Kendall Harmon posted excerpts from an article in the Belfast Telegraph concerning Archbishop Eames and the Windsor Report (from the Lambeth Commission).
I read some of the comments to Kendall’s posting, and present two of them to show the vastly different opinions held by many of us. The second comment, I think, speaks to the worst of us.
Comment #1 –

Overall good article. But Mr. Jensen, like others before him has missed the fact that the issue of “homosexualtiy” has been settled by resolution I.10 of Lamberth 1998 (that item was mentioned in the initial charge to the Commission, by the bye). Hence, theere was no need for +Eames and company to even deal with it.
Yes, I am afraid that most of us citizens of the US can be, and have been, “arrogant” when it comes to our many blessings. Perhaps for Episcopalians this might be a good lesson in the virtues of humility. I can speak only for myself, but I have learned much about that (with much more to learn, as I am sure someone might point out!).
Looking back at 15 months of intense verbiage, both pro and con, I can see where there was an issue of arrogance on both sides of the issue and a real lack of Christian Charity also. I confess that Z have been guilty of such lacks. But this is what we get when we treat the things of God as a matter of political action and maneuvering rather than matters calling for prayer, reflection, confession and meditiation before acting.
MondayÂ’s posting of the Windsor report (another name to keep up with!!) will tell us much about the direction that the Anglican Communion might be headed in. It will definitely be a time calling for sober reflection.
At the risk of sounding “arrogant” myself, might I suggest quite a few moments of silence occur before we all start “speaking” our view of what this report does or does not accomplish?
Veni Creator Spiritus!
Comment by (I removed the name) — 10/16/2004 @ 10:59 am

Comment #2 –

I am tired of all the “we-speak” with such comments “yes, weÂ’ve all been arrogant.” “I can see where there has been an issue of arrogance on both sides.” Speak for yourself Mr. Lewis; if you have been arrogant with regards to your many blessing, confess that and repent. “Perhaps for Episcopalians this might be a good lesson in the virtues of humility.” Translation: “everyoneÂ’s faith and practice must meet my standards.” Stop it! There is one God, the Lord. Obey Him according His Word revealed in scripture. Homosexuality is sin. Homosexuals have no place in the living Body of Christ and therefore should have no place in the visible church. Forget about man-made “higher standards” by modern day pharisees that make “arrogance” a greater sin than homosexuality. “Arrogance” is the religious version of Political Correctness. Arrogance is everything that is not tolerant, not diverse, not a “new work of God”. You want humility? HereÂ’s humility. Let God be the Judge and by God pray for mercy!
Comment by (I removed the name) — 10/16/2004 @ 11:40 am

Comment #2 comes from what I honestly believe is a dangerous form of fundamentalist, whether Anglican or American. I still wonder how this person, and the Church in general, can honestly say that now, today, in the first part of the 21st century, that the Church has it all together and knows all things, when for the past 2,000 years our history is full of getting things wrong. Arrogance? you better believe it!

Evangelicals call Williams a prostitute
Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Wednesday October 13, 2004
The Guardian
Conservative evangelicals flexed their muscles yesterday by denouncing the Church of England and its leader, the Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, as sinful and corrupt, and threatening to refuse to recognise the authority of liberal bishops.
They warned that they might seek the ecclesiastical oversight of more theologically congenial bishops from the developing world if the church did not offer them the chance to align with bishops of their own stamp in England.
The complaints came in the run-up to next week’s publication of an international
commission reviewing the structure of the Anglican communion in the wake of the gay bishops dispute.
Supporters of the evangelical pressure group Reform, meeting at their conference in Derbyshire, overwhelmingly supported its plans to start disengaging from liberal bishops and refusing to pay funds to their dioceses, to indicate their disapproval of what they see as the church’s slide into acceptance of sexual immorality.
Dr Williams was denounced as a theological prostitute by the Very Rev Phillip Jensen, the controversial Anglican dean of Sydney, addressing the 200 clergy and lay members attending the conference.
He and his brother Peter, Archbishop of Sydney, have led the way in aggressive low church conservatism.
Dean Jensen was applauded as his sweeping denunciation of the Church of England took in the Prince of Wales – a “public adulterer”; King’s College Chapel in Cambridge, attacked as a “temple to paganism” for selling the records and compact discs of its famous choir in the ante-chapel; and women priests because, “as soon as you accept women’s ordination everything else in the denomination declines”.
But the dean reserved his strictest condemnation for Dr Williams, because he holds liberal private views about homosexual relationships, even though he has struggled to uphold the church’s unity by maintaining its traditional opposition to ordained gays.
“That’s no good. That’s total prostitution of the Christian ministry,” the dean declared, to applause and cries of “Amen”.
“He should resign. That’s theological and intellectual prostitution. He is taking his
salary under false pretences.”
Reform is developing links with the Anglican church in the developing world in readiness for the outcome of the report of the commission headed by Archbishop Robin Eames, set up a year ago in response to the decision by the US Episcopal church to ordain its first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, to lead the diocese of New Hampshire.
Bishop Robinson was elected by parishioners in the state, even though he was known to be living with his partner, in defiance of traditional church practice.
Evangelicals now want the commission to discipline the US church, or at least those of its bishops who supported Bishop Robinson’s appointment, until they repent, though there is at present no mechanism for the worldwide church to do so.
In England the first targets of conservative evangelicals are likely to include the eight diocesan bishops who publicly supported the appointment of the celibate gay cleric Jeffrey John to the suffragan bishopric of Reading last year.
Dr John was later forced to give up the appointment, because of evangelical protests, but he has subsequently been made Dean of St Albans.
Reform members are already beginning to demand answers from their diocesan bishops about where they stand on the gay issue before deciding whether to continue to support them.
But some at the conference believed that shunning bishops was not going far enough. Ian Seymour, a churchwarden in Arborfield, Berkshire, said: “The Church of England is over, its days are numbered.
“If our rector was an adulterer, a drunk or a liar, he would be removed, but if he was in a same sex relationship he would be cherished.
“The institution is sinking – new groupings will emerge.”

