Primates: Schismatics to be "pruned from the branch"

"There are many in America who are trying to have their cake and eat it, who are doing the schismatic thing and then accusing those who object of being schismatic." This is what Bishop of Durham Dr Tom Wright told me in a wide-ranging discussion we had on the forthcoming Primates' Meeting in Tanzania. He was quite unequivocal. He said too many in TEC are guilty of "doctrinal indifferentism." The Covenant Design Group in Nassau successfully produced a good document, he said. The Primates have little choice but to follow Windsor at the meeting next week. And if Windsor is followed, then Gene Robinson and those who consecrated him should voluntarily absent themselves from the councils of the Communion, including the Lambeth Conference, unless they express regret in the terms set out in Windsor. Only a Windsor-rooted response in Tanzania can save the Communion from schism. "Almost everybody involved  with this question recognises that there is no way forward from here without pain. It is painful for everybody. There are not going to be winners and losers. There are going to be losers catergory one, two, three, four and five." In reading his words, it is worth remembering that not only is he the intellectual equal of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the two men are good friends. So I reckon this gives us a good idea of how events might unfold next week.

Tom Wright said: "For the last three years, every meeting has looked like this is the make-or-beak one. There is a bit of this now - yet one more time round the tracks. However, the film is gradually unwinding and we are closing in on the fact that something has got to happen soon. By the end of 2007 the Archbishop of Canterbury will have had to send out invitations to the Lambeth Conference. One way or another, the decisions he has to make in relation to that are bound to have some kind of effect in various parts of the Anglican Communion.

"That is a way of saying that by this time next year, we will certainly not be where we are now. Some lines will have hardened, one way or another.There is so much sound and fury in many different directions that it is a matter of several different pressures from several different corners  - trying to hear them and listen to the voice of God in the middle of it all and make some sense of it.

"The question is, is there any solution that a solid central ground will assemble around? My view is that it would be a solution based on the Windsor Report and what has flowed from it. It is the only thing on the table. If we are going to scrap that we would have to go back three years to start all over again.  The solution would consist of the Primates accepting what the Covenant Drafting Group did in Nassau. The word is they made good progress at that meeting. I assume that means they will have something to put before the Primates. Then the question is how far that can be taken and how soon. I assume the immediate plan is to take it to Lambeth 2008. There is also the question of what the provinces will say about it.

  "The more sharp-edged question is who is seen to be speaking for the American evangelicals. Rowan has invited to Dar Es Salaam two of the leading Windsor bishops, the ones holding the ground around the Windsor report, who are not secceding and going to Nigeria but who are not going to waver in the terms that Ecusa got it wrong and it is still getting it wrong and needs to be called to order.  The question is how that is going to be resolved in the first few days of the meeting. I do not have a game plan on how that is going to work.  Rowan is head and shoulders above all of them in terms of his wisdom and ability. He listens extremely carefully to everybody and then goes away and prays about it. He is never an uncritical listener. There is noone who Rowan will allow to tell him what to do. He will think and pray through everything that he hears. His commitment is to work for the unity of the Church and the advancement of the Gospel. Those who want to go and do their own thing do not like it when the Archbishop of Canterbury says the unity of the Church means you cannot."

He referred to the recent controversial correspondence initiated by the ACO's Kenneth Kearon. "For Kenneth Kearon to accuse Rowan Williams of fostering schism is quite extraordinary. That is like someone in a house that is on fire accusing the firemen of ruining the book collection because they have sprayed water on it. It is quite clear that the split is coming from those in the  American church who are insisting on doing something that the Lambeth Conference and the rest of the Communion had asked them not to do.  To accuse Rowan Williams of fomenting schism is really projecting onto Rowan the schismatic actions which happened in 2003 when the Americans first gave acquiesence to Gene Robinson at their General Convention and then went ahead and consecrated him. In October 2003, the Primates said clearly that if this action goes ahead it will tear the fabric of the communion at its deepest level. The Americans went ahead and did it. All that has happened subsequently is the rest of the Communion saying we really hope you did not mean that but if you did, have you thought through the consequences? There are many in America who are trying to have their cake and eat it, who are doing the schismatic thing and then accusing those who object of being schismatic. That is the bizarre thing."

He cannot see how the Primates' Meeting will play out. "I wish I had a glimmer. Obviously my hope would be that the recommendations of the Windsor report will be followed through and will have their effect in terms of renewing The Episcopal Church rather than splitting it. But there will be lots of people who won't like that renewal, if and when it happens. If the Windsor report is not followed, then we do not have another apparent standard. We have to remind ourselves that the fact that the Windsor Report was being written through 2004 was what enabled us to hold together when otherwise things would have split apart. We have got to stick with it, otherwise we have wasted our time.

"If the Anglican Communion, and particularly the American church and others like it, can be renewed according to the pattern of the Windsor Report, which is of course according to the pattern of Scripture, then those who are looking to foreign jurisdictions will find a way to come back into the fold. Then there would be a sigh of relief all round. In American there are dozens of breakaway bits and pieces, it is confusing and very messy. It is very American. But it is very unhelpful to the cause of the Church and the Gospel. As for what would happen to Gene Robinson? Pass. I really do not think there is a good answer to that one. The Windsor Report quotes the Archbishop of Canterbury himself saying in 2003 that if Robinson were in most other provinces of the Anglican Communion, he certainly could not be a bishop. As a priest he would be under discipline because of what has happened in terms of his marriage and partnership. In most provinces he could not have been a bishop. Therefore to ask other provinces to come to Lambeth and accept Gene Robinson as one of their number is a very big ask.

"The Lambeth invitation list is entirely up to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I think if the Windsor report is followed through then we have to say that those who have taken certain actions and who have not expressed  regret in the way that Windsor requested should voluntarily absent themselves from the councils of the Communion."

So why was Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori going to Tanzania? "At Dromantine the Primates said they wanted Ecusa to answer some questions. Ecusa did what they did last summer, which was not to answer the questions. They gave half an answer to two of them, and no answer at all to the third, which was about authorising blessings. Bishop Jefferts Schori herself authorised same-sex blessings in her former diocese in 2003, so she is one of the bishops who did what Lambeth specifically asked not to be done. Whenever she has been asked to comment on that, she says she stands where she always did. That is a real problem.  That is the real issue. The fact that she is a woman is not the point."

But not inviting her was not an option. She has to be there, to explain the actions of General Convention, as requested by the Primates at Dromantine.  "The Primates next week are receiving a report on what Ecusa did at General Convention. That has to be discussed. That is why Rowan Williams has invited two bishops to represent the solid, Windsor-rooted centre of the American Church. We are not talking here about dissident conservatives. These are people who are not dissidents."

His outlook is pretty bleak. "Almost everybody involved  with this question recognises that there is no way forward from here without pain. It is painful for everybody. There are not going to be winners and losers. There are going to be losers catergory one, two, three, four and five.  When there is some kind of parting of the ways it is always painful for everybody. But I do think there is hope that the rootedness of the Anglican Communion in Scripture and tradition, that by doing its reasoning work wisely, this will enable it to come up strong after this crisis. Even if it means a bit of pruning, the plant will be healthier for it.  And I rather hope that anything that needs pruning will not be lost but grafted back on sooner or later."

He quoted Romans 11:11-26, about the pruning of the olive tree, and John 15: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit." Dr Wright continued: "I rather hope that anything that needs pruning will not be lost, but grafted back on sooner or later." It is significant I think that  he does not think TEC will be cut away, merely pruned back a bit. He said: "There are some people in The Episcopal Church who dig themselves very firmly in and talk about rights and justice in the gay lobby. I do not see any way they can be reconciled with those in the Windsor position firmly committed to the truth by which Anglicanism lives today. My sense is that there are a lot of people in America, ordinary folk in the churches who have not really caught up with what is going on. Part of the difficulty is that there is a myth about in some circles that historic Anglicanism has no particular doctrine and is just a matter of worshipping together and believing what you like. If you go back to the 16th and 17th centuriesm who will find them arguing in great detail over the Articles of Religion which became the Thirty-Nine Articles. They were hugely important. The idea of doctrinal indifferentism is a very recent idea which has sprung up in some parts of America."

