I wrote this in response to a comment Jackie added to my post, “Good Stuff.” I decided to make part of it a post all its own…
It has been interesting to notice the different kinds of people that the different churches attract. I spent most of my life in the Evangelical side of the church, and while the Evangelical/Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations and churches grew dramatically in many cases, the people who came into those churches by-and-large where Christians who were simply changing churches, or perhaps lapsed Christians coming back to the church. There were not many un-churched, non-believers who began for the first time attending these churches, with obvious exceptions. The large charismatic Episcopal Church in my town grew, but I know that most of the new growth came from Christians changing churches, not from new un-churched, non-believers who accepted Christ for the first time.
I have found, however, that the Episcopal Church is drawing many un-churched people who are curious about Christ and His Way and seeking truth. They do not feel comfortable attending an Evangelical church, but they are comfortable to begin their journey to Jesus Christ in this context. I have found, through observation, that the Episcopal Church attracts more un-churched non-believers to its ranks than does Evangelicalism. No, that does mean that the sinners can feel comfortable remaining in their sin because they attend an apostate Episcopal church that says they don稚 have to change anything to be a Christian! Who has the greatest effect on un-churched, non-believers who are seeking God? From my personal experience and observations, I think the Episcopal Church does.

I was reading Kendall Harmon’s blog this morning and the post he included from an article by Dan Savage. The responses to an article were many and furious. This is a response to “Jackie” from John Wilkins that I particularly like. It isn’t necessary to know the context or what Jackie wrote, I don’t believe. Anyway, here is John’s post:

Jackie asks: “You donÂ’t seek to counsel non-Christians from a biblical standard? If someone is not a Christian, this makes unacceptable behavior acceptable?” Jackie – if you are arguing with someone who says, “I think the bible is a set of myths, and that its holiness codes are ridiculous, and that the bible is inconsistent, encourages Genocide, and makes utterly false claims about the future” then itÂ’s very hard to argue from the bible. At that point it is the job of the priest or Christian to argue why the bible is credible – and not from the position “because God says it is so.” That simply brings you into circular reasoning. It almost makes God into a tyrant.
Brother, I wonder if we have two different ways of dealing with life. I live without needing to be certain that I know what God wants. I have a pretty good understanding from scripture, the traditions, common sense, civil law and experience. Savage may be right, but it makes me a bit uncomfortable. I know that I wouldnÂ’t recommend such relationships because I think they can break hearts. I think, also, Savage knows this which is why he claims to be “defacto” monogamous – he doesnÂ’t believe in monogamy, but it works out that way.
Strangely, this is precisely why scripture and the fathers are correct about monogamy. In an egalitarian society where women have some freedom and rights, monogamy is better. It restricts, while not eliminating, desire for the benefit of individual hearts. It requires some mutual sacrifice.
Granted, perhaps we, as Christians, need someone like Dan to repent for his sins. For who? For God? God will take care of Dan. He doesn’t need to repent for me. But personally, I find it strangely affirming that even though he doesn’t need, desire, or believe in monogamy, he’s decided that the general form, the general principle, the spirit behind it works. Perhaps you would rather that he sid, “well, we have orgies and sleep around a lot and have as much casual sex as we can.” That would, at least, reaffirm the stereotype.
I donÂ’t think the bible was meant to be used as the foundation for argument. It was meant to be a foundation for a bringing people in relationship to God.
I was asked to answer BeaconÂ’s question. Of course I believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God. I think it contains all things necessary to salvation.
However, I do not think that the Holy Bible is inerrant. I think that the Word of God was written through human beings, and that human beings are fallen. Let me repeat:
Human beings use words to communicate.
Human beings are fallen.
One aspect of being fallen is misunderstanding or being misunderstood.
God used human beings, and their form of communication [language], to speak to humanity.
Human beings, in their fallenness [while doing the best that they could] cannot get things perfect [save Jesus, who was not fallen].
Neither did they need to get things perfect, for perfection is found in God.
My second point is that IN SCRIPTURE the word of God is Jesus Christ, the living God, of which one aspect of his nature is that he is perfectly free. God is not the words of the bible – only insofar as we see the spirit of Jesus Christ. This is the biblically / scripturally correct view – that Jesus, is the word of God.
I have heard a couple interesting things: that in fact God is not free to change his nature; God is not free to change his mind – even though scripture illustrates that He does. Noone has addressed the meaning of the stories where God does change his mind. Like liberals, “Orthodox” believers choose those parts of scripture that satisfy their theology while ignoring the “plain teaching” of other parts.
The problem is not with God, who may be, in some sense changeless, eternal and certain. It is with his medium, human beings, and words, which always conceal and reveal, which never get things perfect, but are usually good enough, and contain, at least, what is necessary to be saved. Fortunately, being certain, absolute, rigid, doctrinare, is not what is necessary. Merely the Word of God.
Which is Jesus, the one Holy and Living God.
Comment by John Wilkins — 7/19/2004 @ 10:26 am

