Property battles loom as US churches quit

Two of the most important parishes in the Virginia diocese have voted to leave TEC and take their property them. Martyn Minns, ordained bishop in Nigeria's Convocation of Churches in North America, to which the largest are defecting, has described the scenes at one of the biggest churches as parishioners turned up to vote.  Anglican Mainstream's Chris Sugden, a member of the Church of England's General Synod, describes in next month's Evangelicals Now why the Presiding Bishop's recent offer of a "primatial vicar" did not satisfy those parishes who have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury for "alternative primatial oversight". Virginia's bishop Peter Lee has pledged to care for the small number of episcopalians remaining in his care, and also to assert his "rights" to the property of those who have left. The original document from the departing parishes setting out the "leaving protocol" details precisely how this has happened.

Baby Blue and StandFirm have blogged on the departing churches, Truro in Fairfax City and The Falls, both of which date back three centuries and have property worth many millions of dollars. Six other smaller churches have also voted to leave. Thinking Anglicans is keeping track of developments, and the updated page has a link to Bishop Martyn's BBC interview Monday, the day after the vote. Truro is of course the parish where Martyn Minns was rector at his consecration. It is also the parish where Lord Carey was invited to do the confirmations, one of the events that led to accusations of disloyalty against him and the recent withdrawal of his invitation to lecture at Bangor.

A confession: I am not sure what I think about this, except real, deep sadness. Sadness at the prospect of the thousands of pounds of cash to be wasted in the pending legal battles. Sadness that it should have come to this point. Sadness that we seem to be waking from the present Archbishop of Canterbury's dream of holding the church together in unity.

Except, of course, that these parishes have not actually left the Anglican Communion. They have simply realigned themselves with Nigeria, and in some cases Rwanda.

So maybe unity is not at an end. And I have deliberately avoided the use of the word "schism". Perhaps this is just the start of the realignment mentioned at the launch of the Windsor Report. If that is the case, then there is room for hope in the sadness. I do still hope, though, that this does not happen here.

The odd thing is that, although this is not technically schism, it actually does feel quite serious. The Primates' meeting Tanzania in February is going to be fascinating.

Comments

[Julia Langdon]

When and will Canterbury help make provisions for disaffected American Anglicans? Why are bishops in the Global South the only ones reaching out? Where is the rest of the Communion while these brave and devout souls walk into a largely unknown future?

TEC lawyers have been holding strategy sessions for months and are preparing to litigate. I find it ironic that those who are so determined to proclaim and retain their Anglican identity in the States are finding a silent mausoleum in Lambeth Palace.

[Graham Kings]

Ruth, thanks. I also hope that it does not happen in the Church of England, which really is in a different context.

I have attempted to outline this in 'Splitters United or Patient Pressure'

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=168

Concerning the recent so called 'Covenant for the Church of England' which claimed to represent all evangelicals but clearly does not do so, see our Fulcrum response:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=170

and the magisterial critique by Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=171

[Benjamin Waterhouse]

"So maybe unity is not at an end. And I have deliberately avoided the use of the word "schism"".

Schism of course being the "only" heresy in the Anglican communion...

[John]

You're right - it's very sad. I'm at a loss, though, to understand how these churches understand themselves to be in any way "anglican". The thing that they're doing is profoundly un-anglican: to form groupings based not on geography under a bishop but on matters of belief and ritual purity. This is not the catholic, anglican way, but the puritan way. The damage that this whole debate is doing to the Anglican Communion and the Church in general is huge - because some people will not accept that those with whom they disagree are Christians.

The matter of principle over which they are separating (gay christians) is particularly concerning, because of the nature of the church that they're fleeing *to*. These people apparently will not tolerate a church in which gay people can be made bishops - but can tolerate a church that supports a law saying that gay people may be imprisoned for eating together in a restaurant. Something is wrong there, surely?

pax et bonum

[Peter Farrington]

John, does it matter if what they are doing is not 'Anglican' as long as it is Christian. Catholicity has nothing to do with the modern liberal demand that everything be tolerated, it has to do with holding to the universal and catholic Christian faith. In making this principled stand the churches in Virginia will find themselves more closely allied to historic Catholicity in the Roman and Orthodox Churches, not less, as well as where it remains in Amglicanism.

Peter

[Julia Langdon]

"... some people will not accept that those with whom they disagree are Christians."

That's the problem, John. They've asserted themselves as Unitarians, not Christians. The "gay issue" is just a symptom of long-standing problems in the Episcopal Church.

Perhaps if help/relief came from Merrie Olde England, these parishes wouldn't have to seek the help of African bishops.

[Brian]

Dear Ruth,

A lot of people are sad about what is happening. Too bad this sadness was not expressed earlier when the TEC decided on its own to do whatever the heck it pleased without regard to anyone's POV.

I attended a "continuing" Anglican parish a number of years ago. There was sadness as well. Sadness that these faithful people were essentially marginalized and driven out of their own parishes because they had the temerity to continue to believe what the Church had always taught.