He ends by quoting the last paragraph of Windsor. "If we finally discover we cannot walk together, we may have to learn to walk part. None of us wants that."

He's right, none of us does. Outside my front door in Kew is a cherry tree, budding unseasonally in the January sunshine. Soon it will need pruning. I cannot bear to do it, and will ask a gardener to do it for me while I hide inside. But it will have to be done, if it is to flower as beautifully again next year. I guess, from what Tom Wright is saying, that Rowan Williams will be taking a pretty fine set of shears with him to Tanzania next week, newly sharpened, nice and polished. I wonder who, or what, the shears will be, and who will be the gardener he gets to wield them. And whether either, or both, will be of this world, or the next.

digg this

digg this also

Update: Reaction to this interview has been strong.

StandFirm bills it as extraordinary comments. Anglican Scotist has labelled it Wright's Fallacy. Daily Episcopalian hass Tom Wright chooses sides. Father Jake has Durham lobs 11th-hour charge - again. Nasty, Brutish and Short blogs For those wanting to get up to speed on the Anglican crack-up. Caught by the Light has Doctrinal Indifferentism. All Saints Lakeland Florida calls it a view in a crystal ball.  Transfigurations blogs it straight. As does Gadget Vicar. Preludium has Bishop Tom going for the body blow - and missing. Raspberry Rabbit homes in on the choices to be made. Episcopal Chaplain at the bedside has Bishop Tom not wrong, just misinformed. Big Bulky Anglican has Tom Wright meets Ruth Gledhill - or should that be the other way round. Vocatio has What church will we choose? The interface looks at the General Synod story, linked via Digg above.

Comments

[Frank Schnittger]

It all sounds like the “this hurts me more than it hurts you” refrain of my old school master as he belted out the slipper. Tom Wright is engaging in a little amateur politics and Episcopal power play, “we can do this your way or the Wright way” seems to be his motto.

“There are some people in The Episcopal Church who dig themselves very firmly in and talk about rights and justice in the gay lobby. I do not see any way they can be reconciled with those in the Windsor position…”

Is the Windsor position a new form of love making, or a new way of brandishing the cane?

The bottom line is that Canterbury has to choose between Nigeria and America. If he chooses Nigeria he will also lose much of Britain and Ireland - the more so as people gradually realise what Akinola and the Nigerian regime is all about.

Either way, leadership of the Anglican communion will probably pass away from Canterbury to be replaced by two churches centred on Nigeria and TEC. As W. B. Yeats said:

“ Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

Tom Wright is very wrong if he thinks that TEC can put their new wine back into the old bottle, even if they wanted to. The die has already been cast. The only question is whether there is still a role for Canterbury and (Tom Wright) in all of this.

[david skinner]

I somehow don't think that what the African primates have in mind for next week's meeting is a kind of Gardener's Question Time. I would have thought it is was more along the lines of meeting at Mount Carmel

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Ruth,

As an outsider, I must tell you that the whole idea of "schism" is an exercise in political muscle and has nothing to do with God, Yeshua ( Jesus ) , or anything but keeping a whole bunch of folks submissive to those appointed to religious power. It is obvious from the historical record.

Who was the first to impose homogeneity? Well, our boy Constantine who called the first Imperial church council. He was going to get Roman uniformity over religion as well as weights and measures.

When I first saw your headline, my first thought was of chimps in the Congo trimming the upper branches. Come to think of it, I think it's a good image.

[Roger Upodaca]

Americans such as myself have no lack of choice when it comes to anti-gay denominations. There's a least five churches within a stone's throw of where I sit dedicated to the proposition that the only good gay person is a silent, celibate one.

Perhaps there is room for one or two bodies within Christendom -- or even within the good bishop's Anglicanism -- that allow for the possibility that first century moral proscriptions might be re-examined in light of twenty-first century understandings.

If the Church can make accomodations for divorce and usury - clearly condemned by Scripture - or come to the conclusion that slavery is evil - despite its support in Scripture - perhaps it might see its way clear to including all of God's children.

Those who find this abhorent have a multitude of places to turn for support, including, it appears, Nigeria, should more local options be lacking.

I applaud the Episcopal Church for its compassion and, if she's not making friends, she's making exactly the right sort of enemies.

[Alan Marsh]

The bottom line, Frank, is that people will have to choose whether or not to be Anglicans, the terms of which have now been defined by Windsor. The Americans have signalled their preference, which is not to be Anglicans.

[Bill Channon]

My understanding is that there may very well be an ABC and +Wright anda good portion of the CofE continuing the Anglican Communion with the GS without TEC and a number of other liberal churches, all left with their new wine, and unable to or refusing refill the old bottle.
Many in TEC in the USA are married to the New Thing, regardless of whether the 'new thing' is merely a resurgence of 'old things' that were dealt with in the past. Many (of the leadership) in TEC are ossified ageing men (some women), with 40 years of ECUSA behind them, many of whom have authored or supported the new thing and whose internal mantra is power and control with token spirituality.

[Martial Artist]

I am a member of the most Anglo-Catholic parish in the Diocese of Olympia, in Washington State, USA. We are in the midst of a search for a new diocesan bishop. I only have one question: Is there any probability that Bishop Wright would be open to being nominated as a candidate for the office?

Kind regards,

[chip]

The Archbishop does not have to choose between the Americans and Nigerians - he only has to choose which Americans to back. It TEC is kicked out of the Communion whole dioceses will leave TEC for the new Anglican Church/province in America. Many have already done so. An orthodox church would draw perhaps 1/3 of the existing TEC - reclaim many of its lost members such as myself having left a decade ago over the lefward lurchings - plus many who are becomming disenchanted with the liberalization ot the Methodist church. A new province could quickly become a vibrant plant.

[B. Jones]

Mr. Schnittger--a word of warning. Once you get to know what TEC is really about, you may not like it much either. One thing that is not widely realized in the UK is that in many states TEC bishops have life and death power over parishes, not withstanding our much vaunted "separation of church and state." (I am, in fact, using an assumed name for the protection of my parish). In TEC, the parish builds the church, pays all the salaries, all the building and maintenance, but if the bishop can find a means to close the parish, the diocese keeps the proceeds. Since 2002, numerous priests have been deposed without trial (and others have been threatened) for voicing their opposition to TEC policy. There is nothing like your system of "flying bishops" to help accomodate traditionalists. After Windsor, TEC was pressured into providing something called DEPO (delegated episcopal oversight)--in Connecticut, six priests were inhibited MERELY FOR REQUESTING DEPO. A seventh was deposed, and the church building seized, while the priest was in New York getting medical care for his very ill child. A presentment was filed by the affected parishes; the national church has let the matter languish for over a year. In the UK, the 1662 BCP remains the authorized version, and you have alternative service books. In TEC, the 1928 BCP(our equivalent) was actually banned for over 30 years. The current BCP is an alternative service book(with alternative theology) that also includes a watered-down version of some of the Cranmerian liturgy. However, we now have a whole generation of priests who refuse to use even that, on the
grounds that it is "bad theology"
The real reason you are seeing this kind of revolt in TEC, and the desperate appeals to overseas Primates, is that conservatives in the church really had no other recourse.

[Kurt Hill]

Can’t this publicity-seeking purple shirt keep is mouth shut about anything? The more people like Wright bellow, “Disperse, ye rebels! Disperse!” they only make Americans, such as myself, itch to toss more Brit tea into harbors.

[joe]

I suspect this is the beginning of the end, and the Anglican communion as we know it will splinter into five or more fractions. We can only hope that there is some better blood after the divorce than there is during it.

I don't actually think it is a straight choice between Nigeria and the USA, Frank. In the UK we have some large charismatic churches, some evangelical churches, some liberal, some high catholic and some that encompass various elements of these in several proportions.

Even if the USA were to leave, this does not leave a comfortable grouping - and it would not be long before a further split. Alternatively, if Nigeria were to leave, this does not solve the problem either.

Whilst other provinces may be able to cope with a split, the end result in England would be chaos and disasterous. The vast rump of the church, which is neither liberal nor evangelical, charismatic or anglo-catholic would be left holding crumbling buildings with little funds to pay for them. Whether or not Canturbury would retain anything worth having in this situation is anyone's guess.

