Yet Another Two Updates
The Bishop of Pittsburgh doesn’t like it either. He has issued A Statement from the Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network.
What the response of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council to the 2005 Primates’ Communique gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. While it gives an appearance of complying with the Primates’ request, in actuality it does not. The Primates asked the ECUSA delegation to withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council (AAC) – the only appropriate response is therefore to stay at home.
The American Anglican Council doesn’t like it at all, see this statement which includes:
The Executive Council’s letter to the Anglican Consultative Council is manipulative and deceptive. The Primates were clear and direct in their call to the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada:
“…we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion.” (cf. paragraph 8)
While the language of the Communiqué is gracious and diplomatic, the intent is crystal clear—the American and Canadian Churches have been told to stand down from the Anglican Consultative Council. In addition, they have been presented with a clear choice to permanently walk together or walk apart. The parameters for “walking together” are also definitive: the Episcopal Church must repent of its heretical actions and embrace once more in word and in practice the faith and order of Anglicanism. We cannot accept that the Executive Council does not understand what the Primates have requested, and therefore we must assume that this is a deliberate plan to circumvent and ignore the full intent of the Communiqué.
The Executive Council is setting up an opportunity to lobby and influence the ACC meeting. Given the fact that ECUSA is insisting on such a presence, it seems a matter of justice and fair play that those who are excluded from ECUSA and isolated because they stand against revisionism should also be present and “available for conversation and consultation”. We call upon the Anglican Consultative Council to deny the Executive Council’s request; however, if the ECUSA delegation attends, we believe it is critical to include voices that offer a very different perspective, one that is consistent with Scripture and the accepted faith and order of the Anglican Communion.
No mention at all by the NACDAP Moderator or by the AAC of this paragraph in the communiqué:
16. Notwithstanding the request of paragraph 14 of this communiqué, we encourage the Anglican Consultative Council to organize a hearing at its meeting in Nottingham, England, in June 2005 at which representatives of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada, invited for that specific purpose, may have an opportunity to set out the thinking behind the recent actions of their Provinces, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the Windsor Report.
Clearly a significant disagreement then between both of them and the ABC:
Further Update
Archbishop of Canterbury commends Executive Council letter
In a communication to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams extended thanks to the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council for its decision to withdraw its three American members from official participation in the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham, England in June.
“I have just received the news of the decision about ACC. Thank you all,” Williams said. “I can guess how hard it will have been, but you have acted very generously and constructively and I hope this will bear the fruit that it should…”
The Executive Council of ECUSA has decided to withdraw its representatives from official participation in the ACC at Nottingham this June. The full statement is published by ENS here. The key paragraph is:
We are mindful that Christ has made us members of one body, and that no part can say to any other “I have no need of you.” At the same time we wish to express our openness to the concerns and beliefs of others. In the spirit of the Covenant Statement recently adopted by our House of Bishops, we voluntarily withdraw our members from official participation in the ACC as it meets in Nottingham. As an expression of our desire “to bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), we are asking our members to be present at the meeting to listen to reports on the life and ministry we share across the Communion and to be available for conversation and consultation.
Update Press coverage of this:
Associated Press Episcopalians accept no-delegates request and also this squib
Knight Ridder/Chicago Tribune U.S. Episcopal Church to sit out council over issue of gay bishops
Reuters U.S. church withdraws from key Anglican body
New York Times (This report also deals with another current American story) Connecticut Episcopalians Defy Bishop Over Gay Issues
Living Church Observers Will Attend ACC Meeting
Anglican Journal
U.S. church will bow out of international meeting
The realignment of the Anglican Communion is now underway. Expect to see Ecusa gone after GC 2006 to follow its mission as an independent denomination, like the United Church of Christ. Meanwhile, the fallout in Ecusa will continue, as the six Connecticut priests are deposed and more churches defect to AMiA or Nigerian or other oversight. There IS a way back from this meltdown, but it is now very unlikely that Griswold, Crew, Robinson etc will make those steps: there is too much peronsal investment for them to concede that they have been wrong all along in the direction they… Read more »
Speaking as a member of that “heretical” diocese in Canada, that dared to respond to Christ’s message to welcome the down-trodden and marginalised into his church, this is a sad day.
