Anglican Mainstream

By George Conger, The Living Church

From AAC

Beloved in Christ,

The General Convention of The Episcopal Church (TEC) is now well over, but the ramifications of the actions taken there are starting to hit the grassroots level in those few remaining orthodox TEC dioceses. From South Carolina to Albany, from the Midwest to South Central, conversations are taking place where Episcopalians gather. It takes a while for parishioners who don’t follow Anglican news closely to become aware that the General Convention was another disaster for orthodox Christianity, not just for Anglicans, and for them to start talking with each other and then with their priest, but it’s now happening.

The problem for the orthodox in TEC is that no one has yet put forward a well-thought-out, realistic, attainable way forward, other than leaving TEC. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury has issued an analysis which, while accurate in many respects, lacks a concrete plan of action that he is willing to implement, the question is "what is the way forward?" If Dr. Williams were willing to act in favor of Anglican orthodoxy, granting independent recognition of the Communion Partner Bishops and Diocese, and similar recognition for ACNA, things would begin to settle down. But, it appears, Dr. Williams isn’t going to come over and rescue anyone, and so the question lingers, "what is the way forward?"

For those who have left and formed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) the question has been answered, but for those still inside TEC who avow that they will never leave TEC, the future is decidedly unclear and unsafe. And if, in an orthodox diocese, many orthodox parishes decide to leave, the result can be a formerly orthodox diocese which is nearly evenly split between revisionist and orthodox congregations, such that a diocesan departure is not possible. Then what can happen is that the orthodox bishop retires, more congregations decide to leave, and eventually TEC will establish its aberrant form of Anglicanism where once orthodoxy lived and thrived. Orthodox faith alone isn’t enough; the church needs leaders who are also visionary, courageous and bold, and have a sense of how strategically and tactically to move the church committed to their protection forward.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Auburn Faber Traycik, The Foundation for Christian Theology (H/T Virtueonline)

It is interesting to find ourselves writing this review of the latest pronouncements from The Episcopal Church (TEC) on this particular date. Eleven years ago today (August 5), the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops overwhelmingly adopted a resolution (1.10) reaffirming historic sexuality doctrine and deeming homosexual practice "incompatible with scripture."

As events would have it, it was on this same date six years ago that the Episcopal General Convention gave its approval for the consecration of divorced, actively homosexual cleric Gene Robinson – a direct rejection of 1.10. Since 2003, much has changed – notably the North American ecclesiastical landscape – but the general trajectory of TEC has not.

From our perspective, the only surprise about July’s Episcopal General Convention in Anaheim would be if any U.S. Anglican/Episcopalian was surprised by it, or thought that it made any significant change in The Episcopal Church’s position, intentions or practices, despite the sensational headlines it attracted.

The only really new (and we think, commendable) thing the convention did was to be honest enough about where it stands that it finally convinced some holdout observers – most notably Durham’s scholarly Bishop, N.T. Wright – a leading moderate, institutionalist conservative, and close confidante of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – that TEC has broken from the Anglican Communion. That was an important development for conservatives (on which more later).

Even so, there is now such a lengthy record of dealings with the U.S. Church that we do not understand why it was not glaringly obvious to Wright and others of his mindset long before this point that TEC’s liberal-dominated leadership might slow its destructive efforts to revise Anglican doctrine and order but would never be persuaded to halt or reverse them for the sake of global Anglican unity.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Ephraim Radner, Covenant (Hat Tip: Barbara Gauthier)

The more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization…. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question:  which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption? 

By Rev. Dr. Philip Turner, ACI
 

In an article entitled “Why direct sign-on now to the Covenant is a bad idea” (that appeared on his blog PRELUDIUM shortly after our article “Communion and Hierarchy”) Fr. Mark Harris has done us all a big favor.  He has made clear the full scope of the widespread view among TEC’s present leadership that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s observation about the possibility of covenant ratification on the part of dioceses is both harmful and unhelpful.

Fr. Harris registers five objections to ratification on the part of individual dioceses. We will address each in due course. First, however, there are two general comments that will help frame the disagreements we have both with his assessment of the situation and the objections he lodges against the possibility of diocesan ratification of the proposed covenant.

