Peter Toon
After he had borne in his own soul and body the sins of the world (reflected in his Cry of Dereliction from the Cross), expressed his desire for full restored Communion with the Father (“I thirst” – for thee my Father), and announced the victory over evil, sin and darkness (“It is finished”), Jesus died (“Into thy hands, I commit my spirit”). And he died as the sacrificial Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. He voluntarily handed over his human spirit to the Father, remaining in death the Lord of life. On Good Friday his body and soul separated, the body to be given burial in Jerusalem and the soul/mind/spirit/human nature to remain in perfect union with the divine nature in the one Person of the Incarnate Son.
Thus the Son of God incarnate lives without his body for the period from between 3 – 4 p.m. on Friday until say 1.a.m. on Sunday. He remains in full communion with his Father continuing to do the work that the Father gave him to do. For this period of time his work is proclaiming his Victory wrought on the Cross, that is preaching the Gospel of the New Covenant, sealed by his shed blood. He proclaimed this Gospel to those of the old covenant who had died in faith looking for the Messiah to come, so that they could embrace him as their Messiah and Lord and go with him to the heaven at his exaltation to the right hand of the Majesty of the Father. He also proclaimed to others, the disobedient, this same Victory.
The Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus the Son and Lord was crucified, dead and buried. Then, before moving on to the Resurrection, it declares: “descendit ad inferna” (“he descended into hell”). This is a reference to where Jesus spent the time from his expiry on the Cross to his resurrection from the dead and exaltation into heaven. He entered the underworld, Hades, and according to 1 Peter 3:18f., he “preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey.” Or as St Peter put it, “the gospel was preached even to the dead” (1 Peter 4:6; cf., Ephesians 4:6; Revelation 1:18). The saving work of Jesus extends not only to those alive when he was on earth, but also to those who had died before the Incarnation.
His Atonement has an infinite and eternal value covering all space and all time and all humanity.
On Easter morning, the Incarnate Son was raised from the dead – that is, the Father restored to him his body so that soul and body became one again. But while it was in essence the same body which was crucified it was also a changed body, for now it was an immortal body, a resurrection body, a body of glory and a supernatural body – a body for the new heaven and the life of the age to come, and a body to be the model for the resurrection bodies of his people.
He rose victorious from the grave. By his resurrection the Father proclaims to the world that the victory of the Son over sin, evil, death, darkness and satanic forces is accomplished. Now – the now of grace - there is salvation in him and him alone and this salvation is for all, Jew and Gentile, who believe this Gospel.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Friday, March 25, 2005
Sunday, March 20, 2005
A Meditation for Palm Sunday Morning
On the Sunday that begins Holy Week the Church looks steadfastly & adoringly at Jesus who enters Jerusalem to begin the last part of His saving mission -- within the city that symbolizes the old covenant, the covenant to be fulfilled and replaced by the new covenant, inaugurated by His Blood shed at Calvary.
To assist us in a right looking at Jesus, let us consider the animal on which he rode on the Sunday.
It was an animal upon which no one had previously sat. It had not been broken in. Yet Jesus sat upon it and rode on it as if it were a well broken in, seasoned donkey used to such a thing. In this "miracle" we see that the One who rides is not only Messiah, but also the Lord of creation.
Jesus, whose entry on this animal rather than on the war horse proclaims he is the King of peace, is the King whose kingdom is not of this world but of the world to come.
Further, this Entry tells us that He who will suffer, die,rise from the dead and be exalted to heaven in Jerusalem, does this for us and for our salvation. He is One who is truly able to represent us and to stand in our place for He is the Lord of Creation. In the words of the church's dogma, He is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human, and thus what He does has an eternal and infinite effect, and thus covers all creation.
Ride on, Ride on in Majesty, Ride on to die.... for us and for our salvation.
----------------
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
To assist us in a right looking at Jesus, let us consider the animal on which he rode on the Sunday.
It was an animal upon which no one had previously sat. It had not been broken in. Yet Jesus sat upon it and rode on it as if it were a well broken in, seasoned donkey used to such a thing. In this "miracle" we see that the One who rides is not only Messiah, but also the Lord of creation.
Jesus, whose entry on this animal rather than on the war horse proclaims he is the King of peace, is the King whose kingdom is not of this world but of the world to come.
Further, this Entry tells us that He who will suffer, die,rise from the dead and be exalted to heaven in Jerusalem, does this for us and for our salvation. He is One who is truly able to represent us and to stand in our place for He is the Lord of Creation. In the words of the church's dogma, He is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human, and thus what He does has an eternal and infinite effect, and thus covers all creation.
Ride on, Ride on in Majesty, Ride on to die.... for us and for our salvation.
----------------
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
SOUTHEAST ASIA PRIMATE SAYS ECUSA AND CANADIANS SUSPENDED
Pastoral Letter cites "severe impairment and fractured relationship in Anglican Communion"
To all Clergy/Pastors/Standing Committee Members
A Pastoral Letter - Primates' Meeting, Belfast [21-25 February 2005]
18th March, 2005
Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ
I greet you all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I praise and thank God for your partnership in prayers and fasting that had sustained the recent Primates' Meeting in Belfast from 21st to 25th February 2005. In the midst of a very intense, exhausting and draining week, I deeply sensed and gratefully appreciated the great spiritual support and uplifting because you have all faithfully and earnestly surrounded me and our fellow primates with prayers and fasting. God has honoured and heard your prayers. May I take this opportunity to thank you and join you all in praise and thanksgiving to the Almighty God!
The Communiqué of the Primates' Meeting was crafted by a Committee. As usual, very polite, kind and gracious language have been used to express the common mind and collective wisdom reached by the top spiritual leaders of the Anglican Communion. However, all these polite and gracious words could not hide the plain reality that there is severe impairment and fractured relationship in our Anglican Communion.
Throughout the week, the Primates prayed and worshiped together in Morning and Evening Prayers. The Chaplain of the Archbishop of Armagh celebrated the Eucharist for those who needed it. But this Eucharist was not regarded as part of the official and corporate worship of this Primates' Meeting because many Primates needed to honour the decision of their own Provinces which have broken/fractured Communion with ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. These Primates could not share the Eucharist with the Primates of ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada.
