We must remain faithful to the apostles' teaching

Episcopal Diocese of Diocese ^ | August 8, 2003 | Rt. Rev'd James Stanton

[Credo]

We must remain faithful to the apostles' teaching

By Bishop James M. Stanton

Ten bishops have been elected recently by Episcopal Dioceses in the United States. Generally, these events do not draw more than local attention in the press.

But the election of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire has drawn worldwide attention. The reason: Canon Robinson lives openly in a homosexual relationship.

Individual dioceses in the United States may elect their own bishops. These elections must, however, be confirmed in a two-step process by all the other dioceses in the country, just over 100 in all, and also by the bishops who head these dioceses. That's because bishops are ordained for the whole church, not just for a diocese.

The 10 recently elected will come before the General Convention, acting on behalf of the church, in Minneapolis in July. The outcome is an open question.

Canon Robinson's confirmation and eventual consecration would deepen already existing divisions in the Episcopal Church and likely occasion a rupture in the worldwide Anglican Communion. The reason for this is simple:

1. The teaching of the apostles, found in the New Testament, limits sexual intimacy to a man and a woman bound in holy matrimony.;

2. A bishop is ordained to uphold and continue the apostles' teaching - as the Prayer Book says, "to be one with the apostles.";

3. As a bishop, Canon Robinson would be a living contradiction of the apostles' teaching.

There are voices that propose a change in the apostolic teaching, or even reject it. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops (which included more than 800 bishops worldwide), 88 percent reaffirmed the historic teaching, and the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the new archbishop of Canterbury, has said that this action reflects the mind of the church.

Perhaps no other social issue has received as much attention, study and debate in the church. And yet the apostolic position remains the official position of this church. The confirmation of Canon Robinson would in effect change church teaching.

Significantly, this change would not have come about by a deliberate and informed action having to do with the substance of our teaching on sexuality, but by the unilateral action of a single diocese with approval by a single branch of a communion that understands itself to be both catholic and apostolic.

Such an action would certainly undermine the unity and witness of the communion. And some have argued that it would be an illegitimate use of the Episcopal Church's power. Its own constitution declares the Episcopal Church to be a "constituent member of the Anglican Communion ... upholding the historic Faith and Order" of that communion.

As such, confirmation would be unconstitutional.

A dispute with the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada has already occasioned division in the communion. That diocese, acting unilaterally, issued rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. Archbishop Williams responded, "In taking this action and ignoring the considerable reservations of the church ... the diocese has gone significantly further than the teaching of the church or pastoral concern can justify. I very much regret the inevitable tension and division that will result from this development."

Thirteen Canadian bishops have declared that a state of impaired communion now exists with that diocese, and a growing number of archbishops from the communion have done so as well. (At this writing, 16 of 38!) One can only imagine the response of the rest of the church to the Episcopal Church if the election of Canon Robinson is confirmed.

The Anglican Church worldwide, and the Episcopal Church in the United States, have repeatedly asserted the need to extend pastoral care and welcome to all people, including persons of homosexual orientation. This, too, is a part of the apostolic teaching.

But the recent steps taken by New Westminster and New Hampshire are divisive and confront the whole Anglican Church with the question of its faithfulness to its own sense of vocation and order.

On this basis, I oppose both actions. I stand with my colleagues worldwide. Some will say the direction taken by New Hampshire is the leading of the Holy Spirit in a new age.

But the apostles' teaching is that the Spirit leads to unity with God and one another, not to greater division. And nowhere is the Holy Spirit seen in the New Testament to contradict God's revelation in prior ages.

Some will say the growing conflict is about justice and compassion. But without faithfulness to the apostles' teaching - the church's charter - only disorder will be the result. And disorder never leads to either justice or compassion.

[Credo]

Bishop Stanton is a leader of the Conservative Episcopal Bishops.

[Credo]

The Bishop of Central Florida writes his Diocese

August 8, 2003

My Very Dear Friends,

I am sending this to all those on the clergy listserve, and (via my
secretary, Melanie Walters) to all the other clergy and Senior Wardens
of every congregation in the Diocese of Central Florida.

