Mass Anglican conversion... ehhh

Great Debates
1

So it seems that more traditionalist members of the Worldwide Anglican communion are considering breaking off from the Episcopalians (the American branch of the Anglican Church). Link:

The article goes on to claim that the Orthodox have also been making overtures to disaffected Anglicans. Another article, older, in the Seattle Times, expands a bit on the subject, claiming that whole diocese are involved.

Though (and I emphasize this) these talks are by all appearences very preliminary, and could possibly come to nothing at all, it does seem to have been brewing in the wings for quite a while.

So what’s the fuss? After all, I’m Catholic, so I should be happy about this, right?

Not Really.

I mean, I’m happy about it in the sense that I believe that the Catholic Church is The Church and that this 500 year old rift between us and the Anglicans could be at least partially healed. A full blown Anglican rite (as opposed to the current Anglican-use churches) would be a good thing, definitely, and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately, it is the reason they are leaving that bothers me. This Gene Robinson; I don’t like. Not really. Granted, the only space he occupies in my head is the one that emerges when I catch a glimpse of him on TV. However, I wonder whether a man who could fool himself about his nature to the point where he could marry and father a child is bishop material. After all, he is gay, right? So either he had some romantic attraction towards his wife, meaning that he is bi, in which case what he did is little different than a man dumping his wife for another woman, OR his love for his ex-wife is strictly platonic, in which case he was able to convince himself that he was straight long enough to marry her and father a child. Either way, that does not speak of a very trustworthy individual. If he is the latter, he has my sympathy, but all the same, I would rather not have him as a Bishop.

All of the above, however, is just my own personal prejudices. I could be wrong about the whole story, and in any case as I am not Anglican, it does not matter at all to those who elevated him to Bishop. And that’s fine. I have more important things to worry about than that there exists a gay bishop in a denomination I am not a part of. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

However, Robinsons elevation has made many in the Anglican communion very irritated, and it is this event that may push them to leave the Anglican communion. But why are they angry at Robinson? Not because of the reasons I stated for my own dislike (which wouldn’t be enough for me to leave the church, but I have seen more than a few bad bishops and I woud rather limit that), but because he is gay. Recall Jeffrey John, a UK Anglican priest who was a celibate homosexual, and IMHO, a person much more suited to the Bishopsy than Robinson? There was a furor over his appointment as well, so much so that he declined the post to preserve unity in the church. Also because he was gay.

In the Catholic church, our stance towards homosexuals is in my opinion unenlightened. However, there are movements afoot to change that. We have been working on it. Sure it’s going too slowly, but its going, and that’s important. Now, if these anglicans convert, even if they had already been wanting to years before, like the bishop of Quincy, what message will that send? That they could not tolerate homosexuals, so they became Catholics? Talk about setting us back.

Thoughts?

2

To refer to Fr. Moyer as a pompous ass is an insult to all decent self-respecting members of the species Equus asinus and E. hemionus.

This is a man who, after vowing before God to “be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church as received them” and to “obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work,” barred the door of “his” church to the bishop to whom he had made these promises until and unless the bishop in question agreed to subscribe to a statement of beliefs written by Fr. Moyer, containing material contrary to the Canons of the Episcopal Church in which he took these vows – and refused to honor the request of the Presiding Bishop to withdraw those sanctions. He was accordingly removed from his parish by the bishop, “regretfully” in the bishop’s own words, and found a haven on the staff of the Bishop of Pittsburgh – one of those who is hot for schism over the Robinson deal. (Your prayers for Siege and her home church are solicited in this regard.) If he is “standing on his principles,” it appears that those principles mean that opposition to gay people or theological debate permits one to break one’s solemn vows before God.

(I will not at this time speak to your assessment of Robinson – this board has a member whose mother was on the committee that originally nominated Robinson for bishop, and I will in advance, sight unseen, endorse every word of her assessment of Bp. Robinson’s character and fitness for the episcopacy.)

Contrary to what you may be reading, while there is substantial opposition to Bp. Robinson (Skammer is more informed than I on the extent of that), only a few scattered individuals are seriously contemplating conversion to Catholicism – and absolutely not any national Anglican churches, even those who are threatening the breaking of communion with the (U.S.) Episcopal Church over l’affaire Robinson.

