Episcopal Church Problems

vanity | Sunday, August 10, 2003 | altura

[altura]

We had discussed posting what happened in our Episcopal churches this Sunday morning.

I’m in the diocese let by Bishop Stanton, one of the 11 Bishops who walked out of the General Assembly in protest. He wrote a letter to all the parishioners to be read to each congregation by the Priest.

Our Priest did not want to read the letter and said so. However, she did because she had taken a vow to obey the Bishop. In itself the letter didn’t say much other than expressing his deep concern for the direction of the Church and announcing the meeting on October 12th to which all of the Priests and other leaders of the diocese will be expected to attend.

He also mentioned the meeting called in England by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Prior to her reading this letter, she preached on the lesson from Ephesians, which was read today, quoting the following:

“Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.”

She also suggested we e-mail Bishop Stanton with our opinions.

Does anyone else have an experience to share?

[walden]

Well, I can certainly understand the differences of opinion on whether women should be priests, but I don't think that anyone would argue that being a woman automatically puts one in a state of sin. What I cannot comprehend is that anyone can argue that being a practicing homosexual DOESN'T put one in a state of sin. That's just beyond me.

I was very pleased to note that that was exactly the terminology that my priest used-- "practicing homosexual". There is nothing "gay" about such a lifestyle, and for too long the homosexuals have succeeded in changing the terminology of the debate to mute the power of accurate language.

I could certainly see a case for the spiritual leadership of a man who had put the practice of homosexuality in his past, who had repented and realized that celibacy was his path to a godly life, and who would counsel the same to others. But, that's not what Robinson is-- he's a practicing homosexual, and proud of it. As such, he can only be a false teacher.

[altura]

The situation you describe about women priests is part of the problem.

For a while, I think the Church was bending over backwards not to discriminate against women applicants because they didn't want to seem anti-woman. This was totally wrong. These applicants should have been screened with the same diligence given to male applicants. That should have eliminated most of the ones you describe.

Now, I see the same reverse bias being applied to homosexuals. Robinson, for example, uses gayness as an excuse for unacceptable behavior. It has frequently been pointed out that had he left his wife for the female organist, it would have been considered completely unacceptable, but because he likes men, supposedly he can't help it?? That's ridiculous, but it seems to be the argument.

[r9etb]

Griswold has shown plenty of willingness thus far to prostrate himself before the hermaphroditic deity of political correctness. I pray that he finds his spine sometime in the near future, but have little hope that it will happen.

You can tell a lot about a priest by how he relates to kids.

Frank Griswold told me everything I needed to know about him when once he walked by my two little boys and pointedly ignored them.

(I think it's much the same lack of human feeling that kept Griswold's priestly presence away from the people in and around the wreckage on 9-11 -- although he was there when it happened, and did somehow find time to sign the guest book at Trinity Wall Street....)

[xring]

"I think we should stick to this issue. The women thing has been decided"


I concur.

Here is the text of our Reverend's sermon this morning.
Comments invited.


This past week, I have received from many of you calls, e-mails and personal visits regarding the events of this past week’s General Convention in Minneapolis. In these exchanges, you have expressed to me your feelings of disappointment, hurt—even outrage and sense of betrayal.

I share your pain.

Like you, I too look for the leaders of our Church to render sound judgments that are in accord with Scripture and the Historic teachings of the Church. When they fail in this, as I feel they have this past week, I grieve not only for myself, but for my congregation—for the sheep under my personal charge, whom I deeply love and am deeply committed to. I grieve for our children, who look to us for moral guidance in this, our often ethically confusing world. And, I grieve for the larger body of Christ, which now faces further disunity and further distraction from our call to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many of you have asked me, “What do we do now?”

While I have some thoughts about this, first I would like to recount the relevant facts surrounding the events of this past week, as the mainstream media’s reports have often been laced with sensationalism and inaccuracies.

As I related in my Pastoral Letter last month, the 74th General Convention had before it two controversial issues of major import: the confirmation votes of Canon Gene Robinson, elected in June to be bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire, and the consideration of a resolution calling for the development of rites blessing unions outside those of Holy Matrimony.

