Posted on 09/10/2004 8:53:08 AM PDT by RonF
Liberals have warned that the Church of England would break into "civil war" if the American Church is disciplined for its consecration of the Anglican Communion's first active homosexual bishop.
There could be mass resignations amongst clergy who are sympathetic to the action taken by the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA), according to the Dean of Southwark, the Rt Rev Colin Slee. He said that recommendations from the Eames Commission that propose the exclusion of bishops supportive of Canon Gene Robinson's consecration from future Anglican summits would be devastating for the unity of the Communion Church of England. "There would be outrage," Dean Slee commented. "I think a lot of clergy would consider resigning. This would be interference with the proper processes of an independent province, forced on them by other provinces who have no jurisdiction there."
A delegation of bishops flew in from America to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, as it appeared that the Eames Commission, meeting this week, was moving towards taking action against ECUSA.
Under the likely resolution, the American Primate, the Most Rev Frank Griswold, would be barred from attending future Primates' Meetings as he presided at Canon Robinson's consecration. It would be a major blow to Bishop Griswold, who is already furious at the interference in his province of Ugandan bishops, who are providing oversight to conservative parishes in Los Angeles that have broken with their bishop.
Primates from the Global South have called for ECUSA to be expelled from the Communion, but they would welcome recommendations that exclude bishops supportive of Canon Robinson's consecration until they repent of their action.
The Most Rev Greg Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone (South America), said: "It's now beyond doubt that the majority of Anglicans worldwide aren't in agreement with what has happened in America and Canada. The commission will have to reflect that reality or there is little hope for the future of the Communion."
However, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, Chair of the pressure group, Inclusive Church, said: "The idea you can sort things out by scapegoating Americans is absolutely preposterous. I can't believe it's going to happen. It would bring civil war in the Church of England."
The Rev Robert Van de Weyer, a Cambridgeshire vicar, said that he would consider looking for American supervision if the hardline proposals were imposed. "I personally would find myself unable to be a member of an ecclesiastical organisation which effectively condemned homosexuality as sinful," he said.
"The churches in America are seeking Ugandan and Nigerian supervision, we might seek American supervision. And that's probably what we might find ourselves forced to do. This is very speculative but that is the kind of scenario that would unfold if the American Episcopal Church is excluded."
The Eames Commission, which includes both conservative and liberals, is due to deliver its final report to Dr Williams by the end of the month, which will then be discussed at the Primates' Meeting in October.
This would be interference with the proper processes of an independent province,
Actually, it's looking like it's the judgement of the Anglican Communion that the process was improper, not proper. Canon law doesn't trump Scripture, and that was one of the AC's founding principles.
forced on them by other provinces who have no jurisdiction there.
Nothing is forced on them. If the ECUSA wants to have openly homosexual bishops, it is free to do so. It just won't be free to have the same relationship to the AC that it does now, and that's certainly something that the rest of the AC should have a say in.
"I personally would find myself unable to be a member of an ecclesiastical organisation which effectively condemned homosexuality as sinful," he said.
I thought that Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth meetings has already done just that?
The churches in America are seeking Ugandan and Nigerian supervision, we might seek American supervision. And that's probably what we might find ourselves forced to do.
Go ahead. But those bishops will be under discipline by the AC, and they won't be recognized as Anglican bishops if they persist and don't repent. And then, you will have separated yourself from the AC as well.
The Anglican Communion has no force of secular law to require the ECUSA to do anything, but it certainly has the right to determine who qualifies to share in it's common life, and who does not. What the ECUSA has done is not a fait accompli that that AC now has to accomodate.
A few threads back, a link referenced a document called (if I remember correctly) "Communion and Discipline". In it, it was pointed out that autonomy does not equal independence. While the national constituent churches of the Anglican Communion have a great deal of autonomy, they are accountable to the AC as a whole as to whether or not their actions are consistent with the doctrines of Christianity. The AC does not, and sensibly cannot, simply accept the outcome of a process just because the process followed canon law.
Arlin is undoubtedly continuing to watch all this from the top row of the bleachers. I envy him his peace in the beatific vision.
Meanwhile, out on the playing field we continue to struggle.
Well put, Ron!
ECUSA wants to have its cake and eat it too, and that just isn't going to happen. If they want to take an essentially schismatic position in relation to the rest of the Communion, then they will indeed find themselves on the outside looking in.
When I was in Minneapolis last August I heard people actually saying that they were looking forward to all those annoying conservatives leaving the Church.
Well, we are the Church. If they decide to leave us, I will grieve for the peril of their souls, but I will not miss them.
Up to this point, that's what's been going on - proponents of traditional doctrine regarding sexual orientation have been leaving the ECUSA (either for splinter quasi-Anglican groups or for other denominations), while proponents have been staying in and increasingly carrying the day. Now what we're seeing is the AC as a whole coming to the aid of the proponents, saying "This is YOUR Church", and telling the opponents that they are no longer Anglican. That's apparently not something that the opponents you were talking to have come to understand yet.
What planet is this guy from ?! The Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful !
You're assuming he's read the Bible.
May they leave -- yes. And take all their heresy and immorality out of here -- yes.
But God does not desire the death of the sinner, but that he turn again and be saved. The horror of their peril is so total that I would wish them to turn again.
However, I am not planning on going with them into perdition, nor do I wish them to have the opportunity to take others with them or to influence the "innocent" to go with them.
God is cleaning house. He is purging out the dross, and the dead wood is heading for the fire. We need to stay close to God in faithfulness and also pray for salvation for the lost.
Meanwhile, out on the playing field we continue to struggle.
The third verse of Wesley's hymn The Church's One Foundation takes on richer meaning these days:
Though with a scornful wonder
This world sees her oppressed,
By schisms rent assunder,
By heresies distressed;
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, "how long?"
And soon the night of weeping
Becomes the morn of song.
"There could be mass resignations..."
I hope and pray.
In Christendom there are many who are shameless enough to brand themselves "orthodox" or "conservative" just because they support every party line of their church organization's head. No matter how liberal (read: apostate) the head is, they just follow him. (This is of course not how Lord Jesus recognize who are His sheep when He comes back)
This is analogous to political sphere when some people call themselves "conservatives" or "patriots" because he supports whoever is currently in power.
You're assuming he's read the Bible.
Just like the ECUSA to have Bible 2.0 wihen the rest of us are still on version 1.0.
Only the rich can afford to constantly upgrade their software.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.