The Subversion of the Church From Within

Thinking Anglicans points us to a lengthy report of the House of Bishops meeting from Bishop Pierre Whalon of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.

The report offers much valuable background information and is quite helpful in putting our current situation in perspective. I want to highlight just two segments.

First of all, Bishop Whalon confirms something I mentioned yesterday:

...Further erosion of trust occurred when it was learned that the Archbishop of Uganda was in Los Angeles during our meeting to administer confirmation in three of the diocese’s congregations. The Bishop of Los Angeles asserted that he had written “twenty to thirty” letters to him, none of which had received the favor of a reply...

We are then given more information regarding Bp. Sauls' property disputes presentation:

...A report from bishops working on the matter of property disputes produced several documents from the Anglican Communion Network, an organization specifically set up to promote the replacement of The Episcopal Church, which works closely with those Primates who have taken it upon themselves to “fix” us. These outlined plans for the subversion of the Church from within. The last document reportedly had the phrase, “Wage guerilla warfare in The Episcopal Church,” allegedly in the hand of the Network’s Moderator, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh...

That last document came to light in 2004 as a result of legal action taken by Calvary Episcopal Church against certain officials of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, including Bishop Duncan. I wrote about this in 2005, including highlighting the "guerilla warfare" comment. The link to the court documents in that post no longer works. Here is the new link, but unfortunately all the incriminating evidence regarding the Network has been removed, by court order.

Fortunately, they still exist on the web (thanks, Jim). Here are just some of the items included in the last document, dated 11/20/03, which Bp. Whalon mentions:

We ask that the Global South Primates...
...Tell Rowan that if he will not support the Network, they will separate from him.
Commit to accept Letters Dimissory from imperiled clergy...
Declare that in the present crisis,the issues of boundaries is suspended...
Demand that no bishop who joined in the consecration of Gene Robinson be permitted to serve on any committee or commission of the Anglican Communion...
Call for a moratorium on license suspensions and lawsuits.
Insist on an invitation to the Moderator whenever the ECUSA PB is invited...
We, as Bishops in North America...
We intend to cross the US/Canada boundaries.
We will no longer be at table with those who consecrated Gene Robinson.
We commit to the guerrilla warfare of the next year...

It is interesting to note that some of these points seem to have found their way into recent Primates' statements, not to mention the Windsor Report.

More revealing documents from the Calvary court case can be found here. Scroll down to the 11/18/04 entry. Here's some of the things you will find:

1. Meeting notes (presumed to be Bishop Duncan's meeting notes) with the handwritten title "mainstream mtg 11/20/03". This is clearly the London meeting of (what the AAC has called) "Mainstream Anglican leaders" at which the "Memorandum of Agreement" for the Network was drafted.

This is the document mentioned above.

2. An email and reply from Late November 2003 between Michael Woodruff, an attorney with AAC ties (he spoke at the October 2003 AAC conference - A Place to Stand: Declaring, Preparing - on the matter of property issues) and the Pittsburgh Chancellor Robert Devlin. They both advise Bishop Duncan regarding possible tactics for subverting the Dennis Canon and separating the properties from ECUSA. It appears that this proposal never got anywhere. They probably didn't pursue it when Rowan Williams didn't recognize the Network.

3. A December 2003 email and reply between Bishop Duncan and Hugo Blankingship, legal Council to the AAC, regarding a trip to England during which he met with John Rees, Legal Advisor to the Anglican Consultative Counsel and the Lambeth Commission. Blankingship is dissappointed that Rees "simply won't listen to anything but our staying in ECUSA."

In case you missed it, John Rees was the legal consultant assigned to the Eames Commission, the body which drafted the Windsor Report. The plan was to have the recognition of a separate province included as one of the recommendations in the WR. Since it looked like that wasn't going to happen (it didn't), plan B was to make sure "that changes if pressure within the Communion builds up."

4. A March 2004 email from Father Jim McCaslin, Dean of the Southeastern Convocation of the NACDP to all the Network leaders. Fr. McCaslin is upset that Don Armstrong, Executive Director of the Anglican Communion Institute, wants to maintain "the broadest appeal" for the Network, and is afraid that appeal "waters down our direction and commitment to the point that our ultimate purpose is compromised..." As an example of this compromise, McCaslin cites that "Don mentions 'exit' and 'parallel church' strategies negatively and a 'staying' strategy positively."

Yes, this is the same Don Armstrong who just left for CANA under a cloud of suspicion regarding other matters. Note that he is depicted here as "Network-lite".

5. An email from Diane Knippers, IRD president, from March 2004, urging the network to engage in Ecumentical Relations and "take on the various functions of a Church."

There is another quote from Ms. Knippers worth noting; "I'm still on the SCER (Standing Committee on Ecumenical Relations) - but not because I could honestly represent the Episcopal Church in ecumenical dialogue...I'll resign when I need to, but I would like to hang in there as an obstinate and contrary voice a bit longer."

6. A draft proposal from Canon Alison Barfoot of Overland Park, KS to the NACDP and the Prmates and Bishops of Ekklesia, dated March 3, 2004.

This is where the foreign bishops come in. It's all spelled out in black and white.

Our bishops now have all this information in their hands. From what I understand, a solid majority of them are committed to thwarting this attempted coup.

For further reading on the history of the Network, I recommend Part 2 of Jim Naughton's Following the Money and our recent discussion of the Chapman Memo.

