www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
Save your last bullet for (Bishop) Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. There are plenty of others to fire at first.
Don’t treat Gene as though he were the most guilty man in the whole of the Anglican Communion of Churches – there are others who are much more guilty.
Woe unto the Episcopal Church of the USA, which has deliberately and knowingly, since the 1960s, decided to take its public agenda from the secularized culture & the Zeitgeist of the West rather than from the Revelation of the Blessed Trinity in the Word written and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
Woe unto the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the USA, which has voted consistently and often since the 1960s for the repudiation of the Worship, Doctrine and Discipline inherited from the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA and from the Church of England, and from the Church Catholic.
Woe unto the House of Bishops of the ECUSA, which has repudiated by its words and deeds, since the 1960s, its claim to be committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to real membership of the college of Bishops of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Woe unto the Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, who has become an international ambassador for the apostate religion of the ECUSA.
Woe unto individual bishops and dioceses, which have followed the lead of the General Convention, set aside historic Worship, Faith, Order & Morality and delighted in innovation on many fronts, often including the persecution of “traditional” believers.
Woe unto the lay membership of the ECUSA, which has generally gone along with the repudiation of the heritage of evangelical/catholic Faith and Practice as well as the embracing of innovations, when it could have (by its virtual total control of weekly money & finance) sent many signals of disapproval and rejection to the House of Bishops.
Woe unto those who claim to be “orthodox and biblically-based,” but who have gone along with virtually all the innovations – except the latest concerning “gay sex” – since the 1960s and thus who hardly deserve to be taken seriously in the whole scheme of things as leaders of any renewal.
Woe unto the feminists who pressed for, and gained, such innovations as a total change in the Catholic Ministry and in the language of Bible and Liturgy used to address God and humanity.
Woe unto the social activists, whose passion for economic, political and social justice on earth caused the ECUSA to change the Gospel of heaven and hell into a message of commitment to activism for “peace and justice” in human society.
Woe unto the human rights advocates, whose drive to open up rights to all groups and persons in society has caused the morality of the ECUSA to be based more on modern theories of human rights than on the commandments of God.
Woe unto the LesBiGay lobby, with all its carefully planned and executed propaganda and activities, which has turned the received sexual morality of the ECUSA inside out and caused the naming of what was until recently immorality and sin by the name of morality and righteousness.
Woe unto Gene Robinson, who has been given by God a clear and able mind but who has used that mind to justify his own departure from Christian Faith and Morality and actively to support, commend and embody what the Church has historically called immorality – and to claim that “God” (not surely the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) is guiding him.
There are very few in the present ECUSA who do not fall under the Woes pronounced from heaven and there are very few therein who do not suffer in some degree from the spiritual disease which so clearly affects those Bishops who were present to engage in the “consecration” of Gene on November 2.
May the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon us all!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon, November 2, 2003.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
Kiss of Peace & down the Aisle!
(At last Rome is giving some sober and sensible instructions concerning this often over-done gesture and activity)
Can Priest Go Down Aisle at the Kiss of Peace?
ROME, OCT. 28, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Q: Is it OK for the priest to come down during the peace offering to shake hands with the congregation? I hear this is wrong and I'd really like to know if it is or not since it makes me uneasy about our doing something inappropriate. -- I.S., San Ysidro, California
A: The new General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM), with approved adaptations for the United States, refers to this question in No. 154: "The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary. At the same time, in accord with the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, all offer one another a sign that expresses peace."
For the moment the above exceptions, which are quite reasonable, apply only within the United States as almost no other episcopal conference has submitted a translation for the Holy See's approval.
The reason the GIRM dwells on this point is to put the kiss of peace into its proper context as a brief, and relatively unimportant rite in preparation for Communion; in fact, few realize that it is actually optional. It is the forthcoming Communion, not the priest, nor the good feelings we harbor toward our neighbors, that is the reason and source of the peace we desire for our fellows and the peace we receive from them. As GIRM 82 says, in the Rite of Peace: "the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament."
So, when the celebrant walks down the aisle shaking hands, the gesture, despite his good intentions, tends to inordinately draw attention to his person, as if he, and not the Lord, were the source of the peace that only Christ can give. Sometimes we priests can forget that being a "Pontifex" means being a bridge, and a bridge serves its purpose only when we walk over it, not when we admire it from a distance.