I pray that the Council of General Synod in Canada, follow the advice of its own standing committee that urged it to attend the ACC meeting in Nottingham as full participants.
One cannot engage, if those to whom you need to engage are not there!
“..Christ’s message to welcome the down-trodden and marginalised into his church..”
Things may be different in Canada, but I know of no CofE church in the UK that does not welcome the down-trodden and maginalised into his church.
I also think it’s probably not good. If they disagree with others in the communion, they should turn up and talk and explain their position. A no-show is just handing the rest of the communion to the evo-fundies on a plate.
Tim wrote:
“A no-show is just handing the rest of the communion to the evo-fundies on a plate.”
Sorry, Tim, but this is a false dichotomy. Unease with the North American position on homosexuality extends well beyond “evo-fundies” – certainly to conservative Anglo-Catholics and probably to Archbishop Williams himself.
From the president of Integrity US “The Cost of Discipleship” The April 13th letter written on behalf of ECUSA’s Executive Council offers the kind of creative and grace-filled compromise that gives tne hope that the spirit of Anglican comprehensiveness may, after all, prove strong enough to survive the barrage of partisan polemic and polarizing rhetoric that sadly seems to dominate our ecclesial discourse. By voluntarily withdrawing our representatives to the June ACC gathering from “official participation” ECUSA has once-and-for-all demonstrated to the larger Communion that we take seriously the cost of discipleship — that we are willing to pay a… Read more »
I am truely sad to see my church back down. We are now on the edge of a slippery slope. If the ECUSA and Anglican Chruch of Canada are pushed out, it will only be a matter ot time before the Chruches of the UK are pushed out, and the Anglican Communion has a neo papacy based out of the African continent. I suspect that if the ECUSA doesn’t make another move like this, that Cantebury will side with the “liberal” Anglicans when push come to shove, and start imposing sanction upon the African Anglicans. I wish for nothing else… Read more »
I have only one time before written any sort of comment online like this. My experience to date demonstrates that such ‘blogging’ or commenting does very little but add more fuel to the fire for those determined to use any and all available sources to stoke their flames. Even so, here goes… Shame on us all. Shame. Name calling, self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, and self-justifying are just a few words that come to mind from this soul-killing, church-killing, and ultimately narcissistic obsession that has gripped the Anglican Church. The call to repentance should ring loudly in all our ears, for our failure… Read more »
I am somewhat unconcerned about a decision to withdraw “official” participation from a meeting at which ECUSA and Canada are to be the main presenters. Sort of “withdrawing” without withdrawing.
I believe that this is a brilliant and pastoral compromise. ECUSA will still be present and involved. At the same time, wil will not be there officially. That meets the letter of the law request from “the global south”. The “south” wants the US (& others) out. By voluntarily being officially gone (but not physically gone) it allows the ACC to continue to function without asking for or forcing a vote to remove us. Since the ACC (& in fact the Primates & Lambeth) is purely advisory anyway, the request from the “south” was to exclude the US & Canada.… Read more »
I agree with James Newman, that this is a brilliant compromise, and a very positive step. There was a big non sequitur with the Primates’ request that ECUSA and the ACC absent themselves from a meeting at which their actions would be the primary topic of discussion. By withdrawing from formal participation, yet still being present to listen and respond, dialogue can continue.
Am I alone in thinking that the ABC has been conned? First, under the pretext of ensuring equality of opportunity, they decide to have no new bishops at all, which wrong-foots the “opposition”. Then they say, with due piety, that they will voluntarily withdraw, but then add that they will still have people at the next meeting.