The “Anglican Communion Network Thank Tank” has been issuing different series of questions to the Presiding Bishop intended to narrowly define the parameters of the debates going on within Epsicopalianism and Anglicanism around the world. Below is a second list (which I want to respond to at some point in the near future, once course work slows down a bit – ha-ha), followed by a response by the Salty Vicar, who proposed what he considers more appropriate questions for the Presiding Bishop. Five more days until the Lambeth Report is issued.
Here are the “Thank Tank’s” questions (don’t you just love leading questions?):

1. Do you not agree that the primary basis of Anglican theology is the
teaching of Holy Scripture and that half a century of reappraising
scholarship has failed to overthrow the classical view that scripture
consistently views homosexual activity as sinful?
2. Do you not also agree that Anglican theology has historically always
taken seriously the witness of the Christian tradition as a guide to its
reading of Scripture and that reappraising scholarship has likewise failed
to overthrow the view that this tradition has also consistently viewed
homosexual activity as sinful?
3. Is it not also the case that there is no agreement about the cause(s) of
homosexuality and that even if there was this would not of itself mean that
homosexuality was morally acceptable?
4. In the light of the above what reason does ECUSA have for changing its
traditional stance on sexual morality? Given the widespread evidence that
exists about the harmful social and medical effects of homosexual practice,
and given that Scripture warns that those engage in homosexual practice and
who do not repent will be excluded from the kingdom of God, is not ECUSA
encouraging people to live in a manner that will harm them in this life and
cut them off from God in the next?
5. Is it consistent for ECUSA to say that it wants to be part of the
Anglican Communion and yet to take no notice of the Communion when what it
wants to do is called into question?
6. Can the consecration of Gene Robinson be seen as the consecration of a
Catholic bishop given that consent from other bishops is an integral part of
such a consecration and that the Primates Meeting had made it clear that
such consent would be lacking from a large part of the Anglican Communion?
Was this consecration not in fact an un-Catholic act and as such invalid?
-The Anglican Communion Network Think Tank

Now, here is the Salty Vicar’s response:

Here are some better questions to ask Frank, that don’t set him up.
1. What are the sources of your understanding of homosexuality? If possible, describe how they accurately represent, complement or differ from the Christian witness.
2. Please explain the method(s) you use to understand the Christian witness: how do you choose what texts you use to interpret an event in your life? When does a preacher misrepresent the Gospel? Under what criteria would you best judge your mistakes?
3. How do you see ethics generally differing from or similar to “Christian” ethics?
4. Explain the legitimate limits a Christian demands of sexual behavior. How do you justify those boundaries? How is the scriptural witness similar and/or different to your understanding? If different, upon what basis do you disagree with scripture? How do you justify this?
5. How does the church establish who is included in the Kingdom? Is it merely baptism or the taking of the eucharist? What are the fundamental criteria for discerning the difference between false and gospel teaching? How do you interpret scripture so that the written Word does not apparently contradict the Word?
5. How would you limit communion with another church? When is it justifiable to demand repentance from another church? How would this be enforced?
6. When might catholicism contradict or affirm republican or democratic polity?
These are real questions.

I came across this survey of English priests in the News Telegraph, from Britian. The following excerpt came from an article entitled: Clergy vote Rowan Williams as ‘one of the least effective’ modern archbishops by Chris Hastings, Elizabeth Day and Gary Anderson (Filed: 12/09/2004).