Despite the enormous pain and deep hurt felt by many Primates, I praise and thank God for the spiritual quality and leadership of our Primates. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, they rose above the occasion and clearly re-affirmed and re-endorsed:-
(a) "The central place Anglican accord to the Authority of Scripture", and of "autonomy in Communion" as the balanced exercise of inter-dependence between the 38 Primates and their legitimate Provincial autonomy" .
(b) The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1:10 as expressing "the standard of Christian teaching on matter of human sexuality" which should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the Bishops of the Anglican Communion."
Since the Lambeth Conference 1998 and in each of the succeeding Primates' Meetings, the Primates with the Archbishop of Canterbury had again and again warned against any innovation departing from the above position of the Anglican Communion. The most clear and serious warning was given in October 2003. But ECUSA and Canada had blatantly refused to comply with the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Meetings. Having given ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada more than sufficient warnings, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Meeting, the two instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion, drawing from the clear voice of the Lambeth Conference 1998, another instrument of Unity in the Anglican Communion, have indeed come down with a clear decision in Belfast 2005.
This decision is a loving, wise and firm one. Basically, ECUSA and Canada are both suspended immediately to give them time and space to go through their Canonical and Constitutional procedures to express their desire and will to stay in the Anglican Communion by repentances and reversing what they have unilaterally endorsed and put in place. They have until the Lambeth Conference 2008 to do this. The invitations for their Bishops to attend the next Lambeth Conference depend upon their response to the terms and conditions set by the Windsor Report. The Anglican Consultative Council, the fourth instrument of Unity of the Anglican Communion which has a "legal status' has been requested to make sure this happened.
This is a Godly and wise decision because the Primates in the spirit of loving and the desire to preserve the Anglican Communion in spirit and in truth has called ECUSA and Canada to repentance but at the same time kept the way back to the Anglican Communion opened for ECUSA and Canada. Needless to say, with this decision the Primates also eagerly and earnestly pray that the Holy Spirit will convict the hearts, minds and spirits of the Leaders of these 2 churches and lead them back to the faith that is grounded in Scriptures as a whole and in particular willingly "accept the same teaching on matter of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion."
The Primates has also made sure that "Groups in serious theological disputes with their Diocesan Bishops, or Dioceses in dispute with their Province" will be protected through a panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Communiqué also made clear that, we are not-homophobic. We continue to love and care for those who are homosexuals and who have the inclination to be one in our society. We are committed not only to listen to them but also to bring them to a living encounter with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ who is our Saviour, Deliverer and Life Giver. Every human being, homosexual included, deserves the best for their life from God to them. They should be challenged to invite the Lord Jesus Christ to enter their life to free them from the power of Sin and the domination of Satan.
The above decisions are very much in line with the recommendations of our Provincial Fellowship of Bishops' Meeting (1 February 2005) and the Provincial Standing Committee Meeting held in early February 2005. I thank God for the clear and strong mandate given to me to work with all Primates who are committed to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please continue to pray for me, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all the Primates and our Anglican Communion.
This comes with my love, prayers and blessings for all of you during this solemn season of Lent. May I also wish you all a very glorious and blessed Easter!
God bless!
Yours in Christ
The Most Rev Datuk Yong Ping Chung
BISHOP OF SABAH
PRIMATE - PROVINCE OF S E ASIA
To all Clergy/Pastors/Standing Committee Members
A Pastoral Letter - Primates' Meeting, Belfast [21-25 February 2005]
18th March, 2005
Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ
I greet you all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I praise and thank God for your partnership in prayers and fasting that had sustained the recent Primates' Meeting in Belfast from 21st to 25th February 2005. In the midst of a very intense, exhausting and draining week, I deeply sensed and gratefully appreciated the great spiritual support and uplifting because you have all faithfully and earnestly surrounded me and our fellow primates with prayers and fasting. God has honoured and heard your prayers. May I take this opportunity to thank you and join you all in praise and thanksgiving to the Almighty God!
The Communiqué of the Primates' Meeting was crafted by a Committee. As usual, very polite, kind and gracious language have been used to express the common mind and collective wisdom reached by the top spiritual leaders of the Anglican Communion. However, all these polite and gracious words could not hide the plain reality that there is severe impairment and fractured relationship in our Anglican Communion.
Throughout the week, the Primates prayed and worshiped together in Morning and Evening Prayers. The Chaplain of the Archbishop of Armagh celebrated the Eucharist for those who needed it. But this Eucharist was not regarded as part of the official and corporate worship of this Primates' Meeting because many Primates needed to honour the decision of their own Provinces which have broken/fractured Communion with ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. These Primates could not share the Eucharist with the Primates of ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada.
Despite the enormous pain and deep hurt felt by many Primates, I praise and thank God for the spiritual quality and leadership of our Primates. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, they rose above the occasion and clearly re-affirmed and re-endorsed:-
(a) "The central place Anglican accord to the Authority of Scripture", and of "autonomy in Communion" as the balanced exercise of inter-dependence between the 38 Primates and their legitimate Provincial autonomy" .
(b) The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1:10 as expressing "the standard of Christian teaching on matter of human sexuality" which should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the Bishops of the Anglican Communion."
Since the Lambeth Conference 1998 and in each of the succeeding Primates' Meetings, the Primates with the Archbishop of Canterbury had again and again warned against any innovation departing from the above position of the Anglican Communion. The most clear and serious warning was given in October 2003. But ECUSA and Canada had blatantly refused to comply with the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Meetings. Having given ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada more than sufficient warnings, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Meeting, the two instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion, drawing from the clear voice of the Lambeth Conference 1998, another instrument of Unity in the Anglican Communion, have indeed come down with a clear decision in Belfast 2005.
This decision is a loving, wise and firm one. Basically, ECUSA and Canada are both suspended immediately to give them time and space to go through their Canonical and Constitutional procedures to express their desire and will to stay in the Anglican Communion by repentances and reversing what they have unilaterally endorsed and put in place. They have until the Lambeth Conference 2008 to do this. The invitations for their Bishops to attend the next Lambeth Conference depend upon their response to the terms and conditions set by the Windsor Report. The Anglican Consultative Council, the fourth instrument of Unity of the Anglican Communion which has a "legal status' has been requested to make sure this happened.
