From the American Anglican Council website:
(AAC) held a special board meeting at Truro Church, Fairfax, VA on October 22-23, 2003 to begin preparations for the coming realignment of Anglicanism in America. Over the course of the meeting, the AAC Board moved forward with developing a "Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes" and created a process by which orthodox parishes can apply for the provision of "adequate episcopal oversight." The AAC Board also heard a report from AAC leaders who met with the Archbishop of Canterbury the morning after the Primates Meeting.
The board gathered in the wake of the AAC's highly successful Dallas/Plano "A Place to Stand" conference and last week's strong rebuke of the American Episcopal Church by the Anglican Primates. Also attending the meeting were leaders from the Anglican Communion Institute, The Ekklesia Society, several bishops, lawyers, youth leaders, theologians and other church and AAC leaders.
"Our course is getting clearer each week," said the Rev. Canon David Anderson, AAC President. "We are beginning the process of realignment of Anglicanism in North America that the Primates laid out for us in their statement."
Contrary to some who would wish things were otherwise, this is no empty and veiled threat. This is not blowing over like the issue of women's ordination. Those who think so are whistling in the dark.
"With the Archbishop of Canterbury's encouragement, the AAC Bishops' Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight is coordinating requests for oversight," said Canon Anderson. "We are proceeding deliberately and carefully to insure that this oversight is available sooner rather than later."
The AAC Board also moved forward with the establishment of a "Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes" in the Episcopal Church.
"A first component of the new realignment is the establishment of a 'Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes,' which is actually a name given to us by the Archbishop of Canterbury," said Canon Anderson. "It is with great joy that we report that this network is already coming together, with orthodox dioceses and AAC parishes leading the way. The network is growing dramatically, and we expect continued rapid growth."
"This network is intended to be a safe haven for all those Episcopalians who are distressed by the direction that the Episcopal Church has taken over the past 30 years - actions that culminated in the grievous decisions of General Convention this past August," added Canon Anderson.
These moves have the obvious blessings, support, and prayers of most of the worldwide Anglican Primates, and, most tellingly, of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Presiding Bishop in America, Frank Griswold, just doesn't seem to get it. He said in a statement to the worldwide Anglican Primates:
As I promised you, upon my return to the United States I spoke with Canon Robinson and shared with him the deep concern that so many of you expressed and the gravity of what may lie ahead. In my conversation with him, and in public comments, he has expressed both his anguish and his continuing sense that he is called to go forward.
I must tell you that at this point there is every reason to believe the consecration will take place on November 2 as scheduled. I appreciate that when the consecration takes place, as we said in our statement: "…we will have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion." As much as this is true, the prediction made in the statement that the Communion's future "will be put in jeopardy" will not, I pray, come to pass. I believe it is for us to live into this unknown future in faith knowing that, as we declared in our statement, "…what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us…" It is my hope and my prayer that the Spirit of truth, who makes known to us the mind of Christ, will be our guide as each of us in our own context seeks to embody and proclaim the gospel of the One who is our Truth.
What Griswold doesn't seem to recognize is that there are within ECUSA two distinct religions, both claiming the name of Christianity. The one wishes to promote and unilaterally assert innovations of polity and morality, innovations which contradict the teachings of Christianity itself. This religion is full of nominalists who will take Christian words but empty them of Christian meaning. It is a religion which denies the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus (or, his humanity), and the biblical and traditional understanding of sin. The other religion wishes to uphold Christian orthodoxy. It affirms the classic Christian doctrines (though there is deep division within this group over the priesthood and the Tradition) and faithful holiness. For too long this second group has wanted to go along. Knowing that it had lost its grip on the political structures of the denomination it did not desire to risk the repurcussions of clear and forceful anathema. That is, not until now.
And so it is that when Griswold writes:
I agree that communion is not primarily about structures. Communion is a gift from God manifested in the various webs of relationship among and between us. Our communion strengthens us so that we can carry out God's mission on earth. Though we affirm our allegiance to the Scriptures and the Creeds, our unity in the body of Christ does not mean we have only one way of reading the Bible, nor do we need to be in agreement about all of the contemporary issues with which we are called to struggle. Concerns of sexuality present themselves differently in our various contexts. I believe that as we continue to struggle deeply and honestly with matters of sexuality we will have much to learn from one another and we will become more mutually responsible and interdependent in the Body of Christ.
he most clearly shows his ignorance that these two religions cannot exist within the same body. For one of them Jesus is Lord. For the other, "their god is their belly." One of them is willing to submit to and obey the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The other wishes to have the approval of the watching world. Lordship and relevancy are in a war for the Episcopal denomination.
