought to be co-actors and co-creators with God to make the world over in the way he wishes."
Here is the theological projection of a society built upon preference-one in which the inclusion of preference within common life is the be all and end all of the social system. ECUSA's God has become the image of this society. Gone is the notion of divine judgment (save upon those who may wish to exclude someone), gone is the notion of radical conversion, gone is the notion of a way of life that requires dying to self and rising to newness of life in conformity with God's will. In place of the complex God revealed in Christ Jesus, a God of both judgment and mercy, a God whose law is meant to govern human life, we now have a God who is love and inclusion without remainder. The projected God of the liberal tradition is, in the end, no more than an affirmer of preferences. This view of God is, furthermore, acted upon by an increasing number of ECUSA's clergy who now regularly invite non-baptized people to share in the Holy Eucharist. It's just a matter of hospitality-of welcoming difference. An inclusive God, it would seem, requires an inclusive sacramental system.
[Note: if Turner is right - and I think he is so - then we are all at fault and not least those who think that the only real thing wrong with the ECUSA is its adoption of the gay agenda. Its various innovations of the last fifty years all together are examples of the spirit that Turner so well explains. Reform and renewal are needed root and branch in American Anglicanism, and one branch is the gay issue - but there are a lot of others as well!]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon)
posted by John at 8:18 PM CDT permalink
Bringing into order & unity the American Anglican Household - a first step
If the American Anglican Household is to be brought together in an ordered unity for the sake of its Lord and Master, and for the edification of all involved, a meeting of the representatives of the bodies who claim to be orthodox Anglicans must occur soon.
To make it possible that this meeting actually occurs, there is needed a respected convener, one who would be perceived - at least by the majority -- as having prestige, impartiality, and a lack of ambition.
He will need to be acceptable to the majority of the folks from the ECUSA, the AAC, the REC, the major Continuing Churches, the AMiA, the Fin FNA, and so on.
His task will be to assist these representative persons (at least two from each group) to find common ground in their Christian & Anglican commitment and discover whether they have sufficient in common to move to the next stage. This would probably be that of a longer meeting with prayer and fasting to plan the first stages of bringing the Anglican Household in America from its present disorder and division into the beginnings of order and unified witness -- and thus into that which will eventually, by God's providence and the help of Primates, lead to an orthodox Province/National Church, and full membership of the Anglican Communion.
Where shall we find such a Convener?
1. Retired Anglican bishops (a missionary bishop would perhaps be especially desirable).
2. A respected scholar, professor, or physician.
3. A layman who has been a senior civil official, such as a governor, a mayor, or a cabinet officer.
4. A war hero of some sort.
The hard part is figuring out who we know in any of these categories and whether we could recruit him.
If the omniscient and omnipotent Lord is guiding these attempts towards unity of a part of his universal Household, then he has a man ready and being prepared for the vocation of convener.
When the Lord reveals his identity, then we can move ahead!
Please pray with us and in your charity for us,
Louis R Tarsitano & Peter Toon
P.S. We hope to announce on the 27th October the address of a website where all the papers and proposals written by us for the reforming and renewing of the whole Anglican Household in America can be read and downloaded.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:14 PM CDT permalink
ECUSA - Bridge-Church & Liberal, Liturgical Denomination
Philip Turner, the former Dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, has recently written:
"From the point at which this history has placed me, it seems most clarifying to say that, by its action [in confirming the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop-elect of New Hampshire], ECUSA has confirmed a decision taken unconsciously some time ago to find its primary identity as a liberal but liturgical option within the spectrum of Protestant denominations that make up America's religious kaleidoscope. In making this decision, ECUSA has at one and the same time (perhaps again unconsciously) made marginal for its self-understanding the significance of its membership in a worldwide communion of churches that jointly claim to be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In fact, it has placed its membership in the Anglican Communion under threat, and, rather recklessly, brought that communion itself to the verge of a split between the churches of the global South and those of the North."
Dr Turner is surely right to identify the recent, innovatory decisions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church as having their roots in earlier decisions, by which the nature and character of this American denomination were determined.
What is now called the Episcopal Church is called in its constitution "The Protestant Episcopal Church", a title which was intended in the 18th century to distinguish it from the Roman Episcopal system but to tie it to the Reformed Catholicism of the English Protestant Reformation. In the 20th century the word "Protestant" was dropped in order to satisfy (a) anglo-catholic or high churchmen who wanted this denomination to be seen as distinct from popular American Protestantism and also (b) ecumenical churchmen, who saw the Episcopal Church as a bridge-church between Rome and Geneva/Wittenberg.
In the 1960s and 1970s when the liberal theology, especially from German, had permeated much Episcopal teaching & preaching, the leadership of the Episcopal Church proudly presented it as a denomination that was unique in the American religious supermarket -- it was liberal in doctrine and social theory, but had catholic ceremonial and liturgical forms, claimed an apostolic ministry, and was also a kind of bridge-church between the old and the new, the Catholic and the Protestant. (Not a few at that time and a little later went on "the Canterbury trail" as it was called.)
It is in this general context that one has to place the new prayer book produced by the Episcopal Church in the 1970s and called "The Book of Common Prayer, 1979", although strictly speaking it is not Common Prayer at all. It is a mixture of the old and the new in language, doctrine and liturgical structure & content and it has options so that the uniformity of the past gives way to the pluriformity and variety of the present. It presents the prayer of the denomination that has emerged in new dress in the post-World War II era and is now intent on providing a liberal yet liturgical religious option to America. And this 1979 book and the supplements that followed it, reveal that this denomination is open wide to the winds of modernity that blew through America so strongly in the 1960s and into the 1970s.
What the new prayer book reveals as to the emerging nature and character of this liberal, liturgical and well-heeled Church is confirmed by the rush by this denomination into the ordaining of women, the use of inclusive language for human beings and then for God, the giving permission for the re-marriage in church of divorcees and the gradual granting of full church rights to "gay" people. In this rush into the absorbing of innovations, there is revealed a deeper commitment - to a view of human beings that sees them as having basic rights before the God of love and justice to self-fulfillment, included in which is the central right of self-autonomy. Thus Gene Robinson has in 2003 the right to be what he is, to do what he feels is right for him, and to be promoted to any church position open to him. To deny him this right is to deny what God stands for! And likewise the evangelical Episcopalian who is divorced has the right to remarriage in church as part of his self-realization and fulfillment.
If there is to be ever any genuine reform of the Episcopal Church, or even of parts of it, then there must surely be first of all a search for the root causes of its recent commitment to innovation upon innovation and its departure therein from the classic, historic, biblical and orthodox Anglican Way. Prioritizing the homosexual issue may be good for instant publicity, but it does not truly help the cause of genuine reform, for this involves much more than merely removing the innovation of blessing "gay" unions. The Episcopal Church has strayed far from the narrow way that leads to Life and this means that all within this denomination partake to some degree in this straying. To return home, to reform the household, to reclaim the heritage, to recover the Anglican Way of Christianity, is a task for people of commitment, consecration and humility. It ought to begin right now!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:12 PM CDT permalink
Where all reformed Episcopalians can all agree
My dear Fr Kim,
Greetings. May I take forward the discussion about what to do in the USA after the Primates' Meeting, whose Statement has disappointed many but pleased others? I ask that this be read alongside the longer Paper written by Dr Tarsitano and Dr Toon and recently distributed by you, a paper which set out various propositions for consideration about how to move forward.
The Supermarket of Religions which is the American religious scene is an amazing testimony to the freedom of religion in the USA as well as to the exercise of private judgment in the reading of the Bible. In the Anglican section of this Supermarket there are many varieties, some of which are not really far from each other -- I mean the churches of the American Anglican Council, those of the Forward in Faith, those of the AMiA, those of the major Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, and also of the Reformed Episcopal Church are near enough to each other so as to begin to find common ground upon which they can be united and possibly form a new Province of the Anglican Communion for the USA. They are so different to the religion of the so-called "National Church."
To find common ground means not going forwards at first but rather looking back and finding our common roots and foundations. There is little doubt what these are -- they are the very foundations of the Reformed Catholic Faith which is the Anglican Way. They are the Canon of Scripture, with its Two Testaments, the Two [or Three] Creeds, the dogma of at least the first Four Councils and the classic, historic Formularies from the 16th century (the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal for the ordaining and consecrating of Ministers, and the Articles of Religion). In other words, let us return to the foundation of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA before it was overwhelmed with modernism from the 1960s onwards.
If representatives of the bodies I have mentioned (and others I have not
mentioned) could send representatives to a series of preliminary meetings to discuss this vital possibility & vocation, then it is possible that they will all find (in contrast to what divides them) that there is much that unites them as Christians and as Anglicans. They will see the possibility of creating together an American renewed household of Anglicanism and the producing (for the Primates to encourage and support) a new united and comprehensive Province of the Anglican Way in the USA, which proclaims the Gospel and edifies its members.
There is a Year to make a substantial start and progress in this vocation as the Primates work out how they can act within an autonomous province.
The problem with earlier calls for congresses and the like by the AAC etc. is that they appealed to a far too narrow base and to a foundation of sand. Centripetal forces of grace are now needed to unite those who really belong together. The present Centrifugal forces, of which American society has many varied and powerful examples, do not bring glory to God or unity to the people of the Anglican Way but simply make us all glory in minors and in our separation.
Let brethren of the same Family dwell together in peace in their own land and be also in fellowship with their brethren in others lands in that expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church we call "Anglican" (after Ecclesia Anglicana).
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:06 PM CDT permalink
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
The Lady Bishop & the Gay Issue
Adelphoi,
If it were required by divine appointment to have a female bishop my choice would be Victoria Matthews of Edmonton, Alberta. Here is her Letter on the "Gay" issue. -- P.T.
October 14, 2003
http://edmonton.anglican.org/Pastoral.html
PASTORAL LETTER TO BE READ IN ALL PARISHES OF THE DIOCESE OF EDMONTON OCTOBER 19TH AT ALL SERVICES.
My dear Friends,
The present controversy about the blessing of same-sex unions and the dispute over episcopal jurisdiction in the Anglican Church of Canada and the wider Communion are most disturbing. The events of the past few weeks have led me to have this pastoral letter read in all parishes of the Diocese.
As many of you are aware I have repeatedly said that the teaching and position of the Anglican Church of Canada is clear. We do not accept the blessing of same-sex unions and the General Synod canon on marriage does not permit same-sex marriage. However the actions of the Synod of New Westminster and its bishop, the Right Reverend Michael Ingham, and the support of this unilateral action by his Metropolitan, Archbishop David Crawley, in spite of the requests of the House of Bishops to not proceed, have led me to make a further statement. In a recent letter signed by our Primate and the Metropolitans of the four Canadian ecclesiastical provinces, this most painful matter of New Westminster proceeding to permit the blessing of same-gender unions is judged to not be a church dividing issue. Many disagree. I can only say that the action of Bishop Ingham and the Diocese of New Westminster, in proceeding with the blessing of same-gender unions, is church defining. The letter from the Metropolitans states that the real crisis is one of jurisdiction and not of sexual ethics. I beg to differ. While no one can tell where the conversation at General Synod will lead, when we yet again engage the topic of same-gender unions, I do not believe there will be unanimous affirmation of New Westminster's actions. Furthermore, I believe the pertinent debate is doctrinal as well as pastoral. The question concerns what the Anglican Church is prepared to call "holy", and how we reach that discernment. Both the content of the question (which involves Biblical teaching, the tradition of the Church and the exercise of human reason), and the process by which we engage the question are important and demand patience and care. When a Canadian diocese refuses to wait upon the direction of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, it is not surprising that some members of our Communion take strong exception. While I can not approve of any bishop acting beyond his or her jurisdiction, I do recognize there is deep frustration at play. The stated intention of Archbishop Crawley to discipline Bishop Terrence Buckle of the Diocese of Yukon is not out of order but it highlights our church's inability to resolve difficulties and disagreements in a healing manner. Dare I say that repentance is in order on all sides?
In the months remaining before General Synod, 2004, I ask this Diocese to be clear about two aspects of the present dilemma. First, I uphold, and expect the Diocese to uphold, the present teaching of our church about same-gender relationships. This means no clergy of this Diocese may bless such a union or marriage. Secondly, I am asking the membership of the Diocese to engage in repentance and prayer. I call for repentance because I believe emotions are running so high that we have lost the ability to listen to one another, and quite possibly also to the Holy Spirit. Repentance means recognizing that in every position in the debate there is a desire to win so others may lose. Indeed, I am convinced we have worked ourselves into a situation where there are only losers, with enormous pain on all sides. This does not give glory to God nor does it further the work of the Kingdom. Thus I ask for our church the grace of repentance and a renewed commitment to prayer. Let us pray that our church may discern the mind of Christ; that we might have the grace to see the way forward; and that we might have the will to obey what we are called by Christ to do. I ask your prayers that future conversations about these difficult matters might have great integrity, avoiding the enormous anger and disappointment presently being expressed by all. Hearing the call of the Gospel, let us conduct ourselves in a way worthy of the communion that is ours in Christ.
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. Victoria Matthews
Bishop of Edmonton
cc: The Metropolitans
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 6:41 AM CDT permalink
Monday, October 20, 2003
Not receiving Discipline, nothing new for the ECUSA
Modern ECUSA evangelicals and charismatics - not to mention some anglo-catholics - have been and perhaps remain hopeful that the majority of the Primates of the Anglican Communion will "discipline" the Province known as ECUSA and declare that it has placed itself outside of the Anglican Communion. And the reason for the petition for immediate discipline is, as we all know, because of majority votes in the General Convention of 2003 for innovation in terms of blessing "gay" couples and ordaining a "gay" priest as a bishop. In fact, many of this persuasion ( that is, those who have prioritized the homosexual issue) seem to want their own ranks to be declared to be the orthodox remnant in the ECUSA with whom alone the [majority of the] churches of the Anglican Communion should be in full communion.
But the Anglican Family as a Communion of churches has (at least as of now) no central authority or means to declare such a thing. However, it is true that individual provinces or churches, which are autonomous, have that power of declaring the anathema against the ECUSA; but, if they do so, they only speak and act for themselves, not on behalf of the whole or even part of the whole.
This kind of situation is not new! Let us recall the 1970s when the ECUSA deserved the anathema and did not receive it!
In 1976/79 the ECUSA did something which was far more serious and deadly than its actions for innovation in 2003. In fact the innovations of 2003 can be traced back to the door that was opened wide in 1976 & 1979.
At those Conventions in the late 1970s the ECUSA knowingly, deliberately and carefully set aside the very basis of its claim to be genuinely Anglican and a sharer in the Tradition of the authentic Anglican Way. It set aside the classic Book of Common Prayer (1662-1928) and the Ordinal (1662-1928) and the Articles of Religion and replaced the first two with modern creations designed in the1960s and early 1970s. And the Articles became a historic document.
What was called "The Book of Common Prayer, 1979" was not such, but was rather a "Book of Alternative Services" like those so-called in Canada and England. Inside this Book were multiple services and also new rites for ordination and they made possible the ordination of women. (Contrast England & Canada where the new book existed alongside the classic BCP - and still does so.)
The Anglican Communion had NO power to intervene in 1979 in an autonomous and wealthy province as was the ECUSA, and so it quietly allowed this major innovation in the foundations of the American Church to be made without more than a murmur.
The same Communion did the same with respect to the changing of the doctrine of marriage in the 1970s by the ECUSA. Again this was a foundational change!
Is there a way out of all this?
I suggest that the way forward for the "remnant" is to prioritize the fundamentals and the basics - the relation to the Holy Trinity through the Scriptures with the classic Anglican Formularies as the necessary foundation of the Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism; and to see the homosexual issue as the means that God is using to bring his Episcopal children (i.e., genuine Episcopalians) back to himself and back together in true koinonia. This way forward will of course mean repenting for the commitment to the 1979 formularies for all these past years.