This is a Godly and wise decision because the Primates in the spirit of loving and the desire to preserve the Anglican Communion in spirit and in truth has called ECUSA and Canada to repentance but at the same time kept the way back to the Anglican Communion opened for ECUSA and Canada. Needless to say, with this decision the Primates also eagerly and earnestly pray that the Holy Spirit will convict the hearts, minds and spirits of the Leaders of these 2 churches and lead them back to the faith that is grounded in Scriptures as a whole and in particular willingly "accept the same teaching on matter of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion."
The Primates has also made sure that "Groups in serious theological disputes with their Diocesan Bishops, or Dioceses in dispute with their Province" will be protected through a panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Communiqué also made clear that, we are not-homophobic. We continue to love and care for those who are homosexuals and who have the inclination to be one in our society. We are committed not only to listen to them but also to bring them to a living encounter with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ who is our Saviour, Deliverer and Life Giver. Every human being, homosexual included, deserves the best for their life from God to them. They should be challenged to invite the Lord Jesus Christ to enter their life to free them from the power of Sin and the domination of Satan.
The above decisions are very much in line with the recommendations of our Provincial Fellowship of Bishops' Meeting (1 February 2005) and the Provincial Standing Committee Meeting held in early February 2005. I thank God for the clear and strong mandate given to me to work with all Primates who are committed to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please continue to pray for me, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all the Primates and our Anglican Communion.
This comes with my love, prayers and blessings for all of you during this solemn season of Lent. May I also wish you all a very glorious and blessed Easter!
God bless!
Yours in Christ
The Most Rev Datuk Yong Ping Chung
BISHOP OF SABAH
PRIMATE - PROVINCE OF S E ASIA
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Critique of the Bishop's Covenant from ACI
The link below is to a piece from the Anglican Communion Institute, the intellectual center and powerhouse of the evangelical movement within the ECUSA and it is a devastating critique! --P.T.
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/bishopscovenantaci.htm
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/bishopscovenantaci.htm
Friday, March 18, 2005
Conservative reaction to the Bishops' Covenant
March 17
For Immediate Release
A Statement by Bishop Robert Duncan on the ECUSA House of Bishops Meeting
I write with sincere gratitude for all those who prayed for the recent House of Bishops meeting and for those who have taken the trouble to write me notes of appreciation and support in this time of immense stress and challenge.
I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.
I believe the real news from this meeting of the House of Bishops is that we have finally begun to be honest about what we did at General Convention 2003 and what the consequences are. Moreover, we began openly to engage the thought that our differences within the House of Bishops, within the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), and within the Anglican Communion may be irreconcilable. In particular, we examined the complete breakdown of trust among some groups within the House and perceptions of abuses of power on the one hand and unhelpful tactics on the other, which have brought us to the breaking point.
The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) remains resolute in its commitment to full compliance with the Primates expectations as outlined in their communiqué as well as to the historic Christian faith and order as concerns human identity and holy matrimony under the word of God written as the ultimate rule and standard. We are also seeking to work as closely and collaboratively as possible with other Episcopal Church leaders to find a way forward that will fully address the depth of the crisis we face while seeking to honor the consciences and concerns of all in the body of Christ.
March 17, 2005
March 17, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A Statement from the President of the American Anglican Council on Communications Issued by the Episcopal Church House of Bishops
The Covenant Statement and the Word to the Church issued by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops is insulting to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. While it aims at specific requests of the 2004 Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Communiqué, it fails to fulfill clear expectations outlined therein. The House claimed to affirm the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1888, and yet they failed to repent of their decisions and subsequent actions contrary to Scripture as well as Anglican faith and order. Note there is no affirmation of the authority of Scripture or Lambeth 1.10, which were upheld by the primates. Are there not two mutually exclusive views presented in this covenant?
Bishops also declared a moratorium on blessings of same-sex unions, but J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles, violated the spirit of this pledge before the sun set on the covenant's passage. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times Tuesday evening, he said he would 'not impose his 'conscience' on priests in the six-county Los Angeles diocese. They are free to bless same sex unions if they wish,' he said. The Episcopal News Service clearly underscored the loophole in their report as well: 'the bishops said they themselves would refrain from performing such blessings for the time being. Clergy in dioceses that already practice same sex blessings will be allowed to choose whether to continue the practice.'
How can faithful Episcopalians view such doublespeak from Episcopal leaders as anything but duplicitous?
With regard to the so-called moratorium on consecrations, I am outraged that the House of Bishops drew equivalence between single or married individuals with those living in homosexual partnerships. To place a moratorium on all consecrations not only takes the episcopacy hostage to the homosexual agenda but also places several dioceses in crisis. Canon law requires that bishops must retire at age 72 -- what happens in those dioceses where their bishop faces mandatory retirement? William Persell, Bishop of Chicago, has said that he and others are more than willing to pitch in and help run those dioceses. In other words, revisionist bishops will be placed in dioceses rather than individuals duly elected by diocesan convention. This is an appalling idea that represents a great threat to biblically faithful dioceses and congregations. Although orthodox bishops in attendance generally supported the covenant statement believing it had useful components in it, I disagree and believe they made a clear error.
Finally, I am struck by the conciliatory nature and carefully nuanced phraseology of the Word to the Church that belies the attack of the Presiding Bishop on an orthodox bishop as well as several faithful clergy and lay people. His actions are deplorable and inexcusable. I call upon him to issue a public apology.
In summation, the House of Bishops claims a desire to remain part of the world-wide communion but seems not to understand what that entails. The Covenant fails to offer long-term, sustainable solutions and at best simply postpones inevitable conversation about the clear and ultimate choice before us -- walking together or walking apart. I am thankful for the bishops who upheld orthodoxy and worked in good faith to voice the irreconcilable differences that mark the House of Bishops. I urge all bishops to make their choice and to be honest in articulating those choices. The mandate of the primates is before us all: Choose this day whom you shall serve.
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=887
Bishops' Support of Covenant Statement Not Unanimous
03/17/2005
While only a handful of the approximately 140 bishops attending the House of Bishops spring meeting voted against the covenant statement on March 15, neither traditional-minded nor progressive bishops were united behind the document, and a significant portion of conservative bishops missed the vote.
The total number of 'nays' is uncertain. One bishop present told THE LIVING CHURCH that 'there were four or five no's', while Bishop Paul V. Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem, wrote after the vote, 'my own conscience did not permit me or eight other bishops to vote for it.'