J.

UPDATE: For those interested in previous subversive actions, dating back to at least 1989, these articles may be of interest:

Bishop Wantland's Attempted Coup d'Etat

Bishop Wantland's Response

Some of the same players and rhetoric show up, although the "issue" is different (women's ordination). The Episcopal Synod, co-founded by Bp. Wantland in 1989, is now known as Forward in Faith. FiFNA is listed as one of the Network's Common Cause Partners.

Nigerian Ban of Civil Rights Stalled

Background for this ugly piece of legislation, supported, and some suggest initiated by, the Anglican Church of Nigeria, can be found here. The text of the proposed law can be found here.

Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria, issued a press release yesterday. Here's part of it:

...The present sitting of the House has finished, and they asked the panel of Human Rights which continues to meet, to go and review the bill again. It is difficult to say categorically that the current House has been totally suspended because a lot of manoeuvring is taking place ahead of the election. It may be reasonably safe to assume the bill has been abandoned for now.

What we are hearing from CAN members in Anglican congregations in Nigeria is that the church leaders have been feeling big pressure on them and some are very angry because they expected the bill to be voted on prior to the end of this session. There are also rumours that money has exchanged hands, American money, and yet it has not proved easy for the Anglican Church leaders to push the bill through the House of Representatives. Corruption remains widespread at every level of Nigerian society...

...Because of the continuing uncertainty, Changing Attitude Nigeria will not celebrate the defeat of the bill publicly until after May 29. We are quietly confident and feeling more happy, but there is still the potential for lobbying in favour of the bill to take place by the Church of Nigeria and for the Government to spring a surprise. However, if the Church was confident about the success of the bill, we think they would be issuing a confident public statement now, which they are not.

The House of Bishops have said no to the demands of the Primates' Communique, which we now know were inserted by Abp. Akinola. And now his pet piece of legislation seems doomed. March has been a bad month for the Primate of All Nigeria.

Note that although the State Department of the USA, most human rights organizations and some of the Bishops of TEC have condemned this legislation, so far the Anglican Communion, including the Primates, have been silent.

J.

For Those Who Missed It: The Chapman Memo

It appears that some of our bishops have been oblivious to what the Network folks have been up to for the last few years. We have heard of at least one bishop hunting around for something called "the Chapman Memo" after hearing Bp. Sauls' report on property disputes (mentioned here).

For future reference, the text of the Chapman Memo can be found here. Note that it is dated December 28, 2003. The Washington Post summary of the content can be found here.

But probably the best summary of this document, and of the responses from various Network leaders when it was leaked to the Post, was offered in a Via Media press release issued January 2004:

...Chapman advises a two-phased strategy by which parishes would request oversight from an AAC-approved bishop, join the NACDP and then seek to transfer their property and financial support to the diocese of the AAC-supplied Bishop. The letter also outlines a plan for clusters of parishes to leave the ECUSA and "realign" with the Network. Chapman confidently asserts that by the end of 2004, the heads (primates) of other regional churches in the Anglican Communion will recognize the NACDP as the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and negotiate property settlements between ECUSA and the Network parishes. If the primates fail to negotiate such settlements, then "disobedience of canon law on a widespread basis may be necessary."

Since the Post broke the news of the strategy, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, AAC Vice President, Chairman of the Network of Anglican Bishops, and the appointed Moderator of the NACDP; the Rev. David Anderson, President of the AAC; the Rev. Kendall Harmon, Diocese of South Carolina Canon Theologian; and the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner of the Anglican Institute, a conservative church think-tank in Colorado, all have claimed that there was "nothing new" in the letter, and reiterated that they are working within the ECUSA to effect the changes they desire. Early reactions portrayed the letter as just about episcopal oversight. But the reading public could see that the letter covered much more. The most recent "explanation," offered in a letter to AAC members by Anderson, tries to shift responsibility and blame to everyone but the AAC. It is notable, however, that none of those associated with the AAC or the organizers of the new Network (except for Bishop John W. Howe of Central Florida) have disassociated themselves from any of the plans laid out in the letter.

The letter speaks for itself. Property, not piety is keeping dissident parishes in the Episcopal Church. In the longer term, the AAC expects to use foreign intervention to trump American law and the Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons. Its leaders are assuring dissident parishes that the Anglican primates, a consultative body with no governing authority or standing in the United States, will ride to the rescue of Network parishes, negotiate property settlements and transfer the assets of 2.3-million-member church to a group representing perhaps a tenth of that body. The Chapman letter reveals the AAC's "realignment" for what it really is -- the overthrow of the Episcopal Church by extra-legal means...

This is old news, and it's a little late in the game, but better late than never.

A handful of folks, primarily bishops, priests, and attorneys, are trying to orchestrate a takeover of the Episcopal Church; building this "parallel universe" on the backs of our gay and lesbian members. So it was in 2003. So it is today. Inform those who need to know.

One final note; I learned today that Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, was in three parishes in the Diocese of Los Angeles for confirmations on March 18. Bp. Bruno of Los Angeles was attending the House of Bishops Meeting at the time. Was there a letter or even a courtesy call from the Archbishop before entering another's diocese? Of course not.

J.

Charges Against Don Armstrong Revealed

The Executive Director of the Anglican Communion Institute, the Rev. Donald Armstrong, was inhibited by his bishop last December. An investigation of alleged financial irregularities at Grace and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs is ongoing.