There is sadness as well among the many faithful orthodox priests who are persecuted by their bishops for holding on to the faith once delivered to the Saints. These priests are hounded to either conform or leave. If they do leave, their retirment package is forfeit. Imagine having to deal with that if after many years of faithful service tho the Church - your retirement package would be taken away if you go. It would be easy for us to say "leave then...your convictions should be more dear than your pension." Its a little harder when your in your late fifties.

The non-Anglican readers should be aware that this persecution is a reality. Bishops have used many tactics, including defrocking and legal suits against faithful priests (and Bishops, too!). Lots of sadness there, but not much reporting of that, eh Ruth?

Ms. Scary Schori recently posted a "letter" (aka threat) to Bishop Schofield of the San Joaquin diocese. Essentially, Herr Doktor told him to leave. "Don't go away mad, just go away...and don't let the church door hit your butt on the way out!"

The Gospel of Inclusiveness does not include the orthodox. Try getting ordained in one of these diocese if you graduate from the two remaining conservative seminaries. Don't hold your breath.

Kind of like the situation with the son of the former Conservative Party leader in Merrie Old England. He should have said he believed in Mohammed and he would have been ordained in a minute.

Herr Doktor and her mininons are crying "foul" because of the "interference" in their dioceses from the Global South. "The canons must be adhered to!" they cry.

What a bunch of mouse poop! Where the canons adhered to when they consecrated Vicky Robinson? Are the canons adhered to when Herr Doktor speaks of Jesus as our Mother? How about that famous canon, dating from Apostolic times, of same sex blessings?

To them, the canons are only cited when it suites their agenda. And they do have an agenda. The theological ethnic cleansing is almost complete. Had Vicky waited a few more years the remaining orthodox would have left and it would not have been so much trouble.

But legal threats are now part and parcel of the Gospel of Inclusiveness. Her Ladyship is looking forward to "Operation Fundy Purification" just as she looked forward to dissecting her first live octopus.

All the while Dr. Williams dithers and dathers. What the heck is he waiting for? The Second Coming? Oh, pardon me, the Second Coming is one of those "fundamentalist" doctrines that only the pesky evangelical and Anglo-Catholic trogledytes believe in.

Merry Christmas!

[John]

Peter:
It matters whether what they're doing is anglican, because those who are leaving TEC are claiming to be the "true" anglicans. But their actions show this to be untrue, at least partially. They privilege a certain understanding of sexual morality (whether correct or not) over the firm traditional understanding of the nature of an anglican church. No one is suggesting that these churches are wrong for disagreeing, or even for wanting to leave. The problem is trying to leave while giving the impression that they're somehow still anglican. For example, there is simply no legal way for the ABofC to intervene in the internal constitution of TEC in the way that the conservatives want him to. ++Schori is, without doubt and with no possibility of disagreement, the Primate of TEC, with full primatial authority equal to that of any other Primate of the Anglican Communion. If some others dispute that, that's their privilege, but no one within TEC can do so - they had their vote and she was appointed in accordance with TEC canon law. They can leave TEC if they disagree, but they can't take their toys with them.

Julia:
That's just silly. Unitarianism has *nothing* to do with this debate. The progressives are as staunch in their Trinitarianism as the conservatives. The problem is not parishes or clergy disagreeing with their bishops, or even forming groups with similar opinions. The problem is when these groups attempt to force the majority to accede to their demands, or when they threaten to break up TEC, or when they claim that they will leave TEC (the only church in the USA that is a member of the Anglican Communion, and therefore the only traditional route for parishes within the USA themselves to be members of the Communion) and join with other Churches. There is nothing in Anglican tradition that would allow this, and a great deal that would oppose it.

Don't forget that the Windsor Report was just as strong in its condemnation of cross-border parish swapping (to use the kindest description I can think of) as it was of TEC and ACC's actions over gay people.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm making a partisan point here about the treatment of gay people. The actions of these conservatives in TEC and elsewhere concern me because of the cavalier way they treat Anglican tradition, while at the same time claiming to be acting in defense of that tradition. If tney genuinely want to preserve the anglican way then they desperately need better methods, because what they're actually doing is destroying all that makes anglicanism unique.

pax et bonum

[Frank Schnittger]

Perhaps every cloud has a silver lining. Who would have thought that any part of the great US of A would ever have accepted supervision from Rwanda or Nigeria in any sphere. The Secretary General of the United Nations is regarded as the anti-Christ in some fundamentalist circles (see Left behind thread) and there are many of this persuasion who appear to believe that The U.S. is God's Chosen Country with the Right to invade any country any time it chooses for whatever real or fabricated reason.

The bringing together of various distant and remote parts of the Anglican Communion can only have an educational effect if not done for purely vindictive, formal or ideological reasons. Bringing many very privileged circles closer to the much greater real needs and suffering in Rwanda and Nigeria could have a much greater beneficial effect than the damage induced by the theological spats which currently divide the communion.

The real Schism is not perhaps within Anglicanism but between the Anglicanism of a privileged few and the reality of great suffering and struggle for those living in some of the most oppressed and deprived areas of the world. If that Schism can be healed even in part great Good will result.