Bishop James Kelsey of Northern Michigan voted against the covenant saying he opposed the moratorium as a 'misuse of power'. 'I feel it is a legislative restriction of the authentic discernment of diocesan communities,' he wrote in a letter to his diocese. 'I further feel this is an inappropriate use of the consent process. Bishops are asked to give consent as a kind of a check and balance, but not as a prime mover in the process. This feels to me like a unilateral action of the bishops, thereby excluding any options by the rest of the Church.'
Two diocesan bishops told the House on Saturday that no matter what was decided, nothing would deter the blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses.
Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles told the Los Angeles Times that though he would observe the moratorium against the blessing of same-sex unions, he would not impose the moratorium on his clergy nor discipline those who performed the rites -- a stance at odds with one conservative bishop's understanding of the moratorium, which he told THE LIVING CHURCH he believed extended to all clergy, not merely bishops.
Within the ranks of traditionalist bishops, interpretations over the meaning and effectiveness of the document differ widely. Immediately after the vote, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh told THE LIVING CHURCH that on 'one level we are buying time, and I guess that's good as it acknowledges all of the things the primates have been saying to us'.
In a formal statement released on March 17, Bishop Duncan wrote, 'I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.'
'I voted against [the covenant],' Suffragan Bishop David Bena of Albany wrote to his diocese, 'because I believe it is too weak and possibly duplicitous. Most of those present, however, did vote for it as the best we could do under the circumstances.'
Bishop Bena was 'cautiously optimistic' however, 'because I saw how hard both the left and the right worked together to tailor something that actually answered the demands of Windsor and the [primates'] communiqué.'
One of the principals of the working group that created the covenant, Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, stated, 'It was an excellent meeting of the House. Bishops on all sides of the current questions in the life of our church worked diligently to find a creative response to the primates' communiqué.'
Also present for the meeting were Anglican Communion Network Bishops James Adams of Western Kansas, John W. Howe of Central Florida, Edward Salmon of South Carolina, and William Skilton of South Carolina (suffragan), and newly consecrated Bishop Jeffrey Steenson of the Rio Grande.
A number of bishops affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network were not present at the vote. Bishop Daniel Herzog of Albany was abroad, a guest of the diocese of Down and Dromore in Northern Ireland, preaching on St Patrick's Day at Downpatrick --the sight of St. Patrick's grave.
Suffragan Bishop Henry Scriven of Pittsburgh had left Camp Allen by Tuesday's vote, as had Bishop James M. Stanton of Dallas. Bishop Stanton attended the first two days of the meeting, but returned to Dallas to be present at the birth of his granddaughter.
American Anglican Council chairman and Springfield Bishop Peter Beckwith took ill in Atlanta while on his way to the meeting and did not attend. Others who did not attend: Bishop Terry Kelshaw of the Rio Grande, Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy, Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, and Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin.
For Immediate Release
A Statement by Bishop Robert Duncan on the ECUSA House of Bishops Meeting
I write with sincere gratitude for all those who prayed for the recent House of Bishops meeting and for those who have taken the trouble to write me notes of appreciation and support in this time of immense stress and challenge.
I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.
I believe the real news from this meeting of the House of Bishops is that we have finally begun to be honest about what we did at General Convention 2003 and what the consequences are. Moreover, we began openly to engage the thought that our differences within the House of Bishops, within the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), and within the Anglican Communion may be irreconcilable. In particular, we examined the complete breakdown of trust among some groups within the House and perceptions of abuses of power on the one hand and unhelpful tactics on the other, which have brought us to the breaking point.
The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) remains resolute in its commitment to full compliance with the Primates expectations as outlined in their communiqué as well as to the historic Christian faith and order as concerns human identity and holy matrimony under the word of God written as the ultimate rule and standard. We are also seeking to work as closely and collaboratively as possible with other Episcopal Church leaders to find a way forward that will fully address the depth of the crisis we face while seeking to honor the consciences and concerns of all in the body of Christ.
March 17, 2005
March 17, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A Statement from the President of the American Anglican Council on Communications Issued by the Episcopal Church House of Bishops
The Covenant Statement and the Word to the Church issued by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops is insulting to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. While it aims at specific requests of the 2004 Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Communiqué, it fails to fulfill clear expectations outlined therein. The House claimed to affirm the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1888, and yet they failed to repent of their decisions and subsequent actions contrary to Scripture as well as Anglican faith and order. Note there is no affirmation of the authority of Scripture or Lambeth 1.10, which were upheld by the primates. Are there not two mutually exclusive views presented in this covenant?
Bishops also declared a moratorium on blessings of same-sex unions, but J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles, violated the spirit of this pledge before the sun set on the covenant's passage. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times Tuesday evening, he said he would 'not impose his 'conscience' on priests in the six-county Los Angeles diocese. They are free to bless same sex unions if they wish,' he said. The Episcopal News Service clearly underscored the loophole in their report as well: 'the bishops said they themselves would refrain from performing such blessings for the time being. Clergy in dioceses that already practice same sex blessings will be allowed to choose whether to continue the practice.'
How can faithful Episcopalians view such doublespeak from Episcopal leaders as anything but duplicitous?
With regard to the so-called moratorium on consecrations, I am outraged that the House of Bishops drew equivalence between single or married individuals with those living in homosexual partnerships. To place a moratorium on all consecrations not only takes the episcopacy hostage to the homosexual agenda but also places several dioceses in crisis. Canon law requires that bishops must retire at age 72 -- what happens in those dioceses where their bishop faces mandatory retirement? William Persell, Bishop of Chicago, has said that he and others are more than willing to pitch in and help run those dioceses. In other words, revisionist bishops will be placed in dioceses rather than individuals duly elected by diocesan convention. This is an appalling idea that represents a great threat to biblically faithful dioceses and congregations. Although orthodox bishops in attendance generally supported the covenant statement believing it had useful components in it, I disagree and believe they made a clear error.
Finally, I am struck by the conciliatory nature and carefully nuanced phraseology of the Word to the Church that belies the attack of the Presiding Bishop on an orthodox bishop as well as several faithful clergy and lay people. His actions are deplorable and inexcusable. I call upon him to issue a public apology.
