Episcopal Church and the Gay Debate

Monday, August 30, 2004

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:11:40 -0400
To: bishopsdeputies@hobd.org
From: Tobias S Haller BSG
Subject: Re: [HoB/D] Normative
Message-ID: <412C9E1C.5070004@earthlink.net>

Patristic theologians regarded the creation of humanity in two sexes not
as a symbol of God's nature, but as a temporary expedient to populate
the world. They base this on God's first commandment to the new humanity
in Genesis 1, and God's "discovering" it as rather an afterthought in
Genesis 2 (because after Adam is unsatisfied with the animals God has
made from the same thing Adam was made from, and Adam isn't satisfied,
God then makes a companion out of Adam's own substance). The idea that
the "male and female" *together* somehow represent God is certainly not
Paul's reading of the text: see 1 Cor. 11.7. Further, Paul elaborates in
Galatians that this earthly distinction of male and female ceases to
exist "in Christ." Certainly it would be odd of God to wipe away
something intended as distinctively revelatory of the divine nature
precisely in its most perfect exponent. Similarly, though not so
explicitly, Christ himself assures us that there is no marriage in the
ressurection life (Mat 22:30, Mar 12:25, Luk 20:35).

What Saint Paul _does_ use marriage for is as a symbol of the
relationship between God and the Church, just as the prophets had used
it as a symbol of the relationship between God and Israel. Note,
however, that these were not always happy marriages: often the analogy
is based not on a life of happy union, but on the adulterous harlotry of
Israel's unfaithfulness and (in some cases) God's infinite patience and
forgiveness. However, I don't think we would want to model marriage
today on the symbolic marriages envisioned in Ezekiel and Hosea!

My special thanks to Sarah Dylan Breuer for teasing out the Operating
System analogy. I think this is a window (no pun intended) into a better
way of understanding the profoundly incarnational import of what we are
talking about. There is more to this "living with the hand we've been
dealt" -- that "hand" is not simply something invconvenient to be worked
around. On the contrary, it is the gift of God, if accepted with thanks
and sanctified -- and that goes for all the imperfect marriages we
bless: as *all* of them are imperfect, so too they are all we've got.

I earnestly believe that faithful gay and lesbian couples teach the
church a great deal about what it means to be blessed, not as a result
of having conformed to some purported ideal (to which no one can truly
conform anyway), but for the reality of the love and charity they
actually display and participate in; for the signs of God's presence are
love, patience, forbearing, peace, and so on -- not the anger, dismay,
division and strife that have been so common of late. We are not only
called to bear each one of us our own burdens (Gal 6:5), but to bear
each others' burdens as well (6:2). The purpose of dealing hands, after
all, is so that we can all play together.
- posted by Bob @ 9:41 AM

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:11:27 -0500
To:
From: "Howard Anderson"
Subject: [HoB/D] Hooray for Civil Discourse
Message-ID: <003401c489f5$05a10cd0$2164000a@Howard>

------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C489CB.1CCB04D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I was delighted to read the debate between Tobias and Kendall. It was of
substance. It was also clear that they will never agree on how scripture
ought to be read. But even if we get to a more literal translation
embraced by more conservative folk, the condemnation of homosexual acts
(note, not persons) are not unambiguous, especially in the light of New
Testament revelations. One of the rabbis in our town and I had a
discussion about the issue of homosexuality, and we spoke of the
difference between the categories of unclean and sinful. Few can argue
on the base of the texts in Hebrew scripture that homosexual acts were
categorized not as unclean, an abomnation. These acts are prohibited in
the holiness codes along with having intercourse with menstruating
women, or making child sacrifice to the god Molech and other Canaanite
practices. And the word was used to categorize the violating of the
dietary laws as well. We could certainly, using the tools of the
historical-critical method contexualize this and explain its origins in
mysogony or any number of other good hypothetical explanations, but lets
stick with the literal. The unclean act is toevah, but not sin proper,
and is applied to ritual and the entire list of dietary and purity
codes. Much of what is toevah is intended, so scholars say, to
differentiate the Jews from their neighbors, to maintain their unique
montheistic identity that their worship of God might remain more pure.
And in Acts 10, where God sends the vision to Peter opening the doors of
"The Way" to the gentiles, allowing Cornelius, a good man who committed
abomnations, (purity codes, circumcision among other abomnations) to
become a part of the emeging Body of Christ. And if all God has cleansed
of that which was toevah..then those who are homosexual, those who are
not circumsized, those who have been made abomnations by violating the
blood taboos, those who menstruate, those who did not keep "kosher"
kitchens are included...for as Peter realized, "God shows no
partiality."

So yes, I understand why traditionalists are upset. So too, were the
Judaizers who had so faithfully followed the laws and avoided those
things and people who were toevah (hmmm...Good Samaritan any one?). But
to claim that scripture unambiguously condemns homosexuality, and that
the "plain sense of scripture" makes this whole question clear, is
simply to not take the texts themselves, as a whole, as seriously as
they deserve to be taken as the living and lively and challenging Word
of God.

The most wrong headed charge against us "liberals" is that we are simply
conforming to society, forgetting about scripture in accecpting gays and
lesbians into the leadership of the church. But all the national polls
show that the vast majority of the public are not for such acceptance,
not for gay "marriage." So a case surely can be made that it is the
traditionalists who have conformed to society, taken the road most
travelled in rejecting what we liberals see as the radical inclusiveness
modelled by Jesus in scripture (witnesst the parables- good Samaritan,
prodigal son, his dining practices with those who were unclean). It is
far easier to take the "traditionalist stance in South Carolina, for
instance, than it is to take the stand for radical hospitality. Far from
the claim that traditionalists are being punished for taking this stand,
it is those who stand for inclusion of those who were, in Hebrew
scripture, unclean who are losing pledges, jobs and livilihoods for
trying to faithfully follow the promptings of Jesus in scripture that
God shows not partiality. Perhaps we liberals who are losing
conservative members citing the actions of convention ought to ask for
protection rather than those traditionalists who are asking for
protection for liberal colleagues and bishops from outside ECUSA. I
certainly don't condemn those in conservative dioceses for conforming to
their society and culture on this matter, or even say that they aren't
acting on their conscience and belief. But to contend that it is they
at risk for being faithful to scripture isn't the actual picture nation
wide. And to say, as Tobias points out so well that liberals, or those
who do not read scripture literally are not trying as best they can to
be faithful to the authority of scripture is simply not true in my
experience. To live with a living Word that reaches up and shakes me
often, challenging my biases and strongly held beliefs isn't easy. But
I, like most liberals, try to live with scripture knowing it will often
take us where we fear to tread.

Thank you Kendall and Tobias for what you are doing. This is the "good
fight" that Anglicans have fought better than anyone else. And I sense
deeply in you both the rock solid realization that what you know what
unites us is ever so much more powerful than what divides us...so
despite the pain of the present time, I believe we will learn to
forebear with one anothe in love.

Howard Anderson C 1 Minnesota
- posted by Bob @ 4:46 PM

Friday, December 05, 2003

FreeRepublic .com "A Conservative News Forum"
[Browse |Search |Topics ]

Click to scroll to commentary.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENT: Steps of discipline to be taken by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.
Virtuosity ^ | 18 November 2003 | Anglican Primates of the Global South

Posted on 11/19/2003 9:56:54 AM PST by ahadams2

OFFICIAL DOCUMENT: Steps of discipline to be taken by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

Submitted by David W. Virtue

A Proposal from the Primates of the Global South & The Anglican Communion Institute as constructed in Nairobi, Kenya, Fall 2003

Preamble: In this meeting the Primates speak as the spiritual leaders of the Communion, in full reaffirmation of Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10; and of our related commitments made in Brazil in 2003 on the question of same-sex blessings; and in response to the Lambeth resolutions calling for enhanced responsibility and intervention in emergency situations (Lambeth 1988 Resolution 18:2a; Virginia Report 4:19, 27; 5:15; 6:IV; Lambeth 1998 III:6).