Let it be noted first that the chief concern of those individual dioceses that might want to ratify the covenant is not, contra Fr. Harris, a desire to leave TEC for another jurisdiction.  Neither is it a desire to create an international form of governance.  The chief concern is, given the fact that TEC has provisionally rejected the Covenant by repudiating the Communion teaching the Covenant requires and given that is unlikely that TEC will ratify a covenant that places limitations on the course of action taken at this past General Convention, it is more than likely that TEC’s relation with the Instruments of Communion and a large majority of Anglican Provinces will be compromised.  The status of TEC’s relation to Canterbury in this case will at best be ambiguous. Further, its relation with many provinces will remain or become broken. As a result, both the Anglican and catholic identity of TEC will have been compromised.  The reason for diocesan ratification in this case is therefore not a change of jurisdiction.  It is the continuation of both Anglican and catholic identity under circumstances where a province has compromised both.

The second comment is that Fr. Harris’ title, “Why direct diocesan sign-on now (emphasis added) is a bad idea” misconstrues the present situation.  Until the end of the year, no provision will have been made either by the ACC or any other Instrument of Communion for anyone, province or diocese, to sign on now.  At present, the ACC has made it clear that it is asking “member churches” to ratify the Covenant.  Given that TEC has provisionally repudiated the Covenant, “member churches” must be understood to include the constituent dioceses and extra-provincial dioceses and churches of such member Churches.  What individual dioceses can do right now is express their support for the Covenant by signing the first three sections of the Ridley/Cambridge Draft that have already received final approval.  There is certainly no let or hindrance that stands in the way of such an action, and indeed ACI urges dioceses to take precisely such action.  To do so will let both members of TEC and the larger Communion know that not all segments of TEC support the direction taken at the last General Convention, and that they desire to be part of a covenant community even if TEC declines membership.  It is difficult to see why an action of this sort on the part of individual dioceses would subvert the democratic process of which Fr. Harris is such a strong advocate.

These things being said, why does Fr. Harris believe “diocesan buy in is a very bad idea”?  We note that in posing the question in the body of his text rather than in the title Fr. Harris no longer speaks of buying in now but speaks in more general terms of buying in at all.  In any case, his first objection is that it would be a bad idea to make provision for diocesan ratification prior to the time TEC as TEC has had opportunity to study the Covenant and give its decision in respect to ratification.  Why?  He gives two reasons: (1) “Those affirming the Covenant would by that deny that they are bound together with the rest of The Episcopal Church in a common decision making community;” and (2) “they would be acting in the face of what they fear would be a negative vote on the matter in ways contrary to any consensus building at all.”

In response, let us say first that, in principle, there is nothing wrong with waiting for the results of provincial consideration and then acting independently of the province if it refuses to ratify the Covenant and the Communion makes such an allowance.  Indeed, all things being equal, waiting for a provincial decision is the most orderly course of action to follow.  The problem is that not all things are equal.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Mary Frances Schjonberg, Episcopal Life Online

Reaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent reflections on the actions of the Episcopal Church’s recent General Convention have come from such diverse sources as advocacy groups, bloggers, breakaway Anglicans and the Vatican.

Rev Philip Ashey, American Anglican Council

There is much to affirm in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflection on the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church:

- In response to assurances by the leadership of TEC that nothing has changed, his stated assessment that Resolutions D025 (gay bishops) and C056 (same sex blessings) will neither repair broken bridges with other provinces nor allay anxieties that these resolutions are prescriptive and not merely descriptive (para. 2);
 
- His declaration that "a blessing for a same sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic or even of the Communion as a whole," and that persons living in such unions "cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle." (paras. 8 and 9);

- His declaration that changes in societal attitudes are not reasons in and of themselves for changing the discipline of the Anglican Communion (para. 10);

- Reaffirmation of the venerable principle that "what affects the communion of all should be decided by all" (para. 13), that innovations in either sexuality or sacramental practice without regard to that principle threaten to end Anglicanism as a "theologically coherent community of Christian communities" (para. 18), and that local pastoral needs and "context" are insufficient to justify such unilateral action by a province (paras. 11-17).