The gestures of the faithful, while respecting local custom, they should avoid excess exuberance and ebullience, again according to GIRM 82: "as to the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner."
At the same time when this rite is done well it can be very effective spiritually. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, for example, has written of the powerful impression caused by witnessing this gesture at a Catholic Mass as he struggled to leave behind radical atheism and find, first belief in God, and eventually, acceptance of the Catholic faith.
Can Priest Go Down Aisle at the Kiss of Peace?
ROME, OCT. 28, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Q: Is it OK for the priest to come down during the peace offering to shake hands with the congregation? I hear this is wrong and I'd really like to know if it is or not since it makes me uneasy about our doing something inappropriate. -- I.S., San Ysidro, California
A: The new General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM), with approved adaptations for the United States, refers to this question in No. 154: "The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary. At the same time, in accord with the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, all offer one another a sign that expresses peace."
For the moment the above exceptions, which are quite reasonable, apply only within the United States as almost no other episcopal conference has submitted a translation for the Holy See's approval.
The reason the GIRM dwells on this point is to put the kiss of peace into its proper context as a brief, and relatively unimportant rite in preparation for Communion; in fact, few realize that it is actually optional. It is the forthcoming Communion, not the priest, nor the good feelings we harbor toward our neighbors, that is the reason and source of the peace we desire for our fellows and the peace we receive from them. As GIRM 82 says, in the Rite of Peace: "the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament."
So, when the celebrant walks down the aisle shaking hands, the gesture, despite his good intentions, tends to inordinately draw attention to his person, as if he, and not the Lord, were the source of the peace that only Christ can give. Sometimes we priests can forget that being a "Pontifex" means being a bridge, and a bridge serves its purpose only when we walk over it, not when we admire it from a distance.
The gestures of the faithful, while respecting local custom, they should avoid excess exuberance and ebullience, again according to GIRM 82: "as to the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner."
At the same time when this rite is done well it can be very effective spiritually. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, for example, has written of the powerful impression caused by witnessing this gesture at a Catholic Mass as he struggled to leave behind radical atheism and find, first belief in God, and eventually, acceptance of the Catholic faith.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
Robert A. J. Gagnon Responds to Bishop Griswold Interview
As Bishop Griswold acts as chief consecrator of Gene Robinson on Sunday, November 2nd, he does so on a false understanding of the phenomenon of homosexuality. See below.
This item is also available on the web at: http://www.AmericanAnglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=764&c=21
An Open Letter to the Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold September 30, 2003
Dear Presiding Bishop Griswold,
The following remarks were attributed to you in an Associated Press interview published yesterday ("Episcopal Leader Defends Gay Bishop," by Rachel Zoll, AP religion writer;):
He said that in biblical times there was no understanding that homosexuality was a natural orientation and not a choice. "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," he said.
With all due respect, if these remarks are correctly cited, you are in error on all counts.
First, there were many theories in the Greco-Roman world that posited something akin to modern sexual orientation theory. Philosophers, doctors, and moralists often attributed one or more forms of homosexual behavior, at least in part, to congenital factors. And some of the same persons could still refer to such forms as "contrary to nature"-that is, given by nature but not in conformity with embodied existence or nature's well-working processes. Lifelong, exclusive participants in homosexual behavior were also widely known in the ancient world. Indeed, Paul's reference to the malakoi ("soft men," men who play the sexual role of females) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is one such instance.
Second, you assume that the absence of "choice" regarding sexual impulses absolves one of moral responsibility for the behavior arising from such impulses. Numerous sinful desires, sexual and otherwise, are not "chosen" in the sense of being manufactured willfully. That doesn't make them any less sinful-though it can and should inform our pastoral response. Who would choose to be a pedophile if it were a simple matter of choice? Some people find it extraordinarily difficult to be limited to a single sex partner; do they choose their sexual impulses? Some people grow up without an instinctive aversion to sex with close blood relations and then fall in love with one such relative; do they simply manufacture such feelings? Paul describes sin itself in Romans 7 as an innate impulse, passed on by an ancestor figure, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control. The very nature of sin is that it generates biologically related impulses. Why do you think a biological connection disqualifies an impulse from being sinful? Such thinking is patently un-biblical.