As a consequence of these commitments to the Anglican family, we seek as guardians of the faith to address "issues that affect the unity of the universal church [...] and that need a Communion-wide mind if a life of interdependence is to be preserved" (Virginia Report 4:19).

We desire an Episcopal Church, U.S.A that is fully part of the Communion, in integrity of faith and spirit, and embracing the teachings that unite us. We desire an Anglican Church of Canada that is united within itself, and that also remains fully part of the Communion, in integrity of faith and spirit, and embracing the teachings that unite us.

We seek by actions that are gradual, inviting, faithful, and firm to avoid chaos and a wilderness of litigation within our common life.

We also seek to behave as a Communion in a way that maintains a faithful witness in life and teachings to the Holy Scriptures, to the universal teaching of the Christian Church on marriage and abstinence, and to the truth of God that informs all cultures and nations in their moral vocation in matters of sexuality. In this way we seek to found our mission and sharing of the Gospel of Christ with integrity. [Please see our summary sheet attached to this proposal and the booklet Claiming Our Anglican Identity: The Case Against the Episcopal Church, U.S.A..] A.

Concerning the Emergency Situation in ECUSA The emergency situation has arisen from: Consent by both Houses of the 74th General Convention (finalized in August 5, 2003) to the election as Bishop of New Hampshire of a self-professed homosexual man, living openly in a sexual partnership with another man for 13 years, having divorced his wife and left the family home.

Passage at the same Convention of Resolution C-051, that included in its 5th Resolve the following: "we recognize 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." Other portions of the resolution recognized sexual partnerships outside of marriage and called on the church to exercise appropriate pastoral care in their regard.

The Primates Meeting of the Communion agrees that: In the decisions of the 74th General Convention confirming the election of Canon Gene Robinson and passing the resolution concerning same-sex blessings, ECUSA has departed from the Holy Scriptures and the historic faith and order of the church and posed "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion" (The Most Revd Rowan Williams, Letter to Primates, 23 July 2002).

Such decisions disrupt our churches throughout the world and have strained our ecumenical and interfaith relations in many parts of the globe where the church struggles to survive. For the sake of preserving the Communion and the integrity of its witness, and in line with the Biblical position of restoring a member to koinonia within the family, disciplinary action must be taken. Discipline must address the following concerns in two stages:

Stage One - Emergency Action

Stage Two - Formal Structures

Stage One - Emergency Action We call on Canon Gene Robinson to withdraw from his proposed consecration. We call on the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New Hampshire to rescind its approval of Canon Gene Robinson's nomination for election, prior to November 2, 2003.

Independent of the above: We call on Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold to repudiate the House of Bishops' vote for consent to Canon Robinson's election and for Resolution C-051, both in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on the bishops who voted in favor of confirming Canon Robinson's election to repudiate their action in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on the bishops who voted in favor of C-051 to repudiate that resolution in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on current ECUSA bishops to reaffirm the traditional teaching of the church on marriage, as confirmed in previous General Conventions and House of Bishops Meetings (i.e. General Convention 1979 and House of Bishops 1977) by not condoning or permitting the public use of rites of same-sex blessings and by refusing to ordain practicing homosexuals.

We call on these bishops to fulfill their commitment as stated in General Convention 1991 Resolution B-020 to avoid unilateral action in the area of the church's teaching on sexual behavior and to engage in formal "pan- Anglican and ecumenical consultation", even while, in the spirit of Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10.c, we together "commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons" and "assure them that they are loved by God".

Failure to heed our call will result in the following consequences:

Those who gave consent at General Convention or voted for C-051 are reduced to observer status in the Communion (no voice, no vote). We will not recognize the ministry of Gene Robinson as a bishop; he will have no standing in the councils of the Communion.

Those bishops participating in the consecration of Gene Robinson will have their further participation in the Communion suspended. Emergency mechanisms will be implemented for relating to and protecting dioceses, parishes, and clergy who maintain a commitment to the historic faith and order of the Communion, including those parishes and clergy located in dioceses where the bishop is under discipline by the Communion.

Stage Two - Formal Structures

The period between November 2, 2003 and Easter, 2004 is intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. This should be a period of Communion-wide prayer. If our call is not heeded, after Easter, 2004:

The ECUSA bishops who uphold a commitment to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the church will continue to have full participation in the affairs of the Communion, including voice and vote in the councils of the Communion.

These bishops and their dioceses will be designated to be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and will thereby constitute the Episcopal Church, U. S. A., empowered to act under that church's own Constitution and Canons. The Primates Meeting will designate a committee to work with the sole-designated ECUSA during this transition period, for repentance, renewal, reconciliation, and reform. Concrete steps reflecting this realignment of the Communion will commence at Easter, 2004.

These will include reassessment of resources, the way appropriate ministries are funded, and the redirection of monies. Annual reports will be brought to the Primates Meeting by their designated committee regarding the shape and condition of the reorganized ECUSA.

We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ.

B. Concerning the Emergency Situation in New Westminster.

The Primates Meeting agrees that the action of the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster in June, 2002 to approve same-sex blessings, and the implementation of liturgies of blessing by the bishop in May, 2003, constitute a departure from the Holy Scriptures and the historic faith and order of the church and pose "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion" (The Most Revd Rowan Williams, Letter to Primates, 23 July, 2002).

The Primates Meeting agrees that: The action of the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster has led to division and a state of pastoral emergency. For the sake of preserving the Communion and the integrity of its witness, and in line with the Biblical position of restoring a member to koinonia within the family, disciplinary action must be taken. This discipline will take the following form:

o Bishop Ingham is reduced to observer status in the Communion (no voice, no vote).

o His further participation in Communion affairs is suspended.

o We consider plans by Bishop Ingham to offer oversight under his own authority - that of a bishop under discipline by the Primates Meeting - to be unacceptable. In order to be acceptable, measures for Episcopal Oversight of those parishes in New Westminster who maintain a commitment to the historical faith and order of the Communion must be implemented in coordination with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Primates, and the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada who have remained in conformity with the expressed will of the Communion.

o Mechanisms will be implemented for relating to and protecting parishes and clergy in New Westminster who maintain a commitment to the historic faith and order of the Communion.

o We express concern over the way discipline and alternative Episcopal Oversight is being offered in the Diocese of New Westminster and in the Province of British Columbia and Yukon.

o These disciplinary actions are intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ. The Holy Scriptures and the Teaching of the Church Universal on Human Sexuality The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments present a consistent word about God's intention for human sexuality. God creates humanity in His image, male and female (Gen. 1:27). He orders humankind to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Marriage is instituted by God as a means of furthering His creative will for humanity as a whole (Gen. 2:18; Mark 10:6-9). The disobeying of God's will brings about a disordering of human nature (Gen. Chaps. 3-4ff.). This leads to different kinds of rebellion against God. For instance, sexual relations between male and male, or female and female, contradict God's intention, and bring God's judgment (Gen. Chaps. 18-19). God is merciful and long-suffering, however, and He presents a plan for the maintaining of His creative will and good purpose, through His choosing of Israel, His bride, and the provision of His good law (Exod. 20:1ff.). In this law, God's will for creation, male and female, is reaffirmed (Lev. 18:21). Moral law is not for Israel alone, but extends to the neighbor in her midst and includes sexual conduct (Lev. 18:26-27). In the fullness of time, God sends His only Son to bring to fulfillment a creative plan which was from the beginning, overcoming sin and estrangement in the world (Col. 1). God's Son, Jesus Christ, gives His life for the Church, for the redeeming of the world. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Within the Church, for the blessing of the world, male and female are to be in a covenant relationship of marriage that reflects God's eternal purpose (Eph.5:21-33). Sin and rebellion continue to thwart this design, and homosexual practice continues to be viewed as a clear rebellion against God's created purpose (Rom. 1:18-24; 1 Tim. 1:10).