On the first of these items, after a period of debate, Canon Robinson received a majority of consent votes from both the laity and clergy in the House of Deputies last Saturday. The delegation sent by our diocese voted in favor of consent by 3-1 in each the clergy and lay orders.

The issue was to be taken up in the House of Bishops on Monday, but it was delayed when questions arose regarding two matters. First, a man from Vermont had accused Canon Robinson of inappropriately touching him at a conference held a few years ago. Secondly, a website by an organization that Canon Robinson had helped found in the 90s was discovered to have a link to pornographic materials.

The Presiding Bishop appropriately referred these charges to the bishop of Western Massachusetts for prompt investigation. He in turn contacted the Vermont man, who recounted that Canon Robinson had touched him on his upper back and arm in the course of two conversations in open and public settings. There was no suggestion of inappropriate innuendo, but the man later felt that the gestures were overly familiar coming from someone who was of recent acquaintance. While he was glad that his concerns were being taken seriously, the man was embarrassed that his comments had received such national media attention. He agreed that Canon Robinson’s actions could be interpreted benignly and did not wish to pursue the matter any further.

The investigation of the second matter uncovered that Canon Robinson had severed his relationship with the organization in question five years ago, before it had even developed a website. When alerted of the link, the website’s designers stated that it had been placed there by a hacker and had since been deleted.

The results of the investigation were reported to the House of Bishops on Tuesday. All were satisfied that the matter had been handled fairly and judiciously, especially in view of the media frenzy that had descended upon the convention at that time.

Deliberations thus began in the House of Bishops that same day. When they concluded, the Diocesan Bishops voted, with a majority casting ballots in favor, 62-43. Bishop Lee voted in favor of the consent.

After the final tally was announced, a group of nineteen bishops rose and read a statement condemning the decision and disassociating themselves from it. A group of deputies read a similar statement the next morning, when the outcome of the bishops’ vote was formally declared in the House of Deputies.

Later in the week, the second controversial issue—the resolution addressing the development of rites—was taken up in the House of Bishops. Bishop Lee moved that the section of the resolution calling for the development of such rites be deleted. After some debate, the amendment passed and the resolution was thus stripped of that mandate. The bishops and deputies later adopted this watered-down version.

In explaining his reason for voting to give consent for Robinson’s consecration, Bp. Lee wrote, “I am convinced of the need to respect the Diocese of New Hampshire’s decision, in spite of my personal reservations and our current diocesan policy, which would not permit Canon Robinson to be ordained in Virginia.”

This rationale echoes comments made by our Presiding Bishop in a recent letter, wherein he urged his colleagues to “respect the Diocese of New Hampshire’s decision.”

Normally, I would agree that dioceses should respect the decisions of other dioceses. Accordingly, the withholding of consent has occurred only a handful of times in our Church’s history.

This case, however, is different. Why? Because in their election, the diocese of New Hampshire showed a serious disrespect for the teachings of the larger Church, especially as presented in Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which identifies the lifestyle that Canon Robinson currently leads as contrary to Scripture.

Such a lack of respect nullifies any claim that might be made about respecting the New Hampshire decision.

The process of asking for consents was never meant to be a rubber stamp. It is an important part of the system of checks and balances that guards against the very human tendency to fall into error. As such, when a member diocese embarks on a precipitous course, it is not merely an option—it is the duty of the larger church to check that decision and attempt to guide the errant diocese back into the fold.

I therefore respectfully yet firmly disagree with the logic of this rationale, as well as the votes that were cast because of it. Had either of the erroneous charges made against Canon Robinson been proven to be true, this line of reasoning would have totally collapsed.

That it can still be offered as a valid explanation only suggests that its purveyors cannot yet bring themselves to publically acknowledge that they do not truly believe that Canon Robinson’s present lifestyle is outside the wholesome and godly example expected of our bishops.

While I was deeply disappointed in this matter, I join with Bishop Lee in being thankful for the positive response he received when introducing the amendment removing the operative clause from the resolution calling for the development of rites for the blessing of unions outside of Holy Matrimony.