Third, biblical writers were certainly not limiting their condemnation of same-sex intercourse to particularly exploitative forms. Non-exploitative forms were known in Paul's day and had Paul wanted to limit his condemnation to exploitative forms he certainly could have done so. The wording in Romans 1:24-27 is quite clear as regards what Paul found objectionable about same-sex intercourse: its same-sexness, persons seeking sexual integration with a non-complementary sexual same, persons erotically attracted to what they intrinsically are as sexual beings. This is sexual narcissism and/or sexual self-deception: a desire either for what one is or for what one wishes to be but in fact already is. The intertextual echoes to Genesis 1:27 ("God made them male and female") and Genesis 2:24 ("For this reason a man shall . . . be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh") in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, respectively, confirm that Paul had in view the male-female prerequisite ordained by God at creation.(Incidentally, so did Jesus when he appealed to the same two texts from Genesis as normative and prescriptive texts for human sexual relations [Mark 10:6-8].) The beautiful image put forward in Genesis 2:18-24 is that of an original binary human split down the side into two sexually differentiated beings. If sexual relations are to be had, "one-flesh" sexual wholeness requires a re-merger of the two constituent parts produced by the splitting. By "nature" in Romans 1:24-27 Paul meant the complementary structure of males and females still transparent in material creation-a category of thinking that transcends issues of love and commitment. The description in Romans 1:27 of males mutually gratifying themselves with other males does not suggest exploitation. Nor does the mention of female-female intercourse point us in the direction of a particularly exploitative form of same-sex intercourse. The language in Romans 1:24-27 of being "given over" to preexisting desires and forsaking any heterosexual relations certainly suggests innate and exclusive passions for members of the same sex. Scripture is clearly condemning every form of same-sex intercourse. Biblical authors would no more have accepted a committed and loving homosexual union than they would have accepted a committed and loving adult incestuous union. Both types of unions are structurally incompatible: sex with sexual or familial sames.
Much more could be said about each of the points above but what I have written should suffice for now.
Even some pro-homosex biblical scholars such as Bernadette Brooten and William Schoedel recognize that "sexual orientation" and commitment would have made little difference to Paul's indictment of same-sex intercourse. My book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon) which has been out for a full two years, also makes this clear (see especially pp. 347-60, 380-95). See also now my more condensed discussion in Homosexuality and the Bible (Fortress), just released, and a forthcoming article in an edited volume entitled Christian Sexuality (Kirk House), which deals extensively with orientation theory in antiquity.
There really is no excuse any more for making the kinds of false statements about Scripture that you made in the AP interview. It is especially inexcusable for a presiding bishop-an office that has guarding the faith as a chief concern-to be making such inaccurate representations of the biblical witness. I urge you to read more widely, and more carefully, as regards recent work on the subject of the Bible and homosexual behavior.
Sincerely,
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
This item is also available on the web at: http://www.AmericanAnglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=764&c=21
An Open Letter to the Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold September 30, 2003
Dear Presiding Bishop Griswold,
The following remarks were attributed to you in an Associated Press interview published yesterday ("Episcopal Leader Defends Gay Bishop," by Rachel Zoll, AP religion writer;):
He said that in biblical times there was no understanding that homosexuality was a natural orientation and not a choice. "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," he said.
With all due respect, if these remarks are correctly cited, you are in error on all counts.
First, there were many theories in the Greco-Roman world that posited something akin to modern sexual orientation theory. Philosophers, doctors, and moralists often attributed one or more forms of homosexual behavior, at least in part, to congenital factors. And some of the same persons could still refer to such forms as "contrary to nature"-that is, given by nature but not in conformity with embodied existence or nature's well-working processes. Lifelong, exclusive participants in homosexual behavior were also widely known in the ancient world. Indeed, Paul's reference to the malakoi ("soft men," men who play the sexual role of females) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is one such instance.
