Anglican split 'has become necessary'

BBC News ^ | June 19, 2006

[monkapotamus]

Anglican split 'has become necessary'

The Communion has become 'two religions' says Bishop Nazir-Ali

A split in the Anglican Communion is inevitable the Bishop of Rochester has said, as issues such as gay and women bishops continue to divide the global Church.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali's comments came as the US Episcopal Church - which ordained the first openly gay bishop in 2003 - chose Katherine Jefferts Schori as its first female head.

Here, two church members for and against such issues, give their views on a split.

REV DAVID PHILIPS, THE CHURCH SOCIETY

The Reverend David Philips believes a split is "probably inevitable".

"We have to have limits and they have gone way beyond them [the US Church]. It is a shame it has taken so long for a bishop to come out and say it," he said.

Even so, he does not think many Church of England bishops will be following the Bishop of Rochester's' lead.

"Their concern is unity, unity at any price," he said. "It's astonishing really."

The impact of a split in the Anglican Communion would have quite an effect on the Church of England, with those backing the US Episcopal Church's stance and those not, Mr Philips said.

He believes the US Church is "promoting immorality".

"It's not just the one issue," he said.

If they appointed a bishop who is an open adulterer, would you say that was right? Rev David Philips Anglicans 'must split'

While it accepts gay and women bishops, there are other bishops who deny "every aspects of the Christian faith", such as the resurrection and virgin birth, he said.

"Oversight" positions should not be carried out by women, Mr Philips added.

"There clearly must be boundaries," he said - these were issues on which the Scriptures spoke clearly.

It was these which kept the Anglican Communion united by a "common bond".

"The Anglican Church is not like the Roman Catholic Church where it has a body that makes binding decisions," he said.

"When people break that common bond, and that's what has happened, there is no easy way for Churches to know how to respond to that."

And Mr Philips denied his views were prejudiced.

"Homosexuality was pretty common in Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire," he said, "but Christians stood against it. I don't see the difference."

These convictions came from what God said in the Scriptures "on what's right and wrong".

"I don't think that's prejudice. If they appointed a bishop who is an open adulterer, would you say that was right?"

REV JEREMY CADDICK, EMMANUAL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

The Reverend Jeremy Caddick also thinks a split is likely.

"I have a lot of time for the Bishop of Rochester and have a great deal of sympathy with his dislike of an 'options' Church," he said.

"But I actually think that loyalty to the Good News, as revealed by Jesus, takes us in exactly the opposite direction.

"In things like the Church's treatment of gay people, we are going in the wrong direction."

A "narrow" reading of the Bible took us away from Jesus, Mr Caddick said.

"The Gospel is good news for everybody and, on the gay issue, one of my concerns is it is good news for heterosexuals, but not if you are gay.

"Loyalty to one reading of the Bible puts us in a position of condemning large numbers of people, which I think is not consistent with the accepting attitude of Jesus in the Gospel."

The problem is that those who don't accept this are insisting we all go the same way - and that's a sticking point Reverend Jeremy Caddick

Mr Caddick said the context in which the Church proclaimed the Gospel had changed.

"In the past the Bible has been used to justify the subjugation of women and slavery, but today these are regarded as unacceptable," he said.

"If it is the case that some sections of the Church cannot accept a female bishop, then I think the Bishop of Rochester is right, the time has come for a split.

"It certainly worries me, but I think it is maybe necessary.

"The Church of England has a track history of accommodating a wide diversity.

"From my point of view, there's no reason why that diversity can't include some parts of the Church that accept women leaders and recognise gay bishops, and so on and so forth.

"The problem is that those who don't accept this are insisting we all go the same way - and that's a sticking point."

[GOPrincess]

Our Vestry voted after the last convention to give parishioners the option to restrict pledges to our church and specify if we don't want any of our pledge to go to the diocese or national church. Since that time 100% of our pledge goes to our individual parish.

[torqemada]

You do what you think is right. Out of curiosity, however, I'd be interested to know who your bishop is & on what side of these issues he/she comes down. While some may think that they can cloister themselves at the parish level & remain untouched by the heresy & apostasy that exists at the diocesan & national level, IMHO they'd be wrong.