This view of Scripture and of God's intention was viewed by the early Church as plain. It was considered by the Fathers, East and West, as the continuous and clear teaching of the prophets and apostles.

Homosexual practice is widely condemned by the Fathers in language that flows from this understanding of Scripture's clarity, in this and other realms of moral practice.

The cultural contexts of the early Church's mission were diverse; so, too, the expressions of homosexual conduct in these contexts. It is wrong, therefore, to describe modern homosexual conduct as different in kind from the reality addressed by the Scriptures and the early Church.

What early Christians knew about homosexual life and conduct was not different from what we know today. It is for this reason that churches which understand themselves to be apostolic and catholic (e.g. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic) have reacted to the decisions of ECUSA's General Convention, in the area of homosexual approval, with immediate, forceful, and plain statements of denunciation and rebuke.

The continuous teaching of the Church is seen by them, rightly, to be under assault. In these circumstances the purpose and hope of ecumenical discussion has been subverted. The Church cannot be one in witness to the world when, in the area of Scripture's plain sense as received and passed on by the apostles, there has been introduced innovation and heresy as General Convention has done.

The notion that homosexuality is a particular cultural feature of the West, misunderstood and un-experienced by other modern world cultures, is wrong. African, Asian, and other non-Western cultures have the language, the lifestyle, and the support-systems for homosexuality familiar to the West.

Christian churches in these places wrestle with bringing all sexual conduct into conformity with Holy Scripture's plain sense and the teaching of the Church Universal, with the same challenges as the West.

The Primates of the Global South receive this as the plain teaching of Holy Scripture, passed on by the apostles, received and taught as God's word by the Church Universal, and applicable in all parts of the Anglican Communion. As such it forms an integral and unassailable part of our mission in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.

END
- posted by Bob @ 2:38 PM

OFFICIAL DOCUMENT: Steps of discipline to be taken by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.
Virtuosity ^ | 18 November 2003 | Anglican Primates of the Global South

Posted on 11/19/2003 9:56:54 AM PST by ahadams2

OFFICIAL DOCUMENT: Steps of discipline to be taken by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

Submitted by David W. Virtue

A Proposal from the Primates of the Global South & The Anglican Communion Institute as constructed in Nairobi, Kenya, Fall 2003

Preamble: In this meeting the Primates speak as the spiritual leaders of the Communion, in full reaffirmation of Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10; and of our related commitments made in Brazil in 2003 on the question of same-sex blessings; and in response to the Lambeth resolutions calling for enhanced responsibility and intervention in emergency situations (Lambeth 1988 Resolution 18:2a; Virginia Report 4:19, 27; 5:15; 6:IV; Lambeth 1998 III:6).

As a consequence of these commitments to the Anglican family, we seek as guardians of the faith to address "issues that affect the unity of the universal church [...] and that need a Communion-wide mind if a life of interdependence is to be preserved" (Virginia Report 4:19).

We desire an Episcopal Church, U.S.A that is fully part of the Communion, in integrity of faith and spirit, and embracing the teachings that unite us. We desire an Anglican Church of Canada that is united within itself, and that also remains fully part of the Communion, in integrity of faith and spirit, and embracing the teachings that unite us.

We seek by actions that are gradual, inviting, faithful, and firm to avoid chaos and a wilderness of litigation within our common life.

We also seek to behave as a Communion in a way that maintains a faithful witness in life and teachings to the Holy Scriptures, to the universal teaching of the Christian Church on marriage and abstinence, and to the truth of God that informs all cultures and nations in their moral vocation in matters of sexuality. In this way we seek to found our mission and sharing of the Gospel of Christ with integrity. [Please see our summary sheet attached to this proposal and the booklet Claiming Our Anglican Identity: The Case Against the Episcopal Church, U.S.A..] A.

Concerning the Emergency Situation in ECUSA The emergency situation has arisen from: Consent by both Houses of the 74th General Convention (finalized in August 5, 2003) to the election as Bishop of New Hampshire of a self-professed homosexual man, living openly in a sexual partnership with another man for 13 years, having divorced his wife and left the family home.

Passage at the same Convention of Resolution C-051, that included in its 5th Resolve the following: "we recognize 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." Other portions of the resolution recognized sexual partnerships outside of marriage and called on the church to exercise appropriate pastoral care in their regard.

The Primates Meeting of the Communion agrees that: In the decisions of the 74th General Convention confirming the election of Canon Gene Robinson and passing the resolution concerning same-sex blessings, ECUSA has departed from the Holy Scriptures and the historic faith and order of the church and posed "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion" (The Most Revd Rowan Williams, Letter to Primates, 23 July 2002).

Such decisions disrupt our churches throughout the world and have strained our ecumenical and interfaith relations in many parts of the globe where the church struggles to survive. For the sake of preserving the Communion and the integrity of its witness, and in line with the Biblical position of restoring a member to koinonia within the family, disciplinary action must be taken. Discipline must address the following concerns in two stages:

Stage One - Emergency Action

Stage Two - Formal Structures

Stage One - Emergency Action We call on Canon Gene Robinson to withdraw from his proposed consecration. We call on the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New Hampshire to rescind its approval of Canon Gene Robinson's nomination for election, prior to November 2, 2003.

Independent of the above: We call on Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold to repudiate the House of Bishops' vote for consent to Canon Robinson's election and for Resolution C-051, both in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on the bishops who voted in favor of confirming Canon Robinson's election to repudiate their action in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on the bishops who voted in favor of C-051 to repudiate that resolution in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on current ECUSA bishops to reaffirm the traditional teaching of the church on marriage, as confirmed in previous General Conventions and House of Bishops Meetings (i.e. General Convention 1979 and House of Bishops 1977) by not condoning or permitting the public use of rites of same-sex blessings and by refusing to ordain practicing homosexuals.

We call on these bishops to fulfill their commitment as stated in General Convention 1991 Resolution B-020 to avoid unilateral action in the area of the church's teaching on sexual behavior and to engage in formal "pan- Anglican and ecumenical consultation", even while, in the spirit of Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10.c, we together "commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons" and "assure them that they are loved by God".

Failure to heed our call will result in the following consequences:

Those who gave consent at General Convention or voted for C-051 are reduced to observer status in the Communion (no voice, no vote). We will not recognize the ministry of Gene Robinson as a bishop; he will have no standing in the councils of the Communion.

Those bishops participating in the consecration of Gene Robinson will have their further participation in the Communion suspended. Emergency mechanisms will be implemented for relating to and protecting dioceses, parishes, and clergy who maintain a commitment to the historic faith and order of the Communion, including those parishes and clergy located in dioceses where the bishop is under discipline by the Communion.

Stage Two - Formal Structures

The period between November 2, 2003 and Easter, 2004 is intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. This should be a period of Communion-wide prayer. If our call is not heeded, after Easter, 2004:

The ECUSA bishops who uphold a commitment to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the church will continue to have full participation in the affairs of the Communion, including voice and vote in the councils of the Communion.

These bishops and their dioceses will be designated to be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and will thereby constitute the Episcopal Church, U. S. A., empowered to act under that church's own Constitution and Canons. The Primates Meeting will designate a committee to work with the sole-designated ECUSA during this transition period, for repentance, renewal, reconciliation, and reform. Concrete steps reflecting this realignment of the Communion will commence at Easter, 2004.

These will include reassessment of resources, the way appropriate ministries are funded, and the redirection of monies. Annual reports will be brought to the Primates Meeting by their designated committee regarding the shape and condition of the reorganized ECUSA.

We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ.

B. Concerning the Emergency Situation in New Westminster.

The Primates Meeting agrees that the action of the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster in June, 2002 to approve same-sex blessings, and the implementation of liturgies of blessing by the bishop in May, 2003, constitute a departure from the Holy Scriptures and the historic faith and order of the church and pose "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion" (The Most Revd Rowan Williams, Letter to Primates, 23 July, 2002).