Last Monday, Armstrong and the leadership of Grace and St. Stephens decided to leave TEC and jump to the Church of Nigeria.

Here is a quote from Armstrong:

...Armstrong said, "I can no longer be under this ungodly authority."

If Armstrong has such high standards regarding whose authority he will be under, it is rather amazing that he would choose to place himself under Abp. Peter Akinola, whose support for legislation that will ban civil rights for gays and lesbians and their supporters has become an embarrassment to the entire Anglican Communion.

Possibly Armstrong saw the need to make a jump quickly, as he got word that the results of the investigation would soon be made public. The Nigerian beachhead in North America, known as CANA, was probably the nearest port in this storm.

It appears he jumped just in time. Daily Episcopalian points us to some of the findings of the investigation contained in a letter from Bishop Robert O'Neill of Colorado, dated this last Tuesday. Upon review of the information, the Diocesan Review Committee, made up of members of the Diocesan Standing Committee, voted unanimously to issue a presentment against Donald Armstrong. There are a number of canonical charges made, all having to do with possible theft and/or tax fraud of amounts equaling about 1.2 million dollars.

Personally, I think it might be wise to let Abp. Akinola have him. If these charges are proven to be true, they deserve each other.

J.

UPDATE: Don Armstrong has responded to the charges against him.

Jake's Angels

Get 'em while they're hot.

Triumphs are preferred, but a Harley will be tolerated. Sewing machines need not apply.

Tip of the skull cap to the Mad Priest.

J.

Disturbing Dynamics

Jim points us to a fascinating "behind the scenes" look at the recent House of Bishops Meeting offered by Bishop Jim Kelsey of Northern Michigan. Here's a couple of pieces that jumped out at me:

...By the way, those who had been at the Primates' meeting in Tanzania reported some very disturbing dynamics. The Primate of Mexico, Carlos Touche Porter, said that every time there was a break, new amendments were proposed for the Communiqué, always more critical of The Episcopal Church. His comment was, "as the meeting went on, I began to feel less like a Primate and more like a Cardinal". Between his observations and those of our press corps, it was clear, in fact, that every time there was a break, Peter Akinola disappeared into a room where Martin Minns and other conservative US folks were holed up, and when he emerged, he had the next revisions for the Communiqué - which in fact were adopted. In the earlier drafts, there was a phrase"We respect The Episcopal Church", and on the strength alone of Peter Akinola's objection, that phrase was removed. All of this provides important information: that it is clear who is in control of the Primates' Meeting, and this reinforces why it is so important that the Primates not be given increased power as a centralized authority in the Anglican Communion...

That's about what I figured was going on, but it is good for it to be stated openly. Abp. Akinola runs things at the Primates' Meetings. The North American extemists have Akinola's ear. Let's not forget this in future discussions regarding the supposed "authority" of the Primates.

Then there was this concise summation of the Network's plot:

...On the morning of the last business day, Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington and Chair of the Property Disputes Committee gave an in depth report concerning research done on the tactics of the Network and the American Anglican Council (AAC) and other conservative/dissident groups. It was chilling. There is now clear evidence that there has been a strategy by these groups to create an alternative ecclesial structure within the United States, with alternative leadership (Robert Duncan, the Bishop of Pittsburgh as the Moderator of the Network) which might be recognized by the leadership of the Anglican Communion (i.e. - by those strengthened "Instruments of Unity") as the true Anglican Church in the United States. If indeed the Anglican Communion is transformed into a hierarchical body (through the implementation of the Windsor Report recommendations) and the Primates shift their support to the Network/AAC/CANA/AMiA congregations & dioceses, there will be a legal basis by which the dissident congregations will be able to claim ownership of all properties and church assets. This is serious stuff...

It is indeed "serious stuff." But what troubles me is that any of this would be "news" to our bishops. Some of us have been attempting to make this threat clear for a few years now, only to be dismissed as conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats. Now that our bishops have been clearly informed of this plot, maybe they will finally understand why some of us harbor such deep suspicions of anyone associated with the Network. It appears our suspicions are well founded.

Do read the Bishop's entire piece. There's some interesting bits about Dr. Williams and Dr. Grieb as well.

J.

The Listening Process: Reports from the Provinces

A summary can be found here.

Some background:

The 1978 Lambeth Conference recognised “the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.” It also said that “While we reaffirm heterosexuality as the scriptural norm, we recognise The Church, recognising the need for pastoral concern for those who are homosexual, encourages dialogue with them.”

In 1988 the Conference reaffirmed these calls...

The 1998 Conference recognised “that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation...We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons...

Three consecutive Lambeth Conferences called for dialogue and listening. Has it happened?

Not really. Here are the summaries of the reports.

Some of you may recall the dialogues on human sexuality mandated by the 1988 General Convention. According to the summary, only 28 of the 99 dioceses submitted reports. That explains quite a bit about our current situation, doesn't it?

Some of the Provinces appear to have no intention of engaging in the listening process, even though some of these same Provinces keep referring to "the authority of Lambeth 1998." Consider this particularly harsh quote included in the summary of Nigeria:

The Primate of all Nigeria has said “Our argument is that, if homosexuals see themselves as deviants who have gone astray, the Christian spirit would plead for patience and prayers to make room for their repentance. When scripture says something is wrong and some people say that it is right, such people make God a liar. We argue that it is a blatant lie against Almighty God that homosexuality is their God-given urge and inclination. For us, it is better seen as an acquired aberration.”