And, while ñañi has had the courtesy not to bring up this canard, I’d like to go on record as stating that the Episcopal Church, of which I’m very proud to be a member, is emphatically not “buying into secular political correctness” or subscribing to an “anything goes” immorality, but has carefully judged and evaluated the criteria under which it selects its bishops and has found nothing in Gene Robinson’s life – most especially not his being gay, nor his and his wife’s mutual decision to end their marriage – that precludes him from being an effective bishop to his diocese, and a witness to the world that we as a church, at least, are “putting our money where our mouth is” on treating all human beings, including gay people specifically, with affection and respect – including elevating him to the next-to-highest office our church has at its disposal.

3

good evening friends

at our small episcopal church (to which i am a recent convert) we have had more than a few discussions of what ramifications the elevation of canon robinson will have. we will not be leaving the ecusa.

my personal opinion is that new hampshire is entiotled to elect whomever they please to the rank of bishop. why would it matter to them what i thought about it?

i refuse to let my religious faith be defined by the sexuality of someone i have never met.

i would find it rather ironic, given the difficulties the catholic church (my former denomination) have had over the last few years to become the refuge of people fleeing the horrors of a gay bishop

4

Greetings Polycarp. I hope you and your wife are well on the New Year. I also hope that you and yours have not had to take too much crap over this issue; I can only imagine how pissed off some people are over this “triumph” by the “Homosexualists,” and I hope that the light of God will shine on all involved.

That being said, do you have a cite on the bad character and doings of Moyer? This is the first I’ve head of the man, and now that this issue at least indirectly concerns me, I’d like more info on it. Thanks.

What sort of schism? Do you mean like the one that is already happening, with provinces breaking communion with part of the ECUSA, or what?

Of course.

This statement strikes me as somewhat curious. After all, weren’t the Protestant reformers (those who were clergy, anyway) breaking their vows for their principles, not to mention the whole divorce thing? I apologize if that sounds snarky, but your statement reads to my own admittedly untrained theological mind as a statement more at home with a Catholic than an Anglican.

I would like to be proven wrong. Or maybe not. Knowing that a chunk of people came to MY church because a good man who happened to be gay became bishop would not be fun. Unfortunately, the truth ain’t always easy, but its the best thing. So yes, if someone who actually knows him can vouch for him, by all means.

It seems the breakup has already begun; several provinces have broken communion. Also, I would have agreed with you when you say there is no strong conversion movement in the AC. However, those articles (reported by the AC media) did liven up my curiosity; especially the quote by Bishop Burnett that he was approached by an entire diocese seeking conversion. While he might have been mistaken and identified FiF as a diocese, this is a man who has worked with Anglicans for 25 years; I wouldn’t be so hasty to write it off.

I did not bring it up because I don’t believe it. I have yet to see anyone show that this is not merely accelerated doctrinal development. I am not aware how Anglicans view Tradition and doctrinal development, but as a Catholic it seems relatively on the level, if unusually fast, which is what so many have a problem with, rather than changes themselves.

How does your church create bishops? Because I imagine that those who oppose Robinson where largely absent. Is it only archbishops? As to Robinsons character, like I said, I don’t know the man. I am willing to defer to someone who knows him, and also to any facts about him that I misrepresented or was unaware of.

5

I’d like to invite all those conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians who are gonna leave the church anyway to the Assemblies of God to give us a dose of much needed liturgy & sacramentalism!

All conservative A/E’s who want to stick it out in their Communion are NOT being proselytized in this post.

6

I wonder what tone this thread would take if the OP was an Anglican/Episcopalian bemoaning the possibility of a mass conversion into the church by gays.

7

Actually, FriarTed that’s sort of happening.

There was an interesting article in the NY Times a week or so ago about that very issues: the Catholic church was seeing an influx of disaffected conservative Episcopalians and the Episcopalians were seeing an influx of disaffected liberal Catholics.

8

Thanks. We’re well, and I hope you and yours are having a good New Year as well.

I have had to withdraw from my own diocese’s message board, which has been co-opted by a handful of Neanderthals who are in the process of denouncing our Church, our Presiding Bishop, and our own Bishop, for having the temerity to treat gay people as children of God saved by His Atonement and deserving of fair and equal treatment.