The Primates Meeting agrees that: The action of the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster has led to division and a state of pastoral emergency. For the sake of preserving the Communion and the integrity of its witness, and in line with the Biblical position of restoring a member to koinonia within the family, disciplinary action must be taken. This discipline will take the following form:

o Bishop Ingham is reduced to observer status in the Communion (no voice, no vote).

o His further participation in Communion affairs is suspended.

o We consider plans by Bishop Ingham to offer oversight under his own authority - that of a bishop under discipline by the Primates Meeting - to be unacceptable. In order to be acceptable, measures for Episcopal Oversight of those parishes in New Westminster who maintain a commitment to the historical faith and order of the Communion must be implemented in coordination with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Primates, and the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada who have remained in conformity with the expressed will of the Communion.

o Mechanisms will be implemented for relating to and protecting parishes and clergy in New Westminster who maintain a commitment to the historic faith and order of the Communion.

o We express concern over the way discipline and alternative Episcopal Oversight is being offered in the Diocese of New Westminster and in the Province of British Columbia and Yukon.

o These disciplinary actions are intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ. The Holy Scriptures and the Teaching of the Church Universal on Human Sexuality The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments present a consistent word about God's intention for human sexuality. God creates humanity in His image, male and female (Gen. 1:27). He orders humankind to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Marriage is instituted by God as a means of furthering His creative will for humanity as a whole (Gen. 2:18; Mark 10:6-9). The disobeying of God's will brings about a disordering of human nature (Gen. Chaps. 3-4ff.). This leads to different kinds of rebellion against God. For instance, sexual relations between male and male, or female and female, contradict God's intention, and bring God's judgment (Gen. Chaps. 18-19). God is merciful and long-suffering, however, and He presents a plan for the maintaining of His creative will and good purpose, through His choosing of Israel, His bride, and the provision of His good law (Exod. 20:1ff.). In this law, God's will for creation, male and female, is reaffirmed (Lev. 18:21). Moral law is not for Israel alone, but extends to the neighbor in her midst and includes sexual conduct (Lev. 18:26-27). In the fullness of time, God sends His only Son to bring to fulfillment a creative plan which was from the beginning, overcoming sin and estrangement in the world (Col. 1). God's Son, Jesus Christ, gives His life for the Church, for the redeeming of the world. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Within the Church, for the blessing of the world, male and female are to be in a covenant relationship of marriage that reflects God's eternal purpose (Eph.5:21-33). Sin and rebellion continue to thwart this design, and homosexual practice continues to be viewed as a clear rebellion against God's created purpose (Rom. 1:18-24; 1 Tim. 1:10).

This view of Scripture and of God's intention was viewed by the early Church as plain. It was considered by the Fathers, East and West, as the continuous and clear teaching of the prophets and apostles.

Homosexual practice is widely condemned by the Fathers in language that flows from this understanding of Scripture's clarity, in this and other realms of moral practice.

The cultural contexts of the early Church's mission were diverse; so, too, the expressions of homosexual conduct in these contexts. It is wrong, therefore, to describe modern homosexual conduct as different in kind from the reality addressed by the Scriptures and the early Church.

What early Christians knew about homosexual life and conduct was not different from what we know today. It is for this reason that churches which understand themselves to be apostolic and catholic (e.g. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic) have reacted to the decisions of ECUSA's General Convention, in the area of homosexual approval, with immediate, forceful, and plain statements of denunciation and rebuke.

The continuous teaching of the Church is seen by them, rightly, to be under assault. In these circumstances the purpose and hope of ecumenical discussion has been subverted. The Church cannot be one in witness to the world when, in the area of Scripture's plain sense as received and passed on by the apostles, there has been introduced innovation and heresy as General Convention has done.

The notion that homosexuality is a particular cultural feature of the West, misunderstood and un-experienced by other modern world cultures, is wrong. African, Asian, and other non-Western cultures have the language, the lifestyle, and the support-systems for homosexuality familiar to the West.

Christian churches in these places wrestle with bringing all sexual conduct into conformity with Holy Scripture's plain sense and the teaching of the Church Universal, with the same challenges as the West.

The Primates of the Global South receive this as the plain teaching of Holy Scripture, passed on by the apostles, received and taught as God's word by the Church Universal, and applicable in all parts of the Anglican Communion. As such it forms an integral and unassailable part of our mission in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.

END

TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Current Events; History; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: ANGLICAN; APOSTASY; BISHOP; CHURCH; COMMUNION; CONSERVATIVE; ECUSA; EPISCOPAL; HERESY; HOMOSEXUAL; RESPONSE

Note this critical phrase from the beginning of the preamble:

"Preamble: In this meeting the Primates speak as the spiritual leaders of the Communion,"

In other words the archdruid of Canterbury, frank the heretic, and all of their little heretical supporters appear to have been hung out to dry.

1 posted on 11/19/2003 9:56:54 AM PST by ahadams2

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2; Eala; Grampa Dave; AnAmericanMother; sweetliberty; N. Theknow; Ray'sBeth; ...

this may explain why rowan the fuzzy has been so quiet lately Ping.

2 posted on 11/19/2003 10:00:09 AM PST by ahadams2 (Anglican Freeper Resource Page: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican/)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

Hallelujah. This is great.

3 posted on 11/19/2003 10:02:46 AM PST by GOPrincess

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

Is it just me or does this appear to have been written prior to the "Abomination of Consecration?"

4 posted on 11/19/2003 10:04:24 AM PST by N. Theknow (Be a glowworm, a glowworm's never glum, cuz how can you be grumpy when the sun shines out your bum.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

SPOTREP - ECUSA - ANGLICAN

5 posted on 11/19/2003 10:05:59 AM PST by LiteKeeper

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: N. Theknow

Is it just me or does this appear to have been written prior to the "Abomination of Consecration?"

It was. This particular item is part of a larger plan that was constructed in the belief that things would unfold pretty exactly the way they have.

The key point of the whole document, as regards ECUSA, is the following response to Griswold's inevitable, "so what are you going to do about it?"

These bishops and their dioceses will be designated to be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and will thereby constitute the Episcopal Church, U. S. A., empowered to act under that church's own Constitution and Canons. The Primates Meeting will designate a committee to work with the sole-designated ECUSA during this transition period, for repentance, renewal, reconciliation, and reform. Concrete steps reflecting this realignment of the Communion will commence at Easter, 2004.

This little paragraph is just jam-packed with implications.

For example, it points out that the because the ECUSA is, by Canon and Constitution, supposed to be in communion with Canterbury and the other Provinces, "the ECUSA" is whoever the Communion says it is!!! Thus, Griswold -- being set apart from ECUSA in this manner -- has no control over properties. The same is theoretically true for bishops who are not in communion.

Also, the Primate-designated committee is basically charged with overseeing the repentence of apostate bishops, and for the election of "communionable" bishops should an apostate choose not to repent.

All of this will undoubtedly find its way into the courts at some point, but the theory is that because the rules of membership are a) clear, and b) internal to ECUSA, the apostates can't win. (I'm less sanguine about it -- they can go judge-shopping....)

The key to the whole mess is Rowan Williams's response. Will he back Griswold and Ingham (and follow his own personal preference), and thus destroy the Communion?

Or will he grant the authority of Scripture, go against Griswold, bow to the Queen's wishes, preserve the Communion, and thus establish Canterbury as more than "first among equals" (becoming a de facto pope, in many ways)?

One would hope that the decision is obvious -- however, Williams being an "intellectual," one has to wonder....