[r10b]

"If the Church can make accomodations for divorce and usury - clearly condemned by Scripture - or come to the conclusion that slavery is evil - despite its support in Scripture - perhaps it might see its way clear to including all of God's children."

This line of long-dead reasoning has been dug up and set in the witness chair quite often dispite that it proves only how far the proposer is from proper, or even cogent, biblical understanding.

N.T. Wright and company want nothing more than to invite "all of God's children" into the fold, but, given that (according to scripture) we are all sinners, we must (according to scripture) be willing to turn from our sin in order to receive forgiveness and inclusion as God's children.

Any organization that operates otherwise is a social group, not a church (or synagogue or mosque).

[Nick Finke]

I would be more interested in listening to what +Wright says if he were somewhat more evenhanded and seemed to understand that the Windsor Report dealt with more than the "new ideas" from TEC.

What about the "ideas" from Nigeria and Uganda that violate limits on diocesan boundary crossing that have been observed since Nicaea? He seems to have a fixation on the errors of TEC and to completely miss the problems created by people whose approach to Scripture is more like his own. I used to admire him.

[Prior Aelred]

I am extremely puzzled by much of what Bishop Wright has to say -- clearly he doesn't understand the canon law of The Episcopal Church, but I have always read that the Lambeth invite list is of those in communion with the Church of England and that it is determined by the Archbishop of Canterbury AND the Archbishop of York AND that it includes those who are not Anglican (viz., the Church of Sweden & the Old Catholic Church, both of whose positions on women in ministry & inclusion of gays are closer to that of TEC than to the C of E). The membership of the Anglican Consultative Committee is determined by a two-thirds vote of the primates. So it is possible (but I think unlikely) that TEC might find itself invited to Lambeth as in communion with the C of E but excluded from the ACC (which would thereby lose approximately two-thirds of its funding).
Who is supposed to profit from such an outcome I am sure I do not know.

[Dennis]

From another Episcopalian in the Diocese of Olympia.

Martial Arts: Pass. No thanks. We don't need power hungry men like Tom Wright here in the Diocese of Olympia. We need godly people who accept all people and welcome all to the table of the Lord. This is an open and accepting diocese in an open and accepting and welcoming church.

As to Bp Wright's predictions, I think that these neo-conservatives in the church will be quite surprised when Nigeria et al don't get their demands to burn gays at the stake met and walk out of the Anglican communion, leaving England still in communion with America.

Those who don't like gays and lesbians (or women or jews or asians or etc) have other places to worship and they are free to stay or leave. But the Episcopal Church is not going to shut doors or start a new Inquisition to "prune" the faithful, thank you very much. We don't think that animosity toward those who are different has anything to do with the gospel of Christ.

[William R. Coats]

It is not clear to me exactly what world Bishop Wright inhabits. In the first place the interpretation he gives to Windsor is just that that - an interpretation. He means it to say TEC must somehow renounce what it did in 2003. But of course the document, while asking for some response on TEC's part, says no such thing as the Bishop seems to think. Thus we are faced with one man's attempt to bully an entire church. Second, his lfiting of the so-called Windsor Bishops is comic. Few in America side with them, hence their own disarray. They speak for no one, yet Wright would have them leaders of the pack. In fact they gain what ever credence they have from abroad, namely from the likes of Bp. Wright and the Africans. Once again this is bullying.
The consecration of Gene Robinson did not "cause' anything. Bishop Wright and those say in Africa like him "choose" to react the way they did. They could have kept this an in-house disagreement, but instead went on the attack with scurrilous charges (such as the use of Schism which the Bishop bandies about like some club).
The Bishop might ask himslef where in his own consecration vows he received God's call to label a huge portion (if not the whole) of a church)in such a way as to brow beat and threaten. He does not serve the cause of unity (which is in his vows) but acrimony and division. That is his choice, to which I say, "shame."

[Patrick Coleman]

I notice Bishop Wright said nothing about the crossing of diocesan and provinical boundaries by Nigerian and other bishops.
While in the Episcopal church there are some new-agey types, and people who frame their positions in terms of rights rather than in theological and biblical terms, the vast majority of the Episcopalians I know in my church and elsewhere are orthodox in their (range of) beliefs, and yet are accepting of same-sex relationships. We are appalled at the idea that this issue should be considered a communion-breaker. Windsor was supposed to begin a process, but now it seems that process will be short-circuited by ultimata--unless the covenant draft provides some way forward. I earnestly hope that it does.

[The Journalist]

"So why was Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori going to Tanzania?" Good question ole chap. Wasn't the position of ECUSA clearly documented in 'To Set Our Hope on Christ'?

[Frank Durkee]

As a retired priest and 'birth Episcopalian',I am sltruck by the arrogance of the remarks quoted. I am particularly concerned for the clearly one sided view of Scriptural interpretation and sense of the growth of the tradition that is intoned as 'the word' in a thicket ofignored alternative interpretations. My personal view is and has been that the rest of the church needs to catch up with the TEC vanguard. I think that vanguard more nearly, as much as any of us sinners can, catches the movement of The Spirit in this day and age. Wright speaks as though he has the voice of God. The reality I know on the ground is that God speaks in a different tone and to a quite different effect. I do not encounter God as homophobic and I do encounter much of the opposition to TEC as such in some form or another no matter how couched or articulated. That simply becomes a guise to resist our new PB rather than to admit that her gender is also, for some as deep an offense as her support for the TEC positions.

[Alice C. Linsley]

As a former ECUSA priest of 16 years I can speak from some personal experience of what has happened in the American church. The problems started 30 years ago when the seminaries stopped requiring future clergy to study the writings of the Church Fathers. Then the Book of Common Prayer was overhauled by a committee that prided itself in "changing the religion" without anyone hardly noticing. Only many people did notice, but when they complained, the Episcopal Church leadership so demonized and marginalized them that most of the Traditionalists left the Episcopal Church in the 1970s. Then came the ordination of women as priests (here I assume some blame for allowing myself to be used) and the Episcopal Church was divided again. This time there weren't many Traditionalists left to raise a cry. Once catholic orders were set aside, it was easy to introduce the gay agenda, which had Bishop Spong as spokesperson. Then conservative priests were targeted. I was inhibited by my bishop after I expressed opposition to his proposal for same-sex ceremonines in the church. I resigned as Rector of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church on the Sunday that V. Gene Robinson was consecrated. Many other conservative clergy tried to continue in ministry but were hindered in many ways. Countless have been inhibited and/or deposed. The media still speaks as if the issue were homosexuality, apparently unaware that in the Episcopal Church there a long history of imposed innovations and harassment of those who oppose the innovations.

[pendennis88]

We see supporters of ECUSA posting here trotting out the usual arguments: we're just being open and accepting, it is those awful border crossers (unimproved Africans, terribly) who are the real Windsor violators, and anyway, the orthodox are only a handful in the US.

But as B. Jones posted above, ECUSA will not be open and accepting of anyone who disagrees with them. Evangelicals are not tolerated in many US diocese; they are persecuted with depositions, removal of vestry and the like. Graduates of evangelical seminaries are not approved. In "moderate" diocese, the bishop may just send veiled warnings by surrogates, waiting while receiving payments of tribute until the current orthodox priests leave to replace them with more politically correct clergy. The parish declines, then, but it is all very quiet. Threats drive orthodox parishes out of revisionist diocese, and then the diocese sue parishes and individual laypersons, sometimes breaking prior agreements for departure in the process (as in Virginia).

ECUSA has thoroughly rejected any alternative oversight to protect the orthodox, and that is what has caused the border crossing, which anyway is permitted if requested by the parish under the Dromantine Communique of the primates. (Oh, but disregard the primates - our US lawyers are looking at ways to get around them through the ACC and the CoE canons.) But many ECUSANs refuse to acknowledge that it is their persecution of the orthodox that causes the border crossing in the first place. The objection is not so much that it violates some long-held tradition - that is only the ostensible reason; ECUSA has no problem dumping tradition or anything else over the side when it feels like it - it is that it interferes with the project at hand of forcing out the orthodox while subjecting them to maximum pain.

How many evangelical or orthodox bishops in the US have treated the revisionists in their diocese so meanly? None.