In some ways the ideological/theological fervour and division of the evangelicals/fundamentalists in the U.S. reminds one of the many splits and struggles which took place in Europe for several centuries after the Reformation against a background of great political and economic upheaval. The Neoconservatives do have an almost Messianic vision of America’s role in “democratising” the world and so perhaps America is just going through a new kind of neo-colonial phase which will result in much grief but also some benefits for a world which is growing smaller all the time.

All of this may sound very smug, complacent, and detached, but the reality is that such theological/ideological disputes have occurred within Christendom since the earliest times and who now remembers the precise theological reasons for the many Schisms and Heresies which have divided the Church in times past? History and the Churches will move on but the central Truths of Christianity will remain.

[Tim]

Graham, thanks for the Fulcrum links which were very helpful, especially Tom Wright's article.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

So, the state of your organization is determined by unnatural sex and money. Does anyone remember the purpose of you all banding together?

I realize that my audience consists of pasty white faces that don't get excited about much except someone using Anglo Saxon descriptive terms and talking above a whisper. However, the person at the top of the church hierarchy propped by the Government is someone more concerned with the rights of Arab murderers than his own people.

Who are the people who'd rather put themselves under a Negro with principles rather than one of their own whose open sex habits are "unusual"?
Click here

http://www.thefallschurch.org/templates/custhefalls/details.asp?id=29455&PID=203829

and

http://www.trurochurch.org/content.asp?contentid=507

[JCF]

"They've asserted themselves as Unitarians, not Christians."

Every Episcopal church affirms faith in Nicene *Trinitarianism* every Sunday. The fact that we have different ways of interpreting how to live out that Trinitarian faith, shouldn't result in outright distortions.

[Alan Marsh]

Julia, it's hard to see what help Lambeth could possibly give to a group to detach itself from the Anglican Communion, of which the Archbishop is the convener.

The Anglican Communion is actively working towards a resolution of the crisis, through the Windsor Report and its own internal structures. Their own bishop in Virginia does not permit "gay blessings" and he supports the Anglican Communion's efforts to restore the Episcopal Church in the USA.

But these breakaway groups don't regard the Communion as being sufficiently Christian, let alone Anglican. They will only deal with the parts of which they approve. By walking out at this stage they have effectively made their choice.

And they are not some oppressed and broken minority, but among the richest churches in the world, capable of buying whatever property they need, and supporting however many clergy they want to appoint.

[Richard Langdon]

What the "Churches quitting" seems to draw attention to, yet again, is the very disjointed and disparate views that exist in the Church of England. Surely this will lead to the ordinary man in the street being more inclined to distance himself from the Church?.

A refreshing voice of realism is needed across the Church of England. A belief in God is an important facet and has been for thousands of years but man's propensity to make up aspects of religion and impose them as "you must believe this" takes it all away from basic common sense.

It is time we accepted our differences more than we do, we should be honest about doctrines and we should accept (the Church of England in particular) that there is no evidential foundation for much of the myths and legends made up by man as good stories and a way to impose on others what they should believe as opposed to basic Christian common sense. These two Churches in the US hardly seem to be promoting a Christian approach we should aspire to.

I often feel it is the clergy themselves who promulgate the problems. It is time there was greater acceptance of our differences and proclivities. There are those who shout we should follow Jesus, and I assume many of such in these two Churches, but I wonder how they balance that with their own attitudes to fellow man and woman. It seems more like an attitude our forbears wanted to force on us than a realistic one that the so called founder of Christianity would ever have wanted. I am not aware of any evidence that supports their attitude.
I have felt for a long time that if the Church of England wants to grow then it is time it itself "came out" and was honest about what our religion is and threw away the vague mystique and legends we are expected to believe. A basic belief in God without the unnecessary trimmings brought in from pagan times must be more attractive in today's age where we have a thinking, educated population. To separate off as these Churches want to do will happen more frequently until there is a radical rethink on what we are expected to believe. It will produce a great shaking out but in the longer term I am sure a stronger Church. Sadly to do such goes to the very root of what some believe but, instead of a little rocking of the boat with the odd Bishop indicating he does not believe in the resurrection etc. and there are no doubt many many more, the C of E could grasp that, accept these old concepts (they call them doctrines! But they are only man made ones) really have no substance and go for the jugular - a basic core belief in God without the silly trimmings.

It has always seemed to me that those parts of the New Testament that may have some ring of truth are setting out that that is what Jesus wanted to be happening. Instead our beliefs were manhandled into a different direction with some odd concepts that suited those in power.

We would not have the schisms we have today if these shaky foundations had not been promulgated so much yesterday. This departure of two churches from one allegiance to another is simply highlighting the very problem the Church created for itself so long ago. It created a problem, in the past eradicated violently, now it cannot do that. It never should have created that problem. This departure shows the very weakness it created. Until the C of E and the Catholic Church grasp the nettle, hit the world with a little more honesty then more schisms are going to open up.

With the attitudes some have toward homosexuality are they any better than our forebears who would burn people at the stake for any apparent hypocrisy? Not a Christian approach no matter how you look at it.

Richard.