“The poor showing for Dr Williams may reflect the fact that he is a relative newcomer to the post and also the continuing unease among some clergy about the way he has handled the issue of homosexual ordination.
“Dr Williams was more successful in a question on the most inspirational living Christian, finishing second – but ahead of the Pope and Nelson Mandela. However, he received only half the votes of Desmond Tutu, the Nobel prize winning anti-apartheid campaigner, who took 25 per cent of the vote.
“The most treasured Biblical passage named by the 205 clergy who participated in the poll was John, Chapter 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.” The Gospel of St John was the most popular book in the Bible, amassing 53 votes.
“Psalm 139 which begins “O Lord, thou has searched me, and known me”, was voted the favourite psalm. The leading parable was that of the prodigal son, which won 44 per cent of the vote.
“When asked to vote for their favourite hymn, the clergy, perhaps surprisingly, chose a contemporary offering, Here I am Lord – which was written in 1981 by Daniel Schutte – ahead of traditional favourites such as Amazing Grace and Jerusalem.
“St Peter, who was described by one voter as “a bad ‘un made good” for his denial of Christ and subsequent repentance, was chosen as the favourite saint ahead of St Francis of Assisi and St Paul. The deadliest of the seven sins was pride, which was considered to be the root of most evil.”

Today, I skipped my Ascetical Theology class and went, with four fellow seminarians, to hear Archbishop Akinola, Primate of the Church of Nigeria, and primary instigator of the reactionary elements within the Anglican Communion over the consecration of Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire.
I wanted to hear from the man himself what he was thinking and doing concerning all the controversies. I came away greatly saddened, because I realized that there will be no reconciliation between him and the American Church. He is a Christian, and we are not, if we accept homosexuals.
The meeting was held at St. George’s Church of the Parish of Calvary/St. George. The Rev. Pike, Rector, introduced Akinola in glowing terms. There were about 40 people present.
Akinola is establishing a worldwide church under himself as Primate and Metropolitan. His church in America will be very small, but that is not stopping him.

This was posted on the House of Bishops/Deputies listserv. It kind of puts things into perspective – there is nothing new under the sun. I love the last line!

A letter dated April, 1871 — Huntington, England. It helps to imagine similar conversations 133 years from now.
“Lizzie Swain is about being married to a young Wesleyan Minister Joseph who is a native of St. Albans and young Ted Potts at Leighton is going into the Wesleyan Ministry. He has passed his examination at the Quarterly meeting and will have to pass a more searching one at the District Meeting in May but I believe he will pass as he has got some stuff in him. Methodism may last his time tho’ I doubt it will last much longer. It is too rigid and unelastic to be permanent. The Church Government is too much in the hands of the clergy and the Theology is too fixed to bear the strain of the inevitable tendency of modern thought. Our Church of England is the same. No church with rigidly defined articles will be able to stand the violent theological upheaving which has set in and which will assuredly go on. Our Church of England is already rent into sections by it and will soon split up into 3 if not more divisions. The High Church or Ritualists, The Low Church or Evangelicals and the Broad Church or Comprehnsionists or as they are humoursously styled The Attitudinarians The Latitudinarians and The Platitudinarians.”

Here is the latest proposal (blackmail attempt – did I type that?) presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning ECUSA and the Communion.
http://www.virtuosityonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1292 Or, click below for the full text of the letter.
When the “reactionary conservatives” say that the disputes currently taking place within ECUSA and the Communion revolves around power, I wonder how such statements by “conservatives” are any less of an attempt at power? Now that American reactionaries (note, not meaning historically practiced Anglican-Evangelicalism) are flush with “power” from support by overseas bishops, they are pushing for the whole enchilada while they can.
They will even attempt to forbid the U.S. Church from using the word “Anglican,” and force it to rewrite its constitution. If the reactionaries are successful in denying the ECUSA the role of Anglican presence in the U.S., then I believe they will push in the civil courts to take control of the structures of the Church, since the Constitution’s preamble says that the Church is that which is in communion with the Sea of Canterbury. After all, the proposal says the “faithful” diocese and parishes (read: Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes, also known as “The Anglican Communion Network”) will have the right to elect their own Presiding Bishop, etc., which gives them the structure which is then in fact in communion with the Sea of Canterbury, thus the legitimate “Episcopal Church USA.” These types of definitions have already been made. This is so very difficult to say, but they cannot be trusted. Their end justifies their means.

