Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Living with Tares: Why I stay in a church that has seriously strayed from biblical teaching.
Directions to Orthodoxy ^ | March 7 2006 | Bishop Edward S. Little II

Posted on 03/07/2006 1:23:31 PM PST by jecIIny

Living with Tares: Why I stay in a church that has seriously strayed from biblical teaching. Posted on Mon Mar 06 2006:

by Bishop Edward S. Little II (Christianity Today)

Whenever a priest or a deacon in the Episcopal Church is removed from ministry, the cleric's diocese sends official notification to every active bishop. In the years since the church's controversial General Convention of 2003—a convention that, among other things, consented to the ordination of a partnered gay bishop—most notices contain a disclaimer: "This action was taken for causes that do not affect moral character." This is code language. It usually means that the priest or deacon has left for reasons of conscience.

The departures are painful to me. Many of these clergy are beloved friends, not names on a form but fellow disciples, conscientious followers of Jesus. Why do I not join them?

This question is also pondered by all theologically conservative Christians who remain in liberal denominations. I know I'm not alone, though I ask the question from a unique situation.

I am a bishop of the Episcopal Church, ordained to the priesthood in 1971 and to the episcopate in 2000. On the theological spectrum of the church, I fall clearly on the conservative side—with a catholic love for historic faith and order, an evangelical zeal for the gospel, and a commitment to the authority of Scripture.

The Episcopal Church, my spiritual home since Christian conversion as a college sophomore, has (I believe) seriously erred. We have rejected clear biblical teaching, refused to listen to the pleas of Anglicans around the world, and shattered dialogue with many of our ecumenical partners.

A recent Christianity Today editorial—"Intelligent Church Redesign"—argues that it is "a sad but necessary reality that some denominational splits are justified," and uses the Episcopal Church's crisis as the chief cautionary tale.

Yet I stay, not simply by default, nor as a matter of blind institutional loyalty. I have decided to stay and to throw my lot in with people with whom I am often in profound disagreement.

Broken And Divided Church The editorial dismisses John 17 as a basis for such a decision and says, in effect, that it does not pertain to our present situation. But Jesus' prayer at the Last Supper does not simply provide a rationale for unity: It also includes an implied warning. Jesus prays "that they may all be one … that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (v. 21; KJV). In other words, Jesus invites the world outside the Christian community to make a decision about him on the basis of our unity. The world is watching us, Jesus says. How we deal with one another in the midst of crisis has eternal implications—not simply for ourselves, but also for those who do not yet know him.

Nor are our divisions as clear-cut as they may seem. It is not the case, in the Episcopal Church or in any other, that you've got believers on one side and heretics (or apostates) on the other. I know many in my church who love Jesus, confess him as Lord and Savior, believe the articles of the Christian faith as summarized in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and seek to follow Jesus in costly ways—and who affirm the decisions of the 2003 General Convention. As a matter of principle, when people claim to be disciples of Jesus, I will treat them as brothers and sisters in Christ, Bishop Gene Robinson among them. He is not only a colleague; I count him as a friend and fellow pilgrim. I will commit myself to him and to them, even when I am convinced that they are wrong. I will seek to manifest a godly forbearance and ask that they do the same toward me.

I am not naïve. The divisions in the Episcopal Church are deep, and the issues do not lend themselves to compromise. Either same-sex relationships can be hallowed by God, or they can't. At the present moment, to put it in political terms, I am on the "losing" side. The ecclesiastical machinery of the Episcopal Church is firmly in the hands of those who affirm the 2003 convention's actions. Indeed, I do not expect to live long enough to see the church change direction. In this, I take comfort from the example of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria during the contentious fourth century.

The divisions in his day were as profound as those in ours. As a young deacon, Athanasius had attended the Council in Nicaea in a.d. 325, and he affirmed its decisions regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the decades that followed, however, the church moved from the Orthodox to the Arian position. (The Arians rejected the divinity of Jesus and placed him in a kind of "semidivine" status.) It seemed at times that Athanasius stood alone: Athanasius contra mundum. When he died, he was still on the losing side. Yet it was his faithfulness that, after his death, turned the tide, and in 381 the Council of Constantinople reaffirmed the decisions of Nicaea. While I do not compare myself to Athanasius, nor our crisis to that of the fourth century, I do cling to his witness and pray that I can serve a divided church with the same faithfulness.