[Julia Langdon]

John,
With all due respect, unitarianism has everything to do with this. It seems in the TEC that every theology, philosophy, and movement (except traditional Christian, of course), is honored and upheld. Our PB has said in the press that all paths are equal, which left the New York Times reporter declaring her a Unitarian. He's right.

Their "inclusiveness" would be all fine and dandy if they recognized that the only group they won't include is those with a traditional Christian understanding and that they have become liturgical unitarians.

The Episcopal Church isn't declining because Biff and Buffy, who drive their Lincoln Navigator from their McMansion to St. Marcus of Nieman Episcopal Church, are "concerned for the environment and are more educated so they have few children." It's declining because it's become redundant as a humanistic cheerleader. Why get up early on a Sunday morning to hear what society preaches when you can get that anywhere/anytime?

I, too, am angry at the unilateralism but I'm confused by it, too. TEC's last two General Conventions kept emphasizing TEC's right to do as it pleases, the AC's lack of disciplinary resources with teeth, and their belief that TEC's actions have nothing to do with anyone else in the Communion. Yet, TEC proudly asserts itself as a member of the AC, with all of the rights and privileges therein. Why doesn't TEC just admit it wants to be independent and take whatever steps necessary to become a US denomination?

[pendennis88]

A few clarifications: "There is nothing in Anglican tradition that would allow this...." Except, of course, for all the exceptions. The very name of ECUSA was changed to TEC in order to encompass all of the overseas diocese that coexist with other Anglican churches geographically.

"Don't forget that the Windsor Report was just as strong in its condemnation of cross-border parish swapping (to use the kindest description I can think of) as it was of TEC and ACC's actions over gay people." Except that the ban on border crossing was to be during the period that adequate alternative oversight to the evangelicals was to be provided. See also the carefully worded Dromantine Communique, which further limited the ban to the US churches initiating the border crossing, not the other way round. TEC has refused to extend such oversight, so the ban on border crossing has never gone into effect. If it had, the current border crossing would not be occurring. A great missed opportunity.

"Their own bishop in Virginia does not permit 'gay blessings'...." They are unofficially permitted so long as not publicized.

"Unitarianism has *nothing* to do with this debate. The progressives are as staunch in their Trinitarianism as the conservatives." True, in most cases. I think, though, the writer meant "universalist". In the USA, that church is known as the "unitarian universalist" church, so people frequently use the term "unitarian" when they mean "universalist". A very good case can be made that both Bishops Schori and Lee have expoused universalist views.

[JPM]

Brian, it is very moving to see how the boundless love of Christ comes through in your post.

What a wonderful witness you are!

[joe]

I'd be interested to hear about what happens to the buildings. As far as I can establish, in England parish churches are owned by the diocese, so should a church leave the episcopate, they relinquish the use of the building. I have heard that some complications of this kind occurred when the ecumenical Church of North India was created.

Am I correct in this assumption? If so, one could imagine that if large congregations left the CofE it would not be long before it was crippled by the maintenance cost of empty buildings alone.

[Alice C. Linsley]

This marks the dawn of a renewal of Anglicanism worldwide. God bless Truro, Falls Church, and the other Virginia parishes who have made this bold decision to separate from the heretical sect known as The Episcopal Church.

[Allen Lewis]

John,
You made the following comment:"...These people apparently will not tolerate a church in which gay people can be made bishops - but can tolerate a church that supports a law saying that gay people may be imprisoned for eating together in a restaurant. Something is wrong there, surely?"

Please, can you list the subsection of the
law in Nigeria which imprisons gay people for eating lunch together? [NOTE:I know that this was a quote from the blog of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. But the author there did not provide any substantiating evidence either.] Unless you can point to precisely which clause in the Nigerian legislation will lead to such a result, I am afraid you are guilty of bearing false witness.

Now, how about that reference?

[Greg Griffith]

"Every Episcopal church affirms faith in Nicene *Trinitarianism* every Sunday.

Not true. There are scores of Episcopal churches who either omit the creed altogether, or substitute mushy terms like "Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer" (or worse) for God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Besides, what difference does it make what you recite, when you don't believe a word of it anyway?

[Fr Steve]

The Entire CANA press conference is at http://www.anglicantv.org/blog

[Bill Channon]

John, you say:

"You're right - it's very sad. I'm at a loss, though, to understand how these churches understand themselves to be in any way "anglican". The thing that they're doing is profoundly un-anglican: to form groupings based not on geography under a bishop but on matters of belief and ritual purity. This is not the catholic, anglican way, but the puritan way:"

I don't understand your comment at all. Arent 'these churches breaking away because they want to follow the teachings of Latimer, Ridley, and Crammer who gave their lives to maintain the initial impetus that led to the Anglican Church. Who on earth defined the Anglican way as based on geographical zones.
I thought the Anglican way was based on a belief in the Words spoken by our Lord, in the Faith that he entrusted to His disciples and Apostles.
I thought that the Anglican way includes a comprehensive and heart-felt belief in the Nicene and Apostles creed which sum much of our faith.
God does not operate in terms of geography. He has not changed His mind about the veracity of the meaning of His sending His only begotten son to die for our sins that we might have a chance for eternal life and a transfomed life in this world. I thought THAT WAS the Anglican way.
The liberal wings of ECUSA are leaving the Truth given to us by Holy Scripture, by Jesus, by the Saints. What response can othodox Christians make when they have a primate who publically says that Jesus is one way -one amongst other ways- other than to leave to maintain their relationship with God and to protect their children from false teaching of a religion which includes amongst its numbers members of its clergy who practice Wicca and accept other Gods beside the One God, our Father, Lord and Master. Do you believe that I espouse an extreme position in stating these beliefs I hold fast to?