If the faithful remnant of the ECUSA could join with the faithful in the Continuing Anglican Churches, the Reformed Episcopal Church & the AMiA etc to recover together the best Biblical & Patristic and Reformed Tradition of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in a genuinely comprehensive Church based on the Scriptures and the Formularies, then the Episcopal Household could be recovered and rebuilt in the USA, and this the Primates could genuinely support! A genuine province could be created by the grace and providence of the Holy Trinity that would be "worthy" for full inclusion within the Communion of churches.
------------------------------------
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 4:31 PM CDT permalink
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Primates' Meeting - Lambeth Palace, an evaluation
Before this Meeting occurred on October 15-16, it may be recalled that I was constantly warning evangelicals and charismatics from both the USA and the UK not to expect too much. I did so on the basis of my knowledge of Anglican Polity, not on any prophetic knowledge.
When I was given the Statement at the Press Conference at Church House on Thursday Evening I was pleased with what I read. Here is why.
The Meeting does not constitute an Ecclesiastical Court, or Synod of Bishops, or a House of Bishops. It is a meeting of senior bishops from 38 autonomous churches and the presence of each one there (except the host) is on a voluntary basis. Further, when an individual Primate arrives he does not usually come with the authority of his province to agree to whatever is decided; but, when present, he expresses his opinion and then takes back to his province that which the Meeting has agreed. It is usually for the Synod of his Province to declare any official response to outstanding issues.
Thus the Meeting only has a Moral Authority, but such is very important authority for truly Christian people. If this Meeting clearly states that something is very wrong, and that something else is truly wholesome and good, then that is a sure word to genuine Anglicans, who must respect the mind of such an august gathering of leaders and be ready to examine their own positions in the light of it.
We need to bear in mind that at least half of the Primates came to the Meeting having declared themselves already in impaired communion with the Diocese of New Hampshire and other dioceses (perhaps in some cases with the whole of the ECUSA). As individual Primates & Provinces they can do this, but the whole Meeting as such cannot do any such thing for it is not an Ecclesial entity as such (that is, it is unlike the House of Bishops of a Province).
So what did they achieve?
1. They expressed in very strong words their total disagreement with the sexual innovations and aberrations of the American and Canadian Churches. This has gone forth loudly and clearly to the whole world. It is a powerful moral word.
2. They recognized that there was not any suitable way for there to be intervention on behalf of the Gospel and good order by the whole or the majority within the erring provinces of the USA & Canada; and so they insisted on setting up a Commission to look into this whole area, and to report back within 12 months, so that an Anglican Way of helping erring provinces can be formulated & agreed upon and put into practice. (This, I accept, ought to have been done already and it is Dr Carey's fault that such an agreed procedure was not in place for this Meeting to be there for use.)
3. They recognized that the ongoing work of writing into the Constitutions of each Province a relation to Canterbury and to other Anglican Provinces needed to be speeded up, for, with such in place in Canon Law it would make easier, and more obviously right, any actual intervention to dispel error and heresy and to propagate the Gospel.
4.They agreed not to act precipitately but rather to work together in the difficult process of helping erring provinces. But this is based upon the one year of careful investigation and study and preparation of a plan/procedure.
Commenting on these gains, I would say that Dr Rowan Williams, into whose eyes I looked intently (I was only 8 feet away) for the duration of the Press Conference, gave me the strong impression that he will do all in his power to make these commitments work. I believe him.
BEARING all this in mind, I see the duty of the American household of the Anglican Way as being that of beginning now the painful task of putting its own house in order so that, in a year's time, when it is possible for there to be intervention, which is according to general agreement of the Primates, the internal USA situation will be such that there will be the possibility of fruitful encounters and also the emergence of a reformed national Anglican Province/Church in the USA.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:12 PM CDT permalink
Saturday, October 18, 2003
ECUSA -- four basic Schools of Thought
In explaining to those outside the Episcopal Church of the USA what are the different parties or schools of thought within It, I state that there are four. However, not a few dioceses, parishes and persons have each leg (or part therof) in a different camp. So this a general not a precise map!
The FOUR are (a) the radical liberal; (b) the affirming catholic; (c) the affirming evangelical or charismatic; and (d) the traditionalist who may be high or low church. [Presiding Bishop Griswold could be said to have a leg in both (a) and (b).]
What unites all schools of thought and expression are (a) a common history;
(b) a common pension fund for clergy; (c) one General Convention; (d) a desire to be part of the world family, the Anglican Communion; (e) a desire to see the Episcopal Church grow in size and quality; (f) a use of the Bible as the basis for doctrinal and ethical guidance; (g) a respect for tradition; and (h) the positive use of religious "experience" or "experience of God".
However, the way in which each school interprets the common history, the Bible, tradition and religious experience is different from the others and the differences are sometimes great.
Schools (a) & (b) & (c) agree amongst themselves that (1) the ordination of women is acceptable, that (2) the Prayer Book of 1979 is a genuine "Book of Common Prayer" in the Anglican tradition of Common Prayer, that (3) divorce followed by marriage is acceptable in most circumstances for clergy and church members, and that (4) there is no need whatsoever to recover the classic Anglican Formularies [the 1662-1928 BCP, the Ordinal & the Articles of Religion] which were discarded by the Episcopal Church in the 1970s.
Further, schools (a) & (b) and (c) are not in agreement amongst themselves over such matters as whether stable, same-sex relations between consenting adults are approved by God and can be therefore blessed by his Ministers. School (a) and perhaps (b) are generally in favor, while School (c) seems to be universally against any acceptance of homosexual practices. On this matter the evangelical/charismatic School reads and interprets the Bible as the Church has done throughout history, while in the areas where it agrees with Schools (a) and (b) on divorce & women's ordination it arrives at its position by using the Bible in a thoroughly modern way.
School (d), which is not defined by churchmanship, should not really still be within the Episcopal Church if the will of General Convention determined the providence of God! This minority School, which hangs on by the skin of its teeth, sees itself as expressing the Reformed Catholic approach of the mature English Reformation. Thus it holds to the final authority of the Scriptures, interpreted in the light of the Creeds and the classic Anglican Formularies. It does not believe that the innovation of women priests is right and neither does it think that the 1979 Prayer Book is actually "The Book of Common Prayer" (rather it is a "Book of Alternative Services"). So it uses either the BCP of 1662 or that later edition of 1928. Further, it accepts that the classic, traditional, Anglican approach to marriage does not allow for remarriage in church except in rare instances and it certainly does not allow for divorced persons to function as parish priests. As the evangelical/charismatic School, it is opposed to all forms of active homosexuality amongst Christians because of the teaching of Scripture and holy tradition.
One major question for the future (bearing in mind the recent Meetings in Dallas - October 7-9 - and in London - October 15-16) is whether or not those (schools c & d) who are opposed to the homosexual agenda of school (a) and of many in (b) have sufficient in common to cooperate seriously and devoutly and create the basis for a new Anglican Province for America, which can then petition the Archbishop of Canterbury for admittance to the Anglican Communion of Churches.
(Note that the schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church, as in the C of E, of the period up to the 1960s were all basically united in a common center and differed on secondary matters such as ceremonial and historical interpretation. Put simply the schools were -- the anglo-catholic, the broad church and the conservative evangelical. All schools accepted the Scriptures, Creeds and Formularies as the basis of the Anglican Way. BUT, since the 1970s the common center has become smaller and smaller until now in 2003 it hardly exists in a meaningful way. Thus the four schools in 2003 are held together by what they have in common in the institutional ECUSA.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:09 PM CDT permalink
Same-sex Marriage and Contraception - their relation
(an interview with a devout, learned R C female theologian which contains "truths" that few high church or low church Protestants want to hear --P.T.)
Same-Sex Marriage and Its Relation With Contraception
Janet E. Smith Links Rejection of "Humanae Vitae" to Acceptance of Homosexuality
DETROIT, Michigan, OCT. 17, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Culture has all but embraced homosexual activity since abandoning the principle that procreative sex within a marriage is the only moral form of sexuality, says an expert on the Church's sexual teachings.
Janet E. Smith, who holds the Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Issues at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, shared her views with ZENIT in this interview.
A consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family, Smith is the author of "Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later" (CUA Press). More than 500,000 copies of her tape, "Contraception: Why Not" (One More Soul) have been distributed.
Q: Do you see any connection between the rejection of the Church's teaching on contraception and the push for homosexual marriages?
Smith: Not so many years ago at a conference on homosexuality, Russell Hittinger argued that there is not much ground for opposing homosexual marriages in a culture where most unions are contraceptive. He said we were already blessing unions whose primary reason for existence was sexual pleasure.
In fact, many years ago, when dissent first started concerning the Church's teaching on contraception, some of those defending the teaching said, if we were to approve of contraception, soon people would be arguing that masturbation, fornication and homosexuality were morally permissible. Some people thought those claims were absurd and likely most now would as well, but in both the Church and in the culture it is clear that widespread acceptance of contraception has radically changed our understanding of sexuality.
Rather than holding to the Christian and common sense view that sex belongs within marriage between a male and a female committed to each other for life and open to children, our culture thinks that sex is quite simply for pleasure -- and that almost any combination of consenting individuals may morally seek that pleasure without any commitment, without an openness to children.
Now, I am one of those who believe that probably most of those with homosexual orientations have some sort of psychological disorder probably not acquired through their own deliberate choices; something damaging may have happened in their youth or childhood. Thus, I am not suggesting that people who contracept are going to begin to engage in homosexual activity -- though I do think they may develop appetites for various kinds of perverse sexual activity.
What I am saying is that the culture becomes more accepting of homosexual activity since it has abandoned the principle that heterosexuality with a respect for the procreative power of the act is the only moral form of sexuality.
Q: Dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception is still widespread. How has that changed dating and courtship over the past 40 years?
Smith: There basically is no such thing as dating and courtship except in the smallest of religious circles. Now there is "coupling" and "hooking up" and "living together," but little really careful selection of dating partners followed by a slow and careful process of getting to know the other and to let oneself be known.
There is no question that contraception has greatly increased the incidence of sex outside of marriage. Certainly very few people marry as virgins. Many people start having sex early in a relationship.
The pattern of marriages in the United States is often something like this: multiple sexual partners before marriage; a two- or three-year period of cohabitation, all the while contracepting; two or three years of contracepted sex after marriage; suspending with contraception for a short period of time in order to conceive the first child; return to contraception; suspending contraception to conceive the second child; then the wife or husband gets sterilized; then they get divorced.
This is not the pattern of courtship or marriage that God had in mind.
Abstinence before marriage permits the couple to get to know each other without the confusion and premature bonding of sexual involvement; they can get out of relationships that aren't leading to marriage without severe heartbreak and disruption to one's life. They develop a wide range of methods of expressing their love for each other, and when they begin their sexual relationship after marriage it is the proper "seal" to put on a relationship they have already established and intend to nurture for a lifetime.
Q: In your experience with young people, what has been the impact, if any, of "Humanae Vitae"?
Smith: Young or not so young, few Catholics have read it or attempted to live it. For several decades seminarians were taught not to teach the teaching of "Humanae Vitae." Father Charles Curran's position was dominant: "The Church was wrong and would eventually change."
Thus in the last several decades even Catholics who have gone through Catholic high schools and colleges and through Catholic marriage preparation have heard no explanation or defense of the Church's teaching. The document has either been ignored or pilloried.
Q: What is the toughest thing for young people to understand about the Church's teaching? Have you seen a shift in thinking among young people over the years?
Smith: It is not so tough for the young to understand once it is explained to them. The young and even the not so young are surprisingly receptive once they understand what the meaning and purpose of sexuality is.
They have some deep sense that this culture is tremendously messed up about sexuality and that people have suffered great damage because of their sexual choices. When they hear the Church's teaching about sexuality articulated it makes quite a bit of sense to them.
One thing I can count on is that young people hate divorce; either they have grown up in divorced households and have experienced the heartbreak and trauma of divorce or they have friends who have. They want long-lasting marriages.
When I tell them that those who live by the Church's teaching -- no sex before marriage, no contraception within marriage, using of NFP [natural family planning] to space children when necessary -- almost never divorce, they are prepared to listen.
Yes, there has been a huge shift. My generation didn't want to listen to anyone over 30 and we have paid a great price for our arrogance, as have our children and our culture. Frankly, young people don't want to be as messed up as we are, and are looking for another, better way.
The Church has the other, better way. Various movements in the Church are succeeding in galvanizing the faith of young people and they are prepared to give the Church's teaching on any matter a very respectful hearing.
Q: Regarding sexual morality, contemporary society and the media promote a message very different from Catholic teachings. How can the Church communicate better to young people the wisdom of "Humanae Vitae"?
Smith: There is actually an abundance of good material out there. Parents should acquire some of it and read it, watch it, listen to it and discuss it with their children.
Among others, I recommend the works of Mary Beth Bonacci, Jason Everett, Chris West, Colleen Kelly Mast and Molly Kelly, and the programs developed by Family Honor, the Couple to Couple League, Teen Star and the Family of the Americas.
Q: What effect has Pope John Paul II's teachings had in this regard?
Smith: It has had an enormous effect. Young adults are mesmerized by his "Theology of the Body," especially as promoted by such effective presenters as Chris West. Themes such as the nuptial meaning of the body, the need for self-mastery and sexuality as being a complete gift of one's self seem to grab young people. It is being taught with fervor in several seminaries and in conferences for laity across the United States. Seeds are being sown that will bear great fruit.
Q: Are you foresee any bright spots?
Smith: In another generation I think we will see a very different Church. Priests and seminarians will make promoting the Church's teaching on sexuality one of the foremost themes of their pastoring, both through various means of educating their parish and through marriage preparation. The abstinence-based chastity education programs are having an effect.
If we get people basing their marriages on the Church's teaching, we will have many more happy and healthy families. A good number of those families already exist and they are producing strong vocations to the religious life, to the celibate life and to married life. I am a firm optimist in this respect.
ZE03101724
posted by John at 7:07 PM CDT permalink
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church on Crisis
From the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church
16 October 2003
Dear friends,
I am writing this note on my return journey from the meeting of Anglican Primates at Lambeth Palace called by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This as you know was as a result of the controversy created by the election of Canon Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire in the USA and the decision by the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada to authorise a liturgy for the blessing of those in committed same sex relationships
I have been very grateful to many of you who have in recent weeks sent me messages assuring me of your prayers and sharing with me your own concerns and convictions from both sides of the argument. The tone of such messages has always been generous and considerate - in contrast I have to say to some I have received from other parts of the world!
The full statement of the Primates meeting is to be found on the Anglican Communion website www.anglicancommunion.org and I would encourage you to read this alongside any newspaper reports. If you are not on the Internet then Lorna Finley at the GSO Office can ensure that you have a copy.
The meeting itself was one in which strong views were expressed and especially by those Primates mainly from the global south who have felt particularly upset by the decisions taken in Canada and the USA. I sometimes felt that we were locked in a struggle out of which there would be no resolution. Some of us experienced what might be described as being on a 'rollercoaster' of emotions as the mood of the meeting changed on a number of occasions. Yet through the sensitive and, as Robin Eames commented, 'prayerful' guidance of Rowan Williams we found a way to say that "what we had in common is greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world". Serious problems and divisions still exist, of course, and it is very likely that some provinces will take their own action after the ordination of Canon Robinson as indicated in the statement. The challenge is in whether we allow these problems to be destructive of our common together as Christians within the Anglican Communion. The statement identifies some ways forward for the Communion to address this matter.
In our own Scottish Episcopal Church we have often described ourselves as seeking to be a church which reflects the Gospel through a welcoming, open and inclusive attitude; which values the rich diversity that exists within our shared Christian journey; and which is ready to explore the difficult issues of faith and order with, I hope, honesty and love. None of that, I believe, is compromised by this statement. But I hope it may also challenge us to take more seriously the study of scripture, acknowledging as the statement says 'a legitimate diversity of interpretation' ; and to continue, as the Lambeth Conference 1998 resolution on human sexuality asked us, to listen to the experiences and struggles of homosexual people in the church.