My friend Jeffrey Steenson, bishop of the Rio Grande (New Mexico and a slice of west Texas), notes in his recent diocesan convention address that Augustine of Hippo, responding to the Donatist schism, articulated three important principles:

1. The true identity of the church as Christ's body is in no way diminished by the imperfections of its human members.

2. As long as we live in this present age, we must accept that it is God's will that saints and sinners are mixed together in the church.

3. Breaking communion and separating ourselves from the church is ultimately more damaging than the heretical ideas and practices that may have occasioned these actions.

Bishop Steenson then points out that Augustine cited two parables of Jesus—the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30) and the net (Matt. 13:47-50)—as a reminder that it is not our vocation to stand in the Lord's place as the sifter at the harvest or the sorter at the close of the age. "Let the separation be waited for until the end of time, faithfully, patiently, bravely," said Augustine.

Why do I not join those who have left or are leaving? Why do I stay? Serving a broken and divided church is a hard calling, and I do not minimize the difficulty of the task or the inevitable disappointments that I will encounter on the journey. But the Lord, for his good purpose, has (I humbly believe) thrown into one church Christians of radically different and sometimes theologically incompatible perspectives. Is it possible that in the midst of this painful discontinuity, he may do a work that none of us can foresee? It is in that hope and in remembering that he is Lord of the church and in charge of the big picture that I follow Jesus in the Episcopal Church.

The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II is bishop of Northern Indiana and author of Ears to Hear: Recognizing and Responding to God's Call (Morehouse Publishing, 2003).

©2006, Directions to Orthodoxy


TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: ecusa; episcopal; homosexualagenda; notchristian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
ugg
1 posted on 03/07/2006 1:23:35 PM PST by jecIIny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jecIIny

IN related news, the Good Presiding Bishop was in Cuba recently meeting with Castro talking about how the poor old US is beating up on Cuba. I am convinced there is going to be a schism.


2 posted on 03/07/2006 1:26:00 PM PST by bayourant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

ping to read later


3 posted on 03/07/2006 2:06:25 PM PST by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayourant
I am convinced there is going to be a schism.

I'm amazed at how long it's taking. I schizzed more than two years ago.

4 posted on 03/07/2006 2:15:22 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (How long do we have to pretend that Democrats are patriots?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington

Really, yeah there is web site I go to called Pontifications where they discuss this issue some. The whole thing gets confusing to me with the various traditional groups, then the the traditional groups that really like the old prayer book. Then there are the breakaways that are anti Gay Bishop but pro woman Ordination. I have a feeling we are going to end up with alot of Churches under Anglican Bishops from Africa in the end. That is Unless some can come up with the money to buy out the the retirements and pensions that the currently being held hostage by Espicopal Church USA> and set up a viable nationwide alternative.


5 posted on 03/07/2006 2:25:38 PM PST by bayourant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny
"Many of these clergy are beloved friends, not names on a form but fellow disciples, conscientious followers of Jesus. Why do I not join them?"

I can only speculate but the evidence would suggest that the author stays because he is a coward.

6 posted on 03/07/2006 2:31:51 PM PST by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny; FormerLib

"The poison of heresy is not too dangerous when it is preached only from outside the Church. Many times more perilous is that poison which is gradually introduced into the organism in larger and larger doses by those who, in virtue of their position, should not be poisoners but spiritual physicians." Metropolitan Philaret

This bishop is indeed a coward but more than that, because he remains in communion with manifest heretics, he is himself a heretic. Its no wonder the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops! He doesn't want to give up the pointy hat, the high teas and the grand organs...and the power. So he embraces heretics.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies" +John Chrysostomos (a REAL bishop, who died rather than embrace heresy)


7 posted on 03/07/2006 4:22:59 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny

What would Paul have done if James and Peter and John and the rest had insisted, after all, on circumcision?