Here is an additional comment made by a bishop from Kenya from the AAC’s “Plano West” conference:
‘Radical individualism’ cited
“Bishop Joseph Wasonga of the Diocese of Maseno West in Kenya received a standing ovation when he addressed the gathering.
“We know we need to walk hand in hand with you as you bring the light of the Gospel to your country,” he said amid cheering and shouting. “We will not receive money from anybody not acknowledging the authority of Scripture and that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.”
That’s fine, except very few deny the authority of scripture or the Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Some do, yes, but what the bishop means is that if anyone disagrees with his interpretation of scripture (or the theological tradition he adheres to), then they do not hold to the authority of scripture. There is no possible difference in scriptural interpretation allowed, which is quite contrary to 500 years of Anglican tradition. In fact, it is a denial of the Anglican ethos to demand a single, enforced dogma of scripture – we are not the Roman Church and we do not have a magisterium in Anglicanism. Yet, these groups of Anglicans demand a redefinition of Anglicanism to conform to their particular perspective.
“No part of the Body of Christ is allowed to make a unilateral decision that affects the whole Body of Christ, that creates disunity and schism and we cannot say we are working together.”
If the bishop truly believes this, then he must agree that Anglicanism is completely illegitimate because the Church of England was created unilaterally against the entire Body of Christ – the Roman and Eastern Church. He must also agree that Protestantism is completely contrary to the will of God, because it too continues to fracture through schism by taking positions that are not determined by the entire Body of Christ.
“We are all members of the Body of Christ and we must be subject to the lordship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Absolutely. He means, however, that to submit to the lordship of Christ means we must all agree with him and his theological position. Does he mean we must have one world church under one-world ruler? Do they honestly advocate such a solution? Under whom should all Christians worldwide submit? The Roman Pope? The Orthodox Metropolitan? Someone to the liking of the bishop and the AAC?
“We are not to conform to culture, to tribalism, to racialism, or the radical individualism found in the West.”
Again, I absolutely agree. Yet, the position of the Episcopal Church decided in Convention (the only place where such position can be decided according to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church USA) is contrary to our current American culture. The majority of our culture is opposed to homosexuality, opposed to the blessing of same-sex unions, opposed to same-sex marriage, opposed to partnered gay people being ordained priests, and on and on. The position taken by the Episcopal Church is absolutely contrary to our culture, yet the bishop’s and the AAC’s claim is that by taking such a position the ECUSA has capitulated to the culture.
I also say that within the conservative Church a capitulation to the culture has occurred in terms of materialism, individualism, gluttony, and pride. Does the Church condemn divorce and raise millions of dollars to battle the evil and anti-family results of heterosexual divorce? No, because too many heterosexual Christians are participating in this evil and child-destroying activity. The hypocrisy does on and on.

The “Plano West” conference ended last week. ENS (Episcopal News Service) reported on the meeting and quoted Anderson:

Anderson predicted times will get harder before they get better, and advised participants to stockpile diocesan and parish directories.
“There may come a time when the AAC chapter in your diocese may need to do direct mail into every home in the diocese, when they may need to replicate the local bishop’s power to place a message in every living room,” he advised participants.

For all the rhetoric from the AAC (American Anglican Council) and the Anglican Communion Network (Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes) that they are a part of the Episcopal Church USA and will faithfully remain so, with the glaring omission of a pledge to abide by the Canons of the Church, statements like those above simply confound these statements.
Because the elected leadership of a Diocese may not agree with the AAC or the Network and thus implement their policies and theology, then the AAC must go around the duly elected leaders and attempt to force their views by sidetracking the elected leaders with direct mail appeals. They are attempted to deny and usurp the authority of the Bishop by appealing to church members in the pews directly. The problem is that the Episcopal Church is not a congregational church – it is episcopal! It is a church of Bishops, and if the AAC attempts to force their views upon the mainstream church in this way they will be violating traditional Anglican understanding of the episcopate, authority, the diocesan structure, and the Canons of the Episcopal Church.
As much as they claim to be the true expression of the Anglicanism and of the faith handed down, they violate the very core of the Anglican ethos that calls all to wrestle with issues but remain together, to allow differences of theological opinion yet remain faithful to one another. Additionally, they are attempting to undo the very ancient organizational structure of the Church catholic and Anglicanism.
Their goal, as stated in the leaked memo months ago, is to usurp the structure of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA and establish themselves as head of the Church structures. They want to do the same as ultra-conservatives did in the Southern Baptist Convention years ago when they took control of church structures and expelled moderates and liberals.