6 posted on 11/19/2003 11:11:18 AM PST by r9etb

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

Here is what I have been thinking about today:

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."*
1 Corinthians 5:9-13

7 posted on 11/19/2003 11:18:40 AM PST by johnb838 (Majority Rule, Minority Rights. Not the other way around.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

Rowan Williams's boss, Queen Elizabeth II, is said to be a big advocate of Christian unity. Given the reaction of everyone from the Coptic Orthodox Church to the Southern Baptist Convention, ECUSA's innovations aren't helping Christian unity.

8 posted on 11/19/2003 11:55:57 AM PST by bobjam

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb

All of this will undoubtedly find its way into the courts at some point, but the theory is that because the rules of membership are a) clear, and b) internal to ECUSA, the apostates can't win. (I'm less sanguine about it -- they can go judge-shopping....)

It could be the mother of all judge shopping. Secular judges will be asked to rule in cases involving accused heretics vs. the religious orthodox, and then there's the gay issue thrown in to really motivate media coverage. What kind of judge would the Pluriform One and his favorite Beers perfer? An agnostic? A hostile atheist? A hot dog like Judge Ito? A Hindu that thinks both sides are silly? Aargh........the headaches!

9 posted on 11/19/2003 2:03:09 PM PST by xJones

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: N. Theknow

You wrote "Is it just me or does this appear to have been written prior to the "Abomination of Consecration?" "

Yes it was, which also means that they have already begun to implement the first phases of it...which in turn explains why rowan the fuzzy has been so quiet lately - he realizes if he trys anything too 'creative' he's going to have all of the Global South primates telling him to sit down and shut up...which would probably be a difficult situation to explain to HM Elizabeth II, y'know?

10 posted on 11/19/2003 2:05:30 PM PST by ahadams2 (Anglican Freeper Resource Page: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican/)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: johnb838

yes, precisely!

11 posted on 11/19/2003 2:07:21 PM PST by ahadams2 (Anglican Freeper Resource Page: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican/)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: bobjam

I have no 'inside scoop' on Buckingham Palace, but I'd bet that Her Majesty has undoubtedly made her feelings concerning the current situation with ecusa quite plain, especially to rowan the fuzzy.

12 posted on 11/19/2003 2:09:48 PM PST by ahadams2 (Anglican Freeper Resource Page: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican/)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

OK.

Two things. First, I have had my own large misgivings about the ABC. However, I have spoken with people who have had in-person direct conversations with him. He has, indeed, had his "Becket moment." While he is still publicly trying to advocate for unity -- which, BTW is encumbent unpon him -- his bottom line is the handing on of the Faith of the Church beyond his personal opinions. The guy is not just merely a fuzzy "archdruid;" when the chips are down he really does believe the Creeds, etc. -- and *all* the chips are now totally down. (Also, it has become pretty much of an "open secret" that it was HRM herself who nixed the Johns thing). Could we therefore do just a little hoping for the best here?

But the point I came here to make is this:

My own deepest, dearest hope is the following section of the primates' alleged agenda:

"The period between November 2, 2003 and Easter, 2004 is intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. This should be a period of Communion-wide prayer. If our call is not heeded, after Easter, 2004:

The ECUSA bishops who uphold a commitment to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the church will continue to have full participation in the affairs of the Communion, including voice and vote in the councils of the Communion.

These bishops and their dioceses will be designated to be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and will thereby constitute the Episcopal Church, U. S. A., empowered to act under that church's own Constitution and Canons. The Primates Meeting will designate a committee to work with the sole-designated ECUSA during this transition period, for repentance, renewal, reconciliation, and reform. Concrete steps reflecting this realignment of the Communion will commence at Easter, 2004.

These will include reassessment of resources, the way appropriate ministries are funded, and the redirection of monies. Annual reports will be brought to the Primates Meeting by their designated committee regarding the shape and condition of the reorganized ECUSA.

We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ."

OH to live to SEE this DAY!!! I would dance in the streets!

This question goes out to anyone who has any real info: How reliable is this thing? David being David, I can't help but wonder where he got it from.

Can this document be truly verified? If it is real, I can hang on until Easter, and Christmas will be a lot jollier. I could use some sunshine here, and I guess I am a little afraid to grab it after all we have been through.

So --- any input concerning reliability, friends and neighbors?

Best regards.

13 posted on 11/19/2003 2:35:00 PM PST by TheRevEN (Orthodox Anglican)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb

"For example, it points out that the because the ECUSA is, by Canon and Constitution, supposed to be in communion with Canterbury and the other Provinces, "the ECUSA" is whoever the Communion says it is!!! Thus, Griswold -- being set apart from ECUSA in this manner -- has no control over properties. The same is theoretically true for bishops who are not in communion."

Thanks for the detailed analysis. This is huge. (And foreshadows what might be even bigger and more interesting legal battles than we have expected.) It looks like the primates are really coming through.

14 posted on 11/19/2003 4:11:34 PM PST by GOPrincess

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: TheRevEN

You wrote "Can this document be truly verified?"

I will find out what I can, and post what I find here on free republic. To the best of my knowledge the document is real.

15 posted on 11/19/2003 4:30:36 PM PST by ahadams2 (Anglican Freeper Resource Page: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican/)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

Those who gave consent at General Convention or voted for C-051 are reduced to observer status in the Communion (no voice, no vote).

I'm a bit slow (jet-lagged) this morning: Does this mean that half or more of the ECUSA bishops are already "outside"?

16 posted on 11/22/2003 11:54:11 AM PST by Eala (FR Traditional Anglican Directory: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Eala

You wrote "I'm a bit slow (jet-lagged) this morning: Does this mean that half or more of the ECUSA bishops are already "outside"?"

yes but

1. they will refuse to acknowledge that until repeatedly hit over the head with it, (as in, say, for several months to a year) and then they will prance around claiming victim status, because of the VRWC / VoAC.

and

2. since all of the senior ecusa leadership (i.e. frank the heretic, david both-beers, and their cronies) watch them fight tooth and nail to gain what they're really after - total control of all ecusa real estate and endowments. Remember that once this is recognized officially, the apostate bishops will have nothing to lose but the few remaining shreds of dignity left between them...and that's not enough to stop any of them.

17 posted on 11/22/2003 12:21:21 PM PST by ahadams2 (Anglican Freeper Resource Page: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican/)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2

I dont' know how to post to religion section and thought the following message from the PB might be interesting to the ping list. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/presiding-bishop/1275_22075_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined

18 posted on 11/22/2003 12:39:53 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

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.

[ Browse | Search | Topics ]

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
- posted by Bob @ 2:33 PM

Saturday, November 15, 2003

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:52:44 -0500
To: forum@hobd.org
From: Tobias - bsg@earthlink.net
Subject: Tanzanian Families
Message-ID: <3FB40B3C.7070602@earthlink.net>

In an astounding theological statement today the Church of Tanzania,
speaking through its Primate, asserted the following:

"The Anglican Church of Tanzania remains obedient to the Word of God,
that only a lawful union between a man and a woman constitutes marriage.
This is the basis of the human family."

However, as I survey the Word of God, most particularly in the New
Testament, I find precious few examples of human families that would
stand this litmus test, while there are many other "human families" that
don't fit this mold at all.

We should start, of course, with the Holy Family itself, which fails the
stringency of the Tanzanian Rule because Mary and Joseph did not
consummate their "union" until after the birth of Christ. . . if then
(for if one accepts the official Roman Catholic teaching on Mary's
perpetual virginity the marriage was never consummated as a "union" – a
difficulty the scholastic theologians were hard put to explain.). This
embarrassing fact dogged Jesus for the rest of his earthly life. (John
8:41) What was God trying to tell us by coming to us in this
embarrassing way?

Then there is the peculiar family at Bethany: two "sisters" and one
"brother" and not a spouse in sight. A very unusual Palestinian
household in that day and age, but one in which Jesus was more than
comfortable, and in and for which he worked his greatest miracle.

Then there's Timothy and his blessed mom and grandmom. You remember Lois
and Eunice. I wonder did poor Tim suffer the "absent father syndrome"
growing up in such a "feminized" household? Perhaps it wasn't only his
youth that led people not to take him seriously.