[Paul J Johnson]

The teaching of our church is clear
homosexuality is a sin. That is a theological fact. The larger political community may and often does disagree and passes laws reflecting their view. As with the founding fathers of the church who lived in tragic threat from the secular world around them and declared their faith based on the bible and apostolic leadership so will their true descendants and followers to-day hue to our received teaching and truth and God who is greater than all will reveal in time his decision for us for division in the past did not lead to christianity losing, for Christ is triumphant his truth will prevail and I pray that as we in Canada work through this purgatory brought by secular humanist seepage from the secular community
our way will be made straight for the path is narrow and the road hard but truth will prevail.

[William P. Sulik]

Ms. Gledhill,

Thank you for your perseptive comments. As a longtime member of Truro (but not a cradle Episcopalian), this has been a hard time, a time of sadness. There really is no rejoicing. I am sorry to lose my brothers and sisters in ECUSA (or TEC), but this has been a very clear and deliberate decision to walk apart from the Anglican communion and, indeed, the historic, apostolic, catholic Church. We had hoped that there would be at least some hesitation over the past decade (going back to Lambeth) at the warnings which had been raised. Even after the inital decisions had been made to turn away from the faith, we had hoped that there would be some humility, but I guess we Americans have a way of acting in complete disregard for others. We are very selfish and act in a unilateral fashion -- to hell with the rest of you.

And now, you are also right, it looks like a property battle is looming. In the past 40 years, the law has changed and it doesn't look promising for ECUSA/TEC -- this is why they tried to impose the Dennis Canon. Bishop Peter Lee looked to be doing the right thing by putting together a committee to work things out -- a committee composed of committed Christians on both sides of the aisle. It proposed a procedure which could have been a model for caring for the main body which wanted to stay within the Anglican Communion and those which wanted to go with TEC. It also provided for a means of working out compensation for the Diocese. Inexplicably, after this committee put together a unanimous process and procedure, he jettisoned it. And now it looks like he wants to burn resources on legal fees.

[Bill]

John

The Windsor report regarding cross boundary intervention was modified by the Primates at Dromantine. The Primates did not accept that they had done anything wrong but did agree to not _initiate_ any new cross boundary actions. This put the onus on the parishes in the US and Canada to ask for help rather than waiting for one of the Primates to offer. The VA parishes have asked for help and CANA has responded.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

Perhaps these problems happen from lack of leadership from Rowan Sahib? He spends more time worrying about the Jews but his geography is a bit shaky.
See http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1421

[clay in dallas]

To those of you who proclaim with certainty that this is some homophobic tirade by spoiled white folks, I have bad news for you. The PB over here is a heretic, 5 times over. And an unrepentant one, at that.

She's promotes Pelagianism, Morcianism, Unitarianism, Pluralism, and Gnosticism.

Pelagianism:
The argument advanced by those in favor of “blessing” homosexual behavior has six steps / components:
1. Homosexuality is a genetically / biologically predetermined trait / predisposition.
2. God is Creator
3. God as Creator has Created all things.
4. God has called all created things good.
5. Homosexual desire is created by God
6. Homosexual desire and behavior is, therefore, good.

A case (as from Pelagius himself) has been advanced by KJS that goes like so:
If one looks at nature, there are many, many instances of same-sex behavior. Ignore that they’re rare, a small percentage. Since they exist, evolutionary theory would hold that this has some benefit, or doesn't have an evolutionary detriment. On the assumption that all creation is good, then these instances must be taken “quite seriously”.

It was written on StandFirm: "By way of contrast, the biblical doctrine of the Fall means that Christians cannot assume that “inborn” or “natural” desires and/or behaviors are necessarily “created” desires and/or behaviors. “Natural” desires and behaviors are measured by the standard of God’s Word in order to determine whether they are consistent with God’s created order or consistent with the fallen nature. This requires submission to divine revelation over and above human reason.”

Marcionism: It is embodied in this KJS quote: (Fall 2003 Diocesan Newsletter)
“KJS: As Anglicans, we have always asserted that we listen to three primary sources of authority to scripture, to tradition, and to reason. The debate which has risen to the level of the Anglican primates has its roots in putting different emphasis on those three sources of authority. The Episcopal Church’s General Convention acted last summer out of a sense that reason and a broad reading of the Great Commandment required a different conclusion about matters of homosexuality than did strict adherence to seven passages in scripture which seem to speak against it. The other wing of the church says that those seven passages have ultimate authority, and therefore "we will obey the Bible."

Human reason trumps history and scripture? To what extent? Where does this end? Over here, "reason" is exclusive, and is wrapped in a thin veneer of scripture and tradition.