I had a bunch when the issue came up last year, and I’ll locate them and post them here in the near future.

Two things: (1) Like the Orthodox, we’re structured as a communion of autonomous national churches united by a common communion with the See of Canterbury. Some member national churches have withdrawn communion, or threatened to, with the Episcopal Church (and the Anglican Church of Canada) over gay issues, particularly Robinson. (2) A substantial group was opposed to Robinson’s consecration as bishop. Some part of that group, vocal but apparently relatively small in numbers, is threatening to withdraw completely over the issue. (As I said, Skammer will have more information on this – but it’s my imnpression that the majority of the roughly 1/3 of the church who opposed Robinson will remain loyal to the church.)

I see a distinct difference between a refusal to countenance a power grab by a Reformation-period Pope and a local ego-based schism. There’s a line in the American Declaration of Independence that suggests that rebellion may sometimes be justified, as in the circumstances facing the Continental Congress, but should not be taken for “light and transient reasons.” Something like that is the sort of distinction I’m trying to draw.

As I said, I hope she posts here. You might check out earlier Robinson threads in GD for her comments.

My impression is that there are several American bishops and the Archbishop of Sydney (AU) who are so firmly dead-set against Robinson as to threaten schism. (Pittsburgh, Quincy, Orlando, and Fort Worth are the four dioceses I’m certain of. Each contains a number of individual parishes that are opposed to their bishop’s schismatic attitudes – Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, is one that I know (through Siege) is taking steps to combat schism.

Thanks. That’s much how I view it too. The reason I said that is that it is almost the first comment out of the mouths of many “real Christians” about what we’ve done, and I wanted to forestall it.

Anglican bishops are consecrated by other bishops in the Apostolic Succession, generally including the Archbishop of the Province in which they are chosen. (The Episcopal Church, rejecting the idea of an Archbishop for complex historical reasons, has a “Presiding Bishop” with the role of Archbishop but without a portion of his authority.) In the Episcopal Church, a new bishop is elected, after prayer, by the Diocesan Convention comprised of representatives of the clergy and laity of that diocese, and then normally ratified by a majority of bishops and their standing committees in the other dioceses of the church. When the election occurs within four months of our once-ever-three-years General Convention of the church (as was Bp. Robinson’s), though, the ratification must be done by a majority in the House of Bishops (comprised of all active bishops of the church), and by a majority of the lay delegates and a majority of the clergy delegates, voting separately, to General Convention. Gene Robinson was ratified by 60-70% majorities in all three votes. He was then consecrated in New Hampshire by Presiding Bishop Griswold and a large number of other bishops on November 2, 2003.

9

However, Article 20 of the Articles of Religion in Book of Common Prayer also state that “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written.” Yet the vows that the Bishop and his supporters took to uphold the authority of scripture, and then put aside, has not drawn your ire. I haven’t seen Frank Griswold called a pompous ass for signing the statement back in October with the Anglican Primates acknowledging that the ordaination of Bp Robinson threatened to ‘tear apart the fabric of the Anglican Communion’, and then going ahead and presiding at the ordination himself.

However, I have to admit that I have not followed the Fr. Moyer situation closely. There has been enough fallout in my own diocese of Tennessee to keep me plenty busy.

I agree. Though events have forced Bp Griswald to resign from his co-chair in ecumenical talks with the Roman Catholic church, and that dialogue continues without him, I do not think it is likely for any Anglican groups other than at the idividual level to join the RCC.

As far as “substantial opposition,” you could call it that. Here is a list of Anglican provinces world-wide who have broken or declared impaired communion with ECUSA and/or Bishop Robinson:
– Anglican Church of Kenya
– [Anglican Church of Tanzania/url
– [url=http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=885&c=21]Church of Uganda
– Anglican Church of Nigeria
– Anglican Church in Southeast Asia
– Province of Central Africa (Churches of Zambia, Botswana, Malawi & Zimbabwe)
– Church in the Province of West Indies
– Anglican Church in Zambia

Other churches have also severed ties with and/or repudiated ECUSA, including the Russian Orthodox Church, the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Province in America. The RCC has said that the election strains the relationship between itself and the Anglican Communion.