8 posted on 03/07/2006 5:21:21 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington

I schizzed in 1998. I must have been prescient, although it was already evident in my diocese where we were headed.

Since, according to ECUSA statistics, my church has lost 40% of its members since 2000, I wasn't the only one.


9 posted on 03/07/2006 6:51:41 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; axegrinder; AnalogReigns; Uriah_lost; Condor 63; Fractal Trader; Zero Sum; ...
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

10 posted on 03/07/2006 7:17:50 PM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Libs: Celebrate MY diversity! | Iran Azadi 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6

"What would Paul have done if James and Peter and John and the rest had insisted, after all, on circumcision?"

Fundamental difference: Paul, James, Peter and John all DIRECTLY experienced theophanies, divine revelations, angelic visitations, the direct presence of God, etc. They did not have "faith". They had empiricial, scientific certitude of the literal truth of what they were teaching. God spoke to them, literally, visibly and in the first person.

That is not true of this bishop or any other bishop that I know of. God and angels do sometimes speak to people (demons too, so we have to be cautious). And when it happens, these people stand forth with divine authority and the world had better listen. But they have to IDENTIFY that authority as such. Joan of Arc is an example. She didn't hide her mission and the repeated divine revelations and visitations that expressly gave her instructions.

But these bishops? They never claim any such thing. The all work like the scribes of old, arguing from reason and existing authority.

Had Paul, Peter, James and John been unable to come to an agreement, it would have been an indication that Christianity was untrue, because God would have been appearing, giving conflicting rudder orders and permitting the destruction of the Church even by those to whom He directly revealed Himself. Of course nothing like that happened. And if it had, we can expect that God would have appeared to correct it.

God is not going to appear to correct anything in the Episcopalian Church. Men here are forced to decide on faith. And no bishop alive, nor the Pope, claims to have had a direct theophany instructing him to go in a certain way. They talk about prayer and authority and reason. None of them say: "The Angel told me to ... x".

That's why it's different, and parallels cannot be drawn. Paul and Joan of Arc stood on the same plane, with God and Angels directly addressing them and telling them to do something. There's no bishop claiming that at all today, which means it isn't happening.


11 posted on 03/08/2006 7:48:09 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny

It's ironic he sites St Augustine in defending his decision to stay with the heretics in ECUSA. Afterall, it was the episcopal ordination of a man whose life, beliefs and teachings completely contradict "Confessions" that put this firestorm into motion. Furthermore, this man got to where he is today because ECUSA chose to follow the City of the World rather than the City of God.


12 posted on 03/08/2006 8:49:38 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
You've begged the question. Of course "if it had, we can expect that God would have appeared to correct it." James, Peter and John might have resisted, and God's merans of providing the correction might have been to work through Paul's reaction.

The question isn't whether or not the Episcopalians are going to be corrected similarly by God, but what the proper response is to error. We know that Paul later famously confronted your Peter who "DIRECTLY experienced theophanies, divine revelations, angelic visitations, the direct presence of God, etc. They did not have "faith". They had empiricial, scientific certitude of the literal truth of what they were teaching. God spoke to them, literally, visibly and in the first person." And Paul was right then. But if James, Peter and John had resisted initially, what should Paul have done? Suppose they had resisted firmly?

13 posted on 03/08/2006 4:16:12 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6

If they had resisted firmly, and Paul and the Apostles had been unable to rectify the situation, it would have demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was not with them, and that apostolic Christianity was false.


14 posted on 03/08/2006 4:18:43 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny

I used to stay in a church that had many problems in it, but I ultimately decided that for myself, I had to follow the biblical counsel to be of believers who are of the same "like mind."

I was not in such a place.

Some people are called to stay and fight for God's truth in the midst of a church being turned over to Satan. I wasn't.


15 posted on 03/08/2006 4:20:04 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
We seem to be talking past each other. You keep focusing on the outcome--whether they're listening to and obeying the Spirit--while I'm asking what Paul should have done. You refer to my question tangentially by saying "if Paul and the Apostles had been unable to rectify the situation." My question is, how should they have attempted to do so? It does no good to throw in that albatross about apostolic Christianity's falsity--we've already seen correctible apostolic error when Paul confronted Peter.