Apparently, since the Primate has spoken, there is no need for a listening process in Nigeria. But, if you wear a rainbow sash to church in Nigeria, you may soon find yourself in prison for five years. Why listen when you can incarcerate?

The Church of Wales calls for a "prayerful debate" and attempts to define the "range of views" found in Wales:

The centrality of Scripture read in the light of reason and tradition is affirmed. The range of views held within the Church in Wales is set out in five bullet points.

Some people, reading the Scriptures with integrity, reach the conclusion that the only proper context for sexual activity is marriage between a man and a woman in life-long union. Homosexual practice of any kind is therefore rejected.

Others, reading the Scriptures with integrity, adopt a more sympathetic understanding of homosexuality, but would not at present wish the Church to sanction homosexual practice.

Others, reading the Scriptures with integrity, conclude that orientation and practice are to be distinguished and that the Church can welcome same sex relationships provided they are celibate.

Others again, reading the Scriptures with integrity, conclude that the Church cannot dismiss as intrinsically disordered permanent and committed same-sex relationships; they believe that through their internal mutuality and support, these bring creativity, generosity and love into the lives of those within them.

Others, reading the Scriptures with integrity, conclude, in the light of a developing understanding of the nature of humanity and sexuality, that the time has arrived for the Church to affirm committed homosexual relationships.

This seems to me to be a fair description of the views found within TEC. Actually, it is quite similar to the way the views were presented within the mandated dialogues in TEC that occurred after GC1988, except the fourth and fifth bullet points were combined, resulting in four positions being identified within the Church.

A Study Guide is being developed. Groups, dioceses and individuals are asked to submit materials for this Study Guide. Guidelines for submissions are offered.

Take a look at the summaries from the various Provinces. What seemed significant to you?

J.

UPDATE: More info on the Rainbow Presence is available here. Thanks Ann.

The Mountain

Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

J.

Salvation Offered to All

From Bishop Pierre Whalon of The Convocation of American Churches in Europe:

...One image I will always remember: a new bishop asked her (Bishop Katharine)to clarify her stand on the uniqueness of Christ. +Katharine replied that her view is similar to that of Vatican II (Nostra ætate, actually), namely that Jesus Christ is the final self-revelation of God in the world, but that salvation is possible outside of the Christian Church. He seemed dissatisfied with this reply. After adjourning the session, she went right over to him and they talked for fifteen minutes, alone in the meeting room.

This showed two things about the new Presiding Bishop. First, contrary to some reports, her Christology is orthodox. There have been some who have held that extra ecclesiam nulla salus—outside the Church there is no salvation. But this does not jibe with Jesus’ behavior toward Gentiles nor to Paul’s teaching about grace. What is essential, as the PB noted, is that Christians do not know how God saves people outside the New Covenant. Somehow Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made, makes provision, since through him all people are offered salvation...

From the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

From our Presiding Bishop's interview in Time Magazine:

Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?

We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.

Unless one is willing to make the claim that the soteriology of the RCC is deficient, I think it is time to withdraw the accusations that our Presiding Bishop is a heretic. An apology from some of the Primates of the Global South would be appropriate, but also rather miraculous, in light of the current Anglican climate.

J.

Waiting for Rowan

From Act I:

VLADIMIR: Well? What do we do?
ESTRAGON: Don't let's do anything. It's safer.
VLADIMIR: Let's wait and see what he says.
ESTRAGON: Who?
VLADIMIR: Rowan.
ESTRAGON: Good idea.
VLADIMIR: Let's wait till we know exactly how we stand.
ESTRAGON: On the other hand it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes.
VLADIMIR: I'm curious to hear what he has to offer. Then we'll take it or leave it.
ESTRAGON: What exactly did we ask him for?
VLADIMIR: Were you not there?
ESTRAGON: I can't have been listening.
VLADIMIR: Oh . . . Nothing very definite.
ESTRAGON: A kind of prayer.
VLADIMIR: Precisely.
ESTRAGON: A vague supplication.
VLADIMIR: Exactly.
ESTRAGON: And what did he reply?
VLADIMIR: That he'd see.
ESTRAGON: That he couldn't promise anything.
VLADIMIR: That he'd have to think it over.
ESTRAGON: In the quiet of his home.
VLADIMIR: Consult his family.
ESTRAGON: His friends.
VLADIMIR: His agents.
ESTRAGON: His correspondents.
VLADIMIR: His books.
ESTRAGON: His bank account.
VLADIMIR: Before taking a decision.
ESTRAGON: It's the normal thing.
VLADIMIR: Is it not?
ESTRAGON: I think it is.
VLADIMIR: I think so too.
Silence.
ESTRAGON: (anxious). And we?
VLADIMIR: I beg your pardon?
ESTRAGON: I said, And we?
VLADIMIR: I don't understand.
ESTRAGON: Where do we come in?
VLADIMIR: Come in?
ESTRAGON: Take your time.
VLADIMIR: Come in? On our hands and knees.
ESTRAGON: As bad as that?
VLADIMIR: Your Worship wishes to assert his prerogatives?
ESTRAGON: We've no rights any more?
Laugh of Vladimir, stifled as before, less the smile.
VLADIMIR: You'd make me laugh if it wasn't prohibited.
ESTRAGON: We've lost our rights?
VLADIMIR: (distinctly). We got rid of them.
Silence.
They remain motionless, arms dangling, heads sunk, sagging at the knees.