In summation, the House of Bishops claims a desire to remain part of the world-wide communion but seems not to understand what that entails. The Covenant fails to offer long-term, sustainable solutions and at best simply postpones inevitable conversation about the clear and ultimate choice before us -- walking together or walking apart. I am thankful for the bishops who upheld orthodoxy and worked in good faith to voice the irreconcilable differences that mark the House of Bishops. I urge all bishops to make their choice and to be honest in articulating those choices. The mandate of the primates is before us all: Choose this day whom you shall serve.
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=887
Bishops' Support of Covenant Statement Not Unanimous
03/17/2005
While only a handful of the approximately 140 bishops attending the House of Bishops spring meeting voted against the covenant statement on March 15, neither traditional-minded nor progressive bishops were united behind the document, and a significant portion of conservative bishops missed the vote.
The total number of 'nays' is uncertain. One bishop present told THE LIVING CHURCH that 'there were four or five no's', while Bishop Paul V. Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem, wrote after the vote, 'my own conscience did not permit me or eight other bishops to vote for it.'
Bishop James Kelsey of Northern Michigan voted against the covenant saying he opposed the moratorium as a 'misuse of power'. 'I feel it is a legislative restriction of the authentic discernment of diocesan communities,' he wrote in a letter to his diocese. 'I further feel this is an inappropriate use of the consent process. Bishops are asked to give consent as a kind of a check and balance, but not as a prime mover in the process. This feels to me like a unilateral action of the bishops, thereby excluding any options by the rest of the Church.'
Two diocesan bishops told the House on Saturday that no matter what was decided, nothing would deter the blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses.
Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles told the Los Angeles Times that though he would observe the moratorium against the blessing of same-sex unions, he would not impose the moratorium on his clergy nor discipline those who performed the rites -- a stance at odds with one conservative bishop's understanding of the moratorium, which he told THE LIVING CHURCH he believed extended to all clergy, not merely bishops.
Within the ranks of traditionalist bishops, interpretations over the meaning and effectiveness of the document differ widely. Immediately after the vote, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh told THE LIVING CHURCH that on 'one level we are buying time, and I guess that's good as it acknowledges all of the things the primates have been saying to us'.
In a formal statement released on March 17, Bishop Duncan wrote, 'I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.'
'I voted against [the covenant],' Suffragan Bishop David Bena of Albany wrote to his diocese, 'because I believe it is too weak and possibly duplicitous. Most of those present, however, did vote for it as the best we could do under the circumstances.'
Bishop Bena was 'cautiously optimistic' however, 'because I saw how hard both the left and the right worked together to tailor something that actually answered the demands of Windsor and the [primates'] communiqué.'
One of the principals of the working group that created the covenant, Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, stated, 'It was an excellent meeting of the House. Bishops on all sides of the current questions in the life of our church worked diligently to find a creative response to the primates' communiqué.'
Also present for the meeting were Anglican Communion Network Bishops James Adams of Western Kansas, John W. Howe of Central Florida, Edward Salmon of South Carolina, and William Skilton of South Carolina (suffragan), and newly consecrated Bishop Jeffrey Steenson of the Rio Grande.
A number of bishops affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network were not present at the vote. Bishop Daniel Herzog of Albany was abroad, a guest of the diocese of Down and Dromore in Northern Ireland, preaching on St Patrick's Day at Downpatrick --the sight of St. Patrick's grave.
Suffragan Bishop Henry Scriven of Pittsburgh had left Camp Allen by Tuesday's vote, as had Bishop James M. Stanton of Dallas. Bishop Stanton attended the first two days of the meeting, but returned to Dallas to be present at the birth of his granddaughter.
American Anglican Council chairman and Springfield Bishop Peter Beckwith took ill in Atlanta while on his way to the meeting and did not attend. Others who did not attend: Bishop Terry Kelshaw of the Rio Grande, Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy, Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, and Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
That Communique & press conference in Ireland: A Letter
Dear Dick Kim,
Never have I had such negative thoughts and feelings about the international Anglican Family of Churches as I do now, and never have I thought and felt that the task of uniting faithful American Anglicans is and will be such a difficult -- maybe virtually impossible -- task.
Looking back to the Press Conference in Northern Ireland at the end of the Primates' Meeting, and recalling the claims made for the Communiqué, especially by Dr Carnley of Australia (its primary author), I see more and more that the 'conservative' Primates made a very major mistake in agreeing to it -- for its content falls so far below what they have since been saying in public as to what really they believed they were agreeing to in their Meeting! There are times when trying to be 'nice' and 'accommodating' and 'gentle' means that one is actually being unkind and helping to spread falsehood.
The recent response to the Communiqué by the ECUSA House of Bishops has the outward dress of reasonableness, decency and patience. It was possible to compose it in this way because the Communiqué says more about affirming homosexual persons than condemning homosexual sex and it merely identifies the innovations of North America as being a different approach to that in place in the rest of the Anglican Churches. From neither the Communiqué nor the Response from ECUSA Bishops would one ever get the impression that there were at least 16 Primates who were/are not in eucharistic communion with the North American Houses of Bishops and were/are also not in communion with Bishops who say they are in communion with the bishops of the North American Churches. (This situation calls in question the very idea and name of 'Communion of Churches'!)
It would have been helpful and honest for the Archbishops of the West Indies and of Uganda, who also spoke at the Press Conference, to have explained that the Communiqué was written to convey the very minimum sense of horror and outrage felt by the majority of the Primates at the innovations being pursued in North America. But they said nothing -- that I can remember (I was there) -- like this at all. And so the impression has gone out into the world that Dr. Carnley's view of what (should have) happened is the correct one, and to this 'incorrect' one, the ECUSA bishops have responded. Meanwhile conservatives, who want the Communiqué to say what the African Primates are now actually telling their flocks and friends, are locked into a document that is as supportive of the innovators in the long term as it is of the traditionalists!
What a mess Anglicans have got themselves into because of lack of open and clear honesty.
Yours truly,
Peter Toon
March 16th 2005
Never have I had such negative thoughts and feelings about the international Anglican Family of Churches as I do now, and never have I thought and felt that the task of uniting faithful American Anglicans is and will be such a difficult -- maybe virtually impossible -- task.
Looking back to the Press Conference in Northern Ireland at the end of the Primates' Meeting, and recalling the claims made for the Communiqué, especially by Dr Carnley of Australia (its primary author), I see more and more that the 'conservative' Primates made a very major mistake in agreeing to it -- for its content falls so far below what they have since been saying in public as to what really they believed they were agreeing to in their Meeting! There are times when trying to be 'nice' and 'accommodating' and 'gentle' means that one is actually being unkind and helping to spread falsehood.