As to the other married couple we know of from the New Testament, Prisca
and Aquila — why are no children mentioned? Were they childless? There
is mention of their "household" but that, as we've seen, can mean many
different kinds of gatherings. Certainly they got around fairly easily
and worked hard for the Lord, but no issue is mentioned. Similarly, we
know Peter had a mother-in-law but know nothing of his wife or any children.

Finally of course we have the metaphorical family which is the church,
all siblings but only one Father in heaven. Specifics give us quibbling
church sisters like Euodia and Syntyche, and Chloe and her household and
Stephanas and his, and many others too, but nothing in the way of
traditional families.

Yes, of course we have Paul's advice to husbands and wives, and bishops
(!) most of which is now ignored with little protest from Tanzania or
elsewhere. But in any case these are all general instructions: where, it
must be asked (if they are so important to the Christian faith and
life), are the shining actual examples of the nuclear family?

Finally, I have to note that even the bare word "family," where it
appears in our modern versions, does not refer to anything like what the
Tanzanian church imagines to be so basic. It is applied to "households,"
"relatives," "tribes," the "brethren" of the church, and so on. Stated
most bluntly, the nuclear / biological family is essentially invisible
in and irrelevant to the concerns of the New Testament. It is
domesticity, not marriage, that lies at the heart of the human family
described there. Or have I missed something? It seems to me that human
society finds many families on which to build itself.

I'm afraid the Tanzanians (and others) have missed the rich language of
adoption, of hospitality, of domesticity, of householding: the Gospel
tradition and truth that not just human society but the church is built,
not by blood or by the will of man, but by God and his grace.

Repent and believe the Gospel. It is not too late to pull back from the
Donatist chasm.

I realize, as I reviewed the post, that I neglected Elizabeth and
Zechariah and their son John. Not quite the normal family, as it would
be hard to see human society structured on miraculous births to aged
couples.
Tobias
- posted by Bob @ 6:57 AM

Friday, November 14, 2003

American Anglican Council

November 14th, 2003

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I write to you nearly two weeks after the sadly historic consecration
of V. Gene Robinson. Countless numbers of you have rightly expressed
your dismay, sadness, and confusion over this consecration. I wish
to outline a few very specific and important developments concerning
our church, its present crisis, and our bright future together in Christ.

The Primates' Statement

Many of you have wondered about the statement from the Primates
Meeting in October. My initial reaction was, as I am sure yours was,
disappointment. Since it was in the historic language of Anglican
diplomacy, its deep significance might not be apparent to all. But
be assured. The statement is actually an unprecedented and significant
intervention on the part of the Anglican Communion Primates in the
Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada. It
reaffirms the Lambeth 1998 core teaching on human sexuality. It
promises and encourages adequate episcopal oversight. It states the
clear resolve of the majority of Anglicans around the world that they
cannot abide by the false teaching and schismatic actions approved
by the 74th General Convention. These points and more are
highlighted on the AAC website: http://www.americananglican.org.

You should also know that at our meeting with the Archbishop of
Canterbury following the release of the Primates' Statement, he
commended our work for the future. Archbishop Williams is a godly
man with great insight and wisdom, and it is clear that he desires
unity in the Anglican Communion. However, he acknowledges that
realignment is a coming reality, and we must be prepared for it.

We have a critical mission ahead for us all: to insure that there will
be an orthodox Anglican expression of the Christian faith in North
America.

Adequate Episcopal Oversight

An important part of the Primates' Statement is a mandate for
"adequate episcopal oversight." This is a direct recognition that many
of you are in dioceses and congregations that support the actions of
the General Convention concerning human sexuality. The Primates
are concerned that you have a sustained episcopal relationship available
to you that will enable you to flourish as people of biblical and historic
faith. The AAC has formed a task force of bishops to deal with the
growing need for episcopal oversight. We have also posted guidelines
and an application form for episcopal oversight on our website (visit
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=827&c=21),
and we have already received many applications. It will take a little
more time to respond to the needs as they arise, but we are underway.
Bishop Duncan and I have just returned from a meeting in New York
with Presiding Bishop Griswold. The conversation was certainly civil,
but it was also very blunt. We laid out the picture as we see it, and we
made our and your needs crystal clear. The Chancellor, David Booth
Beers, made it clear that the canons make no provision for bypassing
the local bishop's authority. I made it clear that any plan that did not
have an over-ride over the local bishop if he/she was non-cooperative
simply was inadequate. The Presiding Bishop is now fully aware of
our efforts to implement adequate episcopal oversight and he indicated
to us during our meeting that his office will not stand in the way.

As an historian by training, and although I am generally conservative,
one of my heroes was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who as president
inherited a nation on the verge of revolt. The pain of the Great
Depression was overwhelming. FDR put together a creative group
of alphabet government agencies to address the deepest needs and pains
of the nation. It is true that later many of those agencies were ruled by
the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, but in the meanwhile they
helped prevent revolution and save the nation. I think that is what real
leadership is about, reaching beyond the normal limits to address the
enormity of the problem and trying to save the nation. Are any of the
church's leaders willing to try as hard to address the crisis in the
Episcopal Church as FDR was to address our nation's crisis? I pray so!

We share together at this time a struggle with impatience and
vulnerability. We realize that above the surface of the water, it may not
look like a lot is happening. However, beneath the surface, there is a great
deal of praying, preparing strategizing, and planning. We all know that
good solid ministry takes time. We are called to be persevering but we
must also be assured that progress is being made. It is!

Please also be aware that the AAC is deeply alarmed about the increasing
reports from all over the country of incidents in which those of orthodox
Anglican conviction are being pressured and intimidated, whether subtly
or more overtly. It saddens our hearts that a number of those in power
could be so uncaring and exclusive toward those in genuine grief about
a church which they believe has betrayed them and the Gospel of our
Lord. It is vitally important that all of these incidents are reported to us
so that we may communicate the truth both nationally and internationally
as quickly and accurately as possible. We will be assembling a "martyrs'
page" to document these incidents. The sad truth is that this great endeavor
we are about will not be accomplished without some of us having to be
martyrs. I ask you to please pray for those faithful Episcopalians who will
be persecuted for their stand for biblical orthodoxy.

The Future

While these days are tense, the hope of the gospel is sure. As I look into
our near future I see an emerging church of strength and resolve. I see a
church growing with energy for a new emphasis on mission. At our
conference in Dallas, we saw over 2700 men and women express their
conviction for a renewed and revitalized church in North America. Do
not lose heart. We have much to do and much of it may be slower that
we would like. But our God is a faithful God. "The one who calls us is
faithful and He will do it!" (I Thess. 5:24)

I covet your prayers for the AAC bishops, the AAC board leadership, the
AAC staff and all who work for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yours in Christ,

The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson

P.S. Please continue to pray for the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and
the truth of His word to be revealed in our church and in our nation. Amen.
- posted by Bob @ 3:37 PM

Saturday, November 01, 2003

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:03:41 -0500
To:
From: "Peter Greenwood"
Subject: RE: [forum] Re: [HoB/D] What would it look like to honor all members'
convictions?
Message-ID:

Lew and Ann

> I shan't attempt to speak for Ann, but I think her question was about
> intersexed persons, that is, people who have both male and female
> genitalia. Hermaphrodites, if you will. "Male AND female created He
> them." Where do these persons fit into your equation? If a person has
> both male and female characteristics, then ANY sexual expression would
> be, in a sense, same sex behaviour. How do we square this with either
> position?

You are right that I misunderstood the word 'intersexual'. (I also prefer to
use spelling such as 'colour' and 'favour', and am familiar with the term
Hermaphrodite, so that will have to point to the origin of my ignorance!).
In any event ...