Here is the letter written by Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, to the chair of the commission responsible for dealing with the authority structure within the Anglican Communion due to the current controversies surround the consecration of Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire.
The Presiding Bishop Writes the Lambeth Commission
The Most Rev. Robert H.A. Eames
Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland
April 5, 2004
Dear Robin:
Rather than respond to the questionnaire I thought it would be more helpful were I to send to you to share with members of the Commission a description of some of the workings of the Episcopal Church, pertinent to your deliberations, and also to try to give some sense of how we have come to a point in our life where we find ourselves having given consent to the election and consecration of a man who shares his life with a member of the same sex. For at least 35 years the Episcopal Church has been engaged in a process of discernment about the question of homosexuality in the life of the church. This discernment began quite naturally on a local level as congregations began to be aware that certain faithful members of their worshipping communities were homosexual. In some instances these persons shared their lives with a partner of the same sex. It also became obvious that the quality of such relationships on occasion matched the mutual care and self-giving that we associate with marriage.

Continue reading →

The five parishes in Ohio who were involved in the irregular confirmations a while back have now told our brand new bishop not to bother coming to their churches for his episcopal visit.
As I have said before, theologically my sympathies lie more the a conservative/traditionalist way of looking at things (with exceptions), but this kind of haughty arrogance and pride represent the worst of the Evangelical tradition, and which I thought I left behind when becoming an Anglican. While what happened in New Hampshire may have been a mistake, the way they are acting now is certainly not glorifying to God or becoming of Christians.
I think the AAC and the Network are using Ohio as a test diocese. What a shame because I believe both Grew and now Hollingsworth would have and are willing to come to an understanding and compromise. The five reactionary parishes will not allow for such a thing, and they are going to push the limits in Ohio to attempt to accomplish their scheme.

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Akron, Ohio, which has removed the “Episcopal Church” from their signs, is heading the AAC chapter in the Diocese of Ohio. This webpage shows which Anglican provinces have declared either “broken” or “impaired” communion the US Church.
Frankly, there are far fewer than I had anticipated. The AAC and all the dissenting people make it seem as if ALL the Anglican Communion, except maybe Canada and Southern Africa, has repudiated the U.S. Church. From these statistics, it just is not so!

Here is the statement from the House of Bishops concerning “alternative Episcopal Oversight” I am sure many of the conservatives are not happy. Time will tell whether the AAC and member parishes/clergy will simply leave at this time.

[ENS] In response to the different points of view that exist in the dioceses and congregations of the Episcopal Church concerning issues of human sexuality, the House of Bishops, meeting March 19-25 in Camp Allen, Texas, have issued a document entitled “Caring for all the Churches.” The full text follows:
Caring For All The Churches
A Response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
to an expressed need of the Church
The church is the Body of Christ. Our life in this Body is a continuing action of God’s grace among us, by whose power alone we are “joined together” in Christ and grow “into a holy temple in the Lord.” (Eph. 2:21). Through the church’s common life in Christ, God intends to signify to the world the beginning of a new and reconciled creation.
We know the unity with God that Christ has won for humanity, he won through the victory of his passion. We are mindful of the suffering of Jesus who, on the Cross and through his resurrection, reaches into every corner of alienated human life, reconciling and restoring to the household of God all who come to him in faith. By GodÂ’s grace the church is continually called, in repentance and hope, to be a trustworthy sign to the world of this costly reconciling power of God. We understand that, in obedience to Christ and putting our whole trust in him, we may share in his unity with the Father through the Holy Spirit. Communion in the Trinity is the salvation of the world. The church, thus, exists for the sake of the world. Therefore, for the sake of the world, we have been called “to serve before God day and night in the ministry of reconciliation, (BCP, p.521) which is to be carried out “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:2-3)

Continue reading →