Replies

"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.

"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, your statement:

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

was telling and unfortunate because the ordination of women has a direct bearing upon the recent decision and the discussion at hand. Episcopal Church's ordaining women was a fateful sign that the denomination, as a whole had chosen social evolution, political correctness and expediency over scripture.

Their choice of a practicing homosexual as Bishop is just the latest step in their apostasy and abandonment of God's Word as the determining factor in what the denomination believes and how they live their lives (faith and practice). Scripture has spoken on the subject of women pastors/women priests and the problem is it didn't fit with what they wanted to do. So the denomination substituted it's will for God's Word.

The ordination of women is not scriptural from both the order of creation and the historic fall of our first parents Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Up until the early 20th century, few Christian denominations or groups allowed women to be ordained. Since that time, most of the liberal denominations have accepted female ministers and pastors and many mainline denominations, including the Episcopal Church, are following suit.

Those promoting the ordination of women cite Gal. 3:28 as the core or “heart” of the New Testament instruction to the church regarding the subject and the proof text concerning the ordination of women and the functional roles of Christian men and women within the church. However, a thorough exegesis of Galatians 3:28 and the surrounding passages reveals they do not refer to a new social structure nor do they support or even enter into a discussion of the idea of gender impartiality. This text instead focuses on justification. Paul is talking about those who are saved, not those who hold an office. He affirms that God accepts all through faith in Jesus Christ, without any discrimination. Thus, the nature of salvation (salvation is totally of God without regard to the status of those saved) and one’s spiritual standing before God (united/one and equally blessed in Christ, joint-heirship of women in Christ)--not the role of women within the church--is in view.

While women are equal to men in the eyes of God, they are different. According to His will, women may serve in a multitude of roles within the church, ministering to women, children, etc. However, God’s Word is clear that they are not to assume positions of authority over men for the following reasons.

Christ gave His church the public, pastoral ministry of Word (Mt. 28:19; Eph 4:11 -12; Rom 10:15; 1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 4:1). The church is to entrust this ministry to faithful and able men (1 Tim 3:2 and Ti 1:7-9). This teaching is reinforced, in both passages in which the qualifications of a bishop or elder are listed, (1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:5-6). The candidate must be "the husband of one wife." These offices are clearly open to men only given that a woman obviously cannot fulfill this most basic qualification.

According to 1 Cor. 14:34b-35 women are to keep silent and to be in submission when in church. If they want to clarify some theological point, they are instructed to wait and approach their husband at home. These statements totally exclude women from becoming ministers or pastors.

Paul's statement in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 that he would not "permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man" is not based upon societal or cultural norms, rather it is directly tied in verses 13-14 to both the order of creation and the historic fall of our first parents Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

While women are given significant tasks and responsibilities for service within the church (Rom. 16:1; Tit. 2:3 – 5, 2Tim. 1:5; 3:14 – 15), they are not allowed to assume responsibility for public pastoral teaching and preaching in the church. To allow otherwise is to seriously depart from the revealed will of God as revealed in Scripture.

In closing no matter what our personal opinions or desires may be, if we name the name of Christ, God's Word is our ONLY and supreme authority for faith and practice. We cannot say that we are walking with the Lord and enjoying fellowship with Him if we are living in direct disobedience with God's Word, no matter what the issue.

Throughout the Old Testament, the Levitical priesthood was reserved for men only. It is also telling that God's qualifications for the office of pastor, elder/bishop is reserved for men only. I didn't set the rules, God did. As for the New Testament, there is not one women listed or mentioned as an elder or pastor. The closest thing to a woman leading a church is the false/self proclaimed prophetess Jezebel within the church in Thyatira. To my knowledge this is the only instance and it resulted in sexual immorality and spiritual apostasy!

18“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this:

19‘I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.

20‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

21‘I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.

22‘Behold, I will throw £her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.

23‘And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according

to your deeds. 24‘But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them—I place no other burden on you.

25‘Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come.

26‘He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS;

27AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;

28and I will give him the morning star.

29‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ (Revelation 2:18 - 29)

The choice of a practicing homosexual as Bishop is just the latest in an on-going decision on the part of the Episcopal Church to supplant God's Word with the wisdom and advice of mere men and women.