On the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence presented to him in our Primates Report, and the Presiding Bishop’s opening declaration that confessional Christianity is a heresy, and Calvary merely a "waypoint" among other ways, it is not clear whether he recognizes that TEC’s theological convictions are a false Gospel.  Despite TEC’s denial of the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of all – a principle which the Church of England has affirmed at its General Synod (1) and which TEC specifically rejected at this General Convention – he seems to suggest that these "deeply held theological convictions" are well within Anglican Christianity and deserve respect! (paras. 24 and 26). And he is quick to reassure the innovators that "there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness" (para. 22). Read the rest of this entry »

Gay Unions and blessings
Anglican Bishop of Port Elizabeth, the Rt Rev Bethlehem Nopece made the following press statement today…

PRESS STATEMENT

The Episcopal Church General Convention adoption of resolutions D025 and C056 is a deliberate defiance of the wider Body of the Anglican Communion. We believe this is the choice they make to be politically correct with circular popular opion which seeks continually to destroy the moral fibre of people in general as we see the decay all around us. The blessings of the same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing gay clergy is inconsistence with the Word of God written; it is theologically uninformed, incoherent with the wider church, endorsing schism in the Anglican Communion and threatens ecumenical fellowship and relations.

The statement of their presiding Bishop Katherine Jeffert Schori on salvation of individual seems to strip the gospel of its transforming power of each one of repentant persons when in Christ to be “a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). The Episcopal Church has made its choice to journey alone. We as the Anglican Church we still uplift the Biblical standard of guidance in moral behaviour. We do not seek any political correctness, but call upon all people to repentance and change of life and patterns of behaviour for a new character in line with the demands of the Word of God. Our programme is of pastoral care that transforms lives, eradicate poverty, heal the sick e.g. HIV and Aids, remove crime from our streets and build a sound family life in conformity to God’s demands as revealed in the scriptures (Mtt 5:48).

On the issues of homosexuality, we continue to journey on until all people come to the obedience of faith (Rom.15:18). The nation of South Africa must not be deceived, God will bless us only when we seek after righteousness.

Bishop Bethlehem Nopece, Anglican Diocese of Port Elizabeth. 31 July 2009AD.
 

By George Conger, The Living Church

The adoption of resolutions D025 and C056 by the 76th General Convention speaks to an unhealthy degree of theological ignorance and ecclesiastical incoherence at work within the higher councils of The Episcopal Church [TEC], Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said in a statement released July 27.

While the adoption of resolutions on rites for the blessing of same-sex unions and the consecration of gay clergy to the episcopate have not created a de facto schism, they do signal TEC’s likely removal to the periphery of the life and witness of the Anglican Communion through the creation of a two-tier communion of covenanting and non-covenanting provinces, Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote.

A spokesman for the archbishop said the statement titled “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” had been released via the Lambeth Palace website as a “reflection” on the actions of the General Convention.

Archbishop Williams offered thanks to the convention for the “generous welcome” extended to him, and acknowledged the concerns of many bishops and deputies for the wider Anglican Communion and for the “crushing” social and economic problems faced by the developing world. He also affirmed that he had received Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s and president of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson’s assurances that the passage of D025 and C056 did not “have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully” on gay bishops and blessings.

However, he said these assurances would not be found persuasive by some and would be “unlikely to allay anxieties” within the Communion that TEC was going its own way. There were “two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further” by TEC, Archbishop Williams said.

By moving forward on same-sex blessings and gay clergy, TEC erred by not engaging in a “painstaking biblical exegesis” and seeking a “wide acceptance of the results within the Communion” as “a major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.”