It’s difficult not to feel that there are little games going on, on a matter which really is quite serious for all parties.
In some ways it’s sad to see the most liberal provinces starting to be excluded from the Communion, but they have effectively excluded themselves by rejecting biblical Christianity in favour of some apparently humanist philosophy which ignores areas of personal morality that call for self-denial and personal holiness. Not that any of us ever make it to be that holy in this life, but to reject the call to conformity with Gods ideals (holiness), and replace it with self-fulfillment and discovering ones own desires, is not recognisably Christian; although it is very humanist. Similarly rejecting the unique claims of Christ… Read more »
So Dave, on what grounds would *you* choose to appoint someone to be a bishop or not?
Dave, I have posted here once before and it was on the same topic in repsonse to a like statement. I fully support the blessing of same sex unions. And I deeply resent it being that said that I and others who also support those blessings are unbiblical. We have studied those passages. I have read about both positions in relation to the biblical text. My stance is very much biblically based. I, and others who support these blessings may interpret those texts differently than you do, but we did read (and still do) and base our understanding of same… Read more »
James Coleman is exactly wrong. The Episcopal Church will remain in communion with Canterbury even if we have only “observer” status at the next Lambeth or two. Similar to the status of the Old Catholic communions. Even if he wanted to break communion with North American Anglicans–and he does not–it would create great problems within his own church. Already the Scots, and the Welsh to some extent, have fired shots over ++Williams’ bows. To say nothing about that 1/3 of British bishops who support the North American churches. Besides, cultural and historic ties exist which work against breaking communion. There… Read more »
Tim, How about following the advice of St Paul in his letter to Titus 1:7-9, including but not limited to:
+ is holy
+ is disciplined
+ holds firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught
+ encourages others by sound doctrine
+ refutes those who oppose sound doctrine
+ is blameless
+ is not overbearing
+ loves what is good
+ is selfcontrolled
I’m pleased that ECUSA is living the teaching of scripture in accepting the request not to participate. If the conservative side would make half an effort, and acknowledge that we are all part of the body of Christ and follow the advice in scripture for unhappy divisions and how we should behave when we feel sure that we are the ones with the stronger faith (and who doesn’t?) there could be peace (Romans 14,15). And Dave, yes, Christ is inclusive. He tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love the least among us, to forgive those who persecute… Read more »
AMNicklin: “….we did read (and still do) and base our understanding of same sex blessings on the Bible.” That’s what the Primates have asked be set out clearly so that this thinking can be established (or not). Kurt: “….does Mr. Coleman really think the British will chose Nigeria? Get real!!” You evidently think “the British” will prefer “Atlantic civilisation” than to the principled “backwater” of the Global South? I wouldn’t count on it. And even if that were true of some, it will not be universally true. James Coleman’s assessment will not be way off. The realignment will not end… Read more »
AMNicklin wrote “I fully support the blessing of same sex unions. And I deeply resent it being that said that I and others who also support those blessings are unbiblical…. My stance is very much biblically based.” Dear AMNicklin, That is just an assertion unless you can support it with facts as well as feelings ! Liberal interpretations that I hear are generally very much based on asserting the right to self-fulfillment over self-denial, and the discovery of “me” rather than the transformation of me. Hence the “God made me this way” type justifications – which wouldn’t be acceptable for… Read more »
“….and base our understanding of same sex blessings on the Bible……”
Where, AMNicklin, in the Bible, is your justification for this?
AMNicklin: “I deeply resent it being that said that I and others who also support those (same sex) blessings are unbiblical” I think you would find that many who do not share your viewpoint are equally upset when they are automatically branded as homophobic, behind the times, anti-gay etc. Which most are not! It strikes me that there is far too much name-calling from both sides, which achieves nothing! “I fully support the blessing of same sex unions….. My stance is very much biblically based.” If you say that your stance is Biblically based, could you expand on this? I… Read more »
OK Dave, so show me the bishop who is truly blameless.