The recent response to the Communiqué by the ECUSA House of Bishops has the outward dress of reasonableness, decency and patience. It was possible to compose it in this way because the Communiqué says more about affirming homosexual persons than condemning homosexual sex and it merely identifies the innovations of North America as being a different approach to that in place in the rest of the Anglican Churches. From neither the Communiqué nor the Response from ECUSA Bishops would one ever get the impression that there were at least 16 Primates who were/are not in eucharistic communion with the North American Houses of Bishops and were/are also not in communion with Bishops who say they are in communion with the bishops of the North American Churches. (This situation calls in question the very idea and name of 'Communion of Churches'!)
It would have been helpful and honest for the Archbishops of the West Indies and of Uganda, who also spoke at the Press Conference, to have explained that the Communiqué was written to convey the very minimum sense of horror and outrage felt by the majority of the Primates at the innovations being pursued in North America. But they said nothing -- that I can remember (I was there) -- like this at all. And so the impression has gone out into the world that Dr. Carnley's view of what (should have) happened is the correct one, and to this 'incorrect' one, the ECUSA bishops have responded. Meanwhile conservatives, who want the Communiqué to say what the African Primates are now actually telling their flocks and friends, are locked into a document that is as supportive of the innovators in the long term as it is of the traditionalists!
What a mess Anglicans have got themselves into because of lack of open and clear honesty.
Yours truly,
Peter Toon
March 16th 2005
ECUSA Bishops' Covenant - critique
Comment by Peter Toon on 'the Covenant Statement' of the ECUSA House of Bishops in response to the Windsor Report and the Communiqué of the Primates' Meeting of Feb 05. The Comment is inserted in italic.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_60016_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_60016_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined
House of Bishops adopts 'Covenant Statement'
House of Bishops' Spring Meeting
Camp Allen, Texas
March 15, 2005
A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops
We have received the Windsor Report as a helpful contribution to our relationships with Anglican brothers and sisters across the world. We recognize its recommendations as coming from a broadly representative commission inclusive of bishops, clergy, and laity and as an attempt to speak as equals to equals. We experience it as being in the best tradition of autonomy within communion and as helpful in our efforts to live into communion. Likewise, we appreciate receiving the communiqué from the February meeting of the Primates and take seriously the perspectives and convictions stated therein.
It is our heartfelt desire to be responsive and attentive to the conversation we have already begun and to which we are being called and as a body offer the following points.
We reaffirm our commitment to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 and each of its individual points. We reaffirm our earnest desire to serve Christ in communion with the other provinces of the Anglican family. We reaffirm our continuing commitment to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and to participate fully in the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, and the Primates' Meeting, and we earnestly reaffirm our desire to participate in the individual relationships, partnerships, and ministries that we share with other Anglicans, which provide substance to our experience of what it is to be in communion.
Commitment to the Quadrilateral is merely a commitment to what the American House of Bishops many years ago saw as the minimum basis for union with other Churches by Churches of the Anglican Way. The Primates' Communique/Meeting made a major mistake by allowing the possibility that this Quadrilateral can be the basis for unity amongst Anglican Provinces, rather than the historic unity based upon the received, classical Formularies of the Anglican Way.
We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.
There is sorrow and repentance for lack of consultation and causing trouble BUT no repentance before God for breaking His Holy Law. There is no sense that consulting would have caused the House to go in a different direction that it actually did.
The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (Windsor Report, para. 134). Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report. Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly. We believe that Christian community requires us to share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops in the Episcopal Church. We recognize that this will cause hardship in some dioceses, and we commit to making ourselves available to those dioceses needing episcopal ministry.
There is no commitment not to ordain deacons and priests who are homosexually active and there is no commitment not to consecrate bishops after the 2006 Convention who are likewise active.
In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.
It is true that the General Convention has not authorized any Rites but there are many such rites available and being used in dioceses. Priests can bless homosexual partnerships, bishops as such are not needed. There is no sense here of forbidding what already is common place and the way is open for there to be an approved liturgy in 2006.
We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable. We request that our Anglican partners "effect a moratorium on any further interventions" (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity.
This seems reasonable but in effect does not provide immediately for the pastoral care of parishes which do not desire the ministry of the local bishop, due to his having embraced innovations and the LesBiGay agenda. African, Asian and S American Primates will hardly give up on their adopted parishes in the light of this vague kind of promise.
As a body, we recognize the intentionality and seriousness of the Primates' invitation to the Episcopal Church to refrain voluntarily from having its delegates participate in the Anglican Consultative Council meetings until the Lambeth Conference of 2008. Although we lack the authority in our polity to make such a decision, we defer to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church to deliberate seriously on that issue. The bonds of affection are not ends in themselves but foundations for mission.
What are really and truly these bonds of affection? The Windsor Report made a lot of this phrase but is there really affection, and has there been in recent years, between ECUSA bishops and bishops of Africa? In some personal cases, yes, but in general no. The fact of the matter is that around 16 provinces are not in eucharistic communion with the ECUSA because they believe it is apostate!
Therefore, we re-commit ourselves to work together throughout the communion to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and to address the other efforts mentioned by the Primates' Communiqué (para. 20). We dedicate ourselves to full and open dialogue in every available venue through invitations for mutual visitation, intentional exploration of the theological perspectives and spiritual gifts that our diverse cultures offer, and collaborative partnerships for the purpose of shared mission in Christ.
The House knows that it is in an extremely difficult position and expresses its desire to be kept in the Family, not to be cast out, and does so again in what seems a spirit of reasonableness. Regrettably nothing has yet come from the House of Bishops to indicate that it has changed its religion, that it is really and truly seeking to embrace the Faith held by the same House of Bishops, fifty years ago, 100 years ago, back to 1789! Or the Bishops who composed the Quadrilateral over a century ago!
This Covenant will keep the Anglican Churches of the West/North in communion with the ECUSA (because they are on the same route as the ECUSA has taken) but it will make most of the African & Asian Churches realize that there is no real change of mind and heart in the ECUSA, merely window-dressing, politics and deception. The House of Bishops it seems has lost the art of speaking the truth on major matters, indeed of speaking the truth in love at all! The ability to claim to be truth-telling when in fact it was lying began in earnest with the calling of the 1979 prayer book 'The Book of Common Prayer' when it was, and is merely and only, a Book of Varied Services! Falsehood before God leads to falsehood in all areas of religion.