And a small group? Well, it is a minority, but it is a number of diocese, and many parishes. 18% of membership, ECUSA itself estimated after the 2003 elevation of Robinson. However, more like 30% of actual attendance, and a comparable amount of giving as well. Of course, the most telling thing is that if the evangelicals and orthodox in ECUSA were so small a presence, the national leadership would let them go, and gladly. Rather, the scorched earth litigation tactics of Schori against, for example, Fr. Yates in Northern Virginia (roughly akin to a left-wing bishop forcing out and then suing John Stott - after agreeing that his parish could leave) are out of fear of how many would join them in leaving.

The reason the communion is in this fix is the rigidity of ECUSA. Did not Williams ask for an amicable separation in his reflections? And what did ECUSA give him but the back of its hand? Oh, the money would be nice, but how can you depend on "friends" like ECUSA? With friends like those, you don't need enemies.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Constantine did not impose uniformity, far from it, he was an exponent of religious liberty.

This is the opening of the Edict of Milan of 313, quoted by Lactantius.

"When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Augustus d fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought -, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule."

Its just that once the Christians benefited from liberty, they behaved as Catholics rather than fissiparous Anglicans.

[Julia Langdon]

Kurt, no need. TEC has tossed the "bonds of affection" into the pond. Besides that, you never paid for the last tea tossed.

As one who hops the pond quite often, it is apparent that TEC as it stands is made redundant by the Metropolitan Community Churches which minister specifically to homosexuals, although all are welcome, and the assortment of Unity churches which are all-encompassing. The Anglican bridge of taking the Scriptures seriously while offering beautiful, meaningful liturgy would do well if the church isn't too tainted by its left-of-left, pantheistic public image.

Unfortunately, TEC has become irrelevant on the American religious landscape, but the conservative groups that have left have been supported in their efforts by other denominations. Even the current pope sent his greetings and best wishes to their Plano meeting. A new dawn for Anglicanism in America could be welcome, indeed.

[Fr. Fred Lindstrom]

Again,+Tom Wright stands as a giant in wisdom, Biblical theology, and rational thought about the state of the Anglican Communion. His is a voice so needed. I hope and pray that the bishops in ECUSA are listening. Our diocese and our church in the USA stands at a crossroads.

[Charlotte]

I'll have to go with the Daily Telegraph rather than the Times on this one.

Best to let the Anglican Communion dissolve; it's outlived its usefulness and is now beginning to cause actual harm. The upcoming Primates' Meeting will be a shameful mess that will do much to discredit Christianity altogether, as far as younger people are concerned.

In the United States, where Evangelicals' identification of Christianity with uncritical support for right-wing social causes and Bush administration policies has already begun to produce a generation of young atheists, I have tried from time to time to offer the Episcopal Church as an alternative. I could present it out as a Christian church that allowed its worshipers to accept, for example, the scientific theory of evolution and the evidence for human-caused global warming, or to have doubts about the justice of the Iraq War and the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanamo, or to believe in the full citizenship of women and gay people.

Alas, if we continue as members of the Anglican Communion, there will shortly be no difference between our church and the rest of Christendom. We'll be just one more narrow, obscurantist, fundamentalist sect among so many more. That would be a genuine loss, I think.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

“If the Anglican Communion, and particularly the American church and others like it, can be renewed according to the pattern of the Windsor Report, which is of course according to the pattern of Scripture..." (Wright) I balk at this. It implies that there is a single pattern of Scripture, that we have identified it, and that it is given expression in a bureaucratic church document. There is a short-circuit here that provides a poor basis for letting all voices be heard.

Was the consecration of Bp Robinson a schismatic act? I thought the Anglican Churches were autonomous, and not legally obliged to follow the wishes of Lambeth Conferences?

Talk of the "gay lobby" sounds contemptuous and inflammatory. The freedom of conscience of gay laity is recognized in Anglicanism; only the gay clergy are obliged to be celibate. If you want to blame anything on the "gay lobby" (recte: the considered judgement of gay and gay-friendly Christians based on long reflection on Scripture, history and the human realities involved) it should be the acceptance of the first principle. The ordination of gay clergy is only a minor issue compared with that.

[The Rev. Bruce S. Bevans]

I am curious as to what Bishop Wright would say to the Evangelicals who have not left TEC. What happens to us after the pruning? Will the Archbishop of Canterbury look out for us, take us under his pastoral wing? We have families to support, pensions to lose, and have already experienced abandonment by like minded Evangelicals and persecution by our dioceses. Large parishes can recover without their property. Small ones need to stay to protect their people and their property. What happens to us? If the Archbishop abandones us, we stand to be involuntarily declared as clergy who have "abondoned the TEC" just be being in disagreement with the majority Revisionists.

[Thomas]

John 15: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."

I think what so many "orthodox" miss is that there are orthodox people who accept and value gay and lesbian relationships as an example of fidelity and self-giving love. We see these relationships bearing a lot of fruit in the cause of the Kingdom of God.

I have yet to see one condemnation from the self styled orthodox that acknowledges the compassion, commitment and service present in these same gay relationships. I think they fear to look personally.

Bishop Wright, you quote is an apt one, I just wish you would be brave enough to admit that there are indeed fruitful gay and lesbian Chrsitians.

[the jeff]

Many of these arguments, frankly, suck. Let me recap.

(1) Wright = Power-monger, bully. Of course, it couldn't actually have anything to do with an interest in speaking (what he believes is) truth. /sarcasm

(2) Those who believe homosexuality is a sin = backward homophobes, who are probably women-haters and want to advocate slavery. /sarcasm

If you think the there can still be unity giving the severity of the issue, of which the same-sex issue is a symptom, then you haven't really explored the two arguments. Beyond the moral-theological issues, there is also the issue of American unilateralism in ecclesiology. The differences in each of these areas, and especially when they've been combined, will necessarily cause splintering.

[JCF]

"in 2003 when the Americans first gave acquiesence to Gene Robinson at their General Convention"

"There are some people in The Episcopal Church who dig themselves very firmly in and talk about rights and justice in the gay lobby."

Acquiesence to Gene Robinson? Gay lobby? What the heck is he talking about???

+Wright is WRONG (and clearly out-of-touch w/ reality---and a *disgrace* to the beautiful cathedral that seats him, and ALL things "Anglican")

Lord have mercy!

[Anne Tower]

Your e-mails seem to be missing the point! This is not about Gene Robinson and his ordination, although this is a symptom of the problem. The TEC voted twice, during two conventions, not to accept the authority of scripture. Without this authority what do you have? I'm not willing to stay in a church where anything goes, sin is no longer recognized, God is not the head of the church and the Bible is a meaningless book.

Leaving TEC is painful, but necessary for my continuing commitment to Christ.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Ruth,

So, an African threatens to "poach" other countries over the issue of "gays". Others threaten to quit.

Is this what the God of Israel had in mind? How very silly.

Re Constantine - one of your readers thinks him a libertarian. Be advised that the first laws restricting and demeaning Jews were passed under his reign.

[Stephen Marsden]

Extraordinary. All these rants from poor, misunderstood, persecuted Episcopalians - and not once has the word 'polity' appeared!

[Frank Schnittger]

Joe – I fully accept your thesis that there cannot be a clean split between TEC and Nigerian factions. The reality is far more complex than that, and if a split does happen, a splintering is the much more likely consequence.

Part of my reason for taking issue with Tom Wright is that this is not some kind of high stakes poker game where the winner is he who out toughs and out talks and out bluffs the rest. The only point on which we agree is that a splintering will result in nothing but losers.

But in leading the charge of the conservative wing, Tom Wright is making a split all but inevitable. Not only can TEC not back down now, but he is making the chances of some kind of uneasy co-existence all but impossible. The very outcome he affects to despise is the most likely consequence of his actions.

Difficult and all as the current co-existence of mutually hostile and conflicting views may be, it is nothing compared to the trauma which a splintering would occasion.

Some may like to dream that a reborn Anglican Communion could arise from the ashes. More likely the vultures of secularism and more aggressive denominations will pick over the bones of what remains. (And that only includes those who will not lose their faith entirely because of the bitterness the splintering process will engender).

It is a fiction of modern life that there can be ideological purity and conformity in all things. Some of the disputes centre on entirely valid but different developments of theology and tradition. It may be hundreds of years before a new orthodoxy emerges which all can subscribe to – if ever. That is not the point. It is how we accommodate genuine differences that defines contemporary Christianity and Anglicanism. – not it’s English origins.