Finally, whatever happens in the coming weeks in ECUSA regarding the ordination of Canon Gene Robinson I hope that we will uphold in our prayers all those in our sister church with whom we have strong historical and continuing friendships.
I could say more - and indeed will write an article for the 'Scottish Episcopalian' after I've had some more time to reflect on these past two days. But given that the press will inevitably put their own particular 'spin' on the event I felt it important to share with you as soon as possible my own initial reflection. Do feel free to share this with others.
Once more my thanks for your prayers and support
+Bruce
posted by John at 7:05 PM CDT permalink
Rebuilding the Anglican Household in America – a task for 2004
A response to the Primates’ Statement of October 16, 2003, and a vocation for faithful Anglicans
While we can expect to hear more from our faithful brethren in Africa, Asia,and the Southern Cone, the Statement of the Primates ought not to come as a great surprise. Yes, the innocent souls that had hoped for a one-time, one-meeting solution to heresy and apostasy in ECUSA, Canada, or the Anglican Communion in general, do and will need a great deal of comforting.
Nevertheless, we believe it is time to remind ourselves that it was never reasonable to expect the Primates, even the orthodox Primates, to give the faithful in America an easy, painless victory.
The reformation of a particular national church has much in common with a war, and in particular with a "corrective war" of the sort known as a "war of liberation" or a "war of independence." Aquinas would describe such a struggle as an act of charity, not only in defense of the oppressed faithful, but also on behalf of those in error, who must be rescued from their error and deprived of the ability to do further harm to the lambs of Christ.
To use an analogy, American colonists, by and large, did not hate Great Britain. Rather, they loved Britain, her history, and her rule of law. When, however, the colonists had done their best to seek redress of their legitimate grievances and had been denied it, they could no longer put off action on their own behalf. Their Congress declared the independence of the American colonies from the governance of Great Britain, along with the new status of those colonies as an independent nation able to govern itself according to the rules of law and equity.
Indeed, those first American citizens had friends and allies in other nations, but the major burden of reforming American civil life rested on American shoulders. In the same way, the burden of reforming the American church is the primary burden of Americans, and not of our beloved brethren and friends in other countries. We cannot ask them to pay the price of our reformation; but we must demand of ourselves that we pay the price of fidelity and true Christian fellowship.
Warfare, even spiritual warfare, is an application of force--moral, temporal, and supernatural-- to achieve a defined purpose. It is a mistake to depend too much on the subjective models of our modern, secular & therapeutic culture, when the task before is the restoration of the objective faithfulness of the American Church to Jesus Christ, rather than on sharing our private feelings of disappointment or exile. We should never meet again to talk about how we feel, but only to plan a course of action. We must not be afraid to face the hard question of whether or not, despite our common opposition to the Griswold regime, we have enough in common to foster a single effort. It may be that we cannot abide in one household, but we will not know that until we have defined not just who and what we are right now, but more importantly who and what we intend to be for the sake of Jesus Christ when our labors, by God's grace, are successful.
The way to work with the Primates, and in particular with the Theological Commission which in the next year will look into acceptable ways of help being provided by one Province to another, where there is major internal disagreement in a given Province, is not to attempt endlessly to change their minds, looking for immediate and substantial help. Rather, it is to build a province and to seek their fellowship, in general or in particular, as our Lord will give us the light to see our duty. The way to build a province is to learn from the reorganization of the American church after the War of Independence and to adapt those lessons to our present needs and circumstances.
We can achieve, with God's help, a faithful province. We can make an honorable and charitable witness to the Anglican Communion and to the rest of the world. But we will not succeed if we keep asking permission to reform ourselves. It is time to rebel against the errors of men and to embrace the call of Jesus Christ to build up with him. God being our helper, there is nothing that is not possible to us now that was possible before the Primates issued their Statement.
Louis Tarsitano & Peter Toon
E Mail Peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk
E-mail (Louis) episocas@bellsouth.net
posted by John at 8:20 AM CDT permalink
PECUSA, ECUSA & Biblical Discipline
Let us soberly recall that, had the basic discipline been in place in 2003 that was in place in the old PECUSA (the discipline that was set aside by the new ECUSA) up to the middle of the 20th century, then Gene Robinson would not (never) have been a candidate for the Episcopate.
As a divorced priest he would have not been eligible for election even if he were the kindest man on earth.
Whether one is the supposed guilty or non-guilty party to a divorce, to be divorced used to make one ineligible for ordination & consecration in the Episcopal Church. And it still does in most of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. (Find a divorced or divorced or remarried priest - or bishop!- in the Anglican Churches north of S Africa or in S E Asia; he is a very rare person if he exists at all.)
That Robinson was actively "gay" merely adds a further impediment (and for many a very offensive impediment - due to local religious, cultural reasons as well as biblical interpretation) to that of being a divorced person in terms of candidature for ministry. Being divorced ought to have been an insuperable barrier, at least whilst his wife is alive!
The point is this - that if the ECUSA had retained anything like a biblical discipline then the Robinson case would not have arisen and the present crisis would not be with us. It is because the ECUSA dug up its foundations of biblical discipline in the 1960s and 1970s that this crisis eventually came. Crises will come to any church or group that flings away its foundations.
Regrettably, since the AAC works with, and has not actively moved (as far as I know) to change the divorce canons of the ECUSA or for its own membership, then it stands apart from traditional church practice and doctrine even though it makes statements about the ideal of marriage and being orthodox.
If the word of the Lord is being heard, surely the leadership of the AAC & Fin F NA and so on will now see the need to "dig again the wells of Abraham" and to "search for the old paths and walk therein". Going back to the status quo of July 2003 was never an option that would please the Lord our God. To walk with the Primates into the future means rebuilding the Anglican House in the USA. This is the vocation before us and here there will be no gain without pain.
The Primates' Meeting (as Canon Bill Atwood has shown - see below) has positive good news for the possibility of reform and renewal. But internally in ECUSA those who wish to be reformed and renewed have great work to do - to return to basic and first principles, that is to the Lord their God through the biblical and classical means provided in the historic Anglican Way (as understood and exercised in the USA since the 18th century).
See the forthcoming Paper on this REBUILDING OF THE HOUSEHOLD by Dr Tarsitano & Dr Toon.
-----------------------------
Bill Atwood (whom I last saw on the 16th at the ancient gate of Westminster Abbey talking into a Camera!) has written in these terms:
"Having been in conversation with primates before, during, and after their meeting, let me explain a few things.
The commitments of the primates at this meeting are Biblical, Christian, and good.
It is not a waffle, sell-out, or liberal victory. Not surprisingly, these mature leaders of millions used diplomatic language, but the message is clear if read. Sometimes things in England are complex.
For example, at the place where I am staying, one has to take the lift to the fourth floor in order to get to the third floor.
Here are just some of the victories:
John Peterson was not included in the deliberations.
The Lambeth Conference commitment to scripture was affirmed.
Homosexual practice is rejected.
They clearly stated that teaching of the church cannot be changed unilaterally ECUSA and New Westminster are WRONG
Primates have accepted a role of enhanced oversight
ADEQUATE Episcopal Oversight is in place in consultation with the ABC ON behalf of the primates (That means it is not up to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold or Archbishop Michael Peers to decide what it adequate.)
New Westminster was specifically addressed.
A commission was established, but it is not to discuss sexuality, it is to work through legal issues of entanglement and disengagement.
In pressing for Adequate Episcopal Oversight (which means "with jurisdiction") the primates adopted a new structural direction for the communion that will help mission. (Moving beyond geographical jurisdiction.)
These things are huge and historic. The mechanisms are being put in place to insure a future for those who maintain Anglican faith and practice. OK, it is not finished yet, but steps had to be designed that took into account the advice of the canon lawyers who said the Primates could not do "anything" about discipline.
What the Primates wound up saying is basically, "Yes we can. We have established the limits of diversity. When ECUSA exceeds that, they will be excluded from the communion. The lawyers are working out the details." That is what the commission is really about.
It is sad that some conservatives are so spring loaded to be negative that they cannot see encouragement even in the middle of an historic victory. If you were expecting the headline, "Anglican Primates conduct armed assault on 815:Bodies of liberals litter Second Avenue," you were no doubt disappointed. It took thirty (plus) years to get into this mess. It will take a while to get out of it, but the way has been established. Our faith has been affirmed. The Scriptures set the limits. We have Primate supervised Alternative Oversight while the mess is being worked out.
A commission is working on legal issues of re-structuring. When ECUSA consecrates Gene Robinson, separation will follow formally.
There is a new day for the Anglican Communion. Some are seeing it emerge now."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:14 AM CDT permalink
Presiding Bishop Griswold on the Crisis
A Word to the Church
10/17/2003
[Episcopal News Service] I have just returned several hours ago from the meeting of the Primates in London. It was a difficult but very truthful meeting in which our understanding of one another¹s contexts and the burdens each one of us must bear were made abundantly clear. I have ever greater respect and affection for these brothers of mine and for the ministry they carry out, often in the most difficult and seemingly hopeless circumstances.
The effects for our Anglican brothers and sisters of our action taken at General Convention giving consent to the ordination and consecration of the bishop coadjutor-elect of New Hampshire were described in very stark terms. Many spoke about ridicule they had received within their provinces and the threat to their ability to proclaim the gospel, particularly in places where other religions are dominant.
The statement issuing from our meeting reflects hours of intense conversation and confrontation, always in the spirit of mutual respect. It is too soon to draw out all the implications contained in the statement or to see exactly how its provisions might best be articulated. I will have more to say at a later time.
One paragraph of the statement reads as follows: Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to made adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.² On this coming Monday I will be meeting with the Pastoral Development Committee of the House of Bishops to begin to consider how best we can honor this concern, building on the already expressed willingness of our bishops to make provision for extended episcopal ministry in particular circumstances.
I returned home with a sense of gratitude for all of the members of our church, regardless of our various points of view. I am grateful even for our struggles in which we so openly and honestly engage. I pray they may be a gift. I believe that what has occurred in the Episcopal Church is the work of the Spirit. As difficult as this moment may be, if this is, in fact, a work of the Spirit it will contain some yet to be revealed way in which communion in that same Spirit is made stronger and deeper. This is my hope and my prayer.
This brief word to the church comes with my love and my blessings.
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
posted by John at 8:10 AM CDT permalink
Friday, October 17, 2003
What happened at the Primates Meeting? - from ACNS
ACNS 3635 | ACO | 17 OCTOBER 2003
What happened at the Primates Meeting? A guide for our ecumenical partners
As you will know, the Primates of the Anglican Communion met together at Lambeth Palace on 15 and 16 October in response to recent developments within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. These developments included the election of a priest in a committed same sex relationship as a bishop, and the authorisation by one diocese in Canada of a public Rite of Blessing for Same Sex Unions.
In their Statement at the end of the meeting, the Primates said four main things - (a) they committed themselves to working together in the Communion as far as possible, (b) they reaffirmed the teaching of the Anglican Communion on sexual ethics, (c) they acknowledged that recent developments will damage the Communion, and (d) they established a commission to take matters further.
1. The Primates expressed their unanimous commitment to the ongoing life of the Communion. The meeting reaffirmed, and indeed celebrated, the Anglican tradition of faith and worship, and all the primates are committed to co-operating together as far as possible in the Communion's shared work and witness, in spite of disagreements on the issue of homosexuality.
2. The Primates also reaffirmed the traditional teaching of the Communion in relation to the issue of homosexuality, as expressed at the Lambeth Conference 1998 in Resolution 1.10. They reaffirmed the whole of this resolution, including commending the main report of the Lambeth Conference on this issue to the members of the Communion, and the commitment to listen to the experience of homosexual persons in an ongoing process of study.
3. This reaffirmation means that the wider Communion cannot support the recent developments for the blessings of same sex unions or the election of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Indeed, the ministry of Gene Robinson as a bishop will not be recognised or received in the vast majority of the Anglican world.
What are the consequences of all of this?
4. First, it means that a state of impaired or broken Communion is beginning to exist between many parts of the Anglican world and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada. The Anglican Church of Canada is still in the process of resolving the questions that the authorisation of a public Rite of Blessing for Same Sex Unions in that diocese raise, and it is unlikely that any further developments can occur until the Canadian General Synod has met in 2004.
5. Secondly, for many parts of the Anglican Communion a state of impaired or broken communion will exist with the Diocese of New Hampshire, given the assumption that the Consecration will go ahead, and possibly with the whole of the Episcopal Church (USA).
What are the wider implications?
6. Questions remain about the nature, extent and duration of this impaired or broken communion. Will a breach in Communion between two parts of the Anglican Communion mean a Communion-wide split with each province having to choose between one side or the other? How will these divisions affect the relationship of each province with the See of Canterbury as the centre of unity of the Communion?
7. In order to answer these questions, the Primates have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a Commission which will report in twelve months time to the next meeting of the Primates. Until then, provinces have been urged by the Primates to avoid precipitate action.
8. The Department of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies will be pleased to respond to any enquiries from our ecumenical partners on these issues, and can be contacted at the Anglican Communion Office.
A copy of the Primates' Statement can be found at
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3633.html.
The Lambeth resolutions from 1998 can be found at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/lambeth/1/sect1rpt.html. The resolution on human sexuality is Resolution I.10.
Gregory K Cameron,
Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies,
London, 17 October 2003
posted by John at 5:31 PM CDT permalink
Final Statement of the Primates
(As I was present on Thursday evening at the Press Conference with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, Frank Griswold and the Primate of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, - sat 8 feet away and facing them - let me give a few words of introduction to this docoment. First, all Primates agreed to its release but not all agreed with everything it says. Frank Griswold stated clearly that he had no intention to do anything to prevent the consecration of the "gay" Canon Robinson and also that he would not go to any special lengths to arrange for alternative episcopal oversight. Drexel Gomez indicated that he, and he hoped all, the conservatives would be patient for up to a year - waiting for the results of the Commission advising on parallel jurisdictions and the like - before taking precipitate action. However the threat of schism is very real within the Communion and it could begin with African provinces declaring that they do not recognize the "gay" bishop as a bishop and are not in communion with those who consecrated him - and then the whole thing could mushroom. One complicating fact is that Rowan Williams maintains his own private position that possible in some circumstances gay unions are not sinful. He said this on BBC Radio this morning, but he insists that the Church's teaching is one thing and private opinion another and that he will maintain the Church's teaching and seek to keep its members talking to one another. If The C of E does not declare itself out of communion with the Diocese of New Hampshire and possibly the whole ECUSA then possibly African provinces will see themselves out of communion with Canterbury... And meanwhile it is probable that various Primates will not wait for the year and move to recognize internal ECUSA arrangements...)
ACNS 3633 | ENGLAND | 16 OCTOBER 2003
A Statement by the Primates of the Anglican Communion meeting in Lambeth Palace
The Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Moderators of the United Churches, meeting together at Lambeth Palace on the 15th and 16th October, 2003, wish to express our gratitude to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for calling us together in response to recent events in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, and the Episcopal Church (USA), and welcoming us into his home so that we might take counsel together, and to seek to discern, in an atmosphere of common prayer and worship, the will and guidance of the Holy Spirit for the common life of the thirty-eight provinces which constitute our Communion.
At a time of tension, we have struggled at great cost with the issues before us, but have also been renewed and strengthened in our Communion with one another through our worship and study of the Bible. This has led us into a deeper commitment to work together, and we affirm our pride in the Anglican inheritance of faith and order and our firm desire to remain part of a Communion, where what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world.
At this time we feel the profound pain and uncertainty shared by others about our Christian discipleship in the light of controversial decisions by the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise a Public Rite of Blessing for those in committed same sex relationships, and by the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) to confirm the election of a priest in a committed same sex relationship to the office and work of a Bishop.
These actions threaten the unity of our own Communion as well as our relationships with other parts of Christ's Church, our mission and witness, and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology, and polarised Christian opinion.