PLEASE READ THIS TO YOUR CONGREGATIONS ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 10, 2003.

Beloved in Christ,

The 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church has now taken two
historic actions that will forever alter its life and that of the
Anglican Communion.

It has:

a) confirmed the election of an openly "gay" man living in a
"partnered" relationship with another man as Bishop-elect of the
Diocese of New Hampshire. This confirmation commends him as a
"wholesome example" to the Church and the world. This is the first time
in history that any Christian Church has so commended as a bishop
anyone who is openly sexually active outside of holy matrimony.

Convention has also:

b) authorized the "compilation and development of resources under the
direction of the Presiding Bishop" to facilitate as wide as possible a
"conversation of discernment" throughout the Church regarding the
status of homosexual relationships within our Church. It is widely
understood that "resources" means liturgies for the blessing of same-
sex unions. Indeed, the enabling Resolution recognized that such
liturgies are already being "experienced" in many parts of the
Episcopal Church.

These two decisions plunge us into a constitutional crisis. The very
first sentence of the Preamble to our Constitution says that we are a
constituent member of the Anglican Communion, committed to "propagating
and upholding the historic faith and order " of the Church as it is
expressed in the Book of Common Prayer. Tragically, we have now
departed from that faith and order.

Both I and the members of your General Convention deputation are
profoundly saddened by these developments.

Equally, the members of our Diocese are troubled by these decisions. I
have received more than 300 emails in the last two days, overwhelmingly
decrying these two actions. (Please forgive me for not answering each
of them personally!) Many are saying they will no longer support the
Episcopal Church financially. Many are saying they will leave.

I plead with all of them, and all of you, to allow us to think and pray
about these developments together.

A number of the orthodox bishops of the Episcopal Church have appealed
to the Primates of the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion, under
the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "intervene" in this
"pastoral emergency." We do not, frankly, know what such an
intervention might mean, as it has never been done before. But such
authority was explicitly given to the Primates at the last meeting of
the world-wide gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion at
the Lambeth Conference of 1998.

It appears likely that a number of the Primates will follow the lead of
the Archbishop of Kenya, who said on August 5, 2003 that, "We are
convinced that any diocese or province that has resolved and sanctioned
the blessing of same-sex unions has denied itself membership in the
Anglican Communion and has 'kicked' itself out of the Communion."

I met with our clergy at the Canterbury Conference Center on the eve of
this General Convention, on July 25, 2003, and I told them that I would
make no decisions unilaterally. Rather, I will return to Central
Florida, and call a Special Convention in which we will consider
together what all of this means to us.

Accordingly, I am hereby calling for a SPECIAL CONVENTION of the
Diocese to meet at Trinity Preparatory School in Oviedo, Florida (where
we met in January of this year), on September 20, 2003. We will begin
with the celebration of the Holy Eucharist at 10 AM, and then move
directly into our consideration of these developments. The delegates
who represented our congregations at our regular Convention on January
25, 2003 are still and will be the delegates to this Special
Convention. Anyone else is of course welcome to attend as a guest and
observer, but only clergy and delegates will have seat, voice and vote.

This is a time for prayer, and careful attention to the prompting of
the Holy Spirit. It is not a time for fear or anxiety. Please remember
the gospel reading from several weeks ago. When the storm came up so
unexpectedly and violently, the disciples panicked and asked, "Lord,
don't you care? We are perishing." And Jesus' reply was, "Why are you
afraid? Have you no faith?" Then he rebuked the storm, and it was
still. God is very much in control of his Church, just as he always has
been.

I know you will join me in praying for God's wisdom and guidance as we
approach this meeting.

Warmly in our Lord,

 +John W. Howe Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

[secret garden]

I sincerely hope our bishop takes the same approach. It is difficult not to feel as though we are perishing and to stay calm. My concern is that orthodox members should have been more aware of this action and better prepared to deal with it a long time ago. The organizations that support these changes in the church have had these plans for many years. Were the rest of us sleeping? It is very troubling.