The Pluralistic facet is illustrated by KJS’ interview with Time magazine this last July:
“Time: Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?
KJS: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”

And the Universalist facet?

“KJS: What happens after you die? I would ask you that question. But what's important about your life, what is it that has made you a unique individual? What is the passion that has kept you getting up every morning and engaging the world? There are hints within that about what it is that continues after you die.”

No mention of sin, faith, hell. Just what makes YOU UNIQUE. I guess that mundane folks would go to hell were there one in her theology.

Lastly, Gnosticism. In a report on religion, KJS gave the following answer:

“Stephen Crittenden: I guess we should just dwell on it a little bit more because it's not an idea we hear very often. What is it a metaphor for, Jesus as mother?

Katherine Jefferts Schori: It's a metaphor for new creation. When we insist that the Christ event in the death and resurrection of Jesus brings a new possibility of life, a new kind of life to humanity, it is certainly akin to rebirth. When Jesus says to Nicodemus You must be born again from above, what might he mean? I think it is a way of the gospel is saying that Jesus is a venue, an event, an experience, and an instance in which life is renewed, in which every human being as access to new life.”

A “venue”. An “event”. Not a savior, messiah, nor son of God. Why not? What’s the matter with that?

[clay in dallas]

As a follow-on.... to those who insist this is not Anglican, all this shismatic hullaballoo.... when did following the scripture take a back seat to being 'anglican'?

And, in a serious vein, can a church that owes it's existence to schism morally and logically rail against that which created it?

[Peter M]

The CofE is not dominated by the same preponderance of loopy-lou post-Christian radicals as TEC, which in American terms is a marginalised expression of faith. Many TEC dioceses have less members than single parishes in the CofE. The parishes that have voted to leave TEC and find a different Anglican Province through which to express their commitment to their Anglican heritage are no different in their theology from vibrant CofE parishes like All Souls, Langham Place; Holy Trinity, Brompton; St Aldate's, Oxford; or St Helen's, Bishopsgate.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Richard,

A vague belief in God with no trimmings is Unitarianism, it is not Christianity.

The reason that these debates have importance and meaning is that the substance of our o(O)rthodox Christian faith is understood as life, life in Christ, the fulness of what it means to be human. And if the Church is a spiritual hospital, as Orthodoxy sees itself, then it is necessary that the treatment be sound. People's lives are at stake if we offer watered down medicine or even poison.

So it does matter about homosexual practice, since orthodox Christians have always believed it to be destructive of our true humanity, but no more than sexual relations outside of marriage, and indeed many sexual practices within marriage which are also destructive.

But I don't know many Orthodox in my own communion (British Orthodox within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate) who are so bothered about the issue of homosexuality within Anglicanism since it seems that so many other substantive aspects of orthodox Christianity are already going by the by or have been abandoned.

If the orthodox Faith in Anglican, Roman and Orthodox Christianity is life giving spiritual medicine then I applaud all those Anglicans within all structures, both the TEC and the Continuing movement who are trying to make a stand for orthodoxy, it is a vastly more important and necessary task than preserving Anglicanism as a broad tent.

Peter

[Keith Downer]

Richard, the Christian Church is not like Marks & Spencer who can review their policies and change their management because the business is not as successful as it should be.

Whatever you believe about "myths and legends made up by man as good stories", the core of Christian faith and teaching is clear and strong; it has survived self-induced and outside attacks upon it's foundation and beliefs for a considerable time. Millions of individuals have discovered that the New Testament teaching has tremendous significance in their lives and when tested against the changing attitudes and developing patterns of behaviour in society, still remains strong.

Take a reasonable look at the Christian attitude to homosexuality without the references back to previous, less civilised times. No-one is burning anyone at the stake or ostracising them from society; homosexuals are loved by the Church. Most of us are confused by the conflicting issues of homosexuality but we are clear that - with the information currently available - it is not normal behaviour and this is reinforced by our interpretation of Christian teaching - an interpretation which, if it was forced upon us by "clergy themselves who promulgate the problems" would soon be question and rejected if unacceptable. Remember, we always have the New Testament, the teaching and the insight it gives us into the character of Jesus Christ to test our beliefs and attitudes against.

As a society, therefore, we should be careful in how we respond to the demand of the homosexual community for their behaviour to be accepted as normal, as normal as a relationship between a man and a woman - with all that means.

Because of the confusing issues, society has made adjustments to prevent persecution and much of the prejudice against homosexuals but the increasingly aggressive activities and misguided changes in official policy where same-sex relationships are concerned, is a matter of great concern to many of us in the heterosexual community - both Christians and non-Christians.

[joe]

Point of information: Melanie Phillips hasn't a flipping clue about Bethlehem.

OK, as you were.

[John]

pendennis:
I quote the WR at clause 155:
"155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
* to express regret for the consequences of their actions
* to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
* to effect a moratorium on any further interventions."

There's nothing there about this cessation being temporary or contingent on any particular support for conservatives.