As Primates of our Communion seeking to exercise the "enhanced responsibility" entrusted to us by successive Lambeth Conferences, we re-affirm our common understanding of the centrality and authority of Scripture in determining the basis of our faith. Whilst we acknowledge a legitimate diversity of interpretation that arises in the Church, this diversity does not mean that some of us take the authority of Scripture more lightly than others. Nevertheless, each province needs to be aware of the possible effects of its interpretation of Scripture on the life of other provinces in the Communion. We commit ourselves afresh to mutual respect whilst seeking from the Lord a correct discernment of how God's Word speaks to us in our contemporary world.
We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on issues of human sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues. We commend the report of that Conference in its entirety to all members of the Anglican Communion, valuing especially its emphasis on the need "to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and 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"; and its acknowledgement of the need for ongoing study on questions of human sexuality.
Therefore, as a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) which appear to a number of provinces to have short-circuited that process, and could be perceived to alter unilaterally the teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue. They do not. Whilst we recognise the juridical autonomy of each province in our Communion, the mutual interdependence of the provinces means that none has authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as if it were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion.
To this extent, therefore, we must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other. We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) has explained to us the constitutional framework within which the election and confirmation of a new bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) takes place. As Primates, it is not for us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another province. We recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy and the expression of critical opinion by others on the internal actions of a province. Nevertheless, many Primates have pointed to the grave difficulties that this election has raised and will continue to raise. In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop.
If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).
Similar considerations apply to the situation pertaining in the Diocese of New Westminster.
We have noted that the Lambeth Conference 1998 requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise . We ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed. We request that such a commission complete its work, at least in relation to the issues raised at this meeting, within twelve months.
We urge our provinces not to act precipitately on these wider questions, but take time to share in this process of reflection and to consider their own constitutional requirements as individual provinces face up to potential realignments.
Questions of the parity of our canon law, and the nature of the relationship between the laws of our provinces with one another have also been raised. We encourage the Network of Legal Advisers established by the Anglican Consultative Council, meeting in Hong Kong in 2002, to bring to completion the work which they have already begun on this question.
It is clear that recent controversies have opened debates within the life of our Communion which will not be resolved until there has been a lengthy process of prayer, reflection and substantial work in and alongside the Commission which we have recommended. We pray that God will equip our Communion to be equal to the task and challenges which lie before it.
"Now I appeal to the elders of your community, as a fellow elder and a witness to Christ's sufferings, and as one who has shared in the glory to be revealed: look after the flock of God whose shepherd you are." (1 Peter 5.1,2a)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 5:26 PM CDT permalink
Rowan Williams at Press Conference
Adelphoi,
I was sat about 8 feet from Rowan W when he read this and I must say I was very moved by his sincerity, and this was in stark contrast to the attitude of the PB of the ECUSA who came across as rather flippant and arrogant to the many secular journalists in the room (from all major news outlets in the UK). There was no U-turn for Frank or for others in the ECUSA.
ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE
16 OCTOBER 2003
Archbishop of Canterbury's statement at the final press conference of the Primates' Meeting
Good evening everyone. Thank you very much for joining us. I hope you've had a chance, at least, to glance at the statement which has been produced by our meeting which has, in fact, been unanimously agreed by the meeting of the primates. And I'd like to offer a few words of introduction to this before we turn to questions.
It has been a very remarkable couple of days in the life of the Anglican Communion and it has certainly been anything but easy. It has not been without pain. But it has been honest and open and I hope that we have grown in some real shared understanding as a result. And I do want to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my colleagues in the Communion for all the dedication and the energy and steadfastness in Christian service that they show generally and that they have shown in these two demanding days.
Such understanding as we've achieved has been very hard won and it couldn't have been otherwise given the enormous challenges that we have faced in these two days and the very widely differing positions that we have brought to them. That makes our work together all the more significant. We have, very emphatically, found the will to keep talking and working together. In short we have grown closer together rather than, as many people predicted, further apart during this meeting. And that is what matters most to all of us and what I think renders any talk of winners and losers in this irrelevant.
Now it's quite clear from our discussions that issues around human sexuality will continue to be difficult and divisive for the Anglican Communion, as they are for many Christians. These issues will continue to cause pain and anger, misunderstanding and resentment all around. But I must make it clear that the Primates' Meeting has no legal jurisdiction, it's not a supreme court of the Communion and it would have been rather surprising had we been able, at this gathering, to make all the problems go away at once. We haven't. The challenge we have worked hard to meet has been to find some way of coping with divisive issues as a Communion. So these two days have not
been primarily a seminar on sexuality or an attempt to revisit discussions and decisions already taken, but rather an attempt to see what it means to be in Communion and that remains our shared commitment.
A word about Communion: people have talked about being in or out of Communion within our Church. The fact is, of course, as came out very clearly in our discussions, that Communion means a great many things, and means more than simply a set of structures, a regular pattern of meetings between Primates or any other official leaders. Communion means the Mother's
Union group from Lancashire going to visit Burundi, it mean the youth workers in the West Indies going to spend five years in the United States, and all manner of things like that. It means the existing close relationships between provinces as, for a long time, between Australia and Papua New Guinea whereby the life and the resource of different bits of the
Communion is shared. So the degree to which we are in or out of Communion, as between local churches, is never that easy to determine. Having said that, a superficial unity just clinging to structural forms for the sake of it is not at all what we are about. That's why I emphasise the deeper levels of Communion.
I believe that the family we belong to, the family of the Anglican Church around the globe, has to be an instrument of God's love for the world and that means that, in seeking to hold together as a Communion, we have to be seeking to serve that purpose and no other. So by attempting to work through our differences within our family we may come to a better discernment of what we're called to be in mission. I must say that some of the hardest
issues that were presented to us in the last few days were ways in which mission can be affected in one part of the world by what happens in another. So we look outwards again at the wider world we're in: a world that has remained in the focus of our prayers in our time together and we can be in no doubt about the work that is still to be done by the Church of God at large. And that greater challenge we attempt to look and in the service of that calling we have met and deliberated and sought God's guidance. What has emerged I think is a statement - an honest statement - of where we are, a statement of our willingness to work together and a recognition of the obstacles in that working together which we still face, but also some suggestions as to how we might cope with those obstacles. Thank you.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 5:20 PM CDT permalink
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Latest from Primates Meeting
ACNS 3626 | ENGLAND | 15 OCTOBER 2003
Archbishop Robin Eames addresses the media at Lambeth Palace
The Primates of the Anglican Communion gathered today for a two-day meeting in Lambeth Palace to listen to provincial perspectives, reflect on the issues raised and explore ways forward.
The media attention has been overwhelming and it was necessary to hold a press briefing at 4pm in the courtyard of Lambeth Palace where an unscripted statement was delivered by the Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Revd Robin Eames, on behalf of the primates meeting.
The full text of the statement follows:
"I think we wanted to give you an update on how things are going. We are now seven hours into the meeting. The meeting has combined worship, prayer, bible study and discussion and, at the present time, the Primates are all here, bar one who just has a problem unrelated to the subject or anything like that.
"We are telling the story of how the Provinces of the Anglican Communion have reacted to the developments that the Archbishop of Canterbury thought necessary to bring to our attention. Those stories represent the cultural differences right across our Communion, the reaction the Primates have had in their own countries and nations, and also the opportunity to show that there is an underlying anxiety right across the board to maintain the Anglican Communion.
"I have to say that in all my experience of these meetings, I have never attended or been involved with one where there is such openness, frankness and honesty. And also, one where each and every Primate has been given the opportunity to respond in his own way to the question that has brought us together. I have also to say to you, that the anxiety to maintain the Anglican Communion, contrary to many of the predictions which your profession may well have shown to us earlier on, I have to say to you that that was unfounded because there is a tremendous anxiety to maintain the Anglican Communion on a basis of collegiality, cooperation and the common faith.
"Now, as I say, we are seven hours into the meeting. The programme is permitting the telling of those stories, as we put it. And I cannot tell you any more at this stage of the agenda, simply to say that we are still at that point. How long it will take, I wish I could tell you, because seven hours is quite a long time of intensity and I am sure you will understand, having waited out here in the wind, that seven hours is seven hours! But I would like to stress once more, that the Archbishop of Canterbury who is chairing this meeting is very anxious indeed that every possible opportunity is given to individual Primates to express the concerns that they have, which are varied, which in some cases are totally coloured by the culture of that country. But above all else, it is a very open and a very, very serious meeting.
"Now, I want to get back to what is happening. I'll take three questions and I'm not having any favourites!"
Question: Will this eventually come to a vote? How will this be resolved?
Answer: I can't honestly answer that, because at the moment, it's a case of telling the reactions, telling the stories. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would say it's moving towards a consensus situation. Now what form that consensus will take obviously won't become obvious - if it is to become obvious - until tomorrow. But certainly, at the moment, it's very, very much an honest expression of concerns.
Question: Are you a betting man? Could you let us know what you think the odds are of coming to a consensus that keeps the Church together?
Answer: In Northern Ireland terms, I'm known quite simply as the divine optimist! And I don't know whether that classifies me as a betting man or not, but I would say I am optimistic that the Anglican Communion will emerge from this stronger than it has ever been. What I would also like to predict is that there will be much greater honesty than perhaps we have had up until now.
Question: What is the next stage once you have heard the stories and the reactions.
Answer: Well I can answer that. The next stage is to reflect on what we have heard from the various Provinces. The process has simply been one after the other going through the 37 or so provinces. And obviously we want now the chance to reflect on what we have heard from our colleagues. So the next stage will be building on the current session that we are having.
Now can you be good enough to let me go back because, as I said it's a very, very open session and I would like to thank you for your patience.
posted by John at 8:07 PM CDT permalink
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Defender of the Faith
Why all Anglican eyes in London are nervously fixed on a powerful African archbishop
by Philip Jenkins
(copyright Atlantic Monthly)
The most important figure today in the Anglican Communion, a worldwide federation of churches with some 75 million adherents, is probably a man few people in the West know anything about: Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, of Nigeria. An uncompromising traditionalist, Akinola presides over the most vibrant and almost certainly the largest Anglican community in the world-at a time when the Anglican world's true center of gravity has shifted to Africa.
It was no small matter, then, when Akinola went public this past summer with blistering denunciations of proposals to consecrate openly gay bishops and to sanctify gay marriage. Commenting on the decision of the Canadian diocese of New Westminster to approve the blessing of gay unions, Akinola declared that the diocese had in practice seceded from the Anglican world. Reacting to a proposal in the Church of England to ordain a gay bishop (a proposal ultimately withdrawn after intense pressure from African and Asian leaders), Akinola thundered, "This is an attack on the Church of God -a Satanic attack on God's Church." And during the buildup to the U.S. Episcopal Church's controversial ordination of Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire, he announced, "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things."
American and European readers may be inclined to dismiss such remarks as coming from a hidebound bigot, or perhaps from a demagogue seeking attention-but they would be wrong to do so. In his attitudes toward sexuality, and above all in his attitude toward religious authority, Akinola represents a deep-rooted conservative tradition in African Christianity that is flourishing and growing, and that is simply not going to vanish as levels of economic growth and education rise in Africa. The prospect of imminent global schism in the Anglican Communion is therefore real.
Matters may well have come to a head by the time this article goes to press: in October the Archbishop of Canterbury was scheduled to preside over an emergency session in London of the primates of his Church worldwide. Perhaps the session will turn out to avert open schism, but even the friendliest such meeting could not change the nature of the enduring conflict between the older and the younger Anglican churches, with those of Europe and North America set against those of Africa and Asia. Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are watching these events with foreboding, because what is really at issue, of course, is competing conceptions of the nature of religious authority, of the relationship between the religious and secular spheres, and even of the possibility of coexisting peacefully with other faiths.
Peter Jasper Akinola is (not necessarily in this order) a Nigerian, a Christian, and an Anglican. He is an imposing figure, tall and graying, who has been married for thirty-four years and has six children. He was born in 1944 and spent his early life in the province of Ogun, the land of the Yoruba people, in the far west of Nigeria; he was sixteen when the country achieved its independence. Akinola thus came of age in an era of enormous
optimism about a nation that had the potential, because of its vast oil reserves and its surging population, to be one of the most powerful countries in Africa-indeed, possibly a world power. From 1966 to 1970, however, Nigeria was torn apart by a civil war that killed perhaps two million people, and from 1983 to 1999 the country was ruled by a series of brutal and stunningly corrupt military dictatorships that set back development at home and blighted the nation's reputation overseas. In this disastrous secular environment many Nigerians began to see their future in the Christian churches, which offered a growing place of refuge.
When Nigeria's civil war began, Akinola was starting an entrepreneurial career in Lagos as a carpenter and a furniture maker, with a sideline in patent medicines. In 1968 he began training as a catechist, and after studying at Anglican theological colleges in northern Nigeria, he was ordained a deacon in 1978 and a priest in 1979. He traveled to the United States and in 1981 received a master's in theology at Virginia Theological Seminary. Later that year he returned to Nigeria, to Abuja, the city that was being developed as the nation's new federal capital. His return coincided with the start of a remarkable religious explosion. The Nigerian Church has never since known anything but boom years, and the specific nature of this boom is central to understanding Akinola's response to the debates over homosexuality.
he Anglican Church of Nigeria was founded by British missionaries in 1842. For well over a century it grew healthily but not remarkably. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the Church began a furious period of evangelism, with growth statistics that sound like the goals of a Stalinist Five Year Plan. In the late 1970s Nigeria was home to five million or so Anglicans; that number has now grown to perhaps 18 million, and it may double by 2025 or so. (To put that in perspective, North America has about four million Anglicans, and the number is stagnant or shrinking.) In 1979 the Nigerian Church had sixteen dioceses, organized in a single province; today it has nearly eighty dioceses, organized in ten provinces. In 1979 Nigeria had a single archbishop; today it has ten, overseeing a whole national hierarchy.
When Akinola arrived in Abuja, he began a mission from next to nothing, with "not even one square inch of land," as he told the magazine Anglican World in 2001. "There was no church member, no organ, no choir, no money, nothing-and I mean practically nothing." Eight years later he was the first bishop of the see of Abuja; by 1998 he was the archbishop of a province of Abuja, with eight bishops under him. Since 2000 he has been the primate of the whole Nigerian Church. The expansion that fueled his rise is the kind of growth that he sees as normal and that he expects will continue. "In our country today," he told Anglican World, "there are many new churches springing up on a daily basis." It was a claim he meant literally.
But in Akinola's view, this growth depends entirely on loyalty to orthodox biblical faith. His experience in Nigeria has shown him that orthodox churches flourish, and heretical or schismatic churches fail. Nigerian Anglicanism is at its core intensely Bible-centered. "We in Nigeria believe very strongly in the priority of the Scripture," he has said. "We want to
see ourselves as a church that seeks to live in obedience to the dictates of the Scripture, regardless of whether that is convenient or inconvenient."
Akinola and his church are also firmly committed to evangelism. "If a fire is not burning," he has observed, "then it is no longer fire. If the Church is not evangelizing, then it is like a dead fire." Evangelism means spreading the message of the Bible, of course, and although debate about biblical interpretation is possible in some cases, Akinola sees no room for it when the New Testament text speaks as clearly as it does on homosexuality. The worst feature of the North American debates, he felt, was that scriptural arguments were simply ignored. Reacting to the Episcopal approval of Robinson's election, Akinola declared himself "astonished that such a high-level convention ... should conspire to turn their back on the clear teaching of the Bible on the matter of human sexuality."