There were a lot of folks at my old ECUSA parish who said almost exactly what you're saying. They were going to just ignore the fact that same-sex blessings were taking place at the diocesan cathedral & that the new Dean of the Cathedral came complete with his homosexual consort. They chose to ignore the fact that our bishop was ordaining no one except women & homosexuals - no men. Everything was just fine at our parish & they were all quite content to ignore what was happening at other parishes or at the diocesan level until that fateful day that our priest was suddenly transferred - replaced by a newly ordained lesbian priestess with her "partner" & two adopted children. That's when we left, along with half the parish.

I wish you well. Truly I do. But, I have to say that I'd be very interested to talk with you in six months time & find out how sticking your head in the sand worked out for you.

[altura]

My Bishop is Bishop Stanton. I'm in a conservative diocese.

However, my own little church is fairly mixed.

Thanks for the good wishes. I don't think I could find a church that I agreed with on everything. People who try to do that keep moving around and end up in a Church of One.

I've been mad at the National Church for ten years. Ignoring them works for me.

[bobjam]

England organized as a state centuries before her neighbors on the continent. Alfred the Great's kingdom in the 900's had roughly the same borders as Elizabeth II's today. Alfred's Capetian counterpart in Paris was titular king and only ruled the Ile-de-France. Basically, England had been up and running long before she was grafted into the Roman Church in 1066. Until that year, England considered herself in communion with but not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox recognize the year of the Norman Conquest and Roman takeover, and not 1054, as the year they broke with Anglicanism.

When dealing with England, the Pope was not dealing with a loose patchwork of duchies and principalities (as was the case with France, Italy, and the Holy Roman Empire). Rather, he was dealing with a well organized and sophisticated nation state that was forging its own national identity much more quickly than continental states. From the Norman Conquest to the Spanish Armada, England and Rome never had good relations.

The 1549 Prayer Book is a translation ofthe Sarum Rite developed over the years in Salisbury, England.

[altura]

That story seems odd to me. I've always understood that a parish (unless it is a mission) chooses its own priest (subject to the approval of the Bishop).

I doubt seriously that your priest was 'transferred.' Methodist priests can be transferred, not Episcopal priests. That's why it's so darn hard to get rid of a bad one.

I'm not sayin' it didn't happen... I'm just sayin'

[x_plus_one]

The ECUSA is populated by the same barking moonbats that are minions to AlGore.

[torqemada]

Sorry...improper use of the term "parish" caused the confusion, I think. Ours was, in fact, a "mission" church - small - about 75 avg. attendence on Sundays. As a mission, you pretty much take what you can get from the Diocese. However, even with a parish church, who you get is pretty well manipulated by the Diocesan. The parish is sent a list of clergy to interview. If you don't like any of them, they'll send you a few more until, hopefully, you find one that the Diocese wants to send & you want to accept. But make no mistake about it - the parish is NEVER sent a full list of available clergy from which to choose - only the ones the Diocese wishes to send. Which, brings up the other problem...Bp. Warner was/is notoriously liberal & a long-term supporter of the feminist & homosexual agendas. After a few years of ordaining nothing but women, homosexuals, & a few men who've failed at 1st careers in the secular world, the pool of available clergy for both mission & parishes is pretty poor. Recently, I saw the current list of 7 candidates for ordination in the Olympia Diocese...every one of them women & I have no doubt that at least a few are homosexuals, because that's +Vincent's style. Eventually, these churches really have no choices at all for clergy. You can take lesbian/gay #1, shrill feminist #2, or "I-couldn't-make-it-in-the-buisness-world-so-I-decided-to-become-a-priest" #3. Still think you have a choice?

[AnalogReigns]

read the article b*** head! The bishop with the foreign name is a conservative Christian.

Just a few FReepers can give this site a bad name.

[AnalogReigns]

I too am bothered by that, but the crown of England is really nothing but the "official" head, and hasn't exercised any authority over the Anglican Church in at least a couple hundred years. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, the acting "head" has very limited authority...its more like a college of archbishops, not a strict hiearchy as with Rome.

Most Anglicans (and most all Protestants) would consider the Pope also as a kind of temporal authority.... who's office it would appear makes him speak for God. I do realize there are all kinds of limits on the Pope's authority, however, it appears the entire curia is temporal, and very authoritative...having more authority than scripture itself.

Not looking for an argument here, just giving you what traditional Protestants think about Rome.

With the Anglicans, depending on how the rest of the communion reacts to the apostate Episcopal bishops, we may well see how a church is supposed to deal with serious heresy...which is exactly what this festering sore of liberal churchmen (and women...and, um, neuter?) has become.