Continue reading →

The following from the British Daily Telegraph – The Rt. Rev. Clark Grew (not Drew) retired as my bishop last March 2004. I was surprised, in some ways, to see his name as one of the four bishops traveling to London. In other ways, however, knowing his viewpoints, it does not surprise me at all.
With all the reports coming forth over the past couple of weeks, and with the recommended compromise in Colorado, my three year long hunch that when push-comes-to-shove, I will not be ordained still haunts me. Only time will tell and only God knows!
Here is the article:

US bishops fly in for ‘sanctions’ talks
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 08/09/2004)
A delegation of American bishops flew into London yesterday for talks with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, following reports that they are to be severely disciplined by the worldwide Anglican Church.
Fantasy Champuions League
The liberal bishops have been dismayed by suggestions that they could be barred by Dr Williams from Anglican summits as punishment for backing Anglicanism’s first actively gay bishop last year.
The delegation has the support of the liberal Primate of the American Episcopal Church, Bishop Frank Griswold, who presided at the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.
Bishop Griswold is also understood to have brought forward a trip to London. The bishop, who faces the humiliating prospect of being barred from the annual primates meetings, the highest Anglican council, was due to fly to Britain on Friday but will now leave the US today.
Lambeth Palace refused to confirm or deny that Dr Williams would be meeting Bishop Griswold or the group of four, the Rt Rev Thomas Shaw (Massachusetts), the Rt Rev Robert O’Neill (Colorado), the Rt Rev J Clark Drew (Ohio) and the Rt Rev Don Johnson (West Tennessee).
A spokesman said that he did not comment on the Archbishop’s private diary. But other sources confirmed that the bishops were determined to express their anger over suggestions that the Episcopal Church could face sanctions for defying the majority over homosexuality.

Considering the last post I made, I just read this post from the House of Bishops/Deputies listserv.

Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:52:31 -0400
From: Tobias S Haller BSG
Subject: [HoB/D] A suggestion for impaired communion
The recent meeting of the Provincial Secretaries of the Anglican
Communion leads me to believe that the predictions from conservative
columnists about the collapse of the communion may be somewhat
exaggerated. All but a handful of the 38 provinces of the Communion were
represented at this meeting, and of those, apparently only two (Uganda
and Nigeria) stayed away as an expression of their attitude towards the
Episcopal Church, with which they have severed “communion.”
In all of the discussions concerning the present crisis, however, I have
yet to hear a good and precise definition of exactly what “commuion”
means. I hope this may emerge from the work of the Lambeth Commission.
In the meantime, people talk about communion in “nominative” terms, that
is: what does our communion consist of; what is its nature; is it like a
federation or a coalition; and so on. My response is to suggest we treat
communion, or being in communion, in a more _verbal_ sense: What does a
communion _do_; how does it work?
As I have noted in the past, when determining whether one is “in
communion” or “out of communion” with another ecclesial body, the first
thing you look to is the mutual recognition of ministers and their
ability to _function_ as such within the various constituent member
churches or provinces of the communion. Thus we move from ontology to
action. And this is also where talk of “impaired” communion has
practical implications.

Continue reading →

I have been reading over the past few weeks of Episcopal priests and parishes who are jumping the Episcopal ship and seeking episcopal oversight outside the U.S. Now, we have “Anglican” bishops under the authority of Rwanda, priests under the episcopal authority of bishops in Uganda, Nigeria, and Bolivia, among others. Now, some British liberals who favor inclusion of homosexuals have said they will seek alternative episcopal oversight from American bishops if the Church of England sides with those demaning exclusion of homosexuals.
The bishops in countries from the global south are quick to get their foot in the door as the geographical territory of the current Anglican province in the United States is subdivided into geographical oblivion by their actions.
According to Anglican tradition and recent pronouncements by the world’s Anglican Primates, no bishop can enter another’s province or diocese to exercise episcopal duties or oversight without the prior approval of the diocesan bishop with jurisdiction. The primates who are feverishly opposed to Gene Robinson and the American Church’s decisions during General Convention ’03, declare that the American Church is infringing upon their territories and imposing upon them something that is sin and against 2,000 years of tradition, and that the American Church does not have that right. Yet, here are the same primates and bishops literally infringing upon the American Church’s authority and establishing their own beachheads of authority in the American Church’s territory. They are acting hypocritically, despite their justifications.
So, we have activist bishops from all over the world violating their own decisions and pronouncements, and I wonder what will happen when suddenly two, or perhaps three, new churches under the episcopal authority of different bishops start to compete with each other. What will the bishop from Bolivia do when it seems that the church under a bishop of Nigeria is luring parishioners away from his church? What will happen when the peculiar beliefs or activities of one foreign church conflict with those of another foreign church located in the U.S.?
This is no different than Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches and denominations that continue to splinter time and time again. The “Continuing” Anglican denominations in the U.S. simply continue this trend. Now, opportunistic bishops around the world are setting up their own mini-denominations/fiefdoms in the U.S. It will never end. As several conservative traditionalists have said – it is all about power.