Second, you assume that the absence of "choice" regarding sexual impulses absolves one of moral responsibility for the behavior arising from such impulses. Numerous sinful desires, sexual and otherwise, are not "chosen" in the sense of being manufactured willfully. That doesn't make them any less sinful-though it can and should inform our pastoral response. Who would choose to be a pedophile if it were a simple matter of choice? Some people find it extraordinarily difficult to be limited to a single sex partner; do they choose their sexual impulses? Some people grow up without an instinctive aversion to sex with close blood relations and then fall in love with one such relative; do they simply manufacture such feelings? Paul describes sin itself in Romans 7 as an innate impulse, passed on by an ancestor figure, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control. The very nature of sin is that it generates biologically related impulses. Why do you think a biological connection disqualifies an impulse from being sinful? Such thinking is patently un-biblical.
Third, biblical writers were certainly not limiting their condemnation of same-sex intercourse to particularly exploitative forms. Non-exploitative forms were known in Paul's day and had Paul wanted to limit his condemnation to exploitative forms he certainly could have done so. The wording in Romans 1:24-27 is quite clear as regards what Paul found objectionable about same-sex intercourse: its same-sexness, persons seeking sexual integration with a non-complementary sexual same, persons erotically attracted to what they intrinsically are as sexual beings. This is sexual narcissism and/or sexual self-deception: a desire either for what one is or for what one wishes to be but in fact already is. The intertextual echoes to Genesis 1:27 ("God made them male and female") and Genesis 2:24 ("For this reason a man shall . . . be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh") in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, respectively, confirm that Paul had in view the male-female prerequisite ordained by God at creation.(Incidentally, so did Jesus when he appealed to the same two texts from Genesis as normative and prescriptive texts for human sexual relations [Mark 10:6-8].) The beautiful image put forward in Genesis 2:18-24 is that of an original binary human split down the side into two sexually differentiated beings. If sexual relations are to be had, "one-flesh" sexual wholeness requires a re-merger of the two constituent parts produced by the splitting. By "nature" in Romans 1:24-27 Paul meant the complementary structure of males and females still transparent in material creation-a category of thinking that transcends issues of love and commitment. The description in Romans 1:27 of males mutually gratifying themselves with other males does not suggest exploitation. Nor does the mention of female-female intercourse point us in the direction of a particularly exploitative form of same-sex intercourse. The language in Romans 1:24-27 of being "given over" to preexisting desires and forsaking any heterosexual relations certainly suggests innate and exclusive passions for members of the same sex. Scripture is clearly condemning every form of same-sex intercourse. Biblical authors would no more have accepted a committed and loving homosexual union than they would have accepted a committed and loving adult incestuous union. Both types of unions are structurally incompatible: sex with sexual or familial sames.
Much more could be said about each of the points above but what I have written should suffice for now.
Even some pro-homosex biblical scholars such as Bernadette Brooten and William Schoedel recognize that "sexual orientation" and commitment would have made little difference to Paul's indictment of same-sex intercourse. My book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon) which has been out for a full two years, also makes this clear (see especially pp. 347-60, 380-95). See also now my more condensed discussion in Homosexuality and the Bible (Fortress), just released, and a forthcoming article in an edited volume entitled Christian Sexuality (Kirk House), which deals extensively with orientation theory in antiquity.
There really is no excuse any more for making the kinds of false statements about Scripture that you made in the AP interview. It is especially inexcusable for a presiding bishop-an office that has guarding the faith as a chief concern-to be making such inaccurate representations of the biblical witness. I urge you to read more widely, and more carefully, as regards recent work on the subject of the Bible and homosexual behavior.
Sincerely,
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
The National Church Principle of the Anglican Way
(November 1, 2003)
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
No reasonable person will deny that the Anglican Communion is experiencing a crisis of authority. The immediate irritants are the American approval of a divorced man, sexually active outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony and living with a same-sex companion, to be a bishop of Christ’s Church, along with the decision of the Canadian diocese of New Westminster to proceed with the blessing of same-sex relationships as holy before God. And while the international outrage over these departures from Scriptural faith and order is more than justified, it is worth pointing out that these moral catastrophes are mere symptoms and not the disease itself that is troubling the Anglican Communion. The breakdown of authority among the churches of the Anglican Communion is the real emergency. Furthermore, given the historic content and nature of Anglican ecclesiastical polity, it might be better still to diagnose the current Anglican disease as a breakdown in responsibility.