The rest is all fine, and notably doesn’t prescribe anything like “is heterosexual” at all.
Hi Tim, Thanks. I think that a person who was living out a homosexual “orientation” would fall foul, in St Paul’s eyes, of “is holy” – since in St Paul’s writings same-sex sex is seen as sinful. In my view he would also not fulfill “holds firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught” since same-sex sex has not be taught to be good for the last 2000 years. Hi Annie. Christ includes everyone on the same basis, whatever our orientations, desires, sins, strengths, weaknesses, culture etc etc. He forgives and accepts us when we repent of our… Read more »
I have a suggestion for those who feel gay people need to practice “self-denial” (which in this case obviously refers to lifelong celibacy). Why don’t heterosexuals who feel this way form some sort of celibacy movement themselves, so that gay folks will have role models from which to draw inspiration? IOW, if those of you who feel that unchosen, lifelong celibacy is the answer, why not step forward yourselves and show us how it’s done? You could all sign celibacy pacts and call each other on the phone for support if you ever felt you needed it. Shouldn’t be too… Read more »
“There are no such ties for Britons for nations of the Global South, such as Nigeria. These are alien cultures. Given a choice between Atlantic civilization and a backwater like Nigeria, does Mr. Coleman really think the British will chose Nigeria? Get real!!” Aaaaargh! With friends like you, Kurt, ECUSA needs no enemies. We resist the diktats of +Akinola, NOT because he is from Nigeria: which is much a “mainstream” (not backwater) as anywhere else. Nor does ECUSA believe African culture is “alien”: some of our greatest American saints (on our liturgical calendar) are black, and we have had no… Read more »
J.C.Fisher: “Start w/ Genesis, and read through Revelation.”
Your rather sarcastic comment is uncalled for, if I may say so. It might come as some surprise to learn that there are people who read and study the Bible regularly, who regard it as the word of God, and who do not subscribe to liberal pick-and-mix theology. There was no mention or thought of proof texting; the question posed to AMNicklin was eminently reasonable, given that he had stated that he supported the blessing of same sex unions, and that his stance is very much biblically based.
Ian, I confess that sometimes I resort to the cutting sarcastic comment (“But Your Honor, it was self-defense!”). The above, however, wasn’t one of them. While I neither question whether my conservative “God condemns same-sex sex” opponents CAN and DO read Holy Scripture, I do question whether they have done so apart from a *formation* in a “If you have questions about __[issue A]__, see __[Scripture passage B]__” *fundamentalist canon*. Do I bring my *own* biases to my reading of Scripture? Absolutely! But as best *I* can (prayerfully) determine, from my several Genesis-to-Revelation readings, my wish-I-were-more-dedicated Daily Office readings, and… Read more »
bis wrote: “I have a suggestion for those who feel gay people need to practice “self-denial” … why don’t heterosexuals who feel this way form some sort of celibacy movement themselves, so that gay folks will have role models ….. Come on, you guys! You can do it! It’ll be loads of fun, I’m sure!” Hi bis. Well, there’s the whole priesthood of the RC church, as well as Monks and Nuns, who are sworned to live celebate lives… And my fellow traditionalists/evangelicals/charismatics also have a commitment to celibacy unless they marry (I did ’til I was nearly 30 and… Read more »
“If you say that your stance is Biblically based, could you expand on this? I am not aware of Bible passages which endorse single-sex unions, but I’m open to persuasion”
I too would be interested. It’s a pity if people who evidently consider themselves to be in the know can only reply with patronising remarks! OK. So can Mr. Fisher or Mr. Nicklin help those who have not yet seen the light? Constructively, I mean….
“Now, given that, I think that AMNicklin’s *conclusion* (“the blessing of same sex unions . . . is very much biblically based”)
was “eminently reasonable,” and that those who would dispute that conclusion, must prove otherwise.”