Although Akinola believes that American and British churches are in error, his Anglican roots condition how and when he feels he can intervene directly. This tradition gives him a strong sense of the global dimensions of Christianity. He heads not the Church of Nigeria but the "Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)," and that is a crucial difference. Anglicans everywhere fall within his area of concern. His communion is a family, and as he has put it, "That is where we belong." Yet Akinola is reluctant to speak out of turn. He venerates the Anglican idea of autonomous churches under their own primates and bishops, and feels that a primate has no right to interfere in another province, except in the direst circumstances. He has been remarkably moderate toward the North American churches-however difficult this may be to believe for those who know him only from his recent remarks. In interviews he has gone out of his way not to condemn the U.S. Episcopal Church, and he makes a point of praising Bishop Frank Griswold, its leader, and other American liberals. He refuses to ally himself with American conservatives who want to break away from their liberal bishops altogether. "You don't just jump from your diocese to begin to do whatever you like in another man's diocese," he told the Church of Nigeria News in 2001. "That is not done in our Anglican tradition."
That Akinola has now spoken out so strongly on issues being debated in other countries suggests his level of fury. This arises in part from his sense that the Northern churches are abandoning the Christian moral tradition. But another element further explains Akinola's-and, indeed, African Christianity's-desperate intervention in the Church's controversies over homosexuality: rivalry with Islam. At first sight the connection may seem tenuous: what does it matter to Christians in Lagos or Kampala whether an Anglican minister blesses two men in a civil ceremony of union in Vancouver? But the link is in fact an important one.
Nigeria is a land of intense interfaith conflict. Islamist authorities have imposed sharia law in a third of the country's thirty-six states, and Christians there face a very real danger of persecution and jihad. These sharia states include Kebbi and Kaduna, where Akinola lived during his years of theological training in the 1970s. He saw firsthand the growth of Muslim militancy, and his diploma is from the Theological College of Northern Nigeria, located in Jos, which for several years now has been a storm center of rioting and anti-Christian pogroms. Since 1990 the Anglican Church has responded to these threats by deliberately reinforcing its presence in the Muslim north, to show that Christians are not going to fade away without a fight.
This struggle provides the crucial context for African concerns about sexual morality. Across the continent Muslims have tried to make converts by arguing that the Christian West is decadent and sexually irresponsible-a belief that finds daily confirmation in Western films and television. If the Anglican Communion accepted gay bishops or approved gay unions, Muslims would gain an enormous propaganda victory in Nigeria-and in a dozen or so other African countries in which Christians and Muslims compete for converts, often violently. When Akinola speaks out, therefore, it is not because he wants to intrude on the affairs of other churches but, rather, because he feels that the very existence of Christianity in his own territory is under threat. At stake, he believes, is the religious map of much of Africa, and the global balance between Christianity and Islam.
Philip Jenkins is a Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University. His most recent book is The New Anti-Catholicism (2003).
Copyright © 2003 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; November 2003; Defender of the Faith; Volume 292, No. 4; 46-49.
posted by John at 11:32 PM CDT permalink
Still time to do what is necessary
Adelphoi,
As we pray for the Primates... I offer you this meditation as a suggestion for intercession and petition
Procedure wrong but God is merciful
Episcopalian eyes will be upon Lambeth Palace on the 15th & 16th October and then upon Church House, Westminster (next to the ancient Abbey) across the River Thames on the evening of the 16th for the Press Conference.
By 7.00.p.m. (2 p.m. NYC) on the 16th, the American Anglican Council will know whether or not what it asked for in its Petition to the Primates' Meeting will have been granted in full or in part.
But, however much or however little is granted to the supplicating evangelicals of the AAC, there is the big question of what will occur to their bishops and people after the 16th October. It has been stated by one observer of the American Anglican scene: "I don't see much staying power in groups that expect foreign churchmen to vindicate them, reward them, put them into business, and punish their enemies, and to do so instantly. This is a scenario for a movie, and not a plan for a dedicated religious life." Such an observation has the ring of truth about it and we would all do well to ponder it seriously. Is there really genuine staying power in the AAC camp?
Caught up as it was in a profound horror of "gay" partnerships and a general euphoria, it is debatable whether the AAC took the right road by paying very much more attention to the faults of the enemy than to the faults in its own position called "a place to stand" in the build up to the Texas congress. I suggest that the right way for the AAC and related groups to have proceeded after the General Convention would have been to have made a serious attempt to clean up their own households first and then, and only then, make serious overtures to the Anglican Communion for the dealing with their enemies.
This did not happen. The message that has gone out loudly and clearly is that if there can be a return to the state of affairs before the General Convention then all will be fine. So get Gene Robinson to stand down and get the Bishops to say they will not allow local liturgies for same-sex blessings and "orthodoxy" will be restored to the ECUSA. If this is what happens then ALL is lost for the kindness of God in alerting us to what needs to be put right in his household, the USA Episcopal Family, will have been spurned.
BUT, The Lord our God is merciful and gracious & the putting of the house in order can follow the Petition to the Primates. Then this serious business of self-examination and reform of our own households will actually be the proof that we really are desirous to be genuine and committed Anglican Christians professing the Reformed Catholic Faith. Without serious reform with renewal from October 16th onwards all the energy expended through August and September on attacking the enemy will have been in vain - the scenario, as it were, for a movie rather than the beginning of a plan for corporate, holy life before God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 12:41 PM CDT permalink
"God helps those who help themselves"
Adelphoi,
A meditation as preparation for appropriate action
I heard this maxim many times in my youth, living as I did in a working-class culture where Victorian virtues [not "values" as they are now called!] were still common amongst the older generation. It was quoted in terms of not waiting for the State or the local Council or the Church or a Benefactor or even the LORD himself to do what a man or woman could do for himself/herself. At the same time the sentiment did not remove God as the LORD from doing what only God can and must do for our ultimate good; but, it did require of man all that he should do all that he can do within the terms of his ability and context before expecting help from others. (Today, in contrast, with the arrival of the welfare State and the culture of rights, this kind of attitude is rare and regarded by many as suspicious!)
Theologically, the high Calvinist or the convinced Augustinian may regard this statement as infected with the disease of Pelagianism, suggesting that we, as sinful mortals, can contribute to our own salvation by our efforts and meritorious faithfulness. But this approach is to misunderstand the force of this maxim which begins from the fact of man being endowed by God with reason and conscience and being given duties to perform as a creature made in the image of God. It does not seek to usurp what belongs to God as Creator & Sustainer of life, or to God as Saviour & Redeemer of man. Rather, it expects us all to do what we know we have to do and not to expect God, or others - angels or human beings, to do for us what we can actually do for ourselves.
The maxim applies to individual persons, to families and to groups/societies.
Relating this maxim to the relation now existing of the Plano/Dallas AAC Congress of October 7-9 to the Primates' Meeting of October 15-16 (because of the supplication made by the former in writing and also by persons who have traveled to London), I am left wondering whether those who supplicate have done all within their power to help themselves and whether they are prepared in the future to do all within their power to help themselves. Are they perhaps expecting too much of the Primates' Meeting and are they not looking carefully enough at what they can do immediately and in the short & long terms about reforming their own households (dioceses & parishes) by the Word of God and according to the doctrinal tradition of the classic Anglican Way of Christianity? Are they wanting immediate "gain" without being ready to endure long-term "pain"?
"God helps those who help themselves."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 12:37 PM CDT permalink
The AAC is wholly liberal and yet also genuinely conservative!
There is no doubt but that the American Anglican Council in terms of what is claims to stand upon in terms of worship, doctrine, order and discipline is LIBERAL - if the standard by which judgment is made is the classic Anglican Way & The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA of say 1789, 1900, or 1950 or 1960.
There is also no doubt but that the same American Anglican Council is, in terms of what it claims to stand upon in terms of worship, doctrine, order and discipline, CONSERVATIVE - if the standard by which judgment is made is the Episcopal Church of the USA after the General Convention of August 2003.
We need of course to be aware that such words as "liberal", "conservative", "revisionist", "orthodox" and "traditionalist" as used in ordinary circumstances today have their meaning fixed primarily by the present context and not by meanings in and of earlier generations.
So even though the AAC uses modern (inclusive?) language for prayer, reads from modern translations of the Bible containing inclusive language, celebrates the ordination of women, and is probably half-committed to the post 1960s American divorce culture, it can be called "traditionalist" and "orthodox" and "conservative" as well as being said to be against "revisionism" and "liberalism". The reason is, of course, that the modern ECUSA has incorporated so many innovations into its life since World War II and the AAC does not approve of all of them. Therefore, there is a clash amongst the innovators between those favoring the many innovations and those favoring a lesser number. So one set of innovators is deemed liberal for it favors many and the other conservative for it favors less innovations. And right now the AAC opposes the latest and most emotionally charged innovation - blessing gay unions - and thus rejoices in being "orthodox" and "conservative".
However, by the yardstick of the Standards of Faith, Worship, Morality, Discipline & Order of the PECUSA of 1950 or 1960, the AAC is most definitely liberal. This is because the AAC has abandoned as A PLACE TO STAND UPON these historic, basic Standards - or at least does not take them seriously or as binding (I refer of course to the historic PECUSA Formularies -- the classic Prayer Book, the Ordinal and the Articles of Religion in the context of Order, an all male Ministry).
What I believe the American Anglican Council needs to do - and God has kindly and graciously provided right now a window, even a door, of opportunity - is to become orthodox and conservative and traditional (without losing its enthusiasm for evangelism & church planting) by the standards of historical, classic Christianity of the Anglican Way, as that was believed, taught and confessed by the Protestant Episcopal Church before the ravages of the 1960s and 1970s.
Let us dig again the wells of Abraham and drink the pure water! Let us seek the old paths and walk therein.
Merely to return to the pre-General Convention position and be satisfied therein as a conservative stance would be the worse possible thing to do, for it would be to have rejected God's offer of the open door to enter, to clean and to refurnish His American Anglican Household with proper furniture and in renewed commitment and hope.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 12:35 PM CDT permalink
The BBC and Bishop R Duncan of Pittsburgh, USA
I listened to Bishop Robert Duncan this morning (Monday 13th October) as he was interviewed by the BBC in London immediately after his over-night flight from Pittsburgh. He stated that he expects/hopes that the Primates meeting will not only issue a rebuke to the ECUSA and call upon the diocese of New Hampshire to rescind its call to Canon Robinson, but will also actively intervene within the ECUSA to restore things to the status quo before the General Convention. An English Bishop, Selby of Worcester, disagreed with him on all points except that he did concede that the Primates could, if all agreed, issue a “rebuke” only to the ECUSA.
This interview with this kind, gracious and courageous man from the steel city led me to meditate and sit down to write this:
It will be a LOST OPPORTUNITY and a rejection of an OPEN DOOR
If it so happens that the Primates’ Meeting on October 15/16 is the direct or indirect means by which Canon Robinson is NOT consecrated and ECUSA bishops begin to withdraw permission for blessing of “gay” couples, this state of affairs will possess the potential of being a good thing. BUT only the potential of a good thing, for if the matter of “gay” rights is seen not as the real & basic problem of the ECUSA but as its present, major, presenting problem – for there are surely also other acute presenting problems.
This crisis caused by the voting of the General Convention in August 2003 is much deeper than a crisis over the public approval of gay unions. It is about the rejection by the ECUSA over several decades of the traditional basis for the exercise of divine authority for her worship, doctrine, morality, discipline and order. It is about the rejection of the authority of Scripture for faith and conduct and of the Anglican Formularies as Signposts from Scripture to the right and acceptable nature of worship, doctrine, morality, discipline and order.
Therefore, if the AAC or any other reforming society/group thinks and states that a return to the status quo of July 2003 before the approval of Canon Robinson is sufficient to achieve their goals, then, I suggest all, that is ALL, is effectively lost. For nothing has been learned from the loving providence and kindness of the Holy Trinity in the last three months. This Crisis is, I suggest, sent by the Lord of the Church at least to open the eyes of those who claim to love Him, to open their eyes as to what kind of substantial U-turn is necessary for the ECUSA (or any large part of it) to get back into the route called The Anglican Way and into an ecclesial context that is pleasing to His Majesty, the LORD our God.
To make this major U-turn will not be easy, but it is necessary whether there is either a change of direction in the ECUSA (Robinson withdraws etc.) or there is the creation by the AAC of some kind of a parallel province alongside the present ECUSA, helped by foreign primates.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 12:32 PM CDT permalink
Sunday, October 12, 2003
WHAT IS THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION LIKE? A suggestion.
Adelphoi,
Listening to the BBC this Sunday morning around 7.30 a.m. on the divisions amongst the Primates, I meditated. Here is the result:
Unto what shall we liken "the Anglican Communion of Churches"? What image helps us to understand it as it actually is today and what it may be after the Primates' Meeting on October 15/16?
Here is one possibility. I offer it as a discussion and prayer starter!
The Anglican Communion of 38 Churches is like a great Mansion or House. This Building has a large, stately front entrance and other less dramatic entrances on each side. Inside are large and small rooms with corridors and staircases uniting all the rooms.
Let us say that until the latter part of the twentieth century the Mansion was filled with people of different backgrounds and languages who all managed to be on speaking terms with each other, and usually they all sat down together for at least one communal meal daily. Naturally, different parts of the House were the special preserve of one group but there were no closed doors and all the corridors and staircases were open. All agreed upon what was the basis of the Anglican Way and where differences could be held without breaking communion.
Then let us say that with the ordaining of women in the 1970s tension came into the House and eventually some corridors and staircases were given "fire" doors which were not kept open and also certain rooms were labeled as "private, no entry". However, all the leaders of the various types of Anglicans agreed that they should seek to live together and share at least common refreshments if not full common meals. The basis for living together was called "the doctrine of reception" (see The Eames' Commission Reports) and there was much emphasis upon koinonia, fellowship based upon Baptism. All still used the large front door, even though they also made use of the side doors.
Finally, let us say that with the arrival of the blessing of "gay" couples and a tolerant attitude to homosexual unions, the tension increased and not only were the fire doors closed and rooms entitled "private, no entry" securely locked, but also the majority met together to find ways to expel from the House the minority. Also, many people began only to use the entrance next to their suite of rooms for they were not sure about the "Canterbury" or "Lambeth" door. Therefore, while all lived in the same Mansion and gave the same address, it was in practice that each group had its own apartment or suite of rooms and its own key to a side door, and only had refreshments with a limited number of people of like mind in the other apartments.
The Anglican Communion of Churches is right now as a House that is divided against itself and is a Communion only in a minimal sense; further, it looks as though this situation will become more obvious after the Primates' Meeting. To get back to the situation of say thirty years ago when the Front Door was used by all and there were no barriers in the corridors and on the staircases seems impossible. But with God we are told "all things are possible" (when according to his will).
We await news about the HOUSE on the evening of October 16th, around 6.p.m. London time! (D.V. I shall be at the Press Conference to hear about the House and how the Primates see its future.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 12:47 PM CDT permalink
Saturday, October 11, 2003
AAC Texas Statement & the Presiding Bishop
Friends,
Below is the Statement signed by the 2,000 plus attendees at the American Anglican Congresss in Dallas on October 9 and then the response of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal church. Both statements look to the Primates' meeting in London on October 15-16 when the latest sexual innovations of the Episcopal Church will be central on the agenda for the 38 Leaders. The positive embrace of homosexual relations by the Episcopal Church is shocking to the leaders of many of the Asian and African Churches and there are calls to discipline the American Church and to recognize as in communion as the real Anglicans those who are against this latest sexual innovation.
It needs to be borne in mind that the concept of orthodoxy embraced by this Congress is lower than and different from both that of the Episcopal Church itself up to the 1960s and that which was declared often by Lambeth Conferences of Bishops from the 19th century up to the end of the 20th century. The Episcopal Church set aside in the 1970s with arrogance and self-will the classic Anglican Formularies (the historic Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal & Articles) and substituted a new Prayer Book of alternative services and a new Catechism and a new Ordinal, all of which clearly reflected the dilution of received orthodoxy in the radical 1960s and 1970s. It came to be founded not on rock but on shifting sand!