Please note that we chose the words “among the churches of the Anglican Communion” very carefully. There cannot be, in historic Anglican polity, a crisis or emergency “within the Anglican Communion.” The “communion” shared by the Anglican churches is a spiritual and sacramental fellowship, rather than an institutional connection defined by some body of internal institutional law. The Anglican Communion belongs to the churches. The churches do not belong to the Anglican Communion.
There is, on purpose, among the churches of the Anglican Way, no centralized, coercive, institutional authority. There is no officer or group of officers within the Communion that has any earthly, bureaucratic authority to command the innovating Americans and Canadians to cease and desist, nor from the viewpoint of those who believe in traditional Anglican polity should there be. There is, of course, moral and spiritual authority in plenty to correct such errors, but only among those churches that will take responsibility for their own participation in the Anglican Communion and for their relations with other national churches.
Assuming the very best of intentions behind the Commission announced by the Archbishop of Canterbury to investigate the various churches’ deviations from Scriptural norms, we cannot help but suggest that it is probably not the best possible way to proceed. The establishment of a Commission not only may encourage the various national churches to lay off their own responsibilities before God onto the Commission, but it also may give the impression that national churches ought not to act until given permission to do so by some non-existent central authority, if they wish to remain in good standing as Anglicans.
In much the same way, recent appeals from within the United States and Canada for the bishops of the other Anglican national churches to intervene and to reclaim the two troubled American churches on behalf of the American faithful, however understandable, are really beside the point. The various American Anglicans in distress should and must ask for the aid and succor of their Anglican brethren around the world, but they ought not to ask those brethren to do the reforming work that the Americans themselves must bear the responsibility before God of accomplishing. Each national church must answer to God for its own orthodoxy, its own morality, its own charity, its own correction of error, and, if necessary, its own discipline of separation from the unfaithful or the unruly.
Why are these things so? The beginning proposition of the reformed catholic polity of the Anglican churches is that the Church of Jesus Christ in each nation has an identity, a vocation, and an integrity of its own. While none of these national churches is the whole Church in and of itself, the sum of them, along with the saints in light, is the Church confessed in the ecumenical creeds. Moreover, this proposition is founded on an understanding of the Scripture in which the Great Commission to teach all nations was not and cannot be twisted into an invitation to establish a centralized coercive institution to rule all the churches of the earth.
Additionally, the Anglican reformers believed that the grace of apostolic authority had been bestowed equally upon all of the Apostles and upon all of the churches derived from their ministry. Such an equality did not forbid love, respect, or cooperation, but it did rule out subservience, so that the Reformers of the 16th century judged that it was the duty of the Church of England, as a coherent national church and in the same case as those other Christian churches of the West before the rise of the papacy, to reform herself, with or without the agreement of the Bishop of Rome.
The national churches of the United States and of Canada have the same authority and obligation to reform themselves now as the Church of England had at the time of the Reformation. On this basis, the Anglican churches in the United States reorganized themselves after their War of Independence into an ecclesiastical province and national church in 1789, calling themselves “the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.” As a national church and province in being, the PECUSA sought fellowship with the Church of England. When these national churches entered voluntarily into a spiritual communion of faith and sacrament, what we call today “the Anglican Communion” came into being.
A similar reorganization of the Anglican churches in America is, of course, just as possible today. But whatever help the Americans may receive from other churches, it is only as a reorganized province-in-being that it makes any sense to speak of “communion” with the other Anglican churches of the world. The Americans’ foreign brethren cannot enter into communion with a promise, but only with a province, and a province equal in discipline and faith at that.
Lastly, some may argue that it would be better for the Anglican Communion to remake itself and to establish a centralized authority to deal with matters of faith and discipline, rather than to expect the various national churches to shoulder their various responsibilities to maintain faith and order in their own households under the traditional Anglican polity. But if a “central command” polity is to be our self-imposed fate, all we will have accomplished is a repudiation of the Reformation and our final submission to the polity enshrined at the Council of Trent. The issue is no longer the Anglican Communion, but the Anglican Way itself.