Bill Channon:
"I thought the Anglican way was based on a belief in the Words spoken by our Lord, in the Faith that he entrusted to His disciples and Apostles...God does not operate in terms of geography"

You're confusing "anglican" and "christian" here. "Anglican" encompasses a great deal more than just belief in the Words spoken by our Lord - it's a way of following Christ. It specifically includes that broad acceptance that allowed the Church of England to come into existence in the first place - not insisting on full doctrinal uniformity but living in the tension between extremes.

"What response can othodox Christians make when they have a primate who publically says that Jesus is one way -one amongst other ways- other than to leave"

Try reading what she actually said. AIUI, she was not saying at all that all religions are equal, but that God does not limit Himself to acting within the confines of the Church - a position that is, at the very least, orthodox. It has never been the position of the Church that one must have a personal faith in Jesus to enter heaven - for example, we all expect to meet the Patriarchs there, I'm sure, none of whom could possibly have such a faith.

"The Windsor report regarding cross boundary intervention was modified by the Primates at Dromantine. The Primates did not accept that they had done anything wrong but did agree to not _initiate_ any new cross boundary actions."

Indeed - the WR called upon them to repent and they refused. This doesn't change what the WR asked for, only highlights the intransigence of these Primates. Just as the WR called upon TEC to repent, and they apologised by didn't repent. Notice that - they at least apologised. There has never to my knowledge been any apology or regret for crossing boundaries.

This just emphasises the hypocrisy of claiming that the WR is "the law" for how the Communion should proceed. They want TEC to obey every stricture and more, while not following any themselves. Whoever is in the right on the issue of gay clergy, this sort of posturing is just wrong.

Peter M:
Those parishes you list in the CofE are extreme evangelical parishes. They are in no way representative of the CofE (indeed, to my knowledge, they don't all even pay their parish share, despite being very rich).

pax et bonum

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Joe

Which neighborhood in Bethlehem do you live in?

It may come as a surprise to you but it's in the Plo/ Hamas administered areas and the Christian Arab neighborhoods within Israel are the only places in the Middle East where this group is increasing in numbers.

Why oh why don't they join their brethren in Beirut and Cairo?

[Alan Marsh]

Joe, Church of England churches belong to the local parish, and the incumbent is the trustee.

They are the responsibility of the congregation, not the diocese, which makes no contribution to their upkeep.

[joe]

Emanuel, let us not have this discussion again. Given a choice between the bigotted words of Melanie Phillips or the words of the Palestinian christians themselves in Bethlehem I heard with my own ears, I know who I am going to trust. It is obvious that neither she nor our own Dr Irene have ever actually stepped foot into christian areas of the West Bank themselves.

Alan - are you saying that a congregation can chose to leave the CofE and take their buildings with them?

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Joe,

We will have this discussion until I say otherwise. You are nobody to set limits on my speech.

The fact is that Christian Arabs are leaving the PLO areas per the reports of your own sources. They are moving to the New World or other areas in europe. In Israel, the number of Arab Christians is increasing. If the PLO Arabs are so happy, why do they leave? Because of Moslem persucution among other factors.

So, shove the PLO propaganda.

rg writes: Emmanuel this is my fault for not posting on this earlier - many apologies - will put up a post on this later today - promise.

[joe]

Emanuel, the Christians themselves say that it is largely due to economic reasons and restrictions caused by the security situation. I am not setting limits on your speech, but from now on I am not responding to your ignorant spouting.

[Benjamin Waterhouse]

My dear Mr Emanuel Appel

Why do Palestinian Christians leave?

Nothing to do with Israeli Apartheid policies in their Bantustans of the West Bank and Gaza, natch...

Dr I And Mel P "do" have a bit of a Potyemkin Village mentality.

Palestinaian Christians.. do you know many Manny??

In the spirit of mutual giving, shove the Zionist Propaganda yourself ....

[pendennis88]

John - I think you omitted a few things. First, as to the WR, you neglect to point out that paragraph 155 is part of paragraphs 147-155, "On Care of Dissenting Groups". It is not about banning border crossing, it is about care for dissenting groups. No care for dissenting groups, no ban on border crossing. They are linked. Observe another part of paragraph 155 that you tellingly omitted:

"We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care. We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church." Well, they have refused to do so (with some minor exceptions, but not including Virginia).

Not clear enough, you say? The Dromantine Communique, which is the statment of the primates upon receiving the WR, says of paragraphs 147-155 the following:

"15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in
serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in
dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003. Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions."

"During this period"? The period during which, as a "matter of urgency" the panel of reference supervises the adequacy of the oversight referred to in paragraphs 147 to 155? There is no oversight. That period has never begun. Therefore, there is as yet no commitment to neither encourage or initiate cross-boundary interventions. And even if there were, the boundary crossings have neither been encouraged nor initiated.

Now, you may argue that you interpret the WR differently, or that the Dromantine Communique, though it reflects the views of all of the primates, while the WR is the wording of a subcommittee, should be thrown out. Or you may argue that things have been too close to "encouraging" for your liking. But I think the primates interpret it differently, more along the lines I outline. And they have more say, I think.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

My dear Waterhouse,

If Arab Christians decide to leave the Arab controlled areas, why is it Israel's doing? Who's responsible for the garbage can that Arabs create for themselves except the Arabs themselves?