[Credo]

A previous thread detailed the special convening of the Anglican Primates in October by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Anglican church leader to summon bishops

Credo Commentary: There is talk of a "Separate Province" in North America. Is ECUSA and the Church of Canada going to be allowed to stay in if this happens? Then you'll have two (or three)geographically coexistent provinces who are opposed to one another. If a new Province is formed, ECUSA (and possibly the Church of Canada) must be disfellowshipped from the Anglican Communion. That is the only logical outcome. I can assure you that African and Asian Primates want nothing more to do with ECUSA no matter how much Rowan Williams wants to split the baby.

[Credo]

I was in on these type discussions 10 to 12 years ago. The revisionists tried to sneak pro homosexual resolutions into General Convention in 1979!

You are right. If there were no contigency plans prior to this, faithful people will leave (and have left) the Episcopal Church in droves. Why would a faithful Christian want to stay in? There are plenty of Church bodies that aren't wasting their energy on this nonsense.

[Credo]

San Joaquin's input.

Diocese of San Joaquin notes Bump.

[NYer]

There are voices that propose a change in the apostolic teaching, or even reject it. ...88 percent reaffirmed the historic teaching, and the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the new archbishop of Canterbury, has said that this action reflects the mind of the church.

Please excuse my ignorance on this, as I am neither an Episcopalian nor an Anglican, but, wouldn't a change in apostolic teaching be a rejection of sacred scripture?

The document issued by the Catholic Church clearly spells out the scriptural references for the institution of marriage and the rejection of homosexual unions. Here are some extracts:

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".7

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

How does this Episcopalian group of homosexual supporters justify their position? Holy Scripture is complete, there are no new books with new or different messages. What am I missing here?

[Credo]

About 8 years, some brave conservative bishops "presented" or brought charges against Bishop Walter Righter who had ordained a noncelibate open homosexual.

Needless to say the Ecclesiastical Court split the baby and let Righter off the hook.

The following paper explains some of the issues on both sides, but clearly lays out the biblical case.

A Time of Trial

[FreeRep]

I read in the news from ECUSA: "Human sexuality remains a divisive issue, but I don't want anyone to leave the church because of it. Gene Robinson has lived in the light, Bishop Griswold said this week, "of living with difference."


Lived in the Light?

Bible said, "Lovers of Darkness - John 3:19
"The light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil"


"Actions" were/are evil, can not Bishop Griswold, and Aarchbishop of Canterbury see is this?

[ahadams2]

Oh, now there you go being logical and consistent again. The heretics are neither - they claim Scripture can be reinterpretted to mean whatever they want it to mean, there are NO absolutes, and the various demonic entities they confuse with the Holy Spirit are allowed to contradict themselves whenever they wish. ...and no, none of the heretics seem to have ever heard of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, either, now that you ask....

[NYer]

The heretics are neither - they claim Scripture can be reinterpretted to mean whatever they want it to mean, there are NO absolutes, and the various demonic entities they confuse with the Holy Spirit are allowed to contradict themselves whenever they wish.

Okay, please bear with me in my ignorance of your church's teachings with regard to scripture.

Do the Episcopal and Angligan churches both support 'sola scriptura'? (I am still amazed at the christian apologetics web site www.christianlesbians.com!)

Someone posted a thread the other day and I can't find it right now. The question raised was an excellent one! Is the ECUSA decision the result of 'sola scriptura'? What do you think?

[Aliska]

2 Peter 2

False Teachers and Their Destruction

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Scripture is being reinvented by the liberal wing of the Episcopalian church.

[Aliska]

Isaiah 5

20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter

[ahadams2]

You wrote: "Okay, please bear with me in my ignorance of your church's teachings with regard to scripture.

Do the Episcopal and Angligan churches both support 'sola scriptura'? (I am still amazed at the christian apologetics web site www.christianlesbians.com!)