The Revd Dr Louis R Tarsitano & the Revd Dr Peter Toon (All Saints’ Day, 2003)
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
No reasonable person will deny that the Anglican Communion is experiencing a crisis of authority. The immediate irritants are the American approval of a divorced man, sexually active outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony and living with a same-sex companion, to be a bishop of Christ’s Church, along with the decision of the Canadian diocese of New Westminster to proceed with the blessing of same-sex relationships as holy before God. And while the international outrage over these departures from Scriptural faith and order is more than justified, it is worth pointing out that these moral catastrophes are mere symptoms and not the disease itself that is troubling the Anglican Communion. The breakdown of authority among the churches of the Anglican Communion is the real emergency. Furthermore, given the historic content and nature of Anglican ecclesiastical polity, it might be better still to diagnose the current Anglican disease as a breakdown in responsibility.
Please note that we chose the words “among the churches of the Anglican Communion” very carefully. There cannot be, in historic Anglican polity, a crisis or emergency “within the Anglican Communion.” The “communion” shared by the Anglican churches is a spiritual and sacramental fellowship, rather than an institutional connection defined by some body of internal institutional law. The Anglican Communion belongs to the churches. The churches do not belong to the Anglican Communion.
There is, on purpose, among the churches of the Anglican Way, no centralized, coercive, institutional authority. There is no officer or group of officers within the Communion that has any earthly, bureaucratic authority to command the innovating Americans and Canadians to cease and desist, nor from the viewpoint of those who believe in traditional Anglican polity should there be. There is, of course, moral and spiritual authority in plenty to correct such errors, but only among those churches that will take responsibility for their own participation in the Anglican Communion and for their relations with other national churches.
Assuming the very best of intentions behind the Commission announced by the Archbishop of Canterbury to investigate the various churches’ deviations from Scriptural norms, we cannot help but suggest that it is probably not the best possible way to proceed. The establishment of a Commission not only may encourage the various national churches to lay off their own responsibilities before God onto the Commission, but it also may give the impression that national churches ought not to act until given permission to do so by some non-existent central authority, if they wish to remain in good standing as Anglicans.
In much the same way, recent appeals from within the United States and Canada for the bishops of the other Anglican national churches to intervene and to reclaim the two troubled American churches on behalf of the American faithful, however understandable, are really beside the point. The various American Anglicans in distress should and must ask for the aid and succor of their Anglican brethren around the world, but they ought not to ask those brethren to do the reforming work that the Americans themselves must bear the responsibility before God of accomplishing. Each national church must answer to God for its own orthodoxy, its own morality, its own charity, its own correction of error, and, if necessary, its own discipline of separation from the unfaithful or the unruly.
Why are these things so? The beginning proposition of the reformed catholic polity of the Anglican churches is that the Church of Jesus Christ in each nation has an identity, a vocation, and an integrity of its own. While none of these national churches is the whole Church in and of itself, the sum of them, along with the saints in light, is the Church confessed in the ecumenical creeds. Moreover, this proposition is founded on an understanding of the Scripture in which the Great Commission to teach all nations was not and cannot be twisted into an invitation to establish a centralized coercive institution to rule all the churches of the earth.
Additionally, the Anglican reformers believed that the grace of apostolic authority had been bestowed equally upon all of the Apostles and upon all of the churches derived from their ministry. Such an equality did not forbid love, respect, or cooperation, but it did rule out subservience, so that the Reformers of the 16th century judged that it was the duty of the Church of England, as a coherent national church and in the same case as those other Christian churches of the West before the rise of the papacy, to reform herself, with or without the agreement of the Bishop of Rome.
The national churches of the United States and of Canada have the same authority and obligation to reform themselves now as the Church of England had at the time of the Reformation. On this basis, the Anglican churches in the United States reorganized themselves after their War of Independence into an ecclesiastical province and national church in 1789, calling themselves “the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.” As a national church and province in being, the PECUSA sought fellowship with the Church of England. When these national churches entered voluntarily into a spiritual communion of faith and sacrament, what we call today “the Anglican Communion” came into being.
A similar reorganization of the Anglican churches in America is, of course, just as possible today. But whatever help the Americans may receive from other churches, it is only as a reorganized province-in-being that it makes any sense to speak of “communion” with the other Anglican churches of the world. The Americans’ foreign brethren cannot enter into communion with a promise, but only with a province, and a province equal in discipline and faith at that.