Apparently much of this Congress would be happy to go back a few months only and embrace the Episcopal Church before its General Convention of August 2003 -- a minority would perhaps want to go back perhaps a decade to the point before the ordination of women was made a mandatory belief for office holders. Further, the kind of worship most popular amongst those in this movement is what may be called "mainstream charismatic" and thus there is only a minimal interest in and use of basic and even less of classic and traditional liturgy - even liturgy from the 1979 prayer book that is "traditional".
In practice the doctrine of sexuality and marriage in this group is NOT the traditional Anglican one (e.g. as set out in the Preface of the BCP of 1662 and in the excellent Report on Marriage by the Lambeth Conference of 1948) but is rather the amended one developed after World War II in the USA which allows for divorce and remarriage as a right rather than divorce as a sin and re-marriage as a rare privilege. In others words, the union of two persons as one flesh which no man is to separate is now regarded as a very good thing to aim at, but not as an absolute command of the Lord Jesus to his disciples. Thus divorced and re-married clergy and laity amongst the "orthodox" are common and acceptable and there is no plan in place to seek to raise the level of the married state in this organization to that which was universally held until 50 or so years ago.
All this said, there is much enthusiasm, and a readiness amongst some attendees, to be prepared to pay the cost for standing against the will of the General Convention and against the canon law of the Episcopal Church.
May the LORD of the Church and the GOD of all grace guide the Archbishops, and especially the one who sits on Augustine's cathedra, in their deliberations and decisions. And may the same Majesty impose his own chastisement upon all Anglicans who err and stray from his ways.
USA | 10 OCTOBER 2003
Text of "Call to Action" issued by the American Anglican Council's "A Place to Stand" Conference in Texas
[American Anglican Council]
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
As Anglican Christians committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, under the authority of Holy Scripture, and members of God's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church:
1 We proclaim our Lord's Great Commandment and His Great Commission to be our life's highest calling.
2 We repudiate the 74th General Convention's confirmation of a non-celibate homosexual to be a bishop of the Church, and its acceptance of same-sex blessings as part of our common life. These actions have broken fellowship with the larger body of Christ and have brought the Episcopal Church under God's judgment.
3 We repent of our part in the sins of the Episcopal Church, and we pray for all those who are being hurt and led astray by these actions.
4 We call the leadership of the Episcopal Church to repent of and reverse the unbiblical and schismatic actions of the General Convention.
5 We declare our commitment to the Lord's life-giving teaching about sexuality and marriage embraced by Christians throughout all ages, and as affirmed by the 1998 Lambeth Conference. We celebrate God's unconditional love for all people, and we proclaim God's transforming power for everyone seeking sexual purity and wholeness.
6 We redirect our financial resources, to the fullest extent possible, toward biblically orthodox mission and ministry, and away from those structures that support the unrighteous actions of the General Convention. We will support our partners in the Anglican Communion.
7 We appeal to the Primates of the Anglican Communion to intervene in the Episcopal Church to:
1 Discipline those bishops in the Episcopal Church who, by their actions, have departed from biblical faith and order;
2 Guide the realignment of Anglicanism in North America;
3 Encourage orthodox bishops as they extend episcopal oversight, pastoral care, and apostolic mission across current diocesan boundaries; and
4 Support isolated and beleaguered parishes and individuals in their life and witness as faithful Anglican Christians.
To the glory of God. Amen.
USA | 9 OCTOBER 2003
Presiding Bishop's statement on AAC meeting in Dallas
[Episcopal News Service] My initial response to the meeting of the American Anglican Council just ending is that, regardless of what has been said or concluded, those gathered in Dallas are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Baptism establishes an indissoluble bond between those who are baptized and the Risen Christ. So too baptism binds us together in such a way that we cannot say to one another "I have no need of you."
It therefore concerns me deeply when Christians use inflammatory rhetoric when speaking of one another or issue ultimatums. In such a climate, mutual pursuit of ways to build up rather than tear down is made more difficult, and the vast deposit of faith upon which we all agree is obscured. At the same time, we must acknowledge and respect our brothers and sisters who feel alienated by certain actions of the recent General Convention. We must take seriously their grief and anger and seek as best we can to stand with them.
I would like to add one further thought. I have just returned from giving a retreat to a group of Episcopalians engaged in social service ministries within the United States and Latin America. They are working to transform the world, sometimes person by person. This is the ministry of reconciliation to which all persons of faith are called, and it is the mission of the Episcopal Church today and the primary focus of most of its members. Division and splintering, while much in the news, are not the spirit which gives life to our church.
In a letter I sent last week to bishops of the Episcopal Church I expressed my hope that the reconciling energy of the divine compassion may flow through our church and our Anglican Communion and witness to a way of being that gives hope to a world so in need of love. This continues to be my hope.
The Most Revd Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
Episcopal Church, USA
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:41 AM CDT permalink
Presiding bishop hopes church can move beyond condemnation and labeling
ACNS 3614 | USA | 9 OCTOBER 2003
by James Solheim
[ACNS source: Episcopal News Service] In an October 3 letter to bishops of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold expressed his gratitude for their "pastoral sensitivities, wisdom and grace-filled leadership" in what he described as "very unsettling and uncertain days."
"Regardless of your own views about the consent to the New Hampshire election" of Gene Robinson as the church's first openly gay bishop, or the resolution on blessing of same-sex relationships, "you have had to deal with varying opinions and those who disagree with you, and my own observation is that this has been done with great grace," he wrote.
Bishop Griswold said that he has refused to speculate about the meeting of the American Anglican Council in Texas, or the Primates' Meeting in London October 15-16, but said that he is convinced "whatever the outcome may be, we will be able to live it with the awareness that the church is never something we can possess and shape according to our own liking."
Among his hopes are that the "strong focus of our recent General Convention on engaging God's mission both at home and throughout the world may become our shared passion and common task."
And he said that he hopes "all of us might move beyond a spirit of condemnation and reaction," using a vocabulary that avoids labeling each other. "I hope the events which have caused rejoicing in some quarters and great unhappiness and confusion in others may continue to provide, as they have done in many places, new opportunities for clergy and laity to explore the various dimensions of the faith we share."
Bishop Griswold concluded, "I hope that in this world, so full of hate and so in need of love, the reconciling energy of the divine compassion may flow through our church and our whole Communion, witnessing to a way of being that gives hope to our world."
Text of the letter:
October 3, 2003
For the House of Bishops
My dear brothers and sisters:
We are living through some very unsettling and uncertain days which are making heavy demands on our ministry of care and concern for all the churches. I have been in touch with many of you and know something of the pressures you have experienced since the General Convention. Over these last weeks I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of you - both at the meeting of the 10 bishops here in New York that I wrote to you about and also at two consecrations. I have also read many of your pastoral letters and communications to your dioceses. I cannot possibly put into words how grateful I am for the pastoral sensitivities, wisdom and grace-filled leadership you have shown to the people and clergy who are part of your diocesan communities. Regardless of your own views about the consent to the New Hampshire election or resolution C051, you have had to deal with varying opinions and those who disagree with you, and my own observation is that this has been done with great grace.
It is very important that you know my own views with regard to these two matters. First, it is my very strong opinion that the consent to the election of the bishop-coadjutor of New Hampshire does not settle the questions concerning human sexuality with which we have been dealing for longer than I have been a bishop. Instead, the number of questions has increased. It is our responsibility as teachers to assist the church in addressing them. It is also my strong view that resolution C051 regarding the blessing of same sex unions is not about approval but rather the acknowledgment that there are a variety of pastoral practices within our common life.
As the events of these days unfold I am constantly besieged by reporters to predict the future. The meeting of the American Anglican Council in Dallas and the gathering of primates in London are immediately before us, and there have been many views expressed regarding the possible outcomes of both of these events. For myself, my answer to those who ask me to speculate is always the same: that I do respond to hypothetical questions. I have found that an opinion can occasion heated response which may directly affect what I have been asked to comment upon. This I know: whatever the outcome may be, we will be able to live it with the awareness that the church is never something we can possess and shape according to our own liking. The church always exceeds our understanding because it is shaped and formed by the mind of Christ.
Though I avoid speculation, I am not without particular hopes. I hope the very strong focus of our recent General Convention on engaging God's mission both at home and throughout the world may become our shared passion and common task. I hope that there may be an enlargement of our sense of what it means to be the body of Christ made up of diverse members who, in faith, hold divergent points of view. I hope that all of us might move beyond a spirit of condemnation and reaction. I hope we can speak to and about one another with a vocabulary that avoids limiting categorizations such as liberal/conservative, reactionary/progressive, orthodox/revisionist. I hope there may emerge among us a renewed sense that we are bound together through baptism in "solidarities not of our own choosing," as the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded us. I hope the events which have caused rejoicing in some quarters and great unhappiness and confusion in others may continue to provide, as they have done in many places, new opportunities for clergy and laity to explore the various dimensions of the faith we share. I hope the conversations many of you have set in motion throughout your dioceses may draw people together and be occasions of reconciliation, not necessarily with respect to opinions and points of view but on the level of the heart, which is where Christ most deeply meets us and where the Spirit of communion and truth binds us together in love. I hope that in this world, so full of hate and so in need of love, the reconciling energy of the divine compassion may flow through our church and our whole Communion witnessing to a way of being that gives hope to our world.
Please keep me in your prayers as I keep you in mine. "May the God of hope fill us with all joy and peace in believing through the power of the Holy Spirit."
Yours ever in Christ's love,
Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
[James Solheim is director of Episcopal News Service]
posted by John at 9:37 AM CDT permalink
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Marriage – Anglican style
What authority do the declarations of Lambeth Conferences have? If appeal is made to that of 1998 for its teaching on sexuality, why cannot appeal be made to that of 1948 for its teaching on marriage?
One of the major studies undertaken in and by the Lambeth Conference of 1948 (which lasted five weeks) was entitled, “The Church’s discipline in Marriage”. This may be read in the Report, The Lambeth Conference 1948, pages 96 to 105.
If the doctrine set forth there is (as I, for one, think it to be) truly biblical and that which a reformed Catholic Church ought to teach and practice, then, regrettably, one must note that the Bishops of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion of the North/West have since forsaken it, and none more so than those of the Episcopal Church of the USA.
It is to be remembered that the two previous Lambeth Conferences, those of 1920 and 1930, both declared that “our Lord’s principle and standard of marriage is that of a life-long and indissoluble union.”
The Conference of 1948 set out the fundamental principles of marriage in this statement:
(i) Marriage is a holy estate, instituted by God and so existing in the natural order, involving the union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
(ii) The purpose of marriage is the establishment of a home and family life, including the procreation and upbringing of children, and the full development of the personalities of husband and wife, both by the right use of the natural instincts and through the mutual companionship, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
(iii) A marriage is created by the free, competent, and open consent of the parties who contract it. This contract is not terminable by either party; it establishes a permanent relation.
(iv) Marriage entered upon by Christians is endowed with the gift of special grace to the man and the women for the fulfilment of its obligations and the realization of its ideals. The blessing of the Church hallows and enriches the union. The efficacy of the grace received depends on the cooperation with God of both husband and wife (or of one of them) in the use of it.
It goes on to insist that our Lord’s teaching imposes upon those who marry a life-long obligation and that for Christians this obligation has an absolute character. Thus “to repudiate such an obligation is always deplorable in the extreme; and re-marriage after divorce, during the life-time of a former partner, must always involve a departure from the true principle of marriage”.
Then in a pastoral mood, there is this paragraph:
“We cannot condone what our Lord condemns. We believe that in the confused situation of the present time there is urgent need to proclaim to all men and women everywhere the fact that marriage always entails the obligation of a life-long union. More particularly would we earnestly implore those whose marriages are unhappy to remain steadfastly faithful to their marriage vows, relying on the unfailing resources of God’s grace.”
Then the bishops continue by expressing the hope that the Church will allow “the divine light of our Saviour’s tender compassion” to shine upon those whose marriages are breaking or broken and who need much support and help. So they insist that those who are divorced and those who are divorced and remarried should be cared for with all godly kindness, wisdom and compassion. But this does not include the right to a wedding for divorced persons in church – but it may include a blessing perhaps after a civil service with the permission of the bishop.
It is interesting to note that even in 1948 the position of the bishops from the USA (all by modern standards very biblical, conservative and traditional men) was in general slightly open to the possibility in certain (then rare) circumstances of allowing a marriage of a divorced person (whose former spouse was still alive) in church. This possibility is indicated in a footnote which states: “The Church in the United States uses the phrase that marriage is ‘in intention’ life-long, but makes provision for the bishop to give judgement as to the marital status of those who have been divorced by civil authority.” However, the nine Episcopal Bishops on the Drafting Committee all agreed to the basic statement “that the marriage of one whose former partner is still alive should not be celebrated according to the rites of the Church”. Obviously, they were thinking of some kind of annulment procedure by the Bishop, allowing for what was then regarded for church law as a first marriage on Christian principles. (One needs to add that it was this power given to Bishops that became one of the root causes of the later development of a rather free and easy attitude to re-marriage in Episcopal parishes.)
If modern biblically-based opponents of the blessing of “gay unions” appeal to Lambeth 1998 for the agreed mind of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, then why do not they also appeal to the agreed mind on holy matrimony set forth in Lambeth 1948? One thing I cannot understand is this -- that the African and Asian Primates, who must surely have been made aware of the acceptance (practically speaking) of the divorce culture even in the conservative parts of the ECUSA , have not as yet chosen to take it to be a serious problem – not even apparently a real problem – but simply focus on opposing the blessing of gay partnerships by the liberal part of the ECUSA, leaving the divorce culture in the conservative dioceses unchallenged and not addressed. I think that the authentic, biblical Anglican Way, and the Mind of Jesus, require them to address both – that is to remember Lambeth 1948 as well as Lambeth 1998!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:59 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
"Like a River glorious."
The Anglican/Episcopal Bishops who met for the Lambeth Conference in 1948, after the horror and devastation of World War II, were optimistic about Anglican Faith & Order. Here is their way of communicating that optimism:
"The Anglican Communion today is like a river that is made up of streams, each of which passes through a different country, each with a colour drawn from the soil through which it passes, each giving its best to the full strength of the river, flowing toward that ocean symbolic of a larger comity when the Anglican Communion itself will once again become part of a reunited Christendom. No one stream is superior to another. The glory of each is its contribution tot his river which, while being enriched by all, enriches all the countries of the world wheresoever it flows." (Lambeth Conference 1948, page 83)
Here we have an evocative image which emphasizes in a positive way: (a) the unity and communion of the autonomous Anglican national churches (provinces); (b) the integrity and unique nature of each autonomous province; (c) the equality of the provinces, and (d) the ecumenical vocation of the Anglican Communion of Churches.
We could add to the image that the river starts at a "spring" called Canterbury, flows through England and the British Isles before entering and passing through other lands on its way to the ocean of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Some six decades on from the time when this image/metaphor/model was first used, we can now perhaps say that instead of being a description of the Anglican Communion of Churches as IT is, it is now a description of what IT should be, indeed ought to be. Taking "colour from the soil through which it passes" has not meant in recent decades enrichment but pollution of the flowing "water"; and this pollution has gone from some of the streams into the river itself. The fact of autonomy & self-determination has become the occasion of being overcome by the spirit of the secular world and the assertion of sinful self-will.
Whether removing some of the pollution - as the conservative Primates intend to seek to do at their London meeting on October 15-16 - will be enough at this stage to save the river from permanent contamination is something that God alone knows. It would appear that not only the pollution but also the pollutants need to be dealt with, and here we meet a complex set of causes arising from human sinfulness, autonomy and self-seeking. To deal with these is a long-term commitment and will entail much pain, but there is in this life usually no real gain, without enduring pain.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:43 AM CDT permalink
No welcome for observers at Texas meeting of conservatives
ACNS 3610 | USA | 7 OCTOBER 2003
by James Solheim
[ACNS source: Episcopal News Service] An attempt by Presiding Bishop Frank T Griswold and Dean George Werner, president of the House of Deputies, to send four observers to the American Anglican Council meeting in Texas has been rebuffed.