House of Bishops adopts 'Covenant Statement'
(here is the statement of the House of Bishops in response to the Windsor Report and the Communique of the Primates Meeting. It has not yielded on anything of substance but merely referred any final statements/decisions to the next triennial Synod in 2006. There is no sign that the House as a House sees the ordination of active homosexual persons as wrong, or the blessing of homosexual couples as grave error. So it can repent of upsetting people but not of "upsetting" God's law or Church tradition!)
ENS 031505-1
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
[Episcopal News Service] The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church adopted, by nearly unanimous vote late this afternoon, "A Covenant Statement" that includes "a provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report" (full text of Covenant Statement follows below).
Preparation of an additional "Word to the Church" document to accompany the Statement is a priority for the bishops' agenda tomorrow, March 16, the final day of their six-day meeting of retreat and private reflection at Camp Allen, an Episcopal conference center in Navasota, Texas.
The bishops have widely praised the spirit of collaboration and collegiality that marked their framing of the Statement.
The Episcopal News Service will post March 17 wrap-up interviews about the bishops' meeting.
The House of Deputies, to which clergy and laity are elected, and the House of Bishops together comprise the General Convention, the chief legislative body of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. The General Convention, which meets every three years, will next convene in June 2006 in Columbus, Ohio. General Convention's work is carried out between triennial meetings by the Episcopal Church's Executive Council, to which representatives are elected from both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.
ENS 031505-1
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
[Episcopal News Service] The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church adopted, by nearly unanimous vote late this afternoon, "A Covenant Statement" that includes "a provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report" (full text of Covenant Statement follows below).
Preparation of an additional "Word to the Church" document to accompany the Statement is a priority for the bishops' agenda tomorrow, March 16, the final day of their six-day meeting of retreat and private reflection at Camp Allen, an Episcopal conference center in Navasota, Texas.
The bishops have widely praised the spirit of collaboration and collegiality that marked their framing of the Statement.
The Episcopal News Service will post March 17 wrap-up interviews about the bishops' meeting.
The House of Deputies, to which clergy and laity are elected, and the House of Bishops together comprise the General Convention, the chief legislative body of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. The General Convention, which meets every three years, will next convene in June 2006 in Columbus, Ohio. General Convention's work is carried out between triennial meetings by the Episcopal Church's Executive Council, to which representatives are elected from both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.
House of Bishops' Spring Meeting
Camp Allen, Texas
March 15, 2005
A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops
We have received the Windsor Report as a helpful contribution to our relationships with Anglican brothers and sisters across the world. We recognize its recommendations as coming from a broadly representative commission inclusive of bishops, clergy, and laity and as an attempt to speak as equals to equals. We experience it as being in the best tradition of autonomy within communion and as helpful in our efforts to live into communion. Likewise, we appreciate receiving the communiqué from the February meeting of the Primates and take seriously the perspectives and convictions stated therein.
It is our heartfelt desire to be responsive and attentive to the conversation we have already begun and to which we are being called and as a body offer the following points.
- We reaffirm our commitment to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 and each of its individual points. We reaffirm our earnest desire to serve Christ in communion with the other provinces of the Anglican family. We reaffirm our continuing commitment to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and to participate fully in the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, and the Primates' Meeting, and we earnestly reaffirm our desire to participate in the individual relationships, partnerships, and ministries that we share with other Anglicans, which provide substance to our experience of what it is to be in communion.
- We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.
- The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (Windsor Report, para. 134). Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal. Nevertheless, this extraordinary moment in our common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report. Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly. We believe that Christian community requires us to share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops in the Episcopal Church. We recognize that this will cause hardship in some dioceses, and we commit to making ourselves available to those dioceses needing episcopal ministry.
- In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.
- We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable. We request that our Anglican partners "effect a moratorium on any further interventions" (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity.
- As a body, we recognize the intentionality and seriousness of the Primates' invitation to the Episcopal Church to refrain voluntarily from having its delegates participate in the Anglican Consultative Council meetings until the Lambeth Conference of 2008. Although we lack the authority in our polity to make such a decision, we defer to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church to deliberate seriously on that issue.
The bonds of affection are not ends in themselves but foundations for mission. Therefore, we re-commit ourselves to work together throughout the communion to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and to address the other efforts mentioned by the Primates' Communiqué (para. 20). We dedicate ourselves to full and open dialogue in every available venue through invitations for mutual visitation, intentional exploration of the theological perspectives and spiritual gifts that our diverse cultures offer, and collaborative partnerships for the purpose of shared mission in Christ.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Patrick of Ireland
As the eyes of the world focus upon the IRA, the Republican Party of Ireland, and the St Patrick's Day Parades in NYC,Boston and elsewhere.... let us remember Patrick himself (died c.460). The Anglican Primates prayed in his cathedral at Armagh not long ago. Let us pray:
Almighty God, who in thy providence chose thy servant Patrick to be the apostle of the people of Ireland: Keep alive in us the fire of faith which he kindled, and, in this our earthly pilgrimage strengthen us to gain the light of everlasting light; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God now and for ever. AmenThe Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Monday, March 14, 2005
Primates and the Politics of "being in communion"
a discussion starter from Peter Toon
The time has surely come for the Anglican Provinces (autonomous churches) of the world to describe their relation one to another in terms of 'federation' or 'denomination' (cf. World Lutheran Federation).
To describe themselves as corporately a 'Communion of Churches' is to state what is untrue or it is to state an ideal that in the immediate future at least is not realizable.
When you have a meeting of Archbishops, Presiding Bishops and Moderators and they cannot on grounds of conscience meet together for one common Eucharist; when you have bishops from various provinces writing letters to the secular press stating with whom they are in communion [see Letter below], and when you have this and that pressure group making the sharing on the one loaf and the common cup a matter of politics, then you have a real mess! Better to be honest and to drop all claims of being a Communion of Churches and claim to be nothing more than a denomination or a federation.
The present situation -- post the Primates' Meeting in February 2005 -- has of course not happened overnight. It began with the ordination of women and was not healed by the introduction of the doctrine of reception (see my booklet on this at www.latimertrust.org), which is merely a kind of band-aid.