However, the revised resolution remains problematic. One of its clauses ambiguously acknowledges that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.” Since the resolution does not condemn such local experimentation within the church, it could be read as condoning it.

Therefore, I find the resolution unhelpful at best, as it does not clearly state the teachings of Scripture on this matter. It merely facilitates a milieu where each diocese is encouraged to “do what is right in its own eyes” (cf. Judges 17:6).

So now, we come to the question: where do we go from here?

In my own personal reflections over the past few days, the figure of Elijah has often come to mind. He faced a situation far worse than our own. As prophet to the then apostate nation of Israel, he fled for his life when Queen Jezebel sent assassins after him (1 Kings 19:1–18).

Tired and depressed, he journeyed far south to Mt. Horeb, where he complained bitterly before the Lord. He was the only one left of the covenant people who had not bent his knee to Baal—or so he felt. After this, the wind howled and the earth shook. But God was not in all these eruptions that reflected so well the agitated state of Elijah’s soul.

Instead, God came to Elijah in a “still small voice,” reassuring him that he was not alone—7,000 others had not worshiped Baal. Moreover, he charged Elijah to go back to his people and to work for the redemption of Israel.

So too is it for many of us who stand before God this morning in an agitated state, feeling shell-shocked from all the fireworks of this past week. Yet as we wait patiently upon the Lord, he will speak to us in that same “still small voice.”

He will reassure us that we are not alone. This is not only the case within the Episcopal Church, where thousands have not bent their knee to the recent actions of General Convention, but also throughout the World Wide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church comprises less than three percent.

Along these lines, on Friday the Archbishop of Canterbury summoned the Primates of the Communion to an Extraordinary Meeting to be held at Lambeth Palace in mid-October—the first such emergency gathering in the Communion’s history.

Because a large number of Primates have already issued statements opposing last week’s consents, the meeting will surely be an attempt by the rest of the Communion to persuade our Presiding Bishop to alter our national church’s present course.

Failing that, they will almost certainly issue statements of dissociation to which individuals and congregations may subscribe, aligning themselves theologically with the larger Anglican Communion.

In the coming weeks, the vestry and I will be monitoring these developments and reporting upon them. We will also be examining recently circulated petitions to see if they appropriately express our individual or collective views on the recent actions of General Convention.

Likewise, we will be considering proposals addressing the concerns of parishioners who feel that, while they strongly support the ministries of Pohick Church, they cannot in good conscience contribute financially to the national church in view of recent events.

I must underscore that we will seek to enter these deliberations not rashly, but prayerfully and thoughtfully.

In this respect, last week when I asked my predecessor, the Reverend Bill Brake, what he was telling his parishioners at St. Andrew’s in Nags Head, he replied that he was counseling them to take a deep breath, count to seventy times seven, and not do anything precipitous—but to pray and to continue the work of the church as we seek to discern God’s specific course for our congregation.

This is sage advice.

We must be prayerful. We must continue the work we have been called to do. Our children need us to be there for them. The sick need to be ministered to. Those who live in or are moving into our neighborhoods need to hear the Gospel preached and to see it embodied in our lives.

And so I now conclude with the prayer that I placed at the end of my Pastoral Letter last month that now seems even more apt than when I first cited it:

Gracious Father, we pray for your Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth, and with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.

[altura]

Your refusal to use the term "gay" is interesting.

I looked the term up not long ago for something I was writing (to see how long it had been in use ...if it was appropriate for the time period). It is a really new term.

Now, I can't remember, but I'm thinking 1978 ... anyway it wasn't that long ago and the use of this term spread in amazingly short order.

[altura]

About the money from your church going to the national church, there are several churches in the Dallas diocese that have withheld their funds in recent years.

I don't know what penalty they incurred for this (I think none).

[altura]

Ha, ha, sometimes you really need prayer.

[altura]

I would be very tempted to go that route as well ... staying cosy in my own dear little church and ignoring the national church, but I don't think we will have that option.