This work has not been done, Archbishop Williams wrote. He emphasized that “a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole.”
Read the rest of this entry »

From ACI

Written by: Dr NT Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009

1. In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. Some have warmly welcomed the statement and hailed it as paving the way forward. Cautious voices in between are trying to discern strengths and weaknesses. In my view, there is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking. The two main sections of this paper deal with these two aspects.
2. I have tried to bear in mind that the Archbishop is himself not only an Instrument of Unity but the one which has to hold on to everything at this moment. Lambeth 2008 didn’t say much (apart from what the ABC himself said); the status of ACC and Primates are under question in various quarters; it is up to him. He therefore has an obligation to maintain as broad a conversation as possible, and that is continually to be seen in his statement. As often (for instance in his poems, and in his recent book on Dostoevsky) the Archbishop’s writing challenges its readers to pause, to ponder, to think things through. One commentator has suggested that he employs a characteristically British habit of inviting the reader to draw the really important conclusions and giving them the space to do so. This piece is an attempt to take up that challenge and invitation.Welcome
3. The ABC rightly indicates that the Communion is indeed already broken. In (2) he speaks of ‘the broken bridges [from TEC] into the life of other Anglican provinces’ as the existing reality, and stresses that GenCon 09 has done nothing to repair these broken bridges. Though his explanatory clause ‘very serious anxieties have already been expressed’ is (perhaps deliberately) imprecise, the whole passage indicates, as the Primates did in 2003, that the breach has already occurred. We are not, then, looking now at TEC choosing for the first time to ‘walk apart’, but at the recognition that they did so some time ago and have done nothing to indicate a willingness to rejoin the larger Communion. This is all the more the case if it is indeed true, as the Presiding Bishop has said, that the new Resolutions were ‘descriptive’, that is, stating what is already the case: that is a way of saying, in fact, what some of us thought at the time, that the supposed ‘moratoria’ of GenCon 06 were never binding. This is what the ABC means, in the penultimate section of the whole document, by saying that the different priorities identified by different parts of the Anglican family ‘are bound to have consequences’. For too long TEC, and various other parts of the Communion, have spoken and acted as though there were no consequences. The ABC has now made it clear that this is not the case.
4. Once we penetrate the complex language, the ABC is also eventually clear that the great majority at GenCon voted, in effect if not in so many words, against the two relevant moratoria. ‘The repeated request for moratoria . . . has clearly not found universal favour’ is a roundabout but ultimately unambiguous way of saying ‘the majority voted against the moratoria’. This puts in a different light the reference in the first paragraph to ‘an insistence at the highest level’ (i.e. a letter from the Presiding Bishop) that the relevant resolutions ‘do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria’. That may be true in a strict legal sense, though many will see this as an example of typical TEC behaviour, a grandmother’s-footsteps game of creeping forwards without being noticed. But the resolutions that were passed clearly had the effect (a) of reminding people that the way was in fact open all along to the episcopal appointment of non-celibate homosexuals, and (b) of reminding people that rites for public same-sex blessings could indeed be developed. The ABC is now clearly if tacitly saying, throughout the document, that there is no reasonable likelihood, at any point in many years to come, that TEC will in fact turn round and embrace the moratoria ex animo, still less the theology which underlies the Communion’s constant and often-repeated stance on sexual behaviour. Nor is there any reasonable likelihood that TEC will in fact be able to embrace the Covenant when it attains its final form a few months from now. That is the reality with which the Reflections deal. Read the rest of this entry »

by Charles Raven, SPREAD

8. …a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires’

 9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity…

 Hat Tip: Thinking Anglicans

Commentary by A S Haley on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ‘Reflections’

Read here

(Clip)

From Episcopal Life Online

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has offered some reflections on the Episcopal Church’s General Convention, which was held July 8-17 in Anaheim, California.

Williams, who attended convention for the first two days and met with a cross section of the Episcopal Church, said in his July 27 reflections, "No one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the bishops and deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion."

However, Williams noted "that a realistic assessment of what convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed."

He was referring to the passage of two resolutions (D025 and C056) that focused on issues of human sexuality and the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the Anglican Communion.

Resolution D025 affirms "that God has called and may call" gay and lesbian people "to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church."

Resolution C056 calls for the collection and development of theological resources for the blessing of same-gender blessings and allows bishops to provide "a generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church."

Williams said July 27 that "the repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favor, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the communion."