Dan and Matt Debate

In response to the previous post, Matt Kennedy, who some of you will recognize as the author of some of the articles over on Stand Firm, dropped in to point out that we were not differentiating between orientation and practicing in regards to gay bishops in the C of E.

Dan (toujoursdan) responded to Matt. The result was a fascinating debate.

To give you a taste, here is part of it regarding celibacy:

Matt: The standard for all is no sex outside the limits of heterosexual marriage. That applies to single heterosexual people be they "called to celibacy" or not as well as to homosexual people.

No one says that celibacy is easy, even for those called to it. It is in fact impossible for sinners to follow the law with perfection. The sermon on the mount poses moral challenges that none can meet. We are fallen. But, as believers submitted to the Lordship of Christ, we must at least admit that the law is good. Do our best with God's help to follow it and repent when we fall.

Dan: The standard for all is no sex outside the limits of heterosexual marriage. That applies to single heterosexual people be they "called to celibacy" or not as well as to homosexual people.

You can't compare the two.

Heterosexual people have the option to end their celibacy at any time by getting married. Gay people are in a completely different reality. We aren't allowed to get married in the church so celibacy is a permanent imposition, not a temporary one.

It's a very convenient catch-22.

No one says that celibacy is easy, even for those called to it. It is in fact impossible for sinners to follow the law with perfection. The sermon on the mount poses moral challenges that none can meet. We are fallen. But, as believers submitted to the Lordship of Christ, we must at least admit that the law is good. Do our best with God's help to follow it and repent when we fall.

And this sets up a duplicitous and guilt ridden mode for human intimacy. Having anonymous sex or slip ups (Tim Haggard style) becomes preferable to having a healthy relationship which may include sex as part of something bigger and ongoing.

That isn't what God wants for any of us.

Doesn't it just make more sense to assume that the Bible really is talking about pagan cult prostitution, like Paul makes pretty clear in Romans 1?

Which led to a very lengthy debate regarding Romans. Here's part of it:

Matt: You are missing the point of the text. Men and Women (in the true sense of the word are intended, not transgendered men)

"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Dan: In context he was writing to the church in Rome whose biggest rival was the Cybele cult, one of Rome's biggest religion. The readers of this letter would see the juxtaposition of worshiping images of mortal man and animals [v.23, v.25] with orgies going on and associated it with what was going on around them. Considering that the castrated priests were called women and she, it's not clear.

Dan: 21-22: They claimed to be wise but were foolish:
The Cybele priests [called galli] claimed to tell people's fortunes, but everybody thought were mad due to their frenzied dancing and self-mutilation. The Greek texts describe the "mania" of their rituals.

23: They made images of man and animals to worship:
The Cybele/Attis temple statues were primarily of Attis and/or Cybele, who were typically surrounded by images of other animals, particularly lions, birds and snakes. In addition, these temples were often filled with birds, because the priests believed they were too holy to touch, to chase them away.

26-27: They exchanged natural relations, etc:
One of the primary goals of the galli was to remove gender differences. This occurred through transvestism, physically cutting off one's genitals and the exchange of sexual roles. The male galli would serve sexually "as women" to male worshippers in the temple. Women had sex with men (and possibly with other women), but in order to avoid pregnancy, they would have anal sex, not vaginal, as indicated by early church writers such as Anastasius, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and apocalyptic texts.

Matt: This is a creative reading but wholly unsupported in the text itself. In fact, contextually, Paul is repeating a generally asserted charge that Jews often leveled against gentiles. As a result of their turn away from God and toward idols God's wrath has been to give them over to depraved lusts and behaviors, behaviors and lusts Paul goes on to demonstrate in Romans 2 and 3 afflict not only gentiles but Jews as well, because all have fallen short of the glory of God. All have turned from the Creator to created things and so God has given us all over to depraved minds.

There salvation is found only in turning from these things to Christ.

Dan: This is a creative reading but wholly unsupported in the text itself.

It's no more or less supported than yours.

In fact, contextually, Paul is repeating a generally asserted charge that Jews often leveled against gentiles. As a result of their turn away from God and toward idols God's wrath has been to give them over to depraved lusts and behaviors, behaviors and lusts Paul goes on to demonstrate in Romans 2 and 3 afflict not only gentiles but Jews as well, because all have fallen short of the glory of God. All have turned from the Creator to created things and so God has given us all over to depraved minds.

Right and the example he's giving is of the pagan worship they would be familiar with. It doesn't change my point at all.

There salvation is found only in turning from these things to Christ.

Right. Given that Cybele worship was a rival and that people in the church may have also frequented the temples, he's telling them to turn away from paganism before its too late.

Matt: It is unsupported by the text because Paul says nothing about the Temple of Cybele. You are reading that context into his words so as to narrow the focus of his very general condemnation of homosexual behavior as a particularly terrible result of our fallen natures.

Dan: Then why would St Paul go to the trouble of actually describing what the idols look like if he was just a general condemnation? It would have obfuscated his point - particularly to a community that saw these in daily life?

Why would he make a direct connection between these specifically mentioned idol and being punished with orgies TWICE if it is just a general condemnation.

He could have saved a lot of space and confusion amongst his audience and today if he just said all forms of homosexuality are wrong and leave v. 23 and v. 25 out of the text altogether?

Matt: Read Mark 7 and note Jesus use of the word Pornia (referring to the sexual code of lev 18) and repeated in Acts 15. Then add in Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, and you will see that clearly Jesus and the apostles did not consider the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in lev. 18 to be a part of the civil and ceremonial law.

Dan: Read Mark 7 and note Jesus use of the word Pornia (referring to the sexual code of lev 18) and repeated in Acts 15.

Pornea doesn't refer to the Leviticus 18 specifically. It just means forbidden sex. Leviticus as shown by nearly every Jewish translation specifically prohibits one sexual act - male anal sex.

Then add in Romans 1,

This talks about pagan orgies.

1 Cor 6

And this, if you accept St Jerome, Luther and others talks about prostitution - probably of the man boy type.

and you will see that clearly Jesus and the apostles did not consider the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in lev. 18 to be a part of the civil and ceremonial law.

No. This is the kind of fundamentalist argument by stitching together out of context proof texts that can be used to prove anything.

Matt: Yes Romans 1 includes Roman orgies, but the text goes far far beyond just Roman orgies to include any homosexual act, the very lust comes as a result of our fallen natures. If Paul were specifically pointing to the Cybele cult, then he would have specifically pointed to them. He did not. Certainly the Cybele cult would have been in the minds of his readers, but the condemnation, again, is quite general and echoes a very common Jewish understanding of Gentiles

Dan: No. That is pure projection on your part. The text doesn't support your claim:

22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

The text doesn't allow a general condemnation on homosexuality. The cause and effect relationship is too high with the words "Therefore" and "Because of this" used.

If Paul were specifically pointing to the Cybele cult, then he would have specifically pointed to them. He did not.

Yes he did by describing their temples.

Certainly the Cybele cult would have been in the minds of his readers, but the condemnation, again, is quite general and echoes a very common Jewish understanding of Gentiles.

I believe that it exhibits a Jewish understanding of the Gentile but because they did all kinds of bizarre things to please their gods.

Again, he could have built his argument by leaving these references out and saved himself confusion.

Matt: To argue that Paul is only speaking about the behavior of one gentile cult is necessarily something that you must read into the text. It is not there.

Again, I am not saying that his readers would not have heard in his words a condemnation of that cult nor am I suggesting that he would not have wanted them to hear that, but as you know, for first century Jews, homosexual behavior was something almost exclusively associated with morally depraved gentiles.

Paul's words are, grammatically speaking, general in scope. When men and women turned away from God, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Homosexual lust is here a shameful lust in general. Whether it is implicitly being applied to the Cybele cult is irrelevant.. The lust itself is generally shameful.

This reading requires nothing to be imported into the text. Yours does

Dan: To argue that Paul is only speaking about the behavior of one gentile cult is necessarily something that you must read into the text. It is not there.

It is in verse 23 which you keep avoiding.

Again, I am not saying that his readers would not have heard in his words a condemnation of that cult nor am I suggesting that he would not have wanted them to hear that, but as you know, for first century Jews, homosexual behavior was something almost exclusively associated with morally depraved gentiles.

Then again, why the cause and effect relationship?

Paul's words are, grammatically speaking, general in scope. When men and women turned away from God, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Homosexual lust is here a shameful lust in general. Whether it is implicitly being applied to the Cybele cult is irrelevant.. The lust itself is generally shameful.

Yes they are shameful because they grow out of obedience to another God. Throughout the OT anything done in their service was described this way.

This reading requires nothing to be imported into the text. Yours does.

Yours ignores a few inconvenient verses and the same question I have asked multiple times.

There is much more. Last time I checked, Dan and Matt had taken a break for dinner and returned to resume their debate. Make sure you check it out.

There are also a number of other comments made that are worth noting, especially Christopher's. I want to thank you all for your contributions. And thanks to Matt for staying with this, even when having to sometimes field five questions at once!

And a special thanks to Dan for his willingness to engage in this debate.

Since that thread is getting a bit long, please feel free to transfer the conversation over to this fresh one.

J.

NOTE: Unfortunately, deep hurt is now being caused by some of the words in this thread. I cannot in good conscience allow that to continue.

I found the scripture debate of interest, but the pastoral care direction we have now taken is simply causing new wounds.

Thanks to everyone who contributed. Let's now allow this discussion to end.

C of E: The Most Gay-Friendly Church in the World

Damian Thompson of the Telegraph claims that gay bishops are here to stay. He bases this speculation partially on an article by Christopher Morgan that recently appeared in the Church of England Newspaper, in which he claims "that the C of E is the most gay-friendly Church in the world, easily outstripping any other province of the Anglican Communion."

Do go read the whole thing, but I did want to highlight this bit that I found rather amazing:

...Morgan goes on to talk about gay bishops in the Church, and says that George Carey told him on tape that he had ordained at least two. In fact, Dr Carey actually named the two bishops. One of the names came as no surprise, since (if my memory serves me) the bishop had, as a priest, once served as a judge for Mr Gay UK...

Lord Carey, the darling of the Network crowd, admits to playing "don't ask, don't tell." Imagine that.

It seems to me past time for us to start seriously advocating in favor of the "h" word...honesty.