Alan Marsh says “The bottom line, Frank, is that people will have to choose whether or not to be Anglicans, the terms of which have now been defined by Windsor. The Americans have signalled their preference, which is not to be Anglicans”

This is the case only if we define Anglicanism by its English roots rather than by its current global reality, which is one of autonomous provinces managing their own affairs (however badly, in many instances).

We lose the essence of Anglicanism when we lose the ability to tolerate those whose views are different from our own. TEC may be as guilty of this as any other province. That does not mean that Canterbury should compound the error by sundering what remains of a fragile unity.

Whatever remains if/when Anglicanism is sundered; it will not be Anglicanism, but a disparate set of remnant Churches with no claim to the Authority of the communion as a whole. The issue here is not who is ultimately right or wrong, but whether a tradition based on a tolerance of difference can survive, in TEC and in every other province of the communion.

Tom Wright has done that communion of tolerance and diversity no favours at all. Hopefully Canterbury will prove to be much more than his “intellectual equal”.

[simon]

John Paul II, in his Encyclical "Faith and Reason", started it off;

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself

What I think we have in many of these issues is an imbalance between the two, and no bird flies straight when one wing is left to flop around. With the US right wing evangelists, faith in scripture is all, and even when there are mountains of reasoned evidence that the earth is billions of years old and creatures did evolve (assuming God is not deeply deceptive), they prefer to choose the most primitive interpretation of scripture. In reality God has given us reason, as well as faith and scripture, which can allow us to approach a truth we can only now see "darkly through glass".

The left wing represented by TEC, consider that reason is all, and that faith is just a vague guiding principle. So Jesus may or may not have been the son of God, who may or may not really exist, but he said some very clever, loving and positive things that are worth taking seriously in ones reasoning. In this way it becomes easy to say that Jesus only chose men as his apostles because he was still a man of his time - and now we have more informed views on these things. What is seen by traditional Christians as being the Son of God being the perfect example, and often ignoring the conventions of the day, becomes someone who would be very different if he lived today. Jesus general ethos of loving and forgiving is rightly considered the heart of his teachings, but their context becomes a relativistic one where human understanding is equal to scripture.

In the encyclical I mentioned above, JPII starts the section titled Reason before the mystery;

13. It should nonetheless be kept in mind that Revelation remains charged with mystery. It is true that Jesus, with his entire life, revealed the countenance of the Father, for he came to teach the secret things of God. But our vision of the face of God is always fragmentary and impaired by the limits of our understanding. Faith alone makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently.

A little later he continues;

What is distinctive in the biblical text is the conviction that there is a profound and indissoluble unity between the knowledge of reason and the knowledge of faith. The world and all that happens within it, including history and the fate of peoples, are realities to be observed, analysed and assessed with all the resources of reason, but without faith ever being foreign to the process. Faith intervenes not to abolish reason's autonomy nor to reduce its scope for action, but solely to bring the human being to understand that in these events it is the God of Israel who acts. Thus the world and the events of history cannot be understood in depth without professing faith in the God who is at work in them. Faith sharpens the inner eye, opening the mind to discover in the flux of events the workings of Providence. Here the words of the Book of Proverbs are pertinent: “The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps” (16:9). This is to say that with the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith. Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.

We are of course all sinners, and hope that God will reconcile that which we damage by what we do and say and think. But whilst we know that all have fallen short, the church itself must always stand firmly for the ideal revealed in scripture. At some stage on its path towards supposed 'inclusivity' through relativism, where belief in the resurrection is optional (and the only philosophy that is excluded is the traditional Christian views that have remained essentially the same for 2000 years), there must come a stage where Anglicanism risks becoming more a charity that maintains buildings, than a Christian faith. Its kind of like asking at what stage a grave robber becomes an archaeologist. Its not just what they do but how they do it and why. The TEC seem to have crossed past the line where their central issue is God as revealed through Jesus.

If it means the huge range of biblical Anglicans, from the evangelicals in Brompton to the high Church folks at the other end, become unified enough to make the transformation required to rejoin in some form with the more firmly grounded Catholic Church, then I think a split would perhaps be the best outcome. It would take time and be quite bumpy, but I think a graft would be more successful in the long run than pruning (which may be a necessary first step anyway). But there is no clear end to the road of relativism, and so the divisions can only continue to grow otherwise.

[Martin]

This is what you get when you turn away from the Vicar of Christ. But then one of the upsides to all this may be that with the incipient collapse of worldwide Anglicanism, and with English Anglicanism tearing itself apart over gays and women, perhaps the more Anglo-Catholic elements may become reconciled to Rome. Indeed, a group calling itself the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is apparently already in talks with Rome over a Uniate-style agreement, retaining its own rite but being readmitted into the Church.

[whb]

"The TEC voted twice, during two conventions, not to accept the authority of scripture. Without this authority what do you have? I'm not willing to stay in a church where anything goes, sin is no longer recognized, God is not the head of the church and the Bible is a meaningless book"

Hogwash. There is no need to vote to 'recognize the authority of scripture' during a General Convention. Its as stupid as wasting our time to take a vote to say "Jesus is Lord". Obviously, you have no concept of what General Convention is suppose to do and have an elementary (well perhaps 3rd grade)understanding of what was being asked in those flawed resolutions.

To waste our time with theologically flawed - yes flawed - resolutions which in fact would have forced the General Convention to recognize one atonement theory among many that the Church offers. We have an authorized Book of Common Prayer which contains the Catechism and the Creeds. I would suggest that you go read them and when you do you will find that the church affirms the authority of Scripture - in fact - it says that the Church has the authority to interpret scripture. Nothing has changed although the self-proclaimed 'orthodox' like to whine about it because it makes a great headline.

[Jake]

"...I'm not willing to stay in a church where anything goes, sin is no longer recognized, God is not the head of the church and the Bible is a meaningless book..."

What an ugly false witness.

The resolutions you mention were troublesome due to the way they were written, not because the Episcopal Church has rejected scripture. Claiming that Episcopalians consider the bible "meaningless" suggests that it has been awhile since you worshipped in an Episcopal Church. Our liturgies include more scripture than most traditions.

As far as "anything goes" and "sin is not recognized," you will find the confession as also being included in most Episcopal liturgies, as well as the Nicene Creed.

We are a people who take to heart the concept of "lex orandi, lex credendi". If you want to know what Episcopalians believe, I suggest you worship with them.

In the meantime, please stop spreading such false accusations. Thank you.

[Lutheran Zephyr]

I know this is an internal debate within the Anglican Communion, but when I hear the grand and ultimate declarations, gnashing of teeth over threats of schism, and the grandious titles of Primates and Bishops, I wonder if these folks couldn't benefit from a little bit of perspective - schism has already won the day! The Church is much larger than the Anglican communion. At what point is denominational unity/identity an idol at whose altar we are bowing? Furthermore, at what point are we willing to recognize that ecclesial hierarchies and beurocracies are unable to bring about true unity and faithful mission in the church? Where is the church located - in the local parish pew, or in the throne and miter of a bishop?

Unity and fellowship within a tradition are important - I value the unity and community that exists in many parts of the Lutheran church - but c'mon, Canterbury ain't Rome, and Rome ain't what it used to be. This just seems to be a bunch of disconnected, hierarchical, ecclessial political rambling.

[Kurt Hill]

“This is what you get when you turn away from the Vicar of Christ”

Oh Mary, please spare us from this papist hogwash!

[Alan Marsh]

in leading the charge of the conservative wing, Tom Wright is making a split all but inevitable Nice try, Frank, but we are not talking about the conservative wing here: the Windsor Report represents mainstream Anglicanism, much though you and others here would wish to relegate it to the margins.

In due course each province will be asked whether it wishes to affirm this definition by signing up to it in a Covenant. The Episcopal Church will have to decide: does it prefer its own self-definition and independence from the Anglican Communion? Or will it turn back from trying to re-write the Bible, the history of the Church and the holy orders which formerly, but sadly no longer, used to unite Anglicans world wide?

It is pretty clear what the answer from TEC will be, which is regrettable, but it is their choice.