The two presiding officers of General Convention wrote to Williams offering explanations of both resolutions. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson said they understand Resolution D025, in particular, to be "more descriptive than prescriptive in nature."

Regarding both resolutions, the presiding officers said: "It is not our desire to give offense. We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other churches across the communion."

In his reflections, Williams said, "The statement that the resolutions are essentially ‘descriptive’ is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties."

Read the rest of this entry »

The Right Rev. John W. Howe, ACI

The 76th General Convention has come and gone. In some ways it was exactly like all of the previous six General Conventions I have been to as your Bishop. Issues of human sexuality, and specifically homosexuality, were once again front and center and I will get to them in a moment.

But first let me say how totally proud I am of our deputation. Whether in the open hearings or in the legislative sessions – or, in the case of our Canon to the Ordinary, in the daily media briefings – they were engaged, faithful, active, and persistent.

In many of the hearings it seemed as if our people were virtually the only ones testifying for what I understand to be the orthodox position. (That is a slight overstatement, but not much of one.)

All of which underscores the one huge way in which this Convention differed from previous ones.

In previous years the polarization was enormous. Back in 1991 I was literally under a death threat and I had a bodyguard provided by The Episcopal Church. The hostility among the Bishops was so great that Presiding Bishop Ed Browning shut down the legislative process entirely and led us into six closed door executive sessions to try to deal with it. Successive General Conventions have been political battlegrounds.

This one was not. Issues were debated respectfully and without rancor. And, in my opinion, in several areas a number of good decisions were made, which the deputation will tell you about in a few minutes.

But with regard to sexuality the “conservative” side has been greatly diminished. Many people have left The Episcopal Church altogether, and the “progressive” or “liberal” majority now dominates by more than a two to one margin. Debate was polite, but the outcome was never in doubt. I wrote to one person that our voices have become irrelevant. “Irrelevant? Don’t you mean hated?” she replied.

No, not at all. We presented ourselves charitably, and we were heard charitably. But it just didn’t matter when the votes were taken. We were certainly not irrelevant to God or to his Church, but we were irrelevant in terms of changing any of the voting outcomes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reflections on the Episcopal Church’s 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.

1.

1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the ‘Covenant for a Communion in Mission’ as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.

2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially ‘descriptive’ is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.

3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.

3.

4. The first is to do with the arguments most often used against the moratoria relating to same-sex unions. Appeal is made to the fundamental human rights dimension of attitudes to LGBT people, and to the impossibility of betraying their proper expectations of a Christian body which has courageously supported them.

5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion’s life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.

6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage. Read the rest of this entry »

by Dr. Michael Howell, Forward in Faith US (H/T Virtueonline)
 

"I assume that the bishops and deputies who claim that nothing really changed at the 2009 General Convention would absolutely have no problem if their children’s schools announced that they were going to explore the development of policies that would permit students to engage in the responsible use of illegal drugs and alcohol. Such actions would not be an approval of such practices, but rather, they would serve as means for study and "deep listening", in recognition of an undeniable reality, which some are trying to change into lawful practices.

The well-documented destruction of lives brought on by drugs and alcohol would be irrelevant, as the General Convention is exploring the blessing of behavioral practices that in many (well-documented) cases, have led to the demise of many gifted and wonderful people. I’m sure those same bishops and deputies would applaud the schools for being "honest", and as we saw in 2003, honesty is sufficient justification for overturning practices and traditions that are in conflict with personal "revelation" and fulfillment. Moreover, the school leaders would be able to assuage any fears, by assuring parents that the spirit of "inclusion" and (anti-discriminatory) justice led them into this process."

By Stephen Noll

After the New Orleans HOB meeting in 2007, I wrote an article titled “The Dog That Didn’t Bark”, referring to the Sherlock Holmes case solved by asking what did NOT happen. Here is one question from that article which the 2009 General Convention not only did not repent of but reaffirmed with gusto:

Question: Will you continue to ordain priests who are practicing homosexuals?

