Revisionist Bishops of ECUSA miss the point entirely

Great Debates
1

The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) finally released their plan for Adequate Episcopal Oversight for churches who dissent from the actions of the last Genral Conference – specifically, the appointment of an actively gay man as a bishop and the tacit approval of same-sex marriage blessings. Except even the framers of the plan can’t call it “adequate” with a straight face, so they’ve come up with “Delegated Episcopal Oversight” instead.

You can read it here. Then read this excellent analysis from Canon Kendall Harmon.

What’s your reaction?

I say that it is far from “adequate,” maintaining all the power and control in the hands of the diocesan bishops. It provides for a lengthy process of hoop-jumping for the parishes who object to these revisionist actions, after which their bishop whom they object to may provide a bishop of his or her choosing to temporarily provide supplemental episcopal care, with the goal of restoring the relationship between the congregation and their bishop.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswald and the others just. don’t. get it.

First of all, reconciliation is impossible without repentance. Unless and until the revisionists repent (and I’m not holding my breath) and reverse the decisions of last August, many orthodox parishes are not going to submit to their authority. Their goal is not to be reconciled with these schismatic bishops – their goal is to be under authentic Anglican authority. “For what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

The HoB is operating under the same m.o. that has served it in the past… keep on talking about reconciliation and unity; keep having discussions; but take whatever actions you want. Eventually the other side will give up.

It’s not going to happen this time. This Inadequate plan is only going to widen the fissues in ECUSA - a church currently on its last legs.

I don’t know why I bothered hoping for anything different.

So… tell me why you totally disagree with me.

2

I don’t totally disagree with you. I just think you need to find a new church. The ECUSA did (by their belief) as the Spirit moved them to do in love. If the AAC types feel they need to separate, they should. The longer the Repressive rump tries to pull the majority of the ECUSA back into their past-oriented orbit, the longer this will grind on and the more bitter the disagreement will become.

3

I am an ordained deacon in the Diocese of West Missouri.

I must disagree with you because when I was ordained I signed a declaration that “I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.” (1979 BCP, p. 538) Those AAC bishops and folks like Kendall Harmon are the ones who have broken that vow and left ECUSA, not
the other way around.

The question for me has been “Does ECUSA need the Anglican Communion?”
IMO, no. We are a uniquely American Church with our own polity, Canons, and
American line of Apostolic Succession. Holding fast to the Anglican Communion
is, IMO, the last vestiges of colonialism.

4

Eggerhaus, I find that fascinating. Probably the main reason I haven’t left the Episcopal Church is that I want to remain in the Anglican Communion. I could go to AMiA or another Anglican church, but it wouldn’t be part of the worldwide AC.

I wonder if we could work out a deal wherein ECUSA would break away from the Anglican Communion, and allow the AAC-types to stay on as the Anglican church presence in America. We’d even let your parishes take their property with them :slight_smile:

I want to comment on your ordination vows, too, but I’m out of time right now. Back later.

5

It’s amazing that you would call schismatic those who would seek to demonstrate by their words and their actions what Jesus preached when he said “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

6

It is just another sidestep and another proof that the church has no real leadership. Skammer is right in saying that this time however the congregants aren’t going to just let the issue go and move on as usual. I have been waiting for this decision to help me decide whether or not to stay in the Church. I hate to see the revisionists win but I can’t in good conscience stick around while the Church hems and haws. What other choice do we have though. We need a real leader to emerge to help us know what our next step can be – a leader who has the guts to put thier own career on the line in order to help us get through this. My heart is broken over this.

7

For all who leave because they can’t stand the idea of the church being kind and loving towards its gay members, there are those like me who were previously lost in the wilderness of gay-hating Christianity, and since August have finally found a religious home in the Episcopal Church.

8

Homebrew, I refer to them as schismatics because they are the ones who have departed from traditional understanding of human sexuality and from the consensus of the rest of the church – not just most of the rest of the Anglican Communion, but most of Christianity worldwide. Those who oppose them – who uphold the traditional orthodox views – are the ones in line with mainstream Christianity.

Both Homebrew and spectrum seem to be under the false impression that it’s not possible to love homosexuals and believe that gay sex is sin. It’s easy to dismiss the orthodox that way. But when your brother is in sin, the loving thing to do is to call him to repentance. Jesus loves us where we are – but he doesn’t let us stay where we are, does he? He calls us to be transformed and to live in holiness.

So, spectrum, I’m not talking about “gay-hating” Christianity – Christianity with hate for anyone would be odious to me. I’m glad that this issue has encouraged you to come to the church. I hope you are hearing the true gospel – that once we were slaves to sin, but in Christ we are new creatures called out of sinfulness. It’s true that Jesus loves everyone just as they are but false that he wants us to stay that way.

HumptysHamhole, I know just what you mean. I hope you can hang in there a little longer.

9

Ironically, Bishop Robinson’s ordination was one of the things that got me interested in the Episcopal church, after a long stretch of soft atheism (I’ve been attending one regularly for the last 6 weeks or so, and pondering joining). The focus on shared worship rather then dogma seems to foster a uniquely diverse set of theological and political beliefs, which I find attractive: I’d find a church that accepted new ideas without discussion and dissent as repulsive as one that rejected new ideas without discussion and dissent.

I really, really hope the Episcopal church doesn’t shatter over this any more then it already has. , because to do so would destroy one of the things I like most about it. The bishop of the diocese I live in is very conservative, and I disagree very much with his position on this issue, but if I joined I wouldn’t reject his authority because I disagree with some of his theology.

10

The Church has been wrong about a lot of things throughout it’s history. You accept women as ministers, yet that was a break from tradition when it happened. You accept divorced and remarried people, yet that was a break from tradition. You condemn slavery, yet that is a break from tradition. Tradition is not always correct.