Bishop Griswold said that the four: Bishop Christopher Epting, deputy for ecumenical and interfaith relations; Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington; Dean Titus Presler of Seminary of the Southwest in Austin, Texas; and the Revd Brian Prior of Spokane, Washington; had been asked to "bring a greeting and to listen with care and the ear of the heart to the voices of those present. Their presence was to be a visible sign of the fact that, in the midst of disagreement, we are nonetheless fellow members of Christ's risen body and that we are called to bear one another's burdens and to acknowledge that when one member suffers the whole body must bear that suffering."
In a letter to Bishop Griswold, the Revd David Anderson, president of the AAC, said that there is no category for observers and that all must register as participants, signing the document, "A Place to Stand," that gives the AAC's theological perspective on the current state of the church. He said that those who are gathering for the meeting feel a
sense of betrayal and abandonment by the leadership of the Episcopal Church and feel that those who voted to confirm Gene Robinson's election as the church's first openly gay bishop have shattered and shipwrecked the church.
"When teachings and practices contrary to Scripture and to this orthodox Anglican perspective are permitted within the Church - or even authorized by the General Convention - in obedience to God we will disassociate ourselves from those specific teachings and practices and will resist them in every way possible," warns the "A Place to Stand" statement.
James Solheim is director of Episcopal News Service
posted by John at 7:41 AM CDT permalink
Statement of His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper during the Archbishop of Canterbury's visit to Rome
ACNS 3610 | EUROPE | 7 OCTOBER 2003
[ACNS source: The Vatican] I would first of all wish to say that we rejoice in Archbishop Williams' visit to Rome and to the Holy See in his capacity as Archbishop of Canterbury. Such visits are a clear sign of the desire of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church to continue to work together towards full communion. I was honoured to be able to attend Archbishop Williams' enthronement in Canterbury last February, and am very happy to be able to welcome him here.
While the path to full communion has proved to be long and not without difficulties, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion continue to seek this goal, and remain committed firstly to the ongoing pursuit of doctrinal agreement through theological dialogue, and secondly, to incarnating as much as possible, in appropriate aspects of our ecclesial lives, the level of faith we already share. These complementary tasks are taken up most directly by our two international commissions, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and the newly formed International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM).
The theological dialogue, ARCIC, has produced a number of agreed statements over the past 33 years on doctrinal matters where Anglicans and Catholics have traditionally diverged. The most recent statement, The Gift of Authority (1999), builds on ARCIC's previous work on authority in the Church, and reveals significant progress towards a common understanding of the Petrine ministry. ARCIC will soon complete an agreed statement on the role of Mary in the life and doctrine of the Church. The Commission's aim has been to study the dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the light of Scripture and our ancient common Tradition. It is hoped that significant progress will be recorded in the forthcoming agreed statement.
The second international commission (IARCCUM), constituted principally of bishops, builds on the historic meeting in May, 2000, of 13 Primates of Anglican Provinces with the heads of the Catholic Episcopal Conferences from the same countries, under the leadership of Cardinal Edward Cassidy and Archbishop George Carey. IARCCUM is intended to complement the work of ARCIC. It has taken up the threefold mandate given to it at the Mississauga meeting: the preparation of a text which would concisely articulate the degree of agreement in faith that exists between Anglicans and Catholics; reflection on ways in which the study and reception of the agreed statements of ARCIC could be fostered and promoted within the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church; and identifying strategies which would translate the degree of spiritual communion that has been achieved into visible and practical outcomes.
As you know, there are currently tensions within the Anglican Communion over the teaching and practice concerning human sexuality. It is not my task to comment at length. In our private conversations, we have certainly discussed the recent decisions taken in two Anglican Provinces. Archbishop Williams knows that we are deeply concerned about this, and that depending on how the present situation is resolved, these decisions could cause new problems for our relations. Catholic teaching is very clear in this regard, and is concisely expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 2357-59). Until recently, one could state with relative confidence that Catholics and Anglicans shared the same moral principles regarding human sexuality. We hope that it will remain so, for the world today needs our common witness. I hope and pray that the Anglican Communion will find a constructive solution to the present situation, both for the sake of the Anglican Communion itself and for the sake of our relations as well.
Our dialogue has produced many excellent results, and we look forward to working together to ensure that it continues to do so.
posted by John at 7:40 AM CDT permalink
The American Anglican Council and Financial Backing
In the London Church Times of 3 October 2003 there is an article by Steve Levin, a staff writer on the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette (USA paper).
He calls the members and supporters of the American Anglican Council "US traditionalists" which is his way of contrasting them with the supporters of "gay rights" in the Episcopal Church USA.
He states that between 1997 & 2002 the AAC spent more than $3 million internally within the ECUSA seeking to promote its viewpoint. Its most generous donor is the Californian multi-millionaire Howard F Ahmanson Jr, who gives annually at least $200.000.00 to the AAC, to match money it first raises itself.
Closely allied with the AAC in activism within the ECUSA is the Institute on Religion and Democracy of Washington DC, which is well supported by charities and foundations connected with the Scaife family of Pittsburgh. Of interest is the fact that Mrs. Roberta Ahmanson, wife of Howard F., is on the Board of the Institute. It spent about $541.000.00 between 1997 & 2002 on programmes aimed at the Episcopal Church (and similar sums within Methodist and Presbyterian main-line churches).
Steve Levin did not know the context for which he was writing and so has probably given a wrong impression to the readers of the Church Times. In Britain and in the Church of England, for the supporters of the AAC & I R & D to be called "traditionalists", suggests that they hold to solid tradition - and thus use the traditional services of the classic BCP, read from the traditional Bible (KJV) and use language on the principle "We say 'Thou/Thee' to GOD and we say 'you' to man."
Of course, those living in the ECUSA know that the majority of support for these two organizations is from those who are better described as evangelical charismatics or charismatic evangelicals or just modern evangelicals. They are "traditionalists" only in the sense that they are deeply opposed to the gay agenda and are committed to the authority of Holy Scripture and the truth of the Creeds received and understood in the modern evangelical ethos. They use the NIV and the NRSV and Rite II from the 1979 Prayer Book (as at the Dallas Congress, 7-9 October) and call God "You".
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:37 AM CDT permalink
Anglican Communion Office responds to "leaked" document
ACNS 3608 | ACO | 7 OCTOBER 2003
On 30 September 2003, the Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion was contacted by a journalist in connection with a claim that Dr Paul Zahl, Dean of the Cathedral of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama, had acquired details of the programme for the forthcoming Primates' Meeting to be held next week (15-16 October).
The Anglican Communion Office can confirm that Dr Zahl was briefly handed two documents in error at the recent meeting of the Inter-Anglican Theological Doctrinal Commission in Virginia Theological Seminary at the beginning of September.
Dr Zahl's comments on the nature and contents of these documents are misleading, and quotations that appeared in a recent newspaper report are incorrect. The documents were early draft versions of proposals being developed for a planning meeting in the ACO in preparation for the Primates' Meeting.
The Anglican Communion Office has an official role to advise on the structure of the Primates' Meetings in a way which will facilitate all primates to have an equal voice in all discussions.
posted by John at 7:36 AM CDT permalink
Monday, October 06, 2003
The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity
LORD, we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Epistle: Ephesians 4.1-6 The Gospel: S. Luke 14.1-11
Here we address the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as the LORD, in Hebrew YHWH, the revealed Name of God given to Moses at the burning bush in the wilderness (Exodus 3). He is “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM WHO I SHALL BE” and “I AM & SHALL BE WHO I WAS”. And his Son, the One Mediator between God and Man, who also shares the name of “LORD” is “the same yesterday, today and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8).
To this eternally existing, infinite and ineffable God, who came to us in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of the almighty Father, we are most highly privileged to be able to bring our petitions and to offer our praise and thanksgiving.
Here we use a verb “Prevent” whose meaning in this context is the old one -- to anticipate, to forestall, to be beforehand with. And we make two petitions which are connected to each other. First of all, we ask that the grace (the personal presence and unmerited mercy) of God (that is the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, present in the world as the Spirit of Christ) may always both go before us and come behind us, so that we are always surrounded on all sides by the divine omnipresence and infinite care. In the second place, being thus placed within the gracious favour of God, we ask that we shall continually respond in faith and faithfulness to be and do that which is pleasing in his sight -- loving God with all our being & loving our neighbour as ourselves to the glory of God.
There is great strength in the word “always”. We need God’s personal presence and assistance not sometimes, not even often; but, rather, always. We may wish to compare this Collect for Trinity XVII with the Fourth Collect at the end of the Order for Holy Communion where we pray, “Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour…” That is, we ask God, as it were, to bring up the rear as his Church moves through space and time. The same Collect also asks, “Further us with thy continual help”. Here, we ask God to surround us and to go before us with his Presence.
Let us be clear that the LORD, the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, is wholly desirous of being with his children in a complete and satisfying way for their salvation and their good. His promises of his presence and his help are many. What he looks for in us is faith and faithfulness so that we are truly and continually his people and he is known by us always as our covenant God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:04 PM CDT permalink
Chastity - the old or the new kind?
The word "Chastity" is little used today in the Church, and even less in the world. This is a matter for regret!
What it used to mean - and still does mean - is a supreme God-pleasing standard for sexual relations. Regrettably, this standard seems to be universally regarded as too idealistic and/or not in touch with people's real lives and feelings.
Chastity (from the Latin "castitas", the quality or state of being chaste) has for centuries described the pure life, with particular reference to abstinence from unlawful, sexual intercourse. The unmarried and the married are both called to chastity. Thus fornication and adultery, and all forms of rape, are forbidden, being acts of impurity. Further, cohabitation and most forms of marriage after divorce fall within what Chastity has (traditionally) forbidden.
Using the modern expression of "orientation" it may be said that the call of chastity to those with a homosexual orientation is to an abstinence from "gay" sex.
The call to purity in general and sexual purity in particular is, of course, based upon many passages in the Gospels and Epistles where baptized Christians are called to purity of life in the church and in the world in imitation of Christ Jesus. And the purity that is being sought includes very definitely purity of mind and heart.
Let us hope and pray that this traditional Christian theme will influence the Primates in their discussions on October 15-16 and that they will not be too focused on one aspect of impurity, "gay" partnerships.
Today, there is a tendency amongst moral theologians to widen the meaning of Chastity and to free it from its traditional association with purity of sexual relations. Thus it is now said, "to be chaste is to be a person of integrity, true to self and to other persons, devoted to the love of God and neighbour in all things. The call to chastity is the call to receive, affirm, exercise and celebrate our ways of being human together, including sexual ways, so that respect, love, trust, mutuality and commitment towards ourselves and our neighbours will grow and abound in human community" (New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, IVP). There is nothing wrong with these sentiments, but if we go with this wide meaning we find that we do not have a word to replace "chastity" as a powerful, incisive word referring to sexual purity. Maybe this loss is what pleases many in the modern churches!
I vote to stay with the traditional meaning! I hope the Primates also do.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:58 PM CDT permalink
Reconciliation Ministry inaugurated by Episcopal Divinity School
(this should be worth perusing to gain a clearer understanding of a very liberal mindset) -- P.T.
ACNS 3605 | USA | 6 OCTOBER 2003
Reconciliation Ministry inaugurated by Episcopal Divinity School
Episcopal Divinity School announces the inauguration of a major new ministry for reconciliation within the church, "Good News: A Congregational Resource for Reconciliation." In the aftermath of controversy and confusion following the decision of the General Convention to endorse the election of the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion, the seminary has responded with a program designed to bring people on "both sides of the argument" together in mutual respect with a shared hope for healing and peace.
"Good News" is a model for small group conversation within any parish built on the gospel of Jesus Christ. The content for the dialogues comes from the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The process is simple and accessible. Guided by a covenant which honors persons of all opinions, "Good News" seeks to fulfill three goals: (a) to promote a fair and respectful dialogue among persons who hold different opinions, (be) to offer a context of reflection on the shared values of the gospel, and (co) to encourage a process of reconciliation within the life of the community.
Participants receive a booklet written by EDS's President and Dean, the Rat Red Steven Charleston, which guides them through a prayer-centered experience in how Christians can (and indeed must) stay together even when the differences between them seem irreconcilable. These booklets can be purchased from the seminary and then reproduced by the parish making the "Good News" ministry affordable for any congregation.
As Bishop Charleston writes in the introduction, "Good News" is not about trying to resolve the debates on human sexuality, but about helping the Christian community find reconciliation. "At the end of that path," he writes, "people may still disagree, but they will have found the peace of Christ which is at the heart of community.... To use Good News, no one is asked to give up his or her own opinions. They are only asked to enter into a shared journey with others to search for reconciliation...they are asked to take the path to peace, even if it means only taking a few steps at a time."
Those steps are built on the three central visions of the seminary's own mission: Justice, Compassion, and Reconciliation. "Good News" walks participants through these three viewpoints on the gospel, shifting the focus away from the usual repetitive cycle of arguments on fixed positions and placing it on the call to discipleship every Christian hears when Jesus says "come, follow me". "Good News" helps communities discover that they can find reconciliation without resolving all of their disagreements. Parishes can experience compassion rather than conflict. They can embrace the peace of Christ, calming fear with the forgiveness of Jesus.
While "Good News" may be especially timely and supportive for communities struggling with the issues surrounding the last general Convention, it is equally helpful for any congregational conflict. It is a flexible model that can be carried out over a one day retreat, or, divided into separate sessions over three days. It is intentionally created to be an adaptable, welcoming, and yet challenging resource for any congregation to use in its own ministry of healing and Christian education.
"In a time when people were being called to take sides," said Bishop Charleston, "EDS decided to stand with Christ in the crossfire. Our mission is one of reconciliation and that is what the church needs now more than partisan politics."
For further information, please contact:
Nancy Davidge
99 Brattle Street
Cambridge
MA 02138
USA
Tel: +1 617-868-3450 x 302
Email: ndavidge@episdivschool.edu
www.episdivschool.edu
posted by John at 7:56 PM CDT permalink
Anglicans' Homosexual Priests Are Not Just Internal Problem, Says Cardinal
Warns That Such Ordinations Affect Relations With Catholic Church
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 3, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The Anglican Communion's ordination of practicing homosexuals is a problem affecting its relations with the Catholic Church, says a cardinal.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, made his observation today, the first day of a visit to the Vatican by the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
"We have . talked about the conflicts and tensions which have arisen in recent months within the Anglican Communion following the ordination of practicing homosexual priests," Cardinal Kasper said on Vatican Radio.
"I expressed my concern because it is not only an internal problem to the Anglican Communion, but also a problem that affects our relations," he added.
The Anglican primate held working meetings with Cardinal Kasper as well as with British Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
This is Dr. Williams' first visit to the Vatican as archbishop of Canterbury. He was appointed to the post by Queen Elizabeth II and confirmed in it last year. John Paul II is scheduled to receive the Anglican archbishop in audience on Saturday.
At the end of a meeting, Cardinal Kasper disclosed that the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion are completing the redaction of a joint document on the Virgin Mary.
Written by a commission of Catholic and Anglican theologians and pastors, the document will focus on the role of Mary in the life and doctrine of the Church.
The commission has considered the dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception in the light of Scripture and of the ancient tradition common to both Anglicans and Catholics.
Regarding the ordination of practicing homosexuals, Cardinal Kasper said: "We have a clear position which is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; we also have a tradition, a common heritage on this point. We hope they will not abandon this common tradition."
"I expressed my desire, my wish that a solution will be found that is accepted by the Anglican Communion and that will not have repercussions on relations with our Church," he added.
The Anglican Communion will address the issue at a summit in London this month. It will study the appointment by its church in the United States -- the Episcopalian church -- of Gene Robinson, a divorced homosexual, as bishop of New Hampshire.
The Anglican Communion, present in 160 countries, has 70 million faithful, organized in 38 autonomous regional churches.
Anglican-Catholic theological dialogue takes place through two structures: the ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission), instituted in 1970, and the IARCCUM (International Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission).