The Anglican Communion is no more--even if Canon Robinson steps down, which is not likely--it is, at best, an Anglican Federation. The realignment is now. Broken communion is a current reality. What remains to be seen is if the religion which claims the historic faith can overcome the split over women's ordination. Otherwise, even of that which remains, it, too, will split.
How much better to own and live the full Christian Tradition.
Posted by Clifton at October 24, 2003 09:30 AM | TrackBackMan, that's some wild stuff - like being there in 1054 all over again only on a smaller scale.
On the one hand, I'm glad that the orthodox bishops have decided to realign in order to purge the for all practical purposes pagans from their ranks. But on the other hand, what a terrible witness to the Body of Christ this bears.
Posted by: Wayne at October 24, 2003 09:45 PMAs I've stated publicly, I'm torn about this. I have been very angry at the shenanigans of the liberal modernists (indeed, for many, it's not to strong to call them pagans). This comeuppance of a sort is long overdue (though we'll see if there's any real follow-through).
On the other hand, the Anglican church was a very important part of my spiritual journey. It is very sad to see this ugly disintegration.
No matter how you view it, the name of Christ is being dishonored.
"It is a religion which denies the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus (or, his humanity), and the biblical and traditional understanding of sin"
And where do people like me fit in? I think it bordering on libelous for you to label anyone this way. I am Orthodox in my faith, I profess the Nicene Creed and believe every word of it, I believe the Old and New Testament to contain all that is needed for salvation, I claim the Fatherhood of God, the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity as unshakable truths, ditches to die in.
Yet I also think the church needs to find a way to bless same gender, committed, monogamous unions of those whose orientation is that way. I know of many such unions that are great examples for us heterosexuals and our marriages. I take offense that you lump me into some nonexistant group that is antiChristian, anti God. You could not be more wrong.
I hate this is happening. I wish GC had NOT consented to Robinson unless they first addressed the theological issues. However, this is where we are. I made some solemn vows at my ordination that I dare not break. The body of Christ is wounded in ALL this, and also when people are lumped into ill fitting categories. Should schism come and the Plano group lead the way, they will undoubtedly splinter themselves, it already has begun over women's ordination issues. Yet, within that group there are faithful people, within ECUSA there are also, within the priesthood, I can assure you, there are many many faithful, devoted people who have struggled mightily with this issue and reached a conclusion that prompts you to dismiss their entire faith.
Sorry if this is too strong, but your words have touched an anger within me, mostly because I firmly believe much of what you wrote to be inaccurate, especially in my case and many others. It is, like most things, a most complicated issue.
Peace
Fr David:
I'm sorry that you took offense at my words. Please note that I described two religions within ECUSA. Although I did not indicate in my post that you were in one camp or another, to speak plainly I do not consider you of the religion within ECUSA who denies the Fatherhood of God, etc. And since you have explicitly claimed that you don't deny these things, then my assessment of where you're at appears to be right.
Further, since you are one who thinks the GenCon03 vote on Robinson was wrong, you clearly do not belong to those whom I've labelled as unilaterally asserting their will on the rest of ECUSA and the Anglican worldwide brotherhood.
So clearly, I am not dismissing an entire faith of you or of anyone else to whom you may have referred.
With all the respect I have for you (and which I hope you believe me to hold), I must nonetheless state emphatically that your beliefs with regard to same-sex unions--while sincerely held, and I am sure intently thought through--contradict the entire Old Testament tradition, the two thousand year Tradition of the Church, and the dogmatic and moral theologies of the Roman Catholic Church, all the Orthodox churches, the vast majority of the Anglican worldwide brotherhood, and most other Protestant churches. Not only that, but I am convinced that on this matter specifically you, and those who hold your view, are just plain wrong. I believe your views are damaging and disordering to those whom you are attempting to minister who have wrestled with these matters.
But though you and I are in strong disagreement on this matter, clearly, given what I have stated above, I do not consider you a pagan, or one who follows the world rather than God.