[simon]

Kurt Hill

Oh Mary, please spare us from this papist hogwash!

We suddenly seem to have people washing pigs. Another one of them said;

WHB

I would suggest that you go read them and when you do you will find that the church affirms the authority of Scripture - in fact - it says that the Church has the authority to interpret scripture. Nothing has changed although the self-proclaimed 'orthodox' like to whine about it because it makes a great headline.

So the "self-proclaimed" are the ones following the Church Jesus himself gave authority to, in the very scriptures these who like to wash pigs claim to accept ? Doesn't seem very self-proclaimed - me thinks they do protest too much! Truth cannot contradict truth.

[Deacon David Apker]

Some of the remarks I have just read tell me all there is to know about the revisionists, to wit:

* ad hominem attacks

* thinly disguised racism

* adherence to ancient geographical boundaries but never mind about ancient creeds and doctrine.

[Roger Upodaca]

This line of long-dead reasoning has been dug up and set in the witness chair quite often dispite that it proves only how far the proposer is from proper, or even cogent, biblical understanding.

An ad hominem rejoinder does not make your point. But, as a honest seeker of truth, I am ready to be instructed by those with a more cogent, proper approach.

Is there something singular about homosexual acts - and especially those within the context of a covenanted relationship - that make their proscription timeless, while other injunctions of apparently equal Biblical weight no longer apply?

What is the discernment process for identifying Biblical material that can be safely disregarded or rationalized and that which must be obeyed at the risk of one's eternal soul?

I'm not suggesting that it's "anything goes" doctrinally or morally or that all interpretative approaches are equally valid. Far from it. Let's assume the Creeds and the authority of Scripture as normative so as not to distract into side issues.

But surely there must be a unassailable hermeneutic behind the rejection of homosexual acts on scriptural grounds in light of the fervency of those who advocate such a position.

[Oliver Nicholson]

A pedant writes:
Dear Ruth,
Constantine was, one feels, a more complex character than your correspondents make out.
The Edict of Milan was not an edict and was not issued at Milan - otherwise the traditional name for it is remarkably apt ! The Letter of Licinius is a more accurate term..
The 'toleration' the Letter proclaimed certainly brought an end to the Great Persecution, but by later making pagan sacrifice illegal Constantine knocked out the keystone of Greco-Roman civic religion - the 'toleration' he implemented was therefore rather one-sided.
The Council of Nicaea does not seem to me an attempt to impose imperial control on the Church but an attempt to be helpful in resolving the Arian controversy. It produced a formula about a matter absolutely central to Christian faith (homoousios), but it took a further half-century of meetings, debate, pain and disagreement before the formula really came to stick. There was certainly no Vicar of Christ to enforce it from on high - even the Roman emperors (e.g. the maligned Constantius II) could not bring about concord. The whole process of decision-making does rather reassure one that Anglicans do indeed follow the rather messy practice of the Undivided Church of the first 4 councils (as e.g. the 1558 Act of Uniformity asserts). The author of the most impressive modern study of the theology of the Arian controversy is one R. Williams. As one prays for him, one is thankful that he has at hand the wisdom which comes from a real understanding of the church's highly bumpy history. .
Yours till Hell freezes over,
O.P. Nicholson

[Flatlander]

I see great hypocrisy of those who oppose the ordination of homosexuals when they allow the ordination of women, both of which the Bible does not allow (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Like the Episcopal Church in America, other provinces of the Anglican Council marginalize the relevance of the scriptures. It certainly appears that the interpretation of God's will and the Word for the contemporary Episcopal Church (and some other provinces) must conform to its preconceived, radical social agendas.

As a result of the policies adopted by the Episcopal Church in the last 30 years, culminating with the advocacy of homosexual ordination, there has been a "precipitous" decline in membership and funds. God will lead His people and direct the necessary funds according to His will and to where it will do the most good.

Greater problems than these will befall those churches that do not repent and abide in the God-inspired Word of the Bible. They have the Good News in their hands, but the arrogance of the leaders of TEC prevents them from attaining it.

[Alan Marsh]

Roger Upodaca asks for a "discernment process" and he might like to consider the principle, "securus iudicat orbis terrarum" put forward by St Augustine - best translated along the lines of "the safest judgement is to be found in the consensus of the universal Church".

John Henry Newman became convinced that this meant the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, which is a considerably greater portion of world Christianity than the tiny and dying Episcopal Church USA.

But even as Anglicans, if we seek to know the mind of the Church within the Anglican Communion, it is quite clear that the great majority of members and scholars do not support the revisionism of TEC and its leadership on this issue.

The best guide to interpretation of the scriptures, it is argued, is to seek the mind of the Church, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox.

It is on this basis that the scriptures are not understood to require circumcision, or the strict dietary laws of the Old Testament. Equally, the Church as a whole (RC, Orthodox, Anglican) regards the model of male+female in Genesis as the only model for sexual relations between human beings in marriage, and continues therefore to regard the prohibition on homosexual intercourse contained within both Old and New Testaments as expressing the truth.

Of course this is just one instance of the Church determining what is morally right or morally wrong, no graver or lighter than many others.

But the issue has come to prominence in debate because some are attempting to rewrite the Bible, and turn Christian moral teaching upside-down, by inetrpreting the Scriptures contrary to their evident meaning, in order to pursue a secular ideological agenda.

On this issue the great majority of world Christianity is firmly united: the only place for human sexual activity is within the marriage of a man and a woman, exclusively committed to each other.

ECUSA has been given plenty of time to decide, whether to continue to pursue its secular ideology? or to conform to the authority of scripture and the mind of the world Church, to which it professes to belong?

But ECUSA will not decide and continues to equivocate. The leaders of the Anglican Communion must make the decision for ECUSA. That time of decision has come.

[Maduka]

This is slightly off topic.

I just don't get this desire to be in communion with Rome. Nobody in Nigeria (where I come from), is interested in joining up with Rome.

Is anyone listening to the voices of people outside the West - we don't give a d_mn about Rome!

[Brian]

Roger,

You said: "I'm not suggesting that it's "anything goes" doctrinally or morally or that all interpretative approaches are equally valid."

But that is precisely what you are suggesting. You can't have it both ways. You cannot appeal to Nicea and other early councils and then reject the canons produced by those councils, some of which deal with this very topic.

It has been the unbroken Christian tradition that people are to be either celibate or to be married. There is absolutely no question that this has been and is the traditional teaching of the Church.

You then say: "But surely there must be a unassailable hermeneutic behind the rejection of homosexual acts on scriptural grounds in light of the fervency of those who advocate such a position."

There is no such thing as an "unassailable hermeneutic." One can use the Bible to support whatever one's particular hobby horse happens to be. One can use it to buttress racism, facism, socialism, democracy, monarchy, Freudianism, free love...whatever.

That is why tradition is so important. Its easy to make an argument based on the Bible. Anybody with a Bible who has a rudimentary education can do this. Its not so easy to make an argument when one is doing so within the constraints of the tradition of the Church.

The TEC and others don't give one whit about tradition. They want to remake the Church in their own image. Any "hermeneutic" which gets in the way is rejected a priori. Any person who holds to these traditional positions, especially clergy in the TEC, is vivesected with glee in much the same what that "Bishop" Scary vivisected her first octopus.

By rejecting the wisdom of the Church, they reject the Church.

[J Pearce]

Would it be unkind of me to point out, that all this internecine warfare is merely a microcosm of the history of religion, since the dawn of time? Humans parroting various interminably long-winded, obscurantist and rather pointless religious doctrines at each other, arrogantly assuming that their version is the only version worth living by (and by extension, forcing upon others)? Then ostracising and vilifying those who don't agree?

It all seems wearily familiar.

Somehow, I just don't think that this was what God intended.

Assuming he exists at all, of course...

[Martin]

"Nobody in Nigeria (where I come from), is interested in joining up with Rome."

Well, you should be - for if you are not in communion with Rome, you are outside the Church.

[Alan Marsh]

OK, JPearce, perhaps you can show us a few examples of secular organisations which never have internal debates - preferably ones which have some 2 billion members and a 2,000 year history?

[Nigel Taber-Hamilton]

This is classic Modernist thinking on the part of the Bishop of Durham.