Lastly, some may argue that it would be better for the Anglican Communion to remake itself and to establish a centralized authority to deal with matters of faith and discipline, rather than to expect the various national churches to shoulder their various responsibilities to maintain faith and order in their own households under the traditional Anglican polity. But if a “central command” polity is to be our self-imposed fate, all we will have accomplished is a repudiation of the Reformation and our final submission to the polity enshrined at the Council of Trent. The issue is no longer the Anglican Communion, but the Anglican Way itself.
The Revd Dr Louis R Tarsitano & the Revd Dr Peter Toon (All Saints’ Day, 2003)
Bishop Righter & Canon Robinson & Canon Law
(in response to comments & queries & accusations that I support "gay" sex, I offer this as a discussion paper)
Homosexuality & Divorce - with special reference to retired Bishop Righter & Canon Gene Robinson to be consecrated November 2, 2003.
It is true to say that the three major Monotheistic Religions - Judaism, Christianity & Islam - teach that homosexual relations are wrong in the eyes and judgment of God.
It is also true to say that divorce & divorce with later remarriage are permitted but not encouraged by Judaism, Islam and by Christianity -- and in most branches of Christianity remarriage after divorce is actively discouraged & even forbidden.
Further, it is true to say that in modern western society divorce & divorce and remarriage are very common and are acceptable in all strata of society. Also in modern western society it is true to say that a majority think that certain rights for homosexual persons should be recognized. Nevertheless there is a sizeable minority which, though it thinks of divorce with remarriage as acceptable, also thinks of active homosexuality as an offence that far surpasses those of adultery and fornication.
Not very long ago, the ECUSA had the trial of retired Bishop Righter on the charge that he had ordained an openly gay man. I sat through that trial a foot from this Bishop's third wife! The ten "orthodox" bishops who brought this trial seemed not to judge that this bishop's major fault against God and canon law was the fact that he had three wives alive and was living with the third after two divorces. His great sin was to have ordained a "gay" man. Lawyers at this trial defending Righter said publicly and to me personally that they could not understand why divorce with remarriage was acceptable to these bishops (most of whom are now in the AAC) if the teaching of Jesus is to be taken literally (for the Bishops argued from literal reading of the biblical texts that homosexual activism was wrong).
Today when the case of Gene Robinson is raised, conservative elements in church and society see only as relevant the fact that he is a homosexual and living in a "gay" relationship with a male partner. This is alone what stands out.
However, in terms of the Church of God and the Anglican Jurisdiction of the same it has been the case that a clergyman who is divorced is thereby prohibited from being consecrated a bishop. It matters not whether he is the innocent or guilty party of a divorce. And it matters not what kind of lifestyle he follow after divorce - holy & blameless or the opposite. Divorce means that there can be no elevation to the higher office in this case. However, divorce does not prevent his salvation and sharing in the life of the Church if he lives in faith, hope and charity.
Yet, because of the laxity in discipline within the ECUSA since the 1960s, the prohibition against a divorced man being elevated is rarely considered and applied. Thus the fact that Robinson is a divorced man is noted only in passing and his present life-style is proclaimed to the world (which is exactly what gay activists want to occur for it certainly helps their case).
BUT surely those who claim to be orthodox and to uphold biblical doctrine and traditional norms had a duty to point out at the 2003 General Convention, if not before, that the fact of his being divorced was in and of itself the end of the matter as far as the law of God is concerned. His behavior afterwards merely underlined in this instance what was already the case. The fact of the matter is that whatever his virtues or vices he is a divorced person and so is ineligible for confirmation as bishop elect. Thus to concentrate solely upon his lifestyle after the divorce was in a strict sense irrelevant. And to look only at that lifestyle and see that alone as the means of disqualification for elevation was to be guided by the norms of part of conservative society (wherein homosexual activity is seen as totally outside the pale and not by the received canon law.
Let us be clear. All sexual relations outside the strict norms taught by the Lord Jesus and his apostles are sinful, and the nature of the sin as sin is no different be it heterosexual or homosexual. The calling to Christians is to chastity inside and outside of marriage. Thus in writing what I have above I am not condoning "gay" sex. I am merely and only pointing out that to major on it in the Righter and Robinson affairs was a major mistake and proclaimed to the world (a) that divorce & divorce with remarriage is now wholly acceptable in Christian moral theology and practice in the Anglican world, and (b) that "gay" sex is seen by conservatives as the real sexual sin and carries from heaven a greater guilt than fornication and adultery. Further, massive free publicity has been given to the LesBiGay cause which cannot but benefit it in a society where human rights are given pride of place in moral reasoning.