The Episcopal House of Bishops has been commended in some press reports for “drawing back” from ordaining any more homosexual bishops until at least 2009. What are we to make of this concession? Is it a sign of reassessment of what is required for a bishop to be a “wholesome example to the flock of Christ”? In order to think that such a reassessment is in mind, the moratorium would have to be extended to the ordination of priests and deacons as well, unless one swallows the rather absurd idea that homosexual practice is acceptable for certain offices but not for others. But this is neither mentioned nor contemplated. Indeed, the current Episcopal canons are rather explicit that no candidates for ordination are to be barred on grounds of “sexual orientation,” now interpreted to include sexual practice. And it is really hard to imagine that Episcopal leaders intend to set up a glass ceiling to prevent homosexual priests from becoming bishops.

So then, why did Resolution B033, reaffirmed by the House of Bishops’ Statement, offer to restrain dioceses on the election of another gay bishop? Clearly, it is a temporary accommodation to the hot-button election of Gene Robinson in 2003. Robinson’s election has had the potential to cut both ways in the debate over homosexuality. On the one hand, it has “incarnated” the aims of activists by giving the world a walking, talking embodiment of a gay bishop, whose photo and comments are shot round the world on the internet. Hence, church leaders and even ordinary people in the Anglican Communion react to Gene Robinson in a way they did not react to formal resolutions or other under-the-radar-screen acts within The Episcopal Church.

Read the rest of this entry »

By the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, Washington Times

Stance could open fissures throughout religious spectrum

The Episcopal Church in the United States has done it again. Having marched out of step with the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion, American Episcopalians have declared their intention to walk even further apart. 

The world knows about the ordination of a bishop in a same-sex relationship and the ways in which that has torn the fabric of the communion, as the primates have said, at its deepest level. (This, by the way, is also a classic description of schism.) It also is widely known that people have their same-sex unions "blessed" in many parts of the Episcopal Church and such people also can be candidates for ordination.

All this continues despite the clear teaching of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that it should not.

So what is new? In passing Resolution DO25, the General Convention has openly stated that ordination should be open to those living in same-sex unions, which it also regards as exemplifying "holy love." In a further resolution, CO56, the Episcopal Church has agreed to bring liturgies for blessing same-sex relationships to the next General Convention, in 2012, for final approval.

Why are all of these developments important? Are they not simply a formalizing of what happens anyway, and is the church not just reflecting the culture in which it is set?

Let it be said, straightaway, that this issue is not a second- or lower-order one on which Christians can agree to disagree. It profoundly has to do with how men and women are created together in God’s image and together given a common mission in the world. This mission they fulfill in ways that are both distinctive and complementary.

No Bible-believing Christian can say that "men are from Mars and women from Venus." They are not distinct species but have been made for each other in their distinctiveness and complement each other. This is the burden of the earliest chapters of Genesis that are strongly and unambiguously affirmed in the teaching of Jesus himself. As a whole, the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality clearly affirms that the proper expression of our sexual nature is within the context of married love. The alternative, for those who have this gift, is dedicated singleness in the fulfillment of God’s purposes.

Read the rest of this entry »

By George Conger, Christianity Today

The archbishop of the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) spoke with CT in Bedford, Texas, where conservatives constituted their alternative to the liberal Episcopal Church.

Q: What is going on here in Bedford?

A: Bedford for us Anglicans is the end of the beginning. We have struggled, some of our congregations for over 30 years, with issues that have been forced upon us by the Episcopal Church. We’ve come to a point where we are not operating in force anymore.

Q: Rick Warren told the ACNA not to be “reactionary,” what did he mean?

A: He means the war [in the Episcopal Church], it’s not yours anymore, that’s behind. God’s got a whole new work for you. We are trying to move on. Don’t be reactionary or reactive means get over the wounds, get over the hurts, get over the lawsuits, get over all the stuff.

Q: What is the ACNA’s plan to reach out to America?

A: We want to be clear that the congregation is God’s fundamental way of doing things, just like the family is God’s fundamental building block for society. And if the chief agency is the congregation, the chief agents are the individual Christians. We have to disciple. We have to teach people to love God … and share their faith. We have to teach them how to engage the world in service, in Christ’s love.

Read the rest of this entry »