It will always produce winners and losers. It's also typical of the Bishop of Durham's cultural blinders, that are so huge that I'm surprised he doesn't trip over them!

Apparently the good bishop also diasgrees with the chair of the Lambeth Commission, Archbishop Eames, who - on more than one occasion - has stated his belief that TEC has, indeed, "express[ed] regret in the terms set out in Windsor."

When two members of the Lambeth Commission disagree about the response of the Episcopal Church whom are we to believe?

Durham also reveals a total lack of awareness as to what the Bishop of Pittsburgh is actually up to - scheming to split the Episcopal Church, supporting the crossing of Diocesan boundaries, proclaiming other Christians to be "heretics, aliens, foreigners": this can hardly be described as being "a Windsor Bishop".

This insulting lack of knowledge is revealed even more by the following comment: "That is why Rowan Williams has invited two bishops to represent the solid, Windsor-rooted centre of the American Church."

"The solid, Windsor-rooted centre of the American Church"? For one thing, what are our Canadian brothers and sisters? Chopped liver?

More deeply, however, the Bishop of Durham is living in a fantasy world if he believes that these two bishops represent the "centre" of the Episcopal Church. At most they might represent 15% of Episcopalians.

With such uninformed and thoughtless commentary coming from an otherwise very bright bishop it is small wonder that the Anglican Communion is in such trouble at this time in its history.

Fr. Nigel Taber-Hamilton
Rector, St. Augustine's-in-the-woods Episcopal Church, Freeland WA, Episcopal Diocese of Olympia
www.staugustinesepiscopalchurch.org

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

Humans parrot a lot of things. They parrot various interminably long-winded, obscurantist and rather pointless political and philosophical doctrines at each other.

Its a neat way to marginalize one's beliefs, no? Just say that they are parroting various interminably long-winded...etc.

Have you ever heard a politician speak?

How about atheists parroting various interminably long-winded obscurantist and rather pointless arguments? Heaven forbid!

Oooppss...I shouldn't have said "Heaven forbid"....I should have said "Historical Process Forbid!" Sorry.

[Roger Upodaca]

That is why tradition is so important. Its easy to make an argument based on the Bible. Anybody with a Bible who has a rudimentary education can do this. Its not so easy to make an argument when one is doing so within the constraints of the tradition of the Church.

Thank you for that cogent response. It addresses nicely the fallacy of "sola scriptura".

However, the question then becomes "How do we distinguish between Tradition and tradition?". The Vincentian Canon (all things believed at all times in all places) is often cited as the standard, but I would aver this represents more of an ideal than an actual description of the doctrinal life of the Church.

For example, most of the world's Christians, at one time, subscribed to an Arian understanding of the nature of Christ. In a more contemporary issue, "penal substitutionary atonement" is, at least among evangelicals, considered a fundamental article of faith, yet for the first thousand years of Christianity (until Anselm), that view was not articulated, much less believed.

Issues of Christology and soteriology can hardly be classified as "shellfish" adiaphora, can they? Yet we've seen substantial change and development in these areas of Tradition.

So once again, I raise the question, what is it about proscription of same-gender genital acts that it cannot be re-evaluated in light of Tradition and Scripture?

I would contend that there is a case, illumined by Scripture and Tradition, that same-gender convenanted relationships are not only permissable, but can serve as an example of sacramental grace for the Church and the world.

The Episcopal Church presented such a case in the document "To Set Our Hope on Christ". Whether this document adequetely articulated a position supported by Scripture and Tradition is, of course, debatable and should be vigorously examined.

But the oft-repeated charge against the Episcopal Church is that she has never considered Scripture and Tradition, but only been concerned with issues of secular rights. This is demonstrably untrue and those who continue to repeat it bear false witness.

I encourage those who sincerely seek a deeper understanding of these issues to read that document as a starting point for further discernment.

On a less abstract level, I have found it insightful to visit www.gaychristian.net and see mutually respectful discussions between Christians who identify as gay, some of whom believe they are called to holiness through celibacy and some who believe they are called to holiness through convenanted relationships.

[Alan Marsh]

The Episcopal Church presented such a case in the document "To Set Our Hope on Christ"

Indeed it did, but the document has not passed the test of acceptance by mainstream Christianity, and ought to be withdrawn. It has been vigorously debated in a wide variety of fora (it is not exactly a new argument although the claims put forward for a unique revelation to ECUSA are somewhat startling) and it has been found to fall short of the basic standard of compatibility with holy scripture as the wider church understands it.

[Roger Upodaca]

...the document has not passed the test of acceptance by mainstream Christianity, and ought to be withdrawn.

Ah, well, then, case closed, right? So that's how revelation works -- take your best shot and it's a straight up and down vote by "mainstream Christianity" and, if you lose, shut your piehole.

I'm being facetious, of course, but I really don't think this issue will be resolved during the lifetime of anyone reading this blog.

If TEC wants to be prophetic, then they need to review the Biblical record - yes, some of them own and read Bibles - of what happens to prophets. Getting kicked out of the Anglican Communion should be the least of their worries if they truly believe what they are doing is of God. The "Gamaliel Test" will proceed apace.

But those who oppose the direction of the TEC might find that God is, in fact, doing not so much a new thing, but the old thing in a new way. It's not unprecedented.

Time will tell. A little humility is order all around, though, I think.

[Alan Marsh]

"Shut your piehole" seems to sum up the attitude of ECUSA pretty neatly!

ECUSA has been pushing these arguments for at least 20 years, gradually distancing itself not only from significant numbers of its own members, but from the wider Anglican Communion to which it professes to belong.

The institutions within ECUSA have been purged of any opposition ("Shut your piehole") but it is finally impossible to compel conscience, which is why large sections of ECUSA have left, or are leaving, or are aligning themselves with other parts of the Anglican Communion.

And the case IS about to be closed: despite frenzied but doomed efforts to buy support in Africa, ECUSA has failed to convince many people that it has been chosen by God to usher in a new revelation, and most have concluded that ECUSA has simply got it all wrong.

ECUSA has had plenty of time and two General Conventions to consider the damage its leadership is doing, and has not only set its face firmly against the judgement of the wider Communion, but elected as its presiding bishop someone whose theology is deeply suspect to non-existent.

By all means try the Gamaliel Test, but within 20 years there may be nobody left in ECUSA to ask about the result.

[J Pearce]

Alan (and to a lesser extent Brian),

You haven't really understood what I've said. When I said "microcosm", I wasn't just referring to the history of Anglicanism, I was referring to the history of religion, full stop.

I think it’s a bit sad that after all this time, religions cannot get their act together. Remember, all religions claim to be the mouthpiece of God - this will be the God who Created Everything, He Who Is Infallible etc etc - and those who preach whatever religious doctrine they happen to be preaching (or whatever flavour of that doctrine they happen to be pushing), always justify the precedence of their doctrine over all others, precisely because they purport to be preaching "the word of God".

They assume the mantle of reflecting the Wisdom of God, yes? Well, I don't see much wisdom in the perpetual state of warfare that exists (and has existed, since the year dot), both between competing religious ideologies and within religions themselves. Where is God in all of that?

I should also point out, that when atheists argue, at least they don't rely on justifying the precedence of their argument by referring to an unprovable, ethereal, uncontactable uber-entity. Dare I suggest, that their arguments are more centered in the real world?

(I also note the argument being put forward, regarding the importance of "Tradition" within Christian belief. Good grief! If mankind had based all its decisions on the importance of following "tradition", the invention of the wheel would have been rejected for being far too radical. I mean, its traditional to walk everywhere, isn't it? That’s what God gave us legs for, right?!)

[Frank Schnittger]

Roger Upodaca: "Time will tell. A little humility is order all around, though, I think."

If you are looking for humility, Roger, you are looking up the wrong piehole! Alan has frequently lectured all and sundry who might dare to disagree with his pronouncements on all matters - most recently the British Government's introduction of regulations outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Even in Britain he has lost every argument. The House of Commons passed the regulations by a margin of 299 to 13 and Alan was supported in his view only by the small, sectarian, party of Dr. Paisley in Northern Ireland.