This doesn’t take into account opposition from within ECUSA. Many dioceses are going to be struggling in 2004 with a significant drop in giving from members – I’ve heard (but this is just a rumor for now) that our diocese is facing up to a 50% drop in pledges for the year. And that’s with a conservative bishop who voted against Bp Robinson and is generally supported by the orthodox parishes. The actually affect across ECUSA will not be known until dicoceses have had their annual conventions (ours is at the end of January).

No matter how emphatically you state it, it still looks that way. They have disregarded plain bibilcal teaching on sexuality in favor of the cultural zeitgeist.

As if treating people with affection and respect requires us to validate them for ordained ministry. It doesn’t. I hope you know, based on our previous discussions, that I am a strong advocate of treating everyone with affection, respect and dignity. However, that doesn’t mean we can or should embrace unrepentent sinfulness in our church leaders. The loving and respectful thing to do is to encourage and facilitate repentence and healing, not to enable continued defiance of scriptural authority.

10

Unfortunately life isn’t always so clear and uncomplicated as you seem to think. I was married and fathered a child before I Came Out. Now if you want to suggest I’m “untrustworthy”, then I’ll meet you in the Pit.

11

Sheesh! Please forgive my numerous spelling and coding errors in the above post. I shouldn’t try to type on a Monday morning…

12

Posters might find it interesting to read a recent column by Ted Scott, former Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, which appeared in today’s National Post: Why I cannot accept the Pope’s invitation. Amongst other things, His Grace stated:

13

Piffle. Hit reply instead of preview.

Meant to add, that doesn’t sound like a “flavour-of-the-month” response to “cultural zeitgeist” - Scott sounds to me like a pastor who is trying to consider what’s best for all his flock, not just some, after taking a great deal of consideration over the issues…

14

Canon Robinson’s being gay is, for me not the biggest issue.
For me they are:
(of course as ñañi said it is very little of my business what Episcoplians do, but as a fellow Christian I’ll comment)

  1. A bishop should be a sign of unity and definitley Canon Robinson isn’t, he should’ve at least tried to postpone he consecration until differences, if possible, were ironed out.

  2. As to his dumping his wife. Regardless of how mutual this was, I wonder if all the support Canon Robinson had about “being open about his sexuality” would still be present if instead of living with a man he’d be living with a large-breasted 20-year-old woman, would his “sexual option” be as highly regarded?

  3. Finally and by far the most important. Canon Robinson said “* just because it is against Scripture and against Tradition it does not mean it is wrong”*. Well, if Scripture AND Tradition can’t make somehting wrong, one wonders what’s can.

Again, it is the Episcoplaians’ problem in the end, but it was an unnecessary fight that tore up a Christian group .

Regarding mass conversions. As a Catholic I welcome anyone who wants to be part of the Church and the Anglican-use liturgy could be the base of a whole Anglican rite within Latin Catholicism.

15

Useful answers, Rodrigo.

With regard to #1, though, the attitudes of some in our church are such that Urpsday, Nevertember 33rd, 9945 AD, would be far too soon. Without rehashing a bunch of pilpul on Scripture passages that have been dissected more times than the resident frog of a 9th grade science lab, the bottom line is that some members of our (or any) church see Scripture and Sacred Tradition as holding that a gay person has the options of remaining celibate or entering into a heterosexual marriage, and that anything else is sin. Others – a growing minority, including me – see the passages as condemning specific acts that would likely be seen as horrendous by folks here ranging from Shodan to Otto – the enslavement of pubescent boys and their sale as prostitutes, for example, or forcible anal rape as a means of subjugating one’s enemy, for another. There are linguistic and Biblical-criticism grounds for both schools of thought, but the former one sees the Scriptural proscriptions, in the translations made by folks subscribing to that school, as being “the plain word of God – it’s sin and it’s wrong.”

There ain’t no compromise available here – you need to read it as an absolute – either those passages condemn gay sex in such a way as to make reprehensible those who insist on engaging in it despite being warned of its sinfulness, or those passages mean something else, and the laws of how to treat one’s fellow man take precedence. Quite simply, either Gene Robinson needs to be driven out of the church altogether as an unrepentant sinner, or there’s no reason why he should not be a bishop.