Should Paul have argued? Would a point come when he must depart while God works on them?

16 posted on 03/08/2006 4:49:10 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6

I see what you are saying and will try to answer. But to do so, I need a fact which I can't recall.

I don't recall a detail: did Paul claim that he had a specific theophany, a specific visitation from God similar to Peter's regarding the end of kosher laws, in which God told Paul to preach the end of circumcision? Or is it just that Paul argued that the Gentiles wouldn't come to the Church if circumcision was the price?

Whether or not Paul received a specific, clear theophany or not makes all the difference in the world.
If he did, then he stands like the prophets before him, or like Joan of Arc or Bernadette Soubrious after him: specifically commanded by audible or visible manifestations of divine beings. That is overriding authority, obviously.

But absent a direct theophany on one side, then it is a matter of arguments from reason. Even if the reason is enlightened warmly by the inner light of the Holy Spirit, without a decisive theophany, it is not certain. Without a theophany, Paul should argue from reason, but if reason did not prevail, it was his duty to follow authority even if he did not agree with it, while awaiting further revelations from God.

So, that's the answer. In a contested case, where nobody will stand up and place his soul in peril with a lie so bold as to claim a direct revelation from God and Angels, at the end of the day the dispute must be resolved by obedience to the decision of duly constituted authority.

Peter had the authority. This did not mean that he was always right, in any given instant, but it did mean that, absent a direct theophany that someone dared to present (and thereby imperil his soul if perjuring himself), after all debate ended unresolved, Peter had the last word.

I do recall that Paul did chastise Peter for Peter's stance. But Peter came around. Why? Because the grace of God was upon Peter, and made sure that Peter did not err on this crucial thing. The Holy Spirit didn't LET Peter err in this regard, and Paul's chastisment was received by Peter as what it was: the admonition of the Holy Spirit to come around. Peter DID come around.
Had Peter NOT come around, then - absent a theophany that Paul could specifically claim - this would have been an indication that Paul was sincere, but wrong, and that God the Holy Spirit intended for circumcision to be retained in Christianity, even though it would have diminished the membership.

I focus on the outcome because I believe that God directs the outcome, and that on fundamental matters where the faith itself was and is at stake, God did not LET Peter err in the final decision, no matter what.
With the final decisions of Peter, just as with the final conciliar decisions of what constituted Holy Scripture, and with the individual decisions of the inspired authors as to what words and ideas to write on the page (and even with pious and careful translators of those words between languages), I do not believe that God ALLOWED men to err on anything important to God.

Where Peter was inclined to err, the Holy Spirit used Paul to chastize Peter and bring him on track. Had Peter come out the other way, it would have been because Paul was in error.


17 posted on 03/08/2006 5:43:35 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6

"The question isn't whether or not the Episcopalians are going to be corrected similarly by God, but what the proper response is to error."

Return in loving communion to Rome.
That is the proper response to the error.


18 posted on 03/08/2006 5:45:05 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
So, that's the answer. In a contested case, where nobody will stand up and place his soul in peril with a lie so bold as to claim a direct revelation from God and Angels, at the end of the day the dispute must be resolved by obedience to the decision of duly constituted authority.

Finally, we're down to cases. My point is this Episcopalian bishop has a clear Scriptural mandate: he's right and the authority is wrong. The question is whether he should stick around when they're wrong. Rome is irrelevent to this--he should return to Scripture. Sometimes a bishop's gotta do what Paul might have needed to do while the Spirit wised up the church; indeed, his confrontational act might be part of the Spirit's design.

I think this bishop needs to stop canoodling and start confronting on an either-or basis.

19 posted on 03/08/2006 6:02:29 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6

Rome's not irrelevant, for the same reason Scripture's not irrelevant, but that's a case for a different day.

I agree that this Episcopalian Bishop should not be supporting sin.


20 posted on 03/08/2006 6:52:54 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson