Presiding Bishop writes to Primate of Uganda

Has the Episcopal Church accepted the Windsor Report?

How can the PB cite this as a standard for how province should relate to one another, if this province, TEC, has not accepted its provisions?

from South Florida wrote:

Has the Episcopal Church accepted the Windsor Report?
How can the PB cite this as a standard for how province should relate to one another, if this province, TEC, has not accepted its provisions?

Dear SF,

Orombi's incursion into a Diocese of the Episcopal Church is in keeping with the same pattern of behavior exhibited by bp. Akinola and bp. Gregory Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone. Each is repeatedly "invading" another area of the Church within the Anglican Communion without permission given by the PB or the bishop in the Diocese/Church being visited.

It is their way of denying respect and standing to both PB Jefferts-Schori, being a woman in a place of power and authority that they do not formally recognize, and to the Episcopal Church, which they believe is simultaneously misleading its entire flock and misinterpreting Scripture.

These are spiritual attacks upon TEC, conducted in defiance of protocol within the Anglican Communion. They are very deliberate acts.

KGC

Dear KGC

My point was that the PB was citing the Windsor Report which the TEC has rejected. Orombi, Akinola et al., would say that is the reason, precisely, that they are responding to the invitations of these parishes. If the TEC had affirmed the Windsor Report,this might not be happening.

from South Florida wrote:

Dear KGC
My point was that the PB was citing the Windsor Report which the TEC has rejected. Orombi, Akinola et al., would say that is the reason, precisely, that they are responding to the invitations of these parishes. If the TEC had affirmed the Windsor Report,this might not be happening.

Dear SF,
I understood the point that you were making. But, whether or not one disagrees with the course being established by TEC with regard to sexual taboos and scriptural interpretations and foundations, the Anglican Communion has always in the past managed to respect and maintain the sovereignty of each Church within the Communion. It is our common beliefs, our mutually held precepts and tenets that have held the Communion together over the centuries, not our perceived differences.

But, the Anglican Communion is also founded upon certain representative and republican (not political party) principles that lift up and value the individual person's journey in the Way of Christ. It is, in fact, a bit of a Gnostic recognition that all power and authority ultimately rests in God expressing through the individual in his or her seeking and advancement toward a state of Grace and Oneness with the Infinite Living God. This is the model of Christ.

That is why the Anglicans chose to vest authority in Scripture, versus a commitee chaired by one claiming infallibility and ultimate decision-making control over all others, including as it were, the Monarchy of England. During a period of human enlightenment a thousand years ago, the English Monarchy began the process of yeilding authority and control to the individual citizen, modeled after the early Greeks. The bishops and lords at Runnymeade, the Magna Carta, freedom of religion established in the colonies of America, all of these developments were compounding and related to man's personal relationship with God.

Unfortunately, vesting control in an inanimate object, a compilation of writings called the Bible, by designating this compilation as the Word of God (the Book is not the Word of God)has proven just as inadequate as the placement of ultimate authority in the Magisterium or a group of Immams. The plain fact is that we cannot get away from our own internal pathway to God.

Neither can we form any ultimate committee in which all authority can be vested - which is what the bishops who are invading TEC are advocating. They wish to create a measure of enforcement that can be levied within the boundaries of the Anglican Communion through the creation of an ultimate authoritative committee and an elected head - just like the Pope and Magisterium. Thus, they would try to enforce the Windsor Report's recommendations, which they cannot do under the present hierarchichal form that values authority from the bottom up vs. top down.

KGC

I like what you had to say, and agree these are the sentiments that have made Anglicanism "what it is."

Anglicanism presupposes a gentleman's agreement" that is not enforceable - that we not provoke each other with impulsive and ill-thought out decisions that are offensive to others in the communion, and that we agree to allow one another a certain degree of freedom of conscience,(what Cranmer called "adiaphora") in matters of personal discretion, while maintaining a relationship with each other as the higher good. This presupposes a commitment to defer to each other out of love, rather than insist on our own views, as St. Paul recommended in Eph 5:21, and I Cor. 8:9f.

In order for Anglican polity to work, we must agree to work together and pull together in the same direction. That means being willing to compromise and defer to the majority opinion or consensus. That's the "genius" of our denomination. We are never on the cutting edge of change, nor are we bringing up the rear, as if we were the caboose of Christianity. We plod along slowely, making sensible decisions, from the center, rather than the extremes. That's the way it's supposed to work, since the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot enforce uniformity, as the Pope can in the RC version of episcopal order.

All of that is breaking down both on the diocesan levels and on the international level. Nobody wants to cooperate or defer to anyone else, and decisions are being made unilaterally.

from South Florida wrote:

I like what you had to say, and agree these are the sentiments that have made Anglicanism "what it is."
Anglicanism presupposes a gentleman's agreement" that is not enforceable - that we not provoke each other with impulsive and ill-thought out decisions that are offensive to others in the communion, and that we agree to allow one another a certain degree of freedom of conscience,(what Cranmer called "adiaphora") in matters of personal discretion, while maintaining a relationship with each other as the higher good. This presupposes a commitment to defer to each other out of love, rather than insist on our own views, as St. Paul recommended in Eph 5:21, and I Cor. 8:9f.
In order for Anglican polity to work, we must agree to work together and pull together in the same direction. That means being willing to compromise and defer to the majority opinion or consensus. That's the "genius" of our denomination. We are never on the cutting edge of change, nor are we bringing up the rear, as if we were the caboose of Christianity. We plod along slowely, making sensible decisions, from the center, rather than the extremes. That's the way it's supposed to work, since the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot enforce uniformity, as the Pope can in the RC version of episcopal order.
All of that is breaking down both on the diocesan levels and on the international level. Nobody wants to cooperate or defer to anyone else, and decisions are being made unilaterally.

Dear SF,

So it would seem. But, if we look deeper, we may find something very good at work underneath the veneer of strife and threat of schism. In the last few decades, which from an historical view is a very short period of time, four major events of metamorphosis have occurred.

1. Revision of the Book of Common Prayer.

2. Recognition of racial equality.

3. General acceptance of women into the priestly order.

4. Open and above-board acceptance of individuals who express their sexuality in other than the classical male-female ideal. This includes the open revelation that these people are serving as clerics within our midst.

These events have followed the awakening of humans to their individual rights of personal pursuits, freedom from slavery and equality in Spirit. Though these advancements seem at first to be political and have been seen by the maintainers of the status quo as highly controversial and without adequate reflection or foundation, in fact these are unfoldments of the Human Spirit. I maintain that they are the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Anglican Communion has always held these seeds and they are all now sprouting out of the same Anglican pot. Instead of flowers blooming that all look alike, we are seeing a bunch of different blooms, all different shapes and colors. Some are looking around and saying, "Hey! Those are weeds!" Others are saying, "No! These are wildflowers and look how beautiful they are and how they compliment the main varieties. Let them live."

It is true. Some of these actions are vanguard and cutting edge movements that cannot seem to fit in with the traditional ways. But, if you look deeper, to where the compassionate and human love is in action, you can see that everything is fitting.

What does not fit is our stereotyping and categorizing of what we have rigidly regarded as sin.

KGC

You might be right but, then again, you might be wrong. How do we know, for certain what is in the mind and will of God? If we no longer accept the authority of scripture and tradition, and prefer "reason", the public will decide if we are "on the same page" as God. Our decisions will be tested by their response. If people refuse to attend our parishes and give their financial support, we will have one answer to the question. If they return and show their support, we will have another answer. Which will it be?

KGC wrote: "What does not fit is our stereotyping and categorizing of what we have rigidly regarded as sin."

That is because nothing is a sin any longer. According to the "new thinking,", we are not supposed to draw any definitive lines or declare any absolutes. Doctrinal and moral issues which were once painted black and white, are now seen as gray. The state of the church is now in a state of confusion.

Paul forewarned us that this would happen when he wrote: "The time will come when they [the people in the church] will not endure [tolerate] sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Think Again wrote:

KGC wrote: "What does not fit is our stereotyping and categorizing of what we have rigidly regarded as sin."
That is because nothing is a sin any longer. According to the "new thinking,", we are not supposed to draw any definitive lines or declare any absolutes. Doctrinal and moral issues which were once painted black and white, are now seen as gray. The state of the church is now in a state of confusion.
Paul forewarned us that this would happen when he wrote: "The time will come when they [the people in the church] will not endure [tolerate] sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Dear TA,

Did you ever consider that St. Paul may have been making a reference about people who cannot see the forest for the trees? People who desire to take the easy road of remaining bigoted, holding on to doctrines that permit slavery; to dogma that holds women to be inferior to men; to an understanding of stereotyping that can no longer be supported because of undeniable facts?

What is a myth to which people would turn aside, TA? How about the myth that the Earth and humanity are the central focus of God's creation? Do you think that maybe the Hubble telescope has brought us to a better and non-mythical understanding of the likelihood of sentient life forms in other places?

What is another myth, TA? Do you think that the infinite and all mighty God is a large, white-bearded older caucasian gentleman, wrapped in a nice comfortable linen robe and who floats casually among the clouds, finger coolly extended toward us humans like Michelangelo depicted for the congregants of the Sistine Chapel?

What is another myth, TA? Do you still think that people's bodies will break out of their graves, coffin lids flung open, and step out into the fresh air fully dressed and restored and walking around with big smiles on their resurrected faces when Jesus returns in Glory and Judgment? Or might there be a slightly different series of 2nd Coming Events that doesn't really involve a few million embalmed cadavers and the dust of cremated remains?

What if people who want their ears tickled by Teachers who teach bigotry, segregation and eternal damnation for unforgivable abominable sins are the people who cannot let go of a clearly unrighteous and indefensible set of misconceptions about their fellow human beings - trashing children in their rush to judge others?

What about it, TA? What if Paul was talking about stiff-necked closed-minded defenders of unjustifiable discrimination? What about it, TA?

KGC

from South Florida wrote:

You might be right but, then again, you might be wrong. How do we know, for certain what is in the mind and will of God? If we no longer accept the authority of scripture and tradition, and prefer "reason", the public will decide if we are "on the same page" as God. Our decisions will be tested by their response. If people refuse to attend our parishes and give their financial support, we will have one answer to the question. If they return and show their support, we will have another answer. Which will it be?

First of all, SF, if you are listening, you know what is in the mind and will of God. Though your misconceptions may cause your understanding to be slightly skewed as would be expected of every one of us, still, you have a conscience.

That conscience tells you that slavery is not justifiable. No man can own another as chattel or property. Yet, slavery persists unrestricted through the present day in many cultures.

That conscience tells you that men and women are co-equal partners in creation. It tells you that the Patriarchs were wrong to suppress the roles of women in the priestly orders. There is absolutely nothing that a man can say and do in the Spirit that a woman cannot also do. Women are not inferior - able and different in many ways, yes - but, not inferior. Now, this same conscience is broadening our understanding to be able to accept the people who do not fit into the classic male-female pair-bond ideal.

If you are listening, you know that Reason cannot be abandoned just because Tradition and Scripture have successfully provided guidance in the past, which guidance is now understood to have been flawed. That is the unfolding of Truth, SF. It is in accordance with the Will of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. It lifts us up in our regard for each other.

Whether or not people agree or attend or contribute is of no real importance. If these were the tenets and foundational basis of Church life, Jesus would have never set himself apart from the conduct of the Pharisees and would never have defied the San Hedron.

No, SF. You are beginning to see the Way and it is not the easiest way.

KGC

Dear KGC,

I think the myths that Paul was referring to in this passage are the myths that the Episcopal Church are forwarding this day in age.

Myth 1: Jesus is not the only way to salvation.

Example: "Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through... human experience... through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus." "For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. That doesn't mean that a Hindu doesn't experience God except through Jesus. It says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus, of God through the experience of Jesus." [Presiding Bishop, NPR interview: Here & Now, October 18, 2006].

Myth 2: Jesus is not the Son of God.

Example: "Rather, I see the grand statements about Jesus - that he is the son of God, the Light of the World and so forth - as the testimony of the early Christian movement. These are neither objectively true statements about Jesus nor, for example in this season, about his conception and birth. To speak of him as the son of God does not mean that he was conceived by God and had no biological human father. Rather, this is the post-Easter conviction of his followers."[Dr. Marcus Borg, Washington Post, December 30, 2006]

Myth 3: Jesus was not bodily raised on the third day.

Example: "The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection is, at best, conjectural; that the resurrection accounts in the four Gospels are contradictory and confusing... the significance of Easter is not that Jesus returned to actual life but that even death itself could not end the power of his presence in the lives of the faithful." [Bishop of Diocese of Washington, D.C., Easter sermon in 2002]

Example: "Asked about the literal story of Easter and the Resurrection, Jefferts Schori said,'I think Easter is most profoundly about meaning, not mechanism.'" [Episcopal Life on line (official newspaper of TEC), April 8, 2008]

Example:“Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.” John Spong

Dear KGC,

More myths!

Myth 4: The Virgin Birth didn’t occur.

Example:“The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.” John Spong

Example: "Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not literally true? The answer is a simple and direct `Yes.' Of course these narratives are not literally true. Stars do not wander, angels do not sing, virgins do not give birth, magi do not travel to a distant land to present gifts to a baby, and shepherds do not go in search of a newborn savior."

Myth 5: Abortion is OK!

Example: In 1994, the 71st General Convention expressed "unequivocal opposition to any ... action ... that (would) abridge the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of her pregnancy, or that would limit the access of a woman to a safe means of acting upon her decision." In 1997, at the 72nd General Convention, the delegates approved a resolution that did not condemn partial-birth abortions but expressed grave concerns about the procedure, "except in extreme situations. "Source http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/wherchur....

Myth 6: Adultery is OK!

Example: In 1987 the Episcopal churches in northern New Jersey voted to receive and study a 15-page report on "Changing Patterns of Sexuality and Family Life." "It is our conclusion," says the report, "that by suppressing our sexuality and by condemning all sex which occurs outside of traditional marriage, the church has thereby obstructed a vitally important means for persons to know and celebrate their relatedness to God."

Example:“In my six years of being a priest, I've encountered a few people who felt premarital abstinence was right for them, and I've encouraged them in that. But more often than not, I've found that it's something people choose not to practice. Since it's not a divine mandate as far as I can tell, I've encouraged those people in their decision, as well. And as for me, I'm no longer a student of virginity, but I'm still a student of Christianity. Maybe even a better one than I was before.” Episcopal Preist Astrid Storm in the Huffington Post.

KGC wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, SF, if you are listening, you know what is in the mind and will of God. Though your misconceptions may cause your understanding to be slightly skewed as would be expected of every one of us, still, you have a conscience.
That conscience tells you that slavery is not justifiable. No man can own another as chattel or property. Yet, slavery persists unrestricted through the present day in many cultures.
That conscience tells you that men and women are co-equal partners in creation. It tells you that the Patriarchs were wrong to suppress the roles of women in the priestly orders. There is absolutely nothing that a man can say and do in the Spirit that a woman cannot also do. Women are not inferior - able and different in many ways, yes - but, not inferior. Now, this same conscience is broadening our understanding to be able to accept the people who do not fit into the classic male-female pair-bond ideal.
If you are listening, you know that Reason cannot be abandoned just because Tradition and Scripture have successfully provided guidance in the past, which guidance is now understood to have been flawed. That is the unfolding of Truth, SF. It is in accordance with the Will of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. It lifts us up in our regard for each other.
Whether or not people agree or attend or contribute is of no real importance. If these were the tenets and foundational basis of Church life, Jesus would have never set himself apart from the conduct of the Pharisees and would never have defied the San Hedron.
No, SF. You are beginning to see the Way and it is not the easiest way.
KGC

The classic Anglican way is to keep these three legs of the stool in dynamic tension. Anglicanism has never supported the idea, until recently, that any one of the three major sources of revelation should be pitted against the others.

As Jesus told the disciples, the Spirit of truth will guide us into all truth(Jn. 16:3) in situations where we need guidance. This is just as so, today as when we were grappling with the social issues of the past, you cited. Whether we are listening to the Spirit these days, and seeking a dynamic tension that is so characteristic of Anglicanism, or merely disseminating our own opinion, will be decided, ultimately, with the people of God. If they vacate our parishes and refuse to support our ministries, that will be a sign of our disobedience. On the other hand, if they support our ministries, and engage them personally, that will be a sign of God's blessing and approval. Only time will tell, not your opinion, or mine.

from South Florida wrote:

<quoted text>
The classic Anglican way is to keep these three legs of the stool in dynamic tension. Anglicanism has never supported the idea, until recently, that any one of the three major sources of revelation should be pitted against the others.
As Jesus told the disciples, the Spirit of truth will guide us into all truth(Jn. 16:3) in situations where we need guidance. This is just as so, today as when we were grappling with the social issues of the past, you cited. Whether we are listening to the Spirit these days, and seeking a dynamic tension that is so characteristic of Anglicanism, or merely disseminating our own opinion, will be decided, ultimately, with the people of God. If they vacate our parishes and refuse to support our ministries, that will be a sign of our disobedience. On the other hand, if they support our ministries, and engage them personally, that will be a sign of God's blessing and approval. Only time will tell, not your opinion, or mine.

Dear SF,
It is apparent that you are protecting a caveat of majority rule, even in its incorrectness. But, whether or not people of God vacate our parishes and refuse to support our ministries or personally support and engage our ministries is no reliable barometer of either correctness or incorrectness.

Remember Jesus. When the night of difficulty came, everyone of his disciples was scattered and denied him. None stood by him. In fact, you could say that the only one who stood by him was the friend and disciple that he made who hung on the cross next to him - a man that he had never known before who had been convicted of a capital crime and crucified at the same time as Jesus.

You say these issues are a matter of opinion. I say these issues are a matter of conscience. You say Reason must be held in tension with Scripture and Tradition. You say one cannot be pitted against the others. But, when Truth verifies Reason and by virtue of its chains to the other two legs, holds a former understanding of Scripture and Tradition to a new and higher standard, you would discount Reason, saying that it cannot have an equal status with the other two legs.

Well, yes it can. In fact it always has. We no longer live under the myths and misconceptions of the ancient world. We live today. To the degree that modern fact can be proved and demonstrated, we must accommodate its undeniable presence and legitimacy. Scripture and Tradition in the minds and hearts of mankind, though slow to accept change, will accommodate the Truth.

KGC

It seems that you and I will never agree, but what you and I think is not important.

If the decisions TEC is making are from God, he will bless this denomination. If not, God will let our churches dwindle and die as he has let other churches dwindle and die. If TEC serves the purpose of God "nothing can stop it" but,if on the other hand, we don't, we will certainly fail.(Acts 5:38-39). Time will tell.

from South Florida wrote:

It seems that you and I will never agree, but what you and I think is not important.
If the decisions TEC is making are from God, he will bless this denomination. If not, God will let our churches dwindle and die as he has let other churches dwindle and die. If TEC serves the purpose of God "nothing can stop it" but,if on the other hand, we don't, we will certainly fail.(Acts 5:38-39). Time will tell.

From Spong’s old diocese.

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/0805min.html

Even in the birth place of the “New Thing” things aren’t going so well.

TREASURER'S REPORT

Mr. Richard Graham presented the report for the period ending April 30, 2008. The report reflected expenses incurred, not paid. For instance, the pledge to the national church reflected $172,419 in expenses for 2008; the actual payment was $20,000.

Currently $180,000 under budget for the year. The amount did not reflect the complete operating position. The current surplus resulted from expenses being shown as under budget because of amounts due but unpaid. For example, Outreach Grant funds were not yet approved or disbursed.

Projected pledge income was below budget for 2008. Almost half of the outstanding pledges at the end of 2007 remain unpaid. Over 40% of 2007 pledge reconciliation forms remained outstanding.

Council received $503,000 in income so far; this was against an anticipated income of nearly $952,000. This income deficit was $448,000, over 45% under the projected income for year to date.

Think Again wrote:

<quoted text>
From Spong’s old diocese.
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/0805min.html
Even in the birth place of the “New Thing” things aren’t going so well.
TREASURER'S REPORT
Mr. Richard Graham presented the report for the period ending April 30, 2008. The report reflected expenses incurred, not paid. For instance, the pledge to the national church reflected $172,419 in expenses for 2008; the actual payment was $20,000.
Currently $180,000 under budget for the year. The amount did not reflect the complete operating position. The current surplus resulted from expenses being shown as under budget because of amounts due but unpaid. For example, Outreach Grant funds were not yet approved or disbursed.
Projected pledge income was below budget for 2008. Almost half of the outstanding pledges at the end of 2007 remain unpaid. Over 40% of 2007 pledge reconciliation forms remained outstanding.
Council received $503,000 in income so far; this was against an anticipated income of nearly $952,000. This income deficit was $448,000, over 45% under the projected income for year to date.

According to this report, Bishop Spong closed 18 parishes during his tenure, which is a staggering number. Some of those had endowment monies and once he got control, he closed the churches and used the monies, to acquire the new diocesan properties on Mulberry St.

The promise of his episcopacy when he was elected in 1976 was to show how a liberal church could reach the unchurched population but his strategy has had the opposite effect.

In my view it's all in God's hands. We can do it His way or our way! God will be the ultimate judge of what we do.