Someone posted a thread the other day and I can't find it right now. The question raised was an excellent one! Is the ECUSA decision the result of 'sola scriptura'? What do you think? "

Good questions! First off, the 'Christian Lesbians' site does not engage in valid apologetics from any orthodox Protestant perspective...though it does once again demonstrate that ignorance can be bliss right up to the moment one stands before the Judgement Seat.

Anglicanism (of which the Episcopal Church was until recently at least putatively a component) holds to a 'three legged stool', or perhaps a better image would be a 'tricycle' approach to theology. If we use the latter, then Holy Scripture, as the inerrant Word of God written, is the big wheel in front with the pedals attached. If anything is NOT supported or if it is contradicted by God's Word, then the front wheel is missing and theologically it ain't going anywhere. *If* something is supported by Scripture, or if Scripture is moot on the topic, then one next checks to see what Church tradition holds with regard to the topic in question. Now here's where *many* of us (though not all) differ with our Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic brothers, in that it is the responsibility of those involved in a particular decision to insure that there is no conflict between the Traditions of the Church and Holy Scripture - this is an individual responsibility before God, and not one which can be, well, foisted off on the Church Fathers, or someone someplace with a mitre. Finally if neither Holy Scripture nor Tradition speak to a topic (space travel, as an example) then careful, educated reason, which also considers on Scriptural principles and seeking to be consistent with the *Biblical* traditions of the Church are to be used to determine the proper course of action. In ALL of the above situations, it is imperative that prayerful consultation, and the prayerful seeking of God's Will is always the first priority in the process of making any decision.

Now if you consider all of the above, you'll see that the heretics in ECUSA tossed the entire tricycle out a window and simply decided that anything that they thought felt good was of God and anything which made them even slightly uncomfortable (like, oh say, accountability for one's actions before God) was not. Also they may hve been influenced by some spirits, but obviously not by the Holy Spirit, since God never contradicts Himself.

did that clarify things at all?

[Credo]

The Book of Common Prayer contains a section called the Articles of Religion.

Basically the following is the Historical Anglican approach to Scripture.

Article 6 - The sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation

Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Article 20 - The Authority of the Church

The Church has power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church is a witness and a keeper of Holy Scripture: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

The key word is the historical anglican understanding is that the Scriptures are "God's Word Written."

[NYer]

it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written

Bear with me one more time with my questions (my family tells me that my first sentence was phrased in the form of a question ... and I have not stopped, since!) On another thread, freeper missyme is agonizing over a comment made by a friend (with friends like this who needs enemies?).

"Please help freepers: I have had conversations with a friend of mine, that sees no problem with the Episcopal church electing a Gay Bishop? The reason being that there actually is no scripture in the New Testament condeming homosexual behavior like there is in the Old Testamment scripture. "

Notice the cleverness of the argument - "actually is no scripture in the New Testament".

You can't separate the New from the Old. Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament. But the homosexuals have separated the two.

Poor 'missyme' continues .... "If Jesus did not come to abolish "The Law" but to fufill the law then why doesn't the Christian Church give a accurate scipture description on Homosexuality? "

That is an excellent question!! The morning following Robinson's approval, I turned on NBC where Matt Lauer asked the 'soft' questions, switched to NBC where they followed the same 'soft' line of questioning. Fully expecting that CBS would follow suit, I hesitated before switching to that channel - BIG MISTAKE!! When it came on, Robinson was answering what I presume was a 'hard' question from Harry Smith. The only part of his response that I caught was this ... "they were not aware of this in those days". Aware of what??? Homosexuality???? Sure they were!! Homosexuality, like prostitution, has been with us as long as the cockroach. What was the question and what was Robinson's verbatim response?

Here are two other very active threads on this topic. You may want to drop in and post some comments, especially for missyme.

A Statement from the President Forward in Faith North America

Did Jesus Comment on Homosexuality?

You realize, of course, that all 'faithful' christians are now under attack. It will get worse before it gets better.

[ahadams2]

While what you have written concerning Articles VI and XX is entirely correct, I was building a step before that in my post. I did so knowing that the person to whom I was responding is Roman Catholic, and thus probably not familiar with the 39 Articles.

[ahadams2]

You wrote: "You realize, of course, that all 'faithful' christians are now under attack. It will get worse before it gets better."

This is undoubtedly true and has been true for some time. I continue to wonder how much longer it will be before all Christians realize it.

[Credo]

Romans 1 is pretty explicit. As well as I Cor 6:9.

One thing people who espouse what I would call "gay hermeneutics" is their claim that the condemned practices are part of the ceremonial code. A plain reading would indicate that this is actually part of the moral code applying to all people for all time. The fact that Paul repeats it in the NT reinforces it.

Ceremonial code would include kosher food items etc. Acts 10 deals with how Christ fulfills the necessity of following this. From what I have read of the NT, the indication is you can follow the ceremonial code if you choose gentiles are not expected to. The prohibited practices in Lev. 18 are not part of this.

Another "gay hermeneutic" is the fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the Gospels. This may be where your friends are confused. The Pauline Epistles address this at length.

The question is why didn't the Lord address homosexuality and why did Paul? The Lord, while on the earth, said his mission was to minister to the "Lost Sheep of Israel". Because the Jews had observed a strict code about these ethics, it probably wasn't an issue. Paul was called to the be first apostle to the Gentile world. Homosexuality was rampant in the Graeco-Roman world. Often, converts would drag their old lifestyles back into the Church. Paul's writing was a corrective to that.

Jesus also addressed adultery very plainly. Is homosexuality actually a subset of the sin of adultery?

I'm tired and kind of rambling. Please forgive me. Look at the link above very carefully entitled "A Time of Trial"

[beelzepug]

The Bishop wrote:
"A number of the orthodox bishops of the Episcopal Church have appealed
to the Primates of the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion, under
the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "intervene" in this
"pastoral emergency." We do not, frankly, know what such an
intervention might mean, as it has never been done before."

The type of intervention asked for by the Primates is the ultimate booby prize. Establishing a 2nd Povince in ECUSA will only give Bible-believing Episcopalians something/somewhere to retreat to--and when they make their retreat, they will go with nothing. After years of supporting their local, Diocesan, and National Church with a mountain of cold, hard, cash, they will ultimately have to leave it all behind and start over...the Bishop holds the Deed on everything right down to the little pencils in the pew racks. These Bishops are not...repeat...are not going to allow multi-million dollar assets to simply be "transferred" into a new Province. While it is possible, though I think not probable, there might be a negotiated settlement where parishes that do wish to leave, but retain their property, would have to pay the market value of their church and everything in it...cash. That, my friend, would mean the mother of all capital campaigns that most congregations simply could not manage and, so, even with a 2nd Province, they'd probably still have to just walk away and start over. For those parishes that are fortunate enough to be in a Diocese with a traditionalist Bishop, the Bishop might be able to associate with the 2nd Province and take some parishes with him, but keep in mind that it would not be all of them or their property. That Bishop might be a traditionalist, but not all of those parishes will be. It is likely that many will suck up to apostasy and stay with ECUSA for no other reason than they can't bring themselves to walk out the door with nothing but what they came in with ...their wallets.

Seems to me, that if the bottom line is that we'll all have to do that anyway, why wait? There are probably in the neighborhood of twenty continuing Anglican Provinces in the U.S. today that have been around for nearly 30 years and each and everyone of them stands ready to assist the traditionalists in establishing their new Church. And here's the silver lining...you pay an assessment to the new Diocese, but the Bishop can't later lay claim to your building, your gold/silver chalices, or even the little golf pencils in the pew rack. Sure, these Provinces are not considered to be "in communion" with the See of Canterbury, but so what? He has no power anyway...merely a figurehead... and he's a sodomite sympathizer besides. A 2nd Province in the ECUSA won't be one bit better. Only different.

I say, leave the ECUSA, and DO IT NOW. Faithful Christians have given up their lives to defend their faith for 2000 years. All we have to give up is property and that's all been defiled anyway just by being associated with this corrupted and perverted Episcopal Church USA. Shake the dust from your sandals and get while the gettin's good.