It’s not a false impression. You seem to have no empathy on this issue. But let me assure you if someone you know considers your a reprobate and hell-bound, you don’t feel the love from them.

What does this even mean? Really. What does “live in holiness mean”? Do you have to follow the holiness code of Leviticus? 'Cause I’m willing to bet you’ve made allowances for what you want to do (bacon double cheeseburger anyone?). Didn’t Paul say something about “all things all lawful for me”?

I’m sure there are other issues on which you disagree with your church. Why is this one important enough to break from them over? Can you not see how, from my perspective, that shows that you have a special loathing for me? If you’re willing to accept everyone else but me with open arms, how can I believe you love me?

11

Thinking someone a sinner is not the same as thinking them “hell-bound”. Maybe Skammer does think homosexuals are going to burn in hell, but until she explicitly says so I think it’s dishonest to characterize her as thinking so.

Trotting out Leviticus is a strawman. Skammer’s objections to homosexuality may be based on other grounds: there are many different religious arguments against homosexual behaviour.

Accepting someone as a Christian and accepting someone as a spiritual leader are two different things.

12

In other words, you want to force me back into the Closet. I will kill myself first. Hell, when I was there the first time, denying my innate sexuality, the very core of my being and humanity, I tried three times. If that’s your God, you can go hang out with him in Hell.

My love is not a sin.

13

Homebrew - you bring up good issues and have some good questions.

Divorce is always a tragedy and is never good (but sometimes the better of two bad things). I wouldn’t hold a minister to the standard that they could never make a mistake. If the church supported a bishop who was a serial divorcer, I would have big problems with it.

The issues of slavery and women’s ordination could (and have) filled books. I don’t really want to sidetrack this thread with that discussion again. But all three of these issues are really quite different and do not make good analogies.

I can understand that. First of all, Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to cover all our sins, no matter what they are. So I would not consider any believers, including gay people, hell-bound. You have to ignore the Phelps brigade. (I would add that I’m not even comfortable telling non-believers that they are hell-bound. How the hell would I know?)

I do have trouble empathizing with people who embrace sin of any type - even as I cling to my own sins, which makes me a hypocrite. For homosexuals who struggle to remain celibate, or who are able to maintain heterosexual relationships, I have tremendous empathy.

My brother lived with a woman he wasn’t married to for a while. Did I consider them “living in sin?” Yes. Did I think they were hell-bound? Don’t know; probably, but it didn’t have anything to do with their living arragement. Did I still love him? Of course I did. Did I go out of my way to tell him I disapproved? No; it was not my business. But if he had been nominated to be a Bishop of my church, I would have protested big time.

All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. What shall we say then? Shall I continue to sin, so that grace may abound? By no means!

We’ve talked here before about the differences between the Moral Law of Leviticus and the Civil and Preistly Laws – so you know the difference between, say, the Ten Commandments and the prohibitions against cheeseburgers and cotton/poly blends. There are other places in the Bible that speak against sexual immorality in general and homosexuality specifically.

Perhaps because this is an issue of consequence. I mean, during the Eucharist, does the host contain the Actual Presence of Christ? Does transubstantiation occur? Who cares?? It doesn’t make a difference. But isues about sexuality affect people, affect families, and affect society. If sex outside of a male/female marriage is sin – then I can’t ignore when my Bishop or church endorse it.

Yes, I can see that. You feel rejected, and many so-called Christians have given you a reason to feel that way. But how can I make you understand that you are welcome? I don’t loathe you or consider you any more worthy of contempt than I myself am. You are an individual loved by God. Jesus died for you. I cannot not love you.

Metacom - I’m actually a ‘he’, but thanks for your support. :slight_smile:

spectrum - In a word, no. I’m not talking about anyone being forced back into the closet.

14

First, let me say that I might leave the AoG to join a solid Anglican American Church if one emerged from a schism with ECUSA (I’m afraid what will emerge is an array of small Anglican-type conservative Christian churches which only have opposition to the gay bishop/marriage in common.) Second, I wonder- what would be the possibility of there being TWO US bodies both in the Anglican Communion- the liberal ECUSA &, lets say, a traditional AAC (see above)?

15

No, apparently you want me to become a celibate, which again is a denial of my base humanity, and is condemnatory towards my love, which is just as valid as any ever experienced by any heterosexual.

If God didn’t want me to be gay, he shouldn’t have made me gay. My being gay harms no one and hurts nothing. The real evil to fight is casual sex and promiscuity, not loving, committed couples of any orientation.

16

I agree with you about casual sex and promiscuity. If ECUSA had decided to announce that casual, extra- or pre- marital sex was just peachy, I would be just as upset with them. It’s not just about homosexuality.

17

Would you be willing to split the church over it?

18

The better question is, Would they be willing to split the church by voting for it?

The AAC and the others have aligned themselves with the worlwide church. It’s the leaders of ECUSA who have (in the words of the Anglican Primates) “torn the fabric of our communion.”

My church has not left ECUSA. But ECUSA is moving farther and farther away from us, and other Anglicans. Who does that make splitters?

19

The ECUSA has become more Christian by becoming more loving and more accepting of the many good, moral, healthy gay relationships that exist today. Today we are not primitive imbeciles, as they were in the times the Bible was written (by utterly fallible human men). We know that homosexuality is not a choice, that it harms no one, that it can be just as valid as heterosexuality. Only bigots deny this.

And if you are going to stand there and claim that standing up for the truth and dignity of gays is splitting the ECUSA from Anglican Christianity, then I can only say “good,” because if Anglican Christianity stands for the hatred of gays you espouse, then it is surely a religion wrought by Satan himself.

20

You left out a qualifier. Some primates, mostly those of Africa and South America, have made such a statement. It’s interesting, though, that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made no such claim.