What a strange argument! For umpteen hundreds of years it has been accepted that the Bible has a generally negative view of same-sex relationships. Now along comes someone who takes an opposite view, states categorically that it is Biblically based, and if anyone disputes this the onus is placed on him to prove otherwise!
“GOD SAVES—BECAUSE GOD LOVES (all the rest is commentary).”
Dangerous argument. I’m sure that you don’t mean it so, but that seems almost like a licence to do whatever we want! Presumably He wants disciples?
“Well, there’s the whole priesthood of the RC church, as well as Monks and Nuns, who are sworned to live celebate lives… And my fellow traditionalists/evangelicals/charismatics also have a commitment to celibacy unless they marry (I did ’til I was nearly 30 and many, including several friends of mine, remain celebate for life.)” Hi Dave. Key ideas here: priests and nuns “choose” celibacy. Christians commit to chastity “unless” they marry. You waited “until” you were nearly 30. And of course, the Catholic Church is apparently now about to ban gay men from the priesthood, so there’s no opportunity any longer… Read more »
(“But, in this sex-obsessed world, even though there are these real examples, I suspect many people will not accept that it is possible to deny yourself sexually.” BTW, I always find it interesting to hear this statement come from someone who isn’t “denying himself sexually.” But I’m certainly no longer surprised. Dave: the point is not sex. It’s love, and what you’re asking people to do is to deny the deepest part of themselves forever, no exceptions allowed – something that you yourself obviously weren’t in the least interested in doing. You’re asking us to become less than human, and… Read more »
BTW, it isn’t true that for “the Bible has a generally negative view of same-sex relationships.” There’s nothing – or, controversially, one passage, out of tens of thousands – that says anything at all about lesbians. (And, BTW, neither Augustine nor Clement of Alexandria read Romans I that way.) Further, nobody quite knows what’s being said in Timothy and Corinthians. The word used there is unknown, and has been translated 30+ different ways; it’s bad data, IOW. Still further, we believe that none of the alleged negative references (all 5 of them, again out of tens of thousands!) refer to… Read more »
“You’re asking us to become less than human, and to do something utterly meaningless for our entire lives.”
bls: are you really saying this is true for a single person if they are celibate? They are less than human? That unless they express their sexuality they are less than human?…..
I think St Paul might not agree.
And Jesus was less than human then? And he did something utterly meaningless with his entire life then?
A recent posting reads: “God saves—because God loves (all the rest is commentary)”, followed by the commentary by “Robert”, “Dangerous argument. I’m sure that you don’t mean it so, but that seems almost like a licence to do whatever we want! Presumably He wants disciples?” It is said that a rabbi of about Jesus’ era was challenged by one of his disciples to recite all of scripture standing on one foot. The rabbi promptly stood on one foot and said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and… Read more »
“I am a scholar, I confess the Creeds, I love the Lord Jesus, and still this is what I believe. For this I have been told that I am not a Christian and that it is not possible for me to be faithful.” Louis, this is being written near midnight my time, so I will be brief and only comment upon the above. But may I respectfully point out it would never occur to me to make such a judgement! The Lord knows his own, and it is not for any man to decide who a Christian is. (And so… Read more »
“bls: are you really saying this is true for a single person if they are celibate? They are less than human? That unless they express their sexuality they are less than human?…..” I was responding to the statement that “there’s the whole priesthood of the RC church, as well as Monks and Nuns, who are sworned to live celebate lives.” There is a purpose to their vow of celibacy – a vow which nobody else is asked to take, as you know. Yet gay people are not expected to have any purpose for doing this; it’s to be a mere… Read more »