In his bitterness he often turns to racial abuse or the sarcastic put down. But he does not speak for all in the Anglican Communion, not even in Britain, and certainly not in Ireland. He has been as dismissive of Archbishop Robin Eames, Chairman of the Lambeth Commission which authored the Windsor Report, as he has been of you. You are in good company, and TEC does not travel alone.

[Oliver Nicholson]

I am no theologian but it seems to me that what Anglicans mean when they invoke "Tradition", J. Pearce, is not that they wish to repeat the past, but rather that they hope to face the future in a way which does not bettray the past, rather as Anglo-American Common Law grows organically from precedent: as the twig is bent... This requires a whole pile of prayerful discernment, rather than an end-run appeal to some authority less than God (which is why Anglicans might accept Newman's notion of development of doctrine but not his Bekehrung nach Rom). This is not so much a matter of reflecting the Wisdom of God, rather of reflecting on it (with quite a degree of fear and trembling).

[pendennis88]

It was said "the Bishop of Durham is living in a fantasy world if he believes that these two bishops [Duncan and McPherson] represent the "centre" of the Episcopal Church. At most they might represent 15% of Episcopalians."

I believe the official count from spokespersons for ECUSA as of 2003 was 18%. However, that was based on membership, not aveage Sunday attendance, known as ASA. As evangelicals tend to appear somewhat more regularly in church on Sundays, and give more money, they are believed to be somewhat more than that, 25-30% in actual ASA and giving, though that is obscured by the recent departures and that giving has been redirected in the last few years. The diocese of Olympia, being in the northwest US, probably does not have many evangelicals.

What I would describe as a fantasy world is that ECUSA thinks it can continue to suppress and drive out the Anglican evangelicals in its ranks, suing them all as they go out the door, show the middle finger to Williams and the other primates on a daily basis, and yet continue to be a part of the Anglican Communion in peace.

[J Pearce]

Oliver,

Thank you for the considered post. I am struck by the phrase "betray the past". Surely any kind of change from received "Tradition" is a "betrayal" of what has gone before? And change can happen incrementally. As Christian doctrine has been tweaked and amended in small ways over the centuries, I'm sure that what is now understood as "Tradition" is very much different from what it was hundreds of years ago (although, obviously, this would be hard to prove).

Also, where is the wisdom of God defined? Is it not the Bible? Has that not itself been passed through word of mouth, then set down in script, revised, translated and re-translated over the centuries? I find it hard to believe that so many people are fixated on the Bible as the invioable "word of God", when as an artifact, it has undergone an organic growth all of its own.

[Alan Marsh]

Misrepresentation as usual from Frank, whose grasp of Parliamentary procedure, like his theology, is somewhat tenuous and subjective.

We have yet to see the final form of the Regulations which he mentions, although if you read his post uncritically, you might imagine that all has been settled.

Nor does he mention that for some reason the UK government has chosen, unlike other European governments, to be prescriptive beyond the requirements of the relevant European directive. Frank approves of denying freedom of religion to the Churches, so he is an enthusiastic supporter of the London regime.

Lord Eames has indeed made some unguarded remarks in ECUSA about the Windsor Report, but it appears that he supports the ECUSA agenda, so it is hardly surprising that he should encourage ECUSA to persist in its disastrous course towards self-imposed isolation.

Eames however is no longer one of the Anglican primates, and the decision as to whether or not ECUSA (or even the Church of Ireland) is properly to be regarded as Anglican any longer rests with that international gathering - not with ECUSA itself, not with Lord Eames, and certainly not with Frank.

That is the whole point of the Windsor principle: individuals and even provinces are not Anglican on their own terms. The definition is made by the worldwide church, and we are about to see the principle carried through, between this month's meeting of primates in Tanzania, and the international Lambeth Conference in 2008.

[Brian]

Dear Roger,

You said: "So once again, I raise the question, what is it about proscription of same-gender genital acts that it cannot be re-evaluated in light of Tradition and Scripture?"

If a "tradition" can be "re-evaluated" (i.e. dispensed with) then it is no longer a tradition in the Christian sense. Its just a custom that can be changed at whim. You can "re-evaluate" anything you want...and end up with Sola Scriptura plus Sola Traditio. The result is the same...anyone is able to use any hermeneutic to get the result they so desperately want.

I think you are trying to have your theological cake and eat it, too. You seem to want tradition when it suits and to reject it when it doesn't.

You are trying to fit something that is not traditional into a paradigm of tradition. It just won't work.

Its best to be honest. If this is your point of view, just say the Bible and Tradition got it wrong and you have it right. We can then anoint you as Pope Roger I.

God bless you.

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

You said: "I think it’s a bit sad that after all this time, religions cannot get their act together."

This is kind of a silly statement, isn't it? Its sad that political parties in democracies cannot "get their act together." Its sad that economists cannot "get their act together." How about the lawyers?

Well, I will concede to you the lawyers.

I am not sure where it says that religions have to agree. Religious ideas, like political and social ideas, are varied. What is wrong with that? I don't understand the argument that all religions should agree.

Churches are also made up of people, just any other social organization. And just like them factionalism is rife. This is the result of our fallen nature, not necessarily of the group that we associate with.

You said: "Well, I don't see much wisdom in the perpetual state of warfare that exists (and has existed, since the year dot), both between competing religious ideologies and within religions themselves."

Right. Lets ban political parties, free speech, economists, and lawyers because they don't agree, either.

Well, I will concede to you the lawyers.

You said: "I should also point out, that when atheists argue, at least they don't rely on justifying the precedence of their argument by referring to an unprovable, ethereal, uncontactable uber-entity. Dare I suggest, that their arguments are more centered in the real world?"

You can dare, but you would be as wrong as you are on other matters.

You should consider that atheists are no more centered on the "real world" than Christians.

The problem with atheism is that it cannot explain a lot of phenomena. It cannot come up with a coherent moral system OTHER than basing it on the person or persons trying formulate one. In this case, the individual becomes the "uber-entity."

God bless you.

[Frank Schnittger]

Oh dear! Where does one start, or does one even bother?

Firstly the 299 to 13 vote I referred to passed the regulations into law in Northern Ireland. There the debate is over. In relation to Britain the Prime Minister, Tony Blair has also said there will be no religious opt out - but has given the Church some time to prepare before the full regulations are implemented.

Secondly, I do not live in Britain, so whether or not I support the Government there is irrelevant. As it happens I opposed the invasion of Iraq (and Ireland's involvement in Rendition flights) and support measures to outlaw discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual (and religious) orientation.

Far from denying the freedom of religion to Churches, I am an enthusiastic exponent of such freedom. However I do not believe such freedom extends to discrimination against particular groups of people in the secular sphere. They too have rights, something Alan is rarely willing to concede to others.

Alan is also mistaken in his understanding of the European dimension. Firstly I commented on this extensively on the previous thread, so why I should repeat it here, I’m not sure.

Secondly it has nothing whatever to do with a European Directive as stated by Alan, but is a case brought against France in the European Court under certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. (European Directives are instruments of the EU, an entirely different body to the European Court or the European Convention on Human Rights).

Thirdly, I actually argued the point made by Alan – that Britain had gone further than required under the Convention. It did so because there is an overwhelming political consensus in Britain that discrimination against particular groups because of their beliefs, origins or orientations is wrong. In seeking to perpetuate such discrimination, Alan, and those of similar views, are driving the Church to the margins of British society.

Having sought to elevate the Windsor document to the level of the 39 Articles – as THE defining expression of Anglicanism – Alan is now faced with the awkward reality that the chief author of that document does not regard it as a charter for excluding TEC. He takes refuge in the fact the Lord Eames has recently retired. However his successor has given no indication of a different view.

Perhaps Alan is right, and TEC will ultimately be excluded. I do not have a crystal ball and do not make any prediction either way. However the “Anglicanism” which would remain after such an expulsion will not be the Anglicanism we know today. Having successful encouraged the trend towards the marginalisation of Anglicanism in the U.K., no doubt Alan wants to achieve a similar “success” on a global scale.

We have seen what narrow sectarianism and the attempt to discriminate against others has done in Ireland. Please pardon us if we do not wish to travel that road on a Global scale.

I commend Oliver's irenic post above. He was able to articulate better than I a view of Christian Tradition as a living entity.

While this has been a most instructive conversation, it seems to me to not have progressed beyond (a) "Chris