I would imagine that in the first position (what I referred to as Position
A) the existence of intersexed persons is evidence that human sexuality is a
multidimensional phenomenon, not simply a matter of maleness and femaleness.
The Bible therefore needs to be read with this in mind. Maybe the statement
in Genesis would be taken (by those holding this position) as constrained by
a pre-scientific understanding of the variety in human biology; we need no
longer to be so constrained.

As for the second position (but I'm not referring to the bigoted version
thereof!) the fact that there are intersexed people does not say anything
about what God intended for humanity. We cannot use what we see going on in
the world around us to reliably discern God's intent. Were we to do so, with
all the oppression and suffering that so many experience, including
children, not to mention the awful effects of natural disasters, we could
easily come to the conclusion that God is a capricious and cantankerous
ogre, or alternatively a powerless and incompetent pseudogod. It is only by
his revelation that we can reliably believe in his love and his justice, and
what his intentions are for humanity.

(Concerning the specific issue as to what sexual expression is God's intent
for intersexed persons, the easy answer is "We haven't been told." No doubt
the moral and ethical theologians amongst us could do better than that. But
we have now strayed quite far from the issue facing the Church, which has to
do with same-sex orientation of people who are either male or female; while
sexual expression for intersexed persons is obviously important, especially
for intersexuals, it's not the issue generating the heated and sometimes
acrimonious argument.)

So in terms of my primary argument, namely that there are two fundamentally
different ways of understanding God's creating humanity that lie behind the
dispute about blessing same-sex practices, I do not see it being impacted by
the fact that there are intersexed persons. Each view has it's own way of
understanding the significance of the fact that there are intersexed persons
(whether convincing to the other view or not). But the two fundamentally
different views still exist.

So we should be debating what lies at the roots of the dispute, not what we
see at the symptom level.

Peter
Pittsburgh
- posted by Bob @ 11:30 AM

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:49:42 -0500
To:
From: "Lewis H Whitaker"
Subject: RE: [forum] Re: [HoB/D] What would it look like to honor all members'
convictions?
Message-ID:

Peter:

I shan't attempt to speak for Ann, but I think her question was about
intersexed persons, that is, people who have both male and female
genitalia. Hermaphrodites, if you will. "Male AND female created He
them." Where do these persons fit into your equation? If a person has
both male and female characteristics, then ANY sexual expression would
be, in a sense, same sex behaviour. How do we square this with either
position?

Lew
Atlanta
- posted by Bob @ 11:26 AM

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:35:37 -0500
To:
From: "Peter Greenwood"
Subject: RE: [forum] Re: [HoB/D] What would it look like to honor all members'
convictions?
Message-ID:

Annkri@aol.com writes:

> God made some male and female in the same person - intersexual. What
meaning
> does that have on your "positions"? Genesis is not a biology text. ANN

Your statement supports my contention that, in respect of same-sex
orientation, there are evident at least two fundamentally different views as
to what God intended in creating us.

While there are no doubt bigots in this dispute, there are also some (many?)
who believe that same-sex orientation is not part of what God intended for
humanity, because when they read their source of authority concerning God's
intentions (i.e. the Bible) they read only about maleness and femaleness
(not for example, about intersexuality).

On the other hand there are many who believe that God created some of us
with the intention that they have a same-sex orientation (intersexual if you
prefer), and would read in the Bible (at the very least) nothing that they
felt denied this belief, and maybe much that supported it.

Now my point is that these are two very different views about God's creating
us. And it is these two different views that lie behind much of the
(sometimes passionate) debate about the blessing, or not, of same-sex
practice. So first of all, we'd all do ourselves a favor if we discussed
what is at the root of our differences, rather than what is merely
symptomatic (both agreeing, of course, that bigotry is not part of what God
intends for us, so we move on past that issue).

Secondly, I think that tied together with the two different views about
God's creating us, are different views about what God is up to in the world,
what his (and therefore our) message is to the world. Two different gospels,
if you will.

Two radically different views of God and the world is what we need to come
to terms with.

Peter Greenwood
Pittsburgh
- posted by Bob @ 11:25 AM

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:22:57 -0500
To:
From: "Peter Greenwood"
Subject: RE: [forum] Re: [HoB/D] What would it look like to honor all members'
convictions?
Message-ID:

"Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:

> I have never heard a straight person think that *their* sexuality is
> not at the core of their identity. So position C amounts to:

> * straight sexuality is at the core of one's being, AND
> * gay sexuality is not at the core of one's being.

> But that is a denial of the equal humanity of both persons.

So Position A would hold that the notion and meaning of sexuality includes
the possibility of "straight sexuality" and also "gay sexuality". A
significant reason for holding this view is that that is how some people (or
they themselves) experience themselves and their sexual orientation. To use
"Christian" language, inasmuch as God created everything, including
sexuality, Position A holds that God has made some people with the intention
that they be gay and others with the intention that they be straight.

On the other hand, Position C would hold that, concerning how we have been
made, sexuality is based only on maleness or femaleness, because that is
what God has revealed about how he made us all. Therefore, for someone with
a same-sex orientation, even if their experience of this is profound,
Position C would hold that their maleness or femaleness is in fact the basic
reality, and that their same-sex orientation is operating at a less
fundamental level. Or in "Christian" language, God has made us male or
female; he hasn't made anyone with the intention that they have a same-sex
orientation. His only intention is that they have a heterosexual
orientation.

Now, from the viewpoint of Position A, it is clear that Position B can be
perceived as a "denial of the equal humanity of both persons" because
Position A believes that an experience of being gay is on the same level as
a straight person's maleness of femaleness, and Position C says, in effect,
"Not so. Reality is such that your maleness or femaleness is more
fundamental than your experience of gayness."

This can clearly be offensive to those holding Position A, but from the
viewpoint of Position C it is not "a denial of the equal humanity of both
persons" because Position C does not believe that same-sex orientation is an
inherent part of the makeup of someone's humanity. Position C holds that
everyone is made in the image of God, and that this is the basis for the
equality in worth etc. between any two people, gay or straight.

Now, the point I'm trying to get to is NOT to here convince anyone of the
merits of Position A or C, but rather to have it recognized that (at least
for some) the dispute about whether to bless same-sex practice is not merely
at the level of homophobia, but arises from a fundamental disagreement about
how God has made us.

>> Finally, Positions A and C represent very different views of creation, at
a
>> radical (i.e. root) level.

> No, they don't. They only do so if you say that a view of creation
> must involve, at its root, a view of sexuality. That is hardly true,
> it seems to me. Genesis seems indeed to imply something about gender
> at the root of creation--though even there, it is apparently
> contradicted by the facts of human biology (since there are, in fact,
> intersexed individuals), and also by Galations 3:28.

In the very same place in Genesis where we are told that God made us in his
image (Gen 1:27) we are told that "male and female he created them". Far
from merely 'implying something about gender' it is quite explicit that
maleness and femaleness are linked directly with the belief that we are
created, and for example, this is taken up again explicitly by Jesus in his
word on marriage (Mat 19:4).

Now again, I'm not arguing here for a particular interpretation of Genesis
and the resulting doctrine of creation, instead I'm arguing that two quite
different doctrines of creation lie behind Positions A and C.

>> As Bishop Michael Ingham said recently "... no doctrine of creation
>> which ignores homosexual persons is an adequate doctrine of
>> creation."

> +Ingham is right, but not because a doctrine of creation must involve,
> at a root level, something about sexuality. Rather, he is saying that
> a view of creation which ignores *any* part of creation is
> inadequate.

Exactly. So the question then is: is "same-sex orientation" a part of
creation? And by this, I don't mean is same-sex orientation a
*possibility*, because the way God made the world it clearly has many
different possibilities, from the extremely good to the extremely evil. So
a better way of phrasing the question is: "Did God intend 'same-sex
orientation' to be part of the humanity he created?"

I believe that there are two very different answers that are given to this
question, and that they point to the root of the divide between many in the
Episcopal Church, and Anglican Communion for that matter.