All that is now possible for the world-wide Anglican movement is specific communion between provinces and dioceses; for the totality there can be no genuine claim of Communion, if honesty means anything.
Perhaps those American Episcopalians, who see themselves as 'the righteous remnant' of the apostate ECUSA, and who call themselves 'the Anglican Communion Network', need to think again about their title, their commitment, and their future within the world-wide denomination or federation of Anglican churches, which are divided amongst themselves over biblical authority, women's ordination and sexual morality and practice.
Since the USA is pre-eminently the country of denominations (due to the nature of its founding, its polity, its separation of church and state, and the multitudes of immigrants welcomed to its shores with their brands of religion), perhaps the best way forward for Episcopalians inside and outside the ECUSA who want to be traditional, biblically-based Anglicans is this -- to look to each other kindly and wisely under Jesus Christ the Lord and find a way to create an American Anglican denomination, loosely organized, which can then be in communion with Anglican dioceses abroad, that are similar in faith and practice.
The Anglican Communion is now only a Name for it is not truly a communion of churches. The American Anglican scene is truly one big headache and mess, in which are signs of great apostasy and of great potential/hope. Prophetic action, based on a realistic assessment under God of what is possible in the U.S.A. with its supermarket of religions, is needed by American Anglican/Episcopalians leaders to bring the faithful together in a common commitment and cause.
To expect the ECUSA to do a U-turn is to be wholly unrealistic -- in the USA liberal denominations merely tend to get more liberal. To expect real and continued protection and help from overseas Primates for the remnant of ECUSA is also to be unrealistic for they do not have the time or the means. Under God, American Anglicans have to help themselves and they have it in their grasp to do so -- with God's mercy and guidance -- and further they ought to do so now, not next year. Centrifugal moves -- of which there are far too many amongst this and that American group or jurisdiction -- defeat the true cause. Centripetal forces, generated by the Holy Spirit, are needed to bring all faithful American Anglicans together in a unity that is generous and comprehensive and is honoring of God.
The time has surely come for the Anglican Provinces (autonomous churches) of the world to describe their relation one to another in terms of 'federation' or 'denomination' (cf. World Lutheran Federation).
To describe themselves as corporately a 'Communion of Churches' is to state what is untrue or it is to state an ideal that in the immediate future at least is not realizable.
When you have a meeting of Archbishops, Presiding Bishops and Moderators and they cannot on grounds of conscience meet together for one common Eucharist; when you have bishops from various provinces writing letters to the secular press stating with whom they are in communion [see Letter below], and when you have this and that pressure group making the sharing on the one loaf and the common cup a matter of politics, then you have a real mess! Better to be honest and to drop all claims of being a Communion of Churches and claim to be nothing more than a denomination or a federation.
The present situation -- post the Primates' Meeting in February 2005 -- has of course not happened overnight. It began with the ordination of women and was not healed by the introduction of the doctrine of reception (see my booklet on this at www.latimertrust.org), which is merely a kind of band-aid.
All that is now possible for the world-wide Anglican movement is specific communion between provinces and dioceses; for the totality there can be no genuine claim of Communion, if honesty means anything.
Perhaps those American Episcopalians, who see themselves as 'the righteous remnant' of the apostate ECUSA, and who call themselves 'the Anglican Communion Network', need to think again about their title, their commitment, and their future within the world-wide denomination or federation of Anglican churches, which are divided amongst themselves over biblical authority, women's ordination and sexual morality and practice.
Since the USA is pre-eminently the country of denominations (due to the nature of its founding, its polity, its separation of church and state, and the multitudes of immigrants welcomed to its shores with their brands of religion), perhaps the best way forward for Episcopalians inside and outside the ECUSA who want to be traditional, biblically-based Anglicans is this -- to look to each other kindly and wisely under Jesus Christ the Lord and find a way to create an American Anglican denomination, loosely organized, which can then be in communion with Anglican dioceses abroad, that are similar in faith and practice.
The Anglican Communion is now only a Name for it is not truly a communion of churches. The American Anglican scene is truly one big headache and mess, in which are signs of great apostasy and of great potential/hope. Prophetic action, based on a realistic assessment under God of what is possible in the U.S.A. with its supermarket of religions, is needed by American Anglican/Episcopalians leaders to bring the faithful together in a common commitment and cause.
To expect the ECUSA to do a U-turn is to be wholly unrealistic -- in the USA liberal denominations merely tend to get more liberal. To expect real and continued protection and help from overseas Primates for the remnant of ECUSA is also to be unrealistic for they do not have the time or the means. Under God, American Anglicans have to help themselves and they have it in their grasp to do so -- with God's mercy and guidance -- and further they ought to do so now, not next year. Centrifugal moves -- of which there are far too many amongst this and that American group or jurisdiction -- defeat the true cause. Centripetal forces, generated by the Holy Spirit, are needed to bring all faithful American Anglicans together in a unity that is generous and comprehensive and is honoring of God.
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/news05031101.asp
Mainstream - Letter to London Times
11th March 2005
Dear Sir
We have read the letter of the Bishop of Salisbury and his 5 colleagues carefully ( Letters, Monday March 7). We are intrigued by their presumably carefully chosen phrases about their relationship to other parts of the Anglican Communion: could they please explain the difference between 'full sacramental fellowship', 'seek to remain in full communion' and 'continuing solidarity'? As it takes two to remain in communion, it would be helpful to know whether the Salisbury six have consulted their fellow bishops in the other provinces about these descriptions of their relationship to them.
It is reliably reported that 16 archbishops did not take holy communion with Bishop Frank Griswold of ECUSA at Newry, which represented their own provinces' state of broken sacramental communion with him and ECUSA. The Salisbury six have declared that they are in full sacramental fellowship with churches in Canada and the US whose actions pose 'a very real question about whether they are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion' (Newry Communiqué). Will the 16 archbishops recognize these six bishops as being now in Communion with them? And will these six bishops also be in Communion with the faithful Anglicans in the USA who find themselves in impaired communion with Bishop Griswold and his colleagues who consecrated Gene Robinson?
These questions need clear answers.
Yours sincerely
Dr Philip Giddings
Canon Dr Chris Sugden
Anglican Mainstream
21 High Street
Eynsham
Oxford
OX29 4HE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)