Meanwhile, folks like John W. Howe, Jr., Bishop of Central Florida (whose minions told Mars Horizon he was not welcome in the Episcopal Church! :mad: ), Duncan of Pittsburgh (who seems to have conceived of himself as a sort of Moses leading his flock out of bondage to Frank Griswold :dubious: ), and the Bishops of Quincy and Fort Worth are not “acting as symbols of unity” but rather prepared to tear the church down the middle rather than have an openly gay man serving alongside them as a bishop.

With regard to #2, Gene Robinson is not the first bishop to have entered into a divorce in this church. And while I feel divorce is not something to be done lightly, because it means breaking a commitment to a lifelong relationship, occasionally it’s necessary to recognize that despite CPR, a marriage is in fact dead, and deserves a decent burial.

Neither Bishop Robinson nor Mrs. Robinson have ever stated publicly the reasons behind their divorce. I’ve formed the impression that it resembled the relationship that Homebrew describes (except, of course, that to the best of anyone’s knowledge Mrs. Robinson is not Lesbian). But this means that any number of possibilities not considered by those who accuse him of “dumping his wife” are present. What, for example, if she refused to remain married to a gay man? There are women who would take just that attitude on learning of their husband’s true sexuality. What if it were her wish that they both seek happiness with a more compatible partner, remaining friends and co-parents? I’d like to see Homebrew’s analysis of what we know about the Robinson marriage and divorce, as someone who has been through something very similar and presumably gained insight from it.

I’d like to see the context of the alleged quote in #3. It sounds very much like one of a number of manufactured quotes I’ve seen attributed to him.

But the bottom line is that Christ defines, by exclusion, what is truly wrong, in Mark 7:20-23, Matthew 7:1-5, Matthew 21:28-32, Matthew 22:34-40, Matthew 23:1-36, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 10:25-37, Luke 11:37-52, John 3:16-21, John 13:34-35. If one reads these, they indicate what sort of behavior toward others Jesus expects of his followers, and castigate those who use Scripture as a rulebook by which to condemn the supposed sins of others to which they are not themselves tempted.

IMHO, one must be wilfully blind not to see the point – if one bothers to pay attention to Jesus, with all the fulminations of the Prophets and Paul surrounding His words, convenient for one to quote in self-righteous condemnation of others.

You are absolutely right – it was "“an unnecessary fight that tore up a Christian group.” But consider for a moment that the Diocese of New Hampshire decided that the Canon to the Ordinary, who had been providing pastoral care and guidance throughout the diocese as a priest assisting his bishop, would make an excellent successor to the bishop as he retired, and so elected him to that job. Those who are insistent on judging him by his sex life and marital history are in point of fact the ones who picked the unnecessary fight.

16

Although I don’t agree with Scott at all that this issue is about what constitutes a family, I do acknowledge that many critical thinkers on the liberal side of the issue – including members of this board and posters in this thread – have come to their position through prayerful consideration, deliberation and with a desire to demonstrate true Christian love.

However, I do think that they (including Scott) are examining the issue from a secular paradigm. To say that disapproving of sex outside the traditional man/woman marriage is exclusive of showing love to homosexuals betrays a very limited understanding of Christian love, IMHO.

Rodrigo said:

If this is an accurate quote from the Bishop, I also find it very disturbing. I think I would rather have a Bishop who, by twisted logic, can justify his behavior in light of scripture and tradition, instead of one who casually dismisses them as irrelevent.

17

To my list of Anglican provinces that have comdemned homosexual sex and disassociated themselves from Bishop Robinson and ECUSA, we can now add the Anglican Province of Congo. They released a statement yesterday.

18

A man is judged by the company he keeps. I prefer my company to be largely folks who don’t practice female circumcision. Make of that what you will.

19

Homebrew- cite that the African Anglicans practice or condone female circumcision please

20

Not the Anglicans themselves, necessarily. I don’t know one way or the other about that. I’d guess that since it’s a cultural rather than religious thing, it’s quite possible some do. However, the African Anglicans exist in a culture that does have this barbaric practice. They clean up their own backyards before they lecture anyone else.

What cites I did find show that the practice is still rather common.

I found one opinion piece where the author states

Or a transcript (PDF) from a BBC radio panel discussing this issue.