It was pretty obvious from Bishop Stanton's letter that he is very serious about taking this diocese out of the National Church.

The Dallas Diocese (this is the case with all diocese) owns the individual churches; the land, the building, the vestments, the silver, all our stuff.

If we didn't want to go along with what is done, we'd have to go worship in a tent. That would be okay if we could find an air conditioned one, but I would opt for going along. I would really like to split from the far-left National Church ... don't like the presiding Bishop and don't like much of what they do.

[xring]

"I think we should stick to this issue. The women thing has been decided"


I concur.

Here is the text of our Reverend's sermon this morning.
Comments invited.


This past week, I have received from many of you calls, e-mails and personal visits regarding the events of this past week’s General Convention in Minneapolis. In these exchanges, you have expressed to me your feelings of disappointment, hurt—even outrage and sense of betrayal.

I share your pain.

Like you, I too look for the leaders of our Church to render sound judgments that are in accord with Scripture and the Historic teachings of the Church. When they fail in this, as I feel they have this past week, I grieve not only for myself, but for my congregation—for the sheep under my personal charge, whom I deeply love and am deeply committed to. I grieve for our children, who look to us for moral guidance in this, our often ethically confusing world. And, I grieve for the larger body of Christ, which now faces further disunity and further distraction from our call to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many of you have asked me, “What do we do now?”

While I have some thoughts about this, first I would like to recount the relevant facts surrounding the events of this past week, as the mainstream media’s reports have often been laced with sensationalism and inaccuracies.

As I related in my Pastoral Letter last month, the 74th General Convention had before it two controversial issues of major import: the confirmation votes of Canon Gene Robinson, elected in June to be bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire, and the consideration of a resolution calling for the development of rites blessing unions outside those of Holy Matrimony.

On the first of these items, after a period of debate, Canon Robinson received a majority of consent votes from both the laity and clergy in the House of Deputies last Saturday. The delegation sent by our diocese voted in favor of consent by 3-1 in each the clergy and lay orders.

The issue was to be taken up in the House of Bishops on Monday, but it was delayed when questions arose regarding two matters. First, a man from Vermont had accused Canon Robinson of inappropriately touching him at a conference held a few years ago. Secondly, a website by an organization that Canon Robinson had helped found in the 90s was discovered to have a link to pornographic materials.

The Presiding Bishop appropriately referred these charges to the bishop of Western Massachusetts for prompt investigation. He in turn contacted the Vermont man, who recounted that Canon Robinson had touched him on his upper back and arm in the course of two conversations in open and public settings. There was no suggestion of inappropriate innuendo, but the man later felt that the gestures were overly familiar coming from someone who was of recent acquaintance. While he was glad that his concerns were being taken seriously, the man was embarrassed that his comments had received such national media attention. He agreed that Canon Robinson’s actions could be interpreted benignly and did not wish to pursue the matter any further.

The investigation of the second matter uncovered that Canon Robinson had severed his relationship with the organization in question five years ago, before it had even developed a website. When alerted of the link, the website’s designers stated that it had been placed there by a hacker and had since been deleted.

The results of the investigation were reported to the House of Bishops on Tuesday. All were satisfied that the matter had been handled fairly and judiciously, especially in view of the media frenzy that had descended upon the convention at that time.

Deliberations thus began in the House of Bishops that same day. When they concluded, the Diocesan Bishops voted, with a majority casting ballots in favor, 62-43. xxxxxxx voted in favor of the consent.

After the final tally was announced, a group of nineteen bishops rose and read a statement condemning the decision and disassociating themselves from it. A group of deputies read a similar statement the next morning, when the outcome of the bishops’ vote was formally declared in the House of Deputies.

Later in the week, the second controversial issue—the resolution addressing the development of rites—was taken up in the House of Bishops. Bishop xxxxx moved that the section of the resolution calling for the development of such rites be deleted. After some debate, the amendment passed and the resolution was thus stripped of that mandate. The bishops and deputies later adopted this watered-down version.