(I do wonder, too, why nobody ever acknowledges the very clear difference between these things. Demanding celibacy for life, no exceptions, is quite a different thing than remaining single by chance, or even than taking vows as a monk or nun. Everybody else can marry at some point, if that’s how life should turn out for them. Only gay people – literally alone among all others – are expected to deny themselves marital relationships no matter what. And as I said, of course that means no dating, ever. No first love. And no hope of ever having one. How come… Read more »
I hardly need add anything to what bls and the Rev. Lois Keen have said (so much more eloquently than me—not that that takes much!), except to also note to Robert (re “Dangerous”), C.S. Lewis’ exceptionally wise warning that “Aslan is not a tame lion.” The Triune God IS exceptionally “dangerous” to *all* of us who are self-satisfied in our sins (and even MORESO in our self-righteous). That is, however, merely some of the more trenchent “commentary” to my proclamation (that is, the Gospel’s proclamation, of which I am but a bird-brained parrot) that “God Saves—because God Loves.” It’s precisely… Read more »
Louis, back to the Rabbi’s comment. It reminds me of Augustine, who was asked a smiliar question. His reply was “Love God, and do as you like.” As you say you are a scholar (which I will not presume to claim in my own case!) you will know that this was a problem Paul had to address in Corinth, where people were saying “We are not under law but grace” and using this as an excuse to do whatever they wanted. (Antinomianism, if I am not mistaken.) Augustine’s point however was that love makes serious demands! If I love my… Read more »
Bls: “can we get off the “expressing sexuality” thing?” Fraid not, no. Physical hunger: I don’t eat – I die. Physical thirst: I don’t drink – I die. That’s how God made me. Physical sexuality: I don’t have sex (express my sexuality) – I * don’t * die. That’s how God made me too: that sexual appetite does not * have * to be satisfied. Apart from being incredibly presumptious that anyone married does not know anything about sexual restraint, you seem obsessed that heterosexuals know nothing of the burdens of sexual restraint. What? “Only gay people – literally alone… Read more »
Good grief, Neil. This is a very simple point: nobody else is asked to be celibate for life, no exceptions. Nobody. No matter how times you try to explain this away, it remains a fact. Single people can hope for marriage, and can marry if the opportunity presents itself – which it does, for most. Again: 95% of Americans marry at one time in their lives. (Guess which 5% is not included in that number?) And I’ll try to get the other point across one more time, too: “sex” is not what gay people are asking for. If we were,… Read more »
Careful, bls: if Neil doesn’t “agree” to your request, I’m sure some other having-vocation-to-celibacy/wanting-to-make-a-point heterosexual will take you up on it. No, the difference is, no heterosexual’s *righteousness* hinges on whether or not celibacy is agreed to (even a vowed celibate can be released from their vows, and still hope for salvation). The heterosexual is offered *celibacy OR married life* as their vocation to holiness, whereas the homosexual is offered only one way . . . and the only defense for this blatant unfairness is “God wills it so: accept your cross.” Except, maybe God doesn’t. Except, the proofs against… Read more »
Bis wrote: “Good grief, Neil. This is a very simple point: nobody else is asked to be celibate for life, no exceptions. … And I’ll try to get the other point across one more time, too: “sex” is not what gay people are asking for…. So again: I’m perfectly willing to sign a “celibacy-for-life” contract – no exceptions, no matter what – right alongside any heterosexual who’d agree to it also.” Hi Bis, I listed several groups of people who are committed to “celibacy-for-life” contracts, above, but you just claimed they were all exceptions! On the “sin” issue, one important… Read more »
[Counts down, till someone indignantly queries w/ counter-examples” “What if I want to marry my neighbor’s wife? What if I want to marry my neighbor’s six year-old? What if I want to marry my neighbor’s Golden Retriever???” {sigh}] Posted by J. C. Fisher at Thursday, 21 April 2005 at 5:04am BST] “As JCF said earlier, slightly mis-quoting: “What if I want to marry . . . We are all asked to abstain from these for life. (I might add “I want to have several spouses”; “I want to have sex with people besides my spouse”) Posted by Dave at Friday,… Read more »
>I’m out of this thread now, Simon: promise! <
Thank goodness! This rambling was getting tedious.