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Homosexuality & Divorce - with special reference to retired Bishop Righter & Canon Gene Robinson to be consecrated November 2, 2003.
It is true to say that the three major Monotheistic Religions - Judaism, Christianity & Islam - teach that homosexual relations are wrong in the eyes and judgment of God.
It is also true to say that divorce & divorce with later remarriage are permitted but not encouraged by Judaism, Islam and by Christianity -- and in most branches of Christianity remarriage after divorce is actively discouraged & even forbidden.
Further, it is true to say that in modern western society divorce & divorce and remarriage are very common and are acceptable in all strata of society. Also in modern western society it is true to say that a majority think that certain rights for homosexual persons should be recognized. Nevertheless there is a sizeable minority which, though it thinks of divorce with remarriage as acceptable, also thinks of active homosexuality as an offence that far surpasses those of adultery and fornication.
Not very long ago, the ECUSA had the trial of retired Bishop Righter on the charge that he had ordained an openly gay man. I sat through that trial a foot from this Bishop's third wife! The ten "orthodox" bishops who brought this trial seemed not to judge that this bishop's major fault against God and canon law was the fact that he had three wives alive and was living with the third after two divorces. His great sin was to have ordained a "gay" man. Lawyers at this trial defending Righter said publicly and to me personally that they could not understand why divorce with remarriage was acceptable to these bishops (most of whom are now in the AAC) if the teaching of Jesus is to be taken literally (for the Bishops argued from literal reading of the biblical texts that homosexual activism was wrong).
Today when the case of Gene Robinson is raised, conservative elements in church and society see only as relevant the fact that he is a homosexual and living in a "gay" relationship with a male partner. This is alone what stands out.
However, in terms of the Church of God and the Anglican Jurisdiction of the same it has been the case that a clergyman who is divorced is thereby prohibited from being consecrated a bishop. It matters not whether he is the innocent or guilty party of a divorce. And it matters not what kind of lifestyle he follow after divorce - holy & blameless or the opposite. Divorce means that there can be no elevation to the higher office in this case. However, divorce does not prevent his salvation and sharing in the life of the Church if he lives in faith, hope and charity.
Yet, because of the laxity in discipline within the ECUSA since the 1960s, the prohibition against a divorced man being elevated is rarely considered and applied. Thus the fact that Robinson is a divorced man is noted only in passing and his present life-style is proclaimed to the world (which is exactly what gay activists want to occur for it certainly helps their case).
BUT surely those who claim to be orthodox and to uphold biblical doctrine and traditional norms had a duty to point out at the 2003 General Convention, if not before, that the fact of his being divorced was in and of itself the end of the matter as far as the law of God is concerned. His behavior afterwards merely underlined in this instance what was already the case. The fact of the matter is that whatever his virtues or vices he is a divorced person and so is ineligible for confirmation as bishop elect. Thus to concentrate solely upon his lifestyle after the divorce was in a strict sense irrelevant. And to look only at that lifestyle and see that alone as the means of disqualification for elevation was to be guided by the norms of part of conservative society (wherein homosexual activity is seen as totally outside the pale and not by the received canon law.
Let us be clear. All sexual relations outside the strict norms taught by the Lord Jesus and his apostles are sinful, and the nature of the sin as sin is no different be it heterosexual or homosexual. The calling to Christians is to chastity inside and outside of marriage. Thus in writing what I have above I am not condoning "gay" sex. I am merely and only pointing out that to major on it in the Righter and Robinson affairs was a major mistake and proclaimed to the world (a) that divorce & divorce with remarriage is now wholly acceptable in Christian moral theology and practice in the Anglican world, and (b) that "gay" sex is seen by conservatives as the real sexual sin and carries from heaven a greater guilt than fornication and adultery. Further, massive free publicity has been given to the LesBiGay cause which cannot but benefit it in a society where human rights are given pride of place in moral reasoning.
www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
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
(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
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.)
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.)
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)