ARCIC concentrates its works on controversial theological themes between Catholics and Anglicans and has published documents on the Eucharist, ministry, authority, salvation, the Church and moral questions. These documents are submitted to both parties for review and debate. The most recent was the 1999 document "The Gift of Authority."
IARCCUM was instituted during a meeting in Canada in May 2000 and led by Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the then president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the then archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. Thirteen primates of Anglican provinces and 13 presidents of Episcopal conferences in the United States participated in this meeting, as did representatives of the Catholic Church.
The duty of IARCCUM is to sustain and support the aims of ARCIC.
posted by John at 7:23 PM CDT permalink
Archbishop of Canterbury arrives in Rome Friday
(To visit the Vatican before he hosts the 37 Primates of the Anglican Family
on Oct 15 seems a fine preparation by Archbishop Rowan!) --P.T.
VATICAN CITY - 3 October 2003 - 340 words
Archbishop of Canterbury arrives in Rome Friday
The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and president [first Primate] of the Anglican Communion, arrives in Rome this evening for a three-day visit to the Vatican, including an audience with Pope John Paul (October 4).
He will be met at Rome airport by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and by other Vatican officials.
The archbishop, who will stay at the Venerable English College, will be accompanied by 13 people, including his wife, and representatives of the Anglican Communion. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, will arrive in Rome tomorrow to participate in the events surrounding the visit.
Today, Archbishop Williams will have talks with Cardinal Kasper and other members of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity as well as talks with Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. After lunch at the Anglican Centre at the Doria Pamphili Palace, there will be round table discussions with Catholic representatives. Cardinal Kasper will host a dinner at the Santa Martha Residence in the Vatican.
Saturday morning, Archbishop Williams will go to St Peter's Basilica to pray. At 11am he will be received in audience by the Holy Father. He will then visit the excavations under St Peter's and return to the English College for lunch. In the afternoon there will be a press conference at the college, vespers at Santa Maria Sopra Minerva and a ceremony for the official installation of the new director of the Anglican Centre in Rome. Following a reception in the archbishop's honour, a dinner will be offered by the ambassador of Great Britain to the Holy See, Kathryn Colvin.
On Sunday, Archbishop Williams will preside at a Eucharist at All Saints Anglican Church, before his departure for London.
posted by John at 7:20 PM CDT permalink
Catholic diocese withdraws invitation to Episcopalians over gay issue
The Associated Press
ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. - The Catholic Diocese of St. Augustine withdrew its invitation Wednesday for the Episcopalian Diocese to use one of its churches for a ceremony because the pro-gay leader of the Episcopalian Church was slated to attend.
The local Catholic diocese rescinded the invitation after Frank Griswold, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, defended in a news article the church's confirmation of a gay bishop and argued that the Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships.
Bishop Victor Galeone "felt a good number of his people would be offended to learn that an Episcopalian bishop, that holds a position that is radically opposed to what both the church and scripture teach about homosexuality, is using one of our facilities," Kathleen Bagg-Morgan, a spokeswoman for the local Catholic diocese said in a statement.
The Episcopalian Diocese, based in nearby Jacksonville, had planned to use St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church for the installation ceremony of a new bishop, Samuel Howard, on Nov. 1. After learning of Griswold's comments and that he would be attending, Galeone "regrettably revoked" the invitation.
The Episcopal Diocese of Florida did not return telephone and e-mail messages Wednesday evening.
In a Monday interview with The Associated Press, Griswold defended his confirmation of Bishop-elect V. Gene Robinson, the church's first openly gay bishop, and defended homosexuality, saying it was not fully understood in Biblical times.
"Discreet acts of homosexuality" were condemned in the Bible because they were acts of lust instead of the "love, forgiveness, grace" of committed same-sex relationships, he said.
"Homosexuality, as we understand it as an orientation, is not mentioned in the Bible," Griswold said.
Griswold comments come at a time when the 2.3-million member Episcopal Church is in danger of being split over the decision to confirm Robinson. Next week, the conservative American Anglican Council will meet in Dallas to decide whether to break from the denomination.
posted by John at 7:19 PM CDT permalink
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
RECEPTIONISM, WOMEN IN ORDERS & "GAY" PARTNERSHIPS
(suggestions for consideration by those involved in the crisis in the ECUSA)
In the ECUSA, we are seeing increasingly both liberal bishops in their diocesan messages and advocates of the LesBiGay lobby in their writings and speeches using the Anglican doctrine of reception with respect to the blessing by the church of same-sex couples. This Anglican doctrine was created (from other forms of the doctrine of reception in the ecumenical movement and with respect to the history of doctrine) in 1988 in order to deal with the reality of divisions within the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women.
What the doctrine teaches is that after a synod or convention passes the necessary legislation to allow women to be ordained, then that doctrine and practice is in the process of reception - of testing and discernment - until such time as there is consensus about it, one way or the other. However, women in orders are to be treated as if they are truly and fully ordained even though their orders and position are being tested and discerned. Respect, good will and kindness are to be shown by all to all.
Applied to the "gay" issue by people in the ECUSA, the doctrine of reception teaches that after the General Convention of the ECUSA has passed the legislation allowing the blessing of "gay" couples (with local bishop's approval) and has confirmed the election of a priest (in a "gay" union) to be a bishop, then this doctrine and practice is in the process of reception, that is being tested. Discernment is being applied. As this goes on, those in such unions are to be treated as in legitimate and wholesome partnerships. All in the church are to be respectful and kind one to another so that there are no outcasts.
So it is that, whether we like it or not, the ordaining of women and the blessing of same-sex partnerships have been brought together and placed, as it were, under the same umbrella. This way of thinking is gaining ground in the ECUSA and also in Canada and Great Britain.
But is there a deeper more profound relation between the ordination of women and the blessing of "gay" couples? Yes, there is, and it is a connection which few in the conservative or the liberal camps of the Church appear to wish to think about or to acknowledge.
This relation and connection is NOT that of immorality - that both these church rites break the moral law of God. Obviously, "gay" sex is contrary to the law of God concerning sexual relations and it is described in the NT as a sin which, if not repented of, bars a person from the kingdom of God. Virtually all say that a woman who is ordained is not guilty of breaking that which we normally think of as the moral law of God - the second part of the table of the Ten Commandments. If anyone is guilty of breaking any law, be it of the first or second part of the table of the Commandments, it is the bishop who ordains her.
What does unite these two rites is that each is a setting aside, or a breaking, or a disregarding, of the Order that God in his wisdom has placed within the natural creation and in the kingdom of God, as we know them. Obviously "gay" sex is unnatural -- contrary to the Order within creation wherein male and female are equal but different, complementary, and ordered one to another for the purpose of procreation and personal fulfillment. Thus "gay" sex is both immoral and disordered - BUT yet it can be forgiven and those involved in it helped and healed.
However, women's ordination (which elevates the women to pastoral oversight) though not immoral is also unnatural, contrary to God's order for the relation of the two sexes and for the ordering of His Church. Male and female are certainly equal in dignity, worth and ability; but, they are also distinct in order, even as the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are equal in their Personhood and their Divinity/Godhead but in an ordered relation one to another - the Father together with His Son and with His Spirit. The Father is first in order, the Son second and the Holy Ghost, third: in the human race the male is first in order and the woman second in order (see Genesis 1: 27 & St Paul's teaching on headship). To break this order is to interfere with what God has blessed.
Thus it is that when the Church, even with good intentions and according to the best secular wisdom of the day, introduces innovations that are contrary to known divine Order, then the result is disorder in terms of the kingdom of God, and, immediately a window or door is opened through which further forces to cause disorientation and disorder enter. This has been the case so clearly in the Provinces of the Anglican Communion in the West (North) and may be the cause of the collapse of this Family of Churches as we have know it.
So the relation between women's ordination and the blessing of "gay" couples is that they are both examples of disorder and a breaking of the command to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength. In each, however, those who do the ordaining or give the blessing are more guilty than those who are ordained and blessed.
P.S. One could add that the blessing of serial monogamy by the clergy in the ECUSA is another example of disorder, which also opens windows and doors wide to allow secular forces to enter the church and change her mindset and practice and make her weak in moral theology and vigor.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:04 PM CDT permalink
American Anglican Council and Christ Church announce soaring registration numbers for "A Place to Stand" gathering
ACNS 3594 | USA | 29 SEPTEMBER 2003
[ACNS source: American Anglican Council] The American Anglican Council (AAC) and Christ Church of Plano, Texas, have announced that registrations for the "A Place to Stand: Declaring, Preparing" gathering have topped 2200. To date, "A Place to Stand" has drawn participants from all 50 states representing at least 95 Episcopal dioceses (out of 110). The participant list already includes 40 bishops, 729 priests, 43 deacons, 91 seminary students and 1,219 lay members of Episcopal churches across the nation. International and ecumenical representatives have also registered for the event. Over 75 media credentials have been approved.
"The extraordinary conference registration numbers show that mainstream Anglicans in the Episcopal Church are mobilized and determined to find a way to remain within the Anglican family," said the Revd Canon David C. Anderson, AAC President and CEO. "As we have said all along, we're not leaving. It is the Episcopal Church that has departed from the historic teachings of the Christian church and separated itself from the Anglican Communion."
"We are seeing an incredible response for 'A Place to Stand,'" said the Revd David Roseberry, Rector of Christ Church, Plano. "The number of priests who have registered is equivalent to roughly 10 per cent of all active clergy in ECUSA and the overall number of registrants is larger than the number of ECUSA deputies and bishops who attended General Convention."
The gathering will be held at the Wyndham Anatole Hotel in Dallas, Texas, from noon October 7 through noon October 9, 2003.
For more information or to register for "A Place to Stand: Declaring, Preparing", visit the AAC web site at www.americananglican.org or the Christ Church website at www.christchurchplano.org
All participants are required to register online. All media interested in attending must apply for media credentials.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:00 PM CDT permalink
What Price Unity? Archbishop Robin Eames examines questions facing the Anglican Communion
ACNS 3593 | IRELAND | 26 SEPTEMBER 2003
[ACNS source: Church of Ireland Gazette] The Archbishop of Armagh and Senior Primate of the Anglican Communion, the Most Revd Robin Eames, examines some of the questions currently facing the world-wide Anglican Communion prior to the forthcoming special meeting of Primates at Lambeth Palace:
"The decision of the Episcopal Church of the United States to endorse the appointment of Canon Gene Robinson as bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire has provoked a crisis for the Anglican Communion. Irrespective of individual or collective opinions on the election of a practising homosexual to be an Anglican bishop this event has once more brought
into question the nature of unity and relationships of the diverse Provinces which make up the Communion to which the Church of Ireland belongs by bringing to light very deep divisions on this question which have existed within Anglicanism and beyond. Those sharp divisions of opinion currently obvious within individual Provinces and between Provinces, the expressions of strong opinions by clergy and laity and the widespread media speculation in advance of the forthcoming special meeting of Primates at Lambeth Palace compel a careful examination of the nature of the Anglican Communion and its structures. The demand by some for the expulsion of ECUSA from the Anglican Communion raises the
question: What does expulsion mean and how if at all could it take place?
"In any relationship corporate or individual it is often the case that only when a crisis arises is the structure or meaning of that relationship examined in any depth. So it is with the Anglican Communion. The ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate
forced such an examination before, during and following the Lambeth Conference 1988. The media even forecast the end of the Anglican Communion. Questions were raised then about the same structures where fundamental differences of opinion existed across Anglicanism and I was privileged to chair the international Commission set up by the late
Robert Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury. That Commission produced pastoral guidelines which were geared to encourage the 'highest degree of communion' between differing Provinces, guidelines which may well be appropriate at this time. My experience then and since has convinced me that the fundamental issue for our Communion is: How do we live together with differing opinions, differing cultures but maintain some semblance
of active communion? I believe Anglicanism will survive this current controversy. The question is: in what form?
"The truth is that the Anglican Communion has lived through generations without basic regulations, rules or legal structures. Anglicanism has consistently rejected any move to create a curia such as we see in the Roman Catholic tradition. This desire has manifested itself time and again at Lambeth Conferences, Primates Meetings and gatherings of the
Anglican Consultative Council. I have witnessed consistent rejection of such a move. The autonomy of individual Provinces has been jealously guarded. Provincial government usually through synodical structures and the exercise of episcopacy has enshrined this degree of individuality. Provincial contributions have centred on the aspirations and historical developments of individual Provinces or Churches. The common tie has
been 'communion with the See of Canterbury' and 'communion with other Churches maintaining the same ethos.' But I am unaware of any agreed rules governing such relationships beyond the desire to be 'in communion'. Therefore when we talk of expulsion the question arises - expulsion from what?
"In the blitz of opinion and counter argument over the election to New Hampshire I believe we need to be clear what we are talking about.
"This election undoubtedly challenges the Resolution 1.10 of the last Lambeth Conference. It is clearly in breach of the majority opinion of the bishops in 1998. It is clearly contrary to the view of a large number of Anglicans. But the question still remains: Is there a tangible
manner within the structures of our Communion as present constituted to do more than express concern and criticism and adopt attitudes within our own Provinces towards those others with whom we disagree?
"To put it plainly - if no constitutional or legal rules exist for what constitutes membership of the Anglican Communion there are no rules for expulsion of a member Church.
"The focus must therefore turn to the practices and customs which do exist.
"The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares at any meeting of Primates. As 'first among equals' he calls and normally presides at such gatherings. Equally it is at his invitation that bishops attend the Lambeth Conference. In theory there is nothing to prevent disapproval on any issue being expressed at a meeting of Primates. It is also open to the Archbishop of Canterbury to withhold invitations should he so wish to either a Primates Meeting or to the Lambeth Conference itself. But the fact remains that no constitutional basis exists for the expulsion of any Province from the Anglican Communion. Given that the traditional 'instruments of unity' of Anglicanism are the See of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council, our Communion has existed as a 'communion of like-minded Provinces' where provincial autonomy is preserved. It is that 'communion' which has been questioned and challenged by the recent events in the United States.
"On the other hand Anglicans refer to the historic Lambeth Quadrilateral which addresses the concept of Communion even more directly than the Instruments of Unity. We have traditionally placed a high value on the ordering, the forms and the expressions of worship. In this we have expressed doctrine in a more explicit manner than doctrinal statements.
Here in the Church of Ireland it is the way we worship and pray that shapes our identity. Soon we will celebrate the launch of a new Prayer Book. Such is for us a standard of doctrine as much as a basis for worship. This standard expressed through the Book of Common Prayer has been recognised by successive Lambeth Conferences as being grounded in Scripture, the Catholic Creeds, the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist
and the historic Ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
"A Church which describes itself along these lines does not seek to define more of its ethos than is absolutely necessary. Provincial autonomy permits different attitudes to discipline and to ways of presenting the Gospel. Anglicans seek to preserve the identity or
communion of a world family. This does not prevent disagreements between members of the family on what Scripture says - but it is far from saying we do not care about the primacy of Scripture. We can disagree about the frequency of the celebration of the Sacraments - but we cannot discard the Sacraments. As we have seen Anglicans can differ on the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate but we do not deny there should be priests and bishops if we wish to remain Anglicans. The Creeds may be
only an outline of the faith but we cannot reject them and remain part of the Catholic Church.
"Such are just some of the ingredients and dilemmas of 'communion' as we have sought to be a world Church family.
"As the Archbishop of Dublin and I stressed in our recent statement the Church of Ireland addresses that communion in the Declaration: 'The Church of Ireland will maintain Communion with the sister Church of England and with all other Christian Churches agreeing in the principles of this Declaration.'
"Laws apart, opinions apart and sensitivities apart diversity of culture, practice and life-styles have been and will most likely continue to be the experience of a world family such as the Anglican Communion. Perhaps the main question arising for us at this time is
simply: How do we live with and how do we understand difference?
"What price unity?"
posted by John at 7:58 PM CDT permalink