I thought my post was clear enough. But it must not have been.
I again apologize for the offense I inadvertently caused you.
David +,
With due respect, allow me to add to what Clifton said. What follows is from a pastoral letter I sent to my congregation last week. I think it addresses very directly the profound theological difficulties that same-sex issues (Robinson, unions, etc.) raise.
"Beloved in Christ,
The recent months have been strange and confusing times in the church. The General Convention's action in August ot ratify the election of V. Gene Robinson . . . as well as the passage of a resolution allowing the blessing of same-sex unions at the discretion of local bishops are radical departures from the authority of Holy Scripture and the received faith of 2,000 years (Jude 3, 18-19). For those of you who were here last Sunday, you will recall that I argued that these innovations are not superficial matters of order, but departures so enormous that they essentially constitute a different, heretical version of Christianity known from the very beginning of the Church as Gnosticism. Gnosticism, broadly defined, is salvation NOT bey adoption by God the Father through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, but rather "salvation" by being initiated into special saving knowledge which may NOT be revealed to all people.
The approval of same-sex practices denies the reality or importance of God's created order of male and female, which in Genesis he reveals to us as the culmination of his work of creation,in which he proclaimed all the material world that he created to be GOOD. Therefore, if the church denies the importance of our distinctiveness in the body [note: prior discussion had addressed the fulness of the Divine Image in the complementarity of male and female] which according to God is GOOD, this denial of goodness spreads fromthis point to the whole created, material universe. This is a particularly toxic form of Gnosticism,in which all matter is considered corrupt and to be discarded. Our bodies,therefore, (whether individually or collectively) become not temples of the Holy Spirit, but mere trash or at best illusions which impede us from seeing higher and better realities. In such a system, the Incarnation becomes nonsense, because God would never degrade himself by taking ona body of corrupt matter. (This leads to the heresy called Docetism, in which Jesus only appeared to have a body, but actually was "purely" spirit.) Without the Incarnation, there is no atoning death for sin on the cross; without the death on the cross,there is no Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, there is no hope.
[Here follows an excursus about why the same argument applies to women "priests."]
David, if there truly is such a thing as an indelible homosexual orientation (and this has hardly been shown to be true), it is a consequence and affliction of the Fall, not a blessing from God. Certainly, same-sex couples can demonstrate great love and kindness to each other and others, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether their "unions" can ever express God's truth without demolishing the very foundations of Christian anthropology and soteriology.
Respectfully,
Chris +
Fr David:
I want to reply further to one specific comment you made:
"It is a religion which denies the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus (or, his humanity), and the biblical and traditional understanding of sin"
And where do people like me fit in? I think it bordering on libelous for you to label anyone this way.
Having, I hope, cleared up the misunderstanding that you thought my words were speaking about you specifically, I want to address this other more general charge.
Think back to the seminary liturgies:
Which was more prominent: speaking about God the Father, or the removal of "Father" from the liturgy? (Denial of Fatherhood)
Did we not more often say "Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord," when the text of the liturgy clearly calls for "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord"? (Denial of Jesus' humanity)
How many times did we eliminate in the Liturgy the references to Jesus as Lord? (Denial of Jesus' divinity)
Did we not regularly refuse to say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and inserted the non-Trinitarian "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer"? (Denial of Fatherhood, denial of Trinity)
Then take a look out at the broader Episcopal denomination. What about I Heyward Carter? Swing? Spong? Jane Dixon? John Chane? Charles Bennison? Are not these leaders boldly espousing heresy of all sort? Why aren't they being disciplined? Why is the Bishop of Utah allowed even to be bishop when she has never had Christian baptism (Mormon baptism, yes, but not Christian baptism)?
Since my post very clearly articulated that there were those in ECUSA who did try to hold the classic Christian doctrines, I am not labelling the entire denomination as heretical and pagan. But very clearly heretics are not only allowed to the communion rail, ECUSA gives them the highest office.
Though I certainly do not know you as closely as do your dearest friends, from what I do know of your honesty and integrity, I cannot imagine, Father, that you are completely comfortable with this.
I respect your loyalty to your vows. I am glad that I am no longer in a situation in which I would have to at the same time break the vow I had made so that I could keep it for God.