In explaining his reason for voting to give consent for Robinson’s consecration, Bp. xxxxxx wrote, “I am convinced of the need to respect the Diocese of New Hampshire’s decision, in spite of my personal reservations and our current diocesan policy, which would not permit Canon Robinson to be ordained in xxxxxxx.”

This rationale echoes comments made by our Presiding Bishop in a recent letter, wherein he urged his colleagues to “respect the Diocese of New Hampshire’s decision.”

Normally, I would agree that dioceses should respect the decisions of other dioceses. Accordingly, the withholding of consent has occurred only a handful of times in our Church’s history.

This case, however, is different. Why? Because in their election, the diocese of New Hampshire showed a serious disrespect for the teachings of the larger Church, especially as presented in Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which identifies the lifestyle that Canon Robinson currently leads as contrary to Scripture.

Such a lack of respect nullifies any claim that might be made about respecting the New Hampshire decision.

The process of asking for consents was never meant to be a rubber stamp. It is an important part of the system of checks and balances that guards against the very human tendency to fall into error. As such, when a member diocese embarks on a precipitous course, it is not merely an option—it is the duty of the larger church to check that decision and attempt to guide the errant diocese back into the fold.

I therefore respectfully yet firmly disagree with the logic of this rationale, as well as the votes that were cast because of it. Had either of the erroneous charges made against Canon Robinson been proven to be true, this line of reasoning would have totally collapsed.

That it can still be offered as a valid explanation only suggests that its purveyors cannot yet bring themselves to publically acknowledge that they do not truly believe that Canon Robinson’s present lifestyle is outside the wholesome and godly example expected of our bishops.

While I was deeply disappointed in this matter, I join with Bishop xxxxxx in being thankful for the positive response he received when introducing the amendment removing the operative clause from the resolution calling for the development of rites for the blessing of unions outside of Holy Matrimony.

However, the revised resolution remains problematic. One of its clauses ambiguously acknowledges that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.” Since the resolution does not condemn such local experimentation within the church, it could be read as condoning it.

Therefore, I find the resolution unhelpful at best, as it does not clearly state the teachings of Scripture on this matter. It merely facilitates a milieu where each diocese is encouraged to “do what is right in its own eyes” (cf. Judges 17:6).

So now, we come to the question: where do we go from here?

In my own personal reflections over the past few days, the figure of Elijah has often come to mind. He faced a situation far worse than our own. As prophet to the then apostate nation of Israel, he fled for his life when Queen Jezebel sent assassins after him (1 Kings 19:1–18).

Tired and depressed, he journeyed far south to Mt. Horeb, where he complained bitterly before the Lord. He was the only one left of the covenant people who had not bent his knee to Baal—or so he felt. After this, the wind howled and the earth shook. But God was not in all these eruptions that reflected so well the agitated state of Elijah’s soul.

Instead, God came to Elijah in a “still small voice,” reassuring him that he was not alone—7,000 others had not worshiped Baal. Moreover, he charged Elijah to go back to his people and to work for the redemption of Israel.

So too is it for many of us who stand before God this morning in an agitated state, feeling shell-shocked from all the fireworks of this past week. Yet as we wait patiently upon the Lord, he will speak to us in that same “still small voice.”

He will reassure us that we are not alone. This is not only the case within the Episcopal Church, where thousands have not bent their knee to the recent actions of General Convention, but also throughout the World Wide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church comprises less than three percent.

Along these lines, on Friday the Archbishop of Canterbury summoned the Primates of the Communion to an Extraordinary Meeting to be held at Lambeth Palace in mid-October—the first such emergency gathering in the Communion’s history.

Because a large number of Primates have already issued statements opposing last week’s consents, the meeting will surely be an attempt by the rest of the Communion to persuade our Presiding Bishop to alter our national church’s present course.

Failing that, they will almost certainly issue statements of dissociation to which individuals and congregations may subscribe, aligning themselves theologically with the larger Anglican Communion.

In the coming weeks, the vestry and I will be monitoring these developments and reporting upon them. We will also be examining recently circulated petitions to see if they appropriately express our individual or collective views on the recent actions of General Convention.