Peter Greenwood
Pittsburgh
- posted by Bob @ 11:22 AM

Sunday, October 26, 2003

I am not sure who wrote this commentary posted by Thomas ("NDUNGANE'S
FABLES"), but a couple things came to mind. I am perplexed by the
prohibitionists (those who believe in excluding open homosexuals from the
workings of the Church) who continually try to frame this debate on the
back of revisionism, as if revisionism is always a bad thing. I am
certainly more conservative than liberal and have a very high view of
scripture. My thoughts are nothing new.

One of my favorite quotes: "All truth passes through 3 stages: First, it
is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as
self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Are the people who champion inclusion of honest Christian homosexuals into
the full life of the Church, including faithfully coupled homosexuals as
clergy, even bishops, revising the very Gospel of Jesus Christ? Frankly,
we don’t know yet. I say that because in the midst of change we have a
hard time knowing the right way – thank God for the guidance of the Holy
Spirit over time. Some revisions and revisionists that came to mind:
Jesus Christ himself who dramatically revised the religion of the Hebrews;
Galileo, who was condemned for his revisionist ideas until only recently;
then some time later Martin Luther, and maybe even Cramner. More
recently, there were those revisionists who championed the idea that
dark-skinned people where of equal humanity and required the same dignity
as white-skinned people; there were the revisionists who decried slavery
and won freedom for slaves; there was Martin Luther King, Jr.; and then
those who fought for the full inclusion of women in the life of the
Church, which is still being decided in many areas. Now we find the issue
of homosexual inclusion or exclusion, or whether scripture honestly
declares all expressions homosexual relationships sin.

Is homosexuality contrary to the scriptural mandate? Most of the Church
says, yes! Many say that the traditional understanding of the several
verses and pericopes condemning homosexuality is not correct. Only time
will tell who is right – thank God for the patient working of the Holy
Spirit. However, if being declared a revisionist in light of the “cloud
of witness” above means I will be condemned or denied ordination or
excluded from a parish assignment; then so be it. At some point in time,
will inclusion of homosexuals be self-evident?

Bob
Student - General Theological Seminary
- posted by Bob @ 3:06 PM

Dear All:

I came across the following passage this morning, when having forgotten to
set my clock, I had an extra hour to myself!

It was written in 1865 by a lay person, James B Campbell in an essay of the
size of ECUSA dioceses. I'm indebted to the compliers of "Project Canterbury
for making the essay accessible on line.

Thus at the height of the Ritualist Controversy - which did split our
church - the following observation is made:

essential by scripture, and is not required by the Church as conducive to
good order, has led to the introduction of serious, and even bitter
controversies, upon all sorts of indifferent or open questions; and some of
the noblest of our Church ministers and dignitaries have been charged with
being reckless about men's souls, because they do not see all subjects with
the eyes of their flippant accusers. It is bad enough to have the Church
disturbed by partisan warfare, upon those things, nearly resembling
doctrines, upon which angry theologians get up disputes by using the same
words in different senses from each other, disdaining to resort to a lexicon
to end the strife they delight in. But it is hard to see what good can be
done by quarreling about Church policy, when every one is interested in
making it perfect and effective. There is room enough for good-natured
discussion, without calling names or stabbing reputations. It is much to be
desired that the pugnacious individuals who have assumed to act as the
Church's bulldogs, should save their baying for her enemies.>

Warmly,

Tony

The Rev. Anthony F. M. Clavier
Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church
Watertown, SD
www.tecwatertown.org
Editor: LEAVEN, the NNECA Journal
- posted by Bob @ 3:02 PM

In the 1980s, I went to a country in Africa on a Partners-in-Mission
consultation for the Episcopal Church. We spent several weeks visiting the churches of
that country. It was a life-changing experience for me (to this day our kids
roll their eyes when I say - don't let all that good clean water run down the
drain) - the hospitality and welcome of our brothers and sisters in faith was
astounding. So I think about Africa when making decisions here in the US. I
think about how our governmental policies play out in that country in economics
and health. And I remember the day when a woman from England, who had worked
in Africa and spoke Swahili, and I were sitting out in the yard while the women
cooked. The men spoke English but the women did not get as much schooling in
English so spoke more freely in Swahili. The official line of the male
clerics and leaders was that the "women did not want women priests." If we had
not had the ability to speak with the women and spend time with them we would
never had heard from them that they did want women priests. So when I hear the
pronouncements from the leadership of certain African leaders - I remember
that day and others like it. And when I hear that Christians are in danger
from their Muslim countrymen for our stand - I think how much more more in danger
are the gays and lesbians. It is a fearful time and I pray that no one will
be in danger or lose his or her life for any reason. But I also know that
there are as many opinions in Africa as there are in the Episcopal Church.
ANN

Ann Fontaine
Lander, Wyoming
- posted by Bob @ 6:57 AM

In a message dated 10/25/03 12:32:47 AM, xgamer@skyinet.net writes:

<< The orthodox believe in a God who has revealed himself in word and deed.

When Paul went to Athens he found an altar to an Unknown God. If Paul were

with us today, he'd find that the revisionists have erected a similar altar

in the Anglican Communion. >>

I don't know who "xgamer" is because the piece is unsigned, but I can tell
him/her this: if you think you know God, if you think you hold the ineffable
and utter truth of the Godhead in your own little brain, if you (and your
fellows) alone claim to know the mind of Christ, then you may be the worst danger to
the Christian Church of anyone. Indeed, my inclination would be to consider
that you and your fellows may be the anti-Christ.

I have listened to this hate-driven talk, this promotion of a homophobic
holocaust, this twisting of lies and half-truths, this manipulative, masked,
money-grubbing monstrosity long enough. I have tried from the beginning to give you
all credit as true conscientious objectors: I have tried to honor what you
believe, and I have prayed for you truly and deeply (by your name, when I know
it), but with the revelations Jack Taylor has provided, and this continuing
flow of indefensible and plainly wicked material, I can no longer give you credit
for even good intentions. When I want to evaluate a movement or an action, I
ask simply, "Where is the Love in it?" and I have finally given up searching
for that in your agendas. No matter how hard I look, it is simply not there!
And without that, you have no credibility and no credit in my book.

I know there are honest, good, devout, and faith-filled people in your camp
for whom the actions of the Episcopal Church are just too radical for them to
apprehend or accept. Sadly those good people are apparently being led now by
some others who in both their private and public expressions seem to be without
conscience altogether.

I look at the list of dissenting bishops, and I ask, "My God, is this what
you actually want? Is this well of corruption what you really desire? Is this
what you are committed to? Is there no way for you to see beyond this wallow of
hatred? Can you not find it in yourselves to disagree without destroying, to
oppose without demolishing? How can you go along with this murderous hacking
and chopping at Christ's body? In the Name of God, brothers, can you not bring
an end to this? Hasn't there been enough?"

It pains me drastically even to say these things, but the level of deceit and
manipulation and the breaking of the bounds of decent human behavior have
come to be more than one can reasonably be expected to bear.

So what do the rest of us do? Well, the issues will not be settled by any of
us, no matter what actions we take. They will be settled only and solely by
our loving and merciful Lord who not only guides His Church but IS the Church
Himself. All we can do is to open the door for Christ's entry into our world
wider and wider as it is being slammed shut elsewhere by others. Recite the Daily
Offices, participate in Eucharist more and more often (if you went once a
week before, go twice or thrice now!), be diligent in setting aside time for deep
and silent personal prayer, not asking for anything but simply recognizing
our union with and in Him, spend quality time in "holy reading" with your Bible,
use the Sacrament of Reconciliationif you need it. God will care for His own
and, as our holy patroness has said, "All shall be well, and all shall be
well, and all manner of thing shall be well."

In both deep pain and deep faith,

John-Julian, OJN
- posted by Bob @ 6:50 AM