Thompson's conclusion is worth noting as well:

...My senior source, as I say, reckons that 20 bishops are obviously gay; probably there are more. And the conclusion I draw from this is the same as Chris Morgan's: since homosexual bishops are a fait accompli, isn't it time for both sides in this increasingly boring debate to pipe down?

This leaves me wondering if Thompson is also advocating for a continuation of the "don't ask, don't tell" tradition. Just keep your mouth shut when in mixed groups, and everything will be just grand.

I don't think so. We've been there, done that, and the results were less than Christian, it seems to me. It is time for honesty, and let the chips fall where they may.

Saturno tip to Dan for this one.

J.

From Brazil

The President of the House of Clergy and Laity of the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil writes to Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies of TEC:

Dear Ms. Anderson,

Peace! It is a privilege to me to write to you as your colleague. I am the President of the House of Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil. As you said in your statement about the Communiqué from the Primates' Meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, it has serious implications for the Episcopal Church and the Worldwide Anglican Communion. First of all, I want to express my support to your statement concerning this issue.

The decision process in the Anglican Tradition is taken among the laity, priests and deacons and bishops. The House of Bishops of any of our provinces does not rule the church alone, and the Primate’s Meeting is just an instrument were the Primates can share their theological thoughts, pray together and have a consultation opportunity among themselves.

The Primate’s Meetings cannot take final decisions about any kind of problem or situation, without hearing before and respecting all the Governance Bodies of each Province or Diocese within the Anglican Communion. In issuing what is essentially an ultimatum, the Primates are assuming more authority than is accorded them in our Communion’s current structure and polity.

Before the Windsor Report recommendations can be understood to be ‘the most clear and comprehensive principles’ for governing the Communion’s life, our Churches must engage this debate in its member provinces’ General Synods and Conventions, and then at the Lambeth Conference next year and in the Anglican Consultative Council which will follow it. As Anglican Episcopalians we cannot sacrifice the gifts we enjoy as an inclusive church, accepting all people as full members of our churches, so that we might conform to a doctrinal uniformity that is anti-natural to our historic identity and experience as an inclusive church.

The real crisis at the Anglican Communion is not about Human Sexuality or Sexual Orientation, is about Authority. There is a battle to find out who has the power at the Anglican Communion. Our Church leaders should remember that who has the real power is Jesus Christ, and that His power is grounded in LOVE. Love that respects everyone and all the different points of view within the Church. As Christian we are not allowed to deny any kind of support and full membership to people that want to be part of our churches. It is not by coertion, but with love that the Anglican Communion will find out the way to solve its present crisis.

Only through our continued faithfulness to being a Church of inclusiveness, compassion, shared authority, justice, love and respect for the dignity of every human being, we will be a witness to the world. May this Lent be an opportunity for all of us to discern more deeply God’s Word and call to service in this world hungry for justice and peace.

In Christ,

Revd Luiz Alberto Barbosa
President of the House of Clergy and Laity of the
Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil

Saturno tip to Luiz.

In other news, would you like to help fund the Archbishop of Canterbury's trip to visit the House of Bishops? Well then, head on over to ebay. Here's the description of the "item"...

See American bishops in their native habitat!

The bishops of the American Episcopal Church have asked Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to make an unprecedented and long-delayed visit to them in North America to discuss the Current Unpleasantness pre-occupying the Anglican Communion. The Americans assure ++Cantuar that their Christian hospitality will match that of the various fissiparous bishops he has broken bread with on multiple continents. So that the plate and pledge of parishes is not unnecessarily depleted, elements within TEC inclined toward reconciliation or at least a good face-to-face row are offering a business class ticket to any USA destination of the archbishop's choosing, along with lodging in a Courtyard by Marriott (tm) or better accommodation within strolling distance of the agreed-upon meeting place. A team of Th.D translators will be on hand to couch ++Cantuar's musings in terms accessible to the colonials. Tea and biscuits to be provided by the ECW.

All are invited to bid on this communion-saving encounter.

The "seller" is listed as "brother causticus," which one may assume is the same "brother causticus" of titusoneten. Note to ECW...hold the gravy on those biscuits; that's an American thing.

J.

Bp. Howe on the Bishop's Meeting

We have discussed Bishop John Howe of Central Florida a few times. A very critical commentary was followed by a more positive one offered by a personal friend of mine. Then, in January, we heard some very strident words from Bp. Howe regarding border crossings.

Jim offers us the Bishop's response to the recently concluded meeting of the House of Bishops. Here's a couple of segments worth noting:

I want to give you a few impressions of this week's meeting of the House of Bishops as it moves toward its conclusion tomorrow. Let me give you a couple of positive reflections: First, Katharine Jefferts Schori has done a stunning job in leading this meeting.

One of the Bishops said tonight, "If you had told me six months ago what a good leader she is, I would not have believed you." She has been absolutely even-handed, and I have had less a sense of being "managed" than I have in any meeting of the House in 18 years. When asked questions she is clear, and she allows this House to do it's business in a totally straight-forward manner...

Yes, you heard that right; praise for Bp. Katharine from one of our most conservative bishops. But there's more...

...There was a very unkind article in USA Today yesterday about Bishop Schori regarding this. However, Bishop Ed Salmon (retired and acting Bishop of South Carolina) assured us tonight that Bishop Schori "bent over backward" to get this election ratified, and the problem was with the Standing Committees. A sufficient number actually was received, but some of them were in improper form, and some of them were unsigned...