Likewise, we will be considering proposals addressing the concerns of parishioners who feel that, while they strongly support the ministries of xxxxx Church, they cannot in good conscience contribute financially to the national church in view of recent events.

I must underscore that we will seek to enter these deliberations not rashly, but prayerfully and thoughtfully.

In this respect, last week when I asked my predecessor, the Reverend xxxxxxx, what he was telling his parishioners at xxxxxxxxxx, he replied that he was counseling them to take a deep breath, count to seventy times seven, and not do anything precipitous—but to pray and to continue the work of the church as we seek to discern God’s specific course for our congregation.

This is sage advice.

We must be prayerful. We must continue the work we have been called to do. Our children need us to be there for them. The sick need to be ministered to. Those who live in or are moving into our neighborhoods need to hear the Gospel preached and to see it embodied in our lives.

And so I now conclude with the prayer that I placed at the end of my Pastoral Letter last month that now seems even more apt than when I first cited it:

Gracious Father, we pray for your Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth, and with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.

[altura]

Well, yeah, there is something inherently sinful about being human, but men are (sorta) human and they are considered acceptable for the priesthood.

[Prof Engineer]

My hunch is that Episcopalians went to Episcopal churches in droves this Sunday to see how their own churches would respond.

Your hunch is probably right on. I made sure to go, to see if Bishop Stanton would send a pastoral letter. I'm glad to have heard his message.

Looks like the next couple of months are going to be very telling throughout the Anglican Communion.

[altura]

Re your tagline: yes, you will, yes, you will, yes, you will.

[altura]

What did you think after hearing his letter?

I definitely got the feeling he's gonna go. I don't know the logistics of it, i.e. whether or not what the conference in England does is going to make a difference or what.

The meeting in Plano should be REALLY interesting.

[xring]

OOPS!

SORRY!

[mosby]

Surely different each diocese cannot have a different interpetation as to what constitutes sinful behavior. At what point does the national body step in? Presumably if a diocese was practising, for example, witchcraft, the national body would institute some sort of disipline. My point is that I find the actions of the dissenting Bishops more than a little disingenuous. Where have they been for the last 10 years on the issue of active gay priests? Why the sudden shock and dismay at this point? It strikes me that they never did really want to face this issue. Leads to believe that the "progressives" are right - the conservative leadership will wimp out. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[altura]

I dunno. Maybe they've finally reached their limit.

Here is a link to what Bishop Stanton had to say:

http://www.episcopal-dallas.org/

[Yeti]

By the way, is it just me, or does "GLBT" sound like it should be some sort of sandwich?

I understand it is exactly that, at some parties...

[Prof Engineer]

Re your tagline: yes, you will, yes, you will, yes, you will.

Of course I do.

I'm a FReeper.

[utahagen]

Here's my prediction of what will happen over the next few months:

As already planned, in early October, the orthodox Episcopal bishops in the U.S. will meet under the aegis of the Aerican Anglican Council. These bishops will prepare what they will say to the Anglican Communion, which will be that the ECUSA is ALREADY in schism and the Anglican Communion must find a way to help orthodox Episcopalians to separate formally from the ECUSA, yet still remain in the Anglican Communion.

Also as already planned, Anglican bishops from all over the world will convene in London in mid October. First, there will be a large majority of bishops who will approve of giving othodox Episcoplians a way to part from the ECUSA yet stay in the Anglican Communion. THEN, the majority of bishops will give this mandate to the Archbishop of Canterbury: drum the ECUSA out of the Anglican Communion. THEN the Archbishop of Canterbury will tell the ECUSA that if they must retract their approval of Robinson, that if they go ahead and consecrate Robinson in November, they will be breaking the ECUSA off from the Anglican Communion.

What do you think of this scenario?

[Prof Engineer]

What did you think after hearing his letter?

It warmed me. He is on the side of righteousness, not PC.

I've been wondering about logistics for several days. Having the bishop take the entire diocese would make it much easier.

I got the distinct impression, Bishop Stanton will be a very noticeable dissenting vote.