What your ilk cannot stand is to see a prosperous Israel that has become an economic power despite Arab craziness. Jews happy is something that makes you lose sleep. Take a sleeping pill.

[John]

Pendennis,
I think that you misinterpret the placement of clause 155. It's part of the "Care of dissenters" section, but it's not conditional - it's saying, "these are things that have gone wrong and should not be repeated" as part of that care. There is no language in 155 or close to it that I can interpret as being conditional on conservatives receiving alternative oversight or whatever. Indeed, if conservatives were to receive such oversight, there would be no need for this clause (because there would be no poaching - conservatives would have what they want). It makes no sense in this context.

The nearby clauses say such things as:
148. In addressing this situation, the Commission recognises and wishes to uphold the importance and relevance of the historically sanctioned role of the bishop as a core principle of Anglican ecclesiology....
149...We want to make quite clear that we fully understand the principled concerns that have led to those actions [parishes moving to other Provinces] even though we believe that they should have been handled differently.
150...we call upon all the bishops concerned, both the 'home' bishops and the 'intervening' bishops as Christian leaders and pastors to work tirelessly to rebuild the trust which has been lost.
151-152 [As an absolute last resort, there should be alternative oversight. However, this should come from retired bishops from within the Church rather than those outside.]
153 [The ACC is doing something similar.]
154...Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.

Only then comes 155 - straight after the simple declaration that there should ideally be no more than one bishop in a place.

"you may argue that things have been too close to "encouraging" for your liking"

I find it hard to see how continuing to court and accept the realignment of TEC parishes can be seen as anything but encouraging!

I repeat what is, it seems to me, a very simple observation of fact - the conservatives (both Primates and TEC members) are demanding that the progressives in TEC concede totally and utterly to the strictures of WR, and indeed to go much further than the WR recommended (forgetting, of course, that neither the WR nor Dromantine are legally binding on any of the constituent and autonomous Churches of the Communion). Meanwhile, the conservatives will not give even the slightest inch of ground, in direct contradiction of the WR's clear message (however much the Primates may have diluted that in their communique). The conservatives will accept nothing less than total victory over and humiliation of their enemies. The progressives, it seems, are the ones wanting to live together despite disagreements.

It is this hypocrisy that gets to me more than anything else. The schism is coming not because progressives are accepting of gays or are expelling conservatives, but because conservatives will not live with progressives.

I have some sympathy with the theology of the conservatives, but none at all with their politicking.

pax et bonum

[Willard Tice]

Fr. Minns could never be elected Bishop in ECUSA, so he took the route to selection by an African archbishop. To many of us it looks as bogus as a mail-order PhD. He was only looking out for himself, not his flock. It is a simple case of ego. Sad.

[Willard Tice]

Earlier, Allen Lewis was wanting citations on the oppresive laws passed by Nigeria against homosexuals. If he can kindly google "Nigeria gay laws" he will find stories about the new laws and their repressive nature, like not eating together, gathering in groups, socializing in any way. Punishment calls for strict long term prison sentences in the south and death by stoning in the north. And you want to be under the authority of an archbishop who sanctions this? Shame!

[pendennis88]

John - You neglect to discuss the interpretation of the WR in the Domantine communique, other than to say that "the Primates may have diluted [the WR] in their communique". Well, exactly -and that is precisely why the arguments you make on interpreting 155 ultimately have to give way to the modifications at Dromantine. Paragraph 155 by itself is open to interpretation, but taken with Dromantine, it becomes clearer. To insist on disregarding Dromantine is to say you have no use for the views of the primates. I do not think that is a useful perch to be viewing the Anglican Communion from.

You said: "There is no language in 155 or close to it that I can interpret as being conditional on conservatives receiving alternative oversight or whatever. Indeed, if conservatives were to receive such oversight, there would be no need for this clause (because there would be no poaching - conservatives would have what they want)."

These paragraphs call for two things - protection for the orthodox and no border crossings. To say that it is contemplated in WR that you can have one without the other is to ignore the facts even before ignoring Dromantine. What the orthodox want is protection, whether called oversight or otherwise, from deposition, inhibition, reduction to mission status, removal of vestries, the ability to have orthodox priests replace orthodox priests at retirement, and so on. If the liberal leadership in ECUSA were not trying to grind down orthodoxy in ECUSA, the orthodox parishes would not have been asking for protection from overseas bishops.

These things are inexorably intertwined. You cannot expect border crossing to stop unless and until the reason for border crossing ceases to exist. ECUSA has had no interest in ceding the least bit of protection to the orthdox, and it has driven things to this point. That the orthodox insist that ECUSA stop doing this is hardly requiring the "humiliation of their enemies" in any reasonable sense.

"The progressives, it seems, are the ones wanting to live together despite disagreements." This would only be true if "to live together" means "agree with us on everything, and if you do not, you must be silent or be deposed". I do not think it does. If progressives were truly willing to allow the orthodox to continue to live in peace in ECUSA, we would not be where we are today.