My reason for highlighting this letter is to make an observation that I think is needed. Sometimes I am very quick to try and place a person in a particular box. Things are so much easier then. Are they progressive or conservative? High church or low church? Republican or Democrat?

The reality is that very few people actually fit so neatly into any particular category. Bishop Howe is emerging as one of our leaders who keeps climbing out of the box that I try to put him in. Thanks be to God!

In the future, I am going to try to take more care with my generalizations about other people. After all, as the priest who is mad constantly reminds me, I could be wrong.

J.

Seeing with Integrity

From our Presiding Bishop's sermon at the closing Eucharist in Camp Allen:

...Our eyes have grown accustomed either to looking at the world over our shoulder, or toward the future, and we've lost some of our Anglican ability to look in both directions, to hold both perspectives in tension.

Our current struggle gives evidence of a competition between perspectives or worldviews. One of them looks at the world through an Enlightenment lens and expects to see predictability, understandability, and definability. Another view of the world comes through a postmodern lens, one that sees constant change and a significant degree of unpredictability as intrinsic to creation. Those two worldviews seem to many people to be incapable of being used together or even held in tension. To many people, they feel fundamentally distinct and irreconcilable. The two worldviews may also lead to different understandings of our lives as Christians, but before we go there let's consider what a Godly worldview might look like.

Recall Rublev's great icon of the Trinity, and the way in which each of the members of the Trinity looks in a different direction. They are not gazing out into space, however, but at another being, at another of those present around the circle. If we are created in the image of that social God, we too are invited to look as God does, toward another image of God, to turn our eyes upon Jesus - and also on the many images of God all around us.

The ability and willingness to focus on those many images of God around us is fundamental to our lives as Christians. God has the ability to hold all of us together in one field of view, affirming each one as child and beloved. Our baptism into the life of God is about seeing as God sees, with integrity...

J.

Letter from the House of Bishops

The Episcopal Majority has posted a letter from our bishops. It recaps much of what we heard in the resolutions and statement, although it includes this bit:

...We also heard a well-documented report by the House of Bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes on the history and strategy of groups, including some in the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) and others, to remove congregations and church property from The Episcopal Church. This report will be made available at a later date. We commend it, once publicly available, to diocesan Standing Committees...

It sounds like we're finally going to get serious about the pillaging purple shirts from foreign shores.

Then there's this:

...Finally, we believe that the leaders of the Church must always hold basic human rights and the dignity of every human being as fundamental concerns in our witness for Christ. We were, therefore, concerned that while the Communiqué focuses on homosexuality, it ignores the pressing issues of violence against gay and lesbian people around the world, and the criminalization of homosexual behavior in many nations of the world...

Well, they got even closer to naming the Church of Nigeria specifically.

A teaching tool will be offered by May. The final response to the Communique will be made in September.

The call for Dr. Williams to visit the House (which he has not done once since becoming Archbishop) was repeated. Note that the resolution requesting his personal appearance before the House was the only one that was passed unanimously.

I will speculate that Dr. Williams will decline this invitation, based on his brief and discouraging response so far.

J.

UPDATE: Susan offers some interesting tidbits from the closing news conference at Camp Allen. Note especially that Bp. Katharine did not "sign" the Communique, but when asked by Dr. Williams if she could "live with it," her response was "I'll take it back to the HoB."

House of Bishops to Primates: "NO!"

The House of Bishops passed two "mind of the House" resolutions and a statement. From the statement:

...Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters. We have been repeatedly assured that boundary violations are inappropriate under the most ancient authorities and should cease. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 did so. The Windsor Report did so. The Dromantine Communiqué did so. None of these assurances has been heeded. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention...

Until the plundering of TEC ends, we have nothing much to talk about.

...We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision...

I wish they would have called out Abp. Akinola by name, although it is quite clear who is being alluded to, don't you think?

...we believe that to participate in the Primates' Pastoral scheme would be injurious to The Episcopal Church for many reasons.

First, it violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution.

Second, it fundamentally changes the character of the Windsor process and the covenant design process in which we thought all the Anglican Churches were participating together.

Third, it violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life independent of the Church of England.

Fourth, it is a very serious departure from our English Reformation heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century, it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates...

I could not have stated the case better. We cannot allow foreign Archbishops to have the authority to make decisions and take actions that will effect the members of TEC, period. End of discussion.

Keep in mind that there will most likely be a further statement released later in the day. It seems to me that it will be difficult to now back away from these very forthright lines in the sand. Thank God! It is a good day to be an Episcopalian!

Now, will I be returning to silence? Hmmm...probably not, since I've pretty much broken it already. But I wasn't going to miss this opportunity to commend our Bishops...who knows when we'll get another chance?

Forgive me. A bit of levity. Well done, good and faithful servants!

J.

Open Thread for the Fourth Sunday in Lent

Gracious Father, whose blessed Son Jesus Christ came down from heaven to be the true bread which gives life to the world: Evermore give us this bread, that he may live in us, and we in him; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

J.

Open Thread for the Third Sunday in Lent

Almighty God, you know that we have no power in ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies and inwardly in our souls, that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

J.

Open Thread for the Second Sunday in Lent

O God, whose glory it is always to have mercy: Be gracious to all who have gone astray from your ways, and bring them again with penitent hearts and steadfast faith to embrace and hold fast the unchangeable truth of your Word, Jesus Christ your Son; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

J.