« From the Inbox 21 September 2007 | Main | Mere Conservatism »
September 21, 2007
Episcopal Bishops Look for Ambiguity
Also known as convenient darkness. Archbishop accused of dehumanizing gays, declares tomorrow's Daily Telegraph, reporting the apparent failure of poor Rowan Williams' attempt to dissuade the Episcopal Church from saying . . . a very rude thing to the Anglican Semi-Communion. The significant paragraph goes:
the Daily Telegraph has seen a draft document drawn up by a senior bishop [Henry Parsley of Alabama] who urges his colleagues to adopt a far less clear position that will be open to a wide range of interpretations, allowing liberal American bishops considerable leeway.
The trouble is, speaking as someone who covered the house of bishops from the press gallery at five General Conventions, these people don't see any problem with this kind of deceit and deception. They think it's prudent, even pastoral, not dishonorable. No letting their yeas be yea and their nays nay, because then they might not get their way, or if they do it might cost them something.
Posted by David Mills at 09:36 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54ef97cf58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Episcopal Bishops Look for Ambiguity:
Comments
[John Gibson writes:] I asked +Rowan what word of hope he had for the gay and lesbian baptized. He repeated assurances of the communion’s stated opposition to discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. I followed up and asked whether that opposition to discrimination applied to the world outside the church but not within the church.
He answered it was a matter of how people perceived a person’s “choice of a style of life” and how that affected what level of role that person was “eligible for” within the church. (‘Choice’ of a ‘lifestyle.’ Flashback to the 70s.) He also said we’re concerned with the appropriate limits of pastoral response to gay and lesbian people.
========================================================
Choice of a lifestyle? Well yah...but well...
Posted by: Nick | Sep 21, 2007 11:10:53 PM
the Daily Telegraph has seen a draft document drawn up by a senior bishop [Henry Parsley of Alabama] who urges his colleagues to adopt a far less clear position that will be open to a wide range of interpretations, allowing liberal American bishops considerable leeway.
When I read such remarks, I think of John 6. Giving people "considerable leeway" by "adopt[ing] a far less clear position" isn't the example our Lord set. I am not Anglican, so I guess its not really my business, except that I likely would be Anglican were the Episcopal Church still orthodox. The whole situation makes me sad. I suspect the situation would never have reached this state had the Episcopal Church adhered to the clear positions of Scripture and not given those within its church considerable leeway on a variety of issues, but would have instead allowed those who couldn't accept the "hard teachings" leave without trying to stop them, as our Lord did as recorded in John 6.
Posted by: GL | Sep 22, 2007 6:47:34 AM
Screw gay bishops! When did the Episcopalians decided that they could have DIVORCED bishops? Paul states in the Pastorals that a bishop can be the husband of only one wife--and even if we grant that Vicky Robinson's boyfriend is indeed his wife, what about the original Mrs. Robinson? Heaven holds a place for those who pray, hey, hey, hey!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 22, 2007 7:41:57 AM
According to witnesses, he said that for Dr Williams to present the situation as a choice between fidelity to gays and fidelity to the Communion "is one of the most dehumanising things I have heard in a long time" and he wanted no part of it.
Somehow leaving the church didn't occur to him.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 22, 2007 8:49:09 AM
"When did the Episcopalians decided that they could have DIVORCED bishops?"
Hey, don't forget women's ordination either. But to be fair, the piskies weren't the only Christian church to begin ordaining women.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 22, 2007 9:00:50 AM
Hey, don't forget women's ordination either. But to be fair, the piskies weren't the only Christian church to begin ordaining women.
You know, I am not an Episcopalian, but I am offended by your use of "piskie" here. The fall and splintering of the Episcopalians is a tragedy and we should weep. Quite frankly, it didn't begin with the ordaination of women. It began at least as early as the Protestant Reformation.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 22, 2007 9:14:43 AM
"Piskie" is an ancient and customary Scottish term for "episcopalian" (as in the "Scottish Episcopal Church"). It isn't derogatory.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 22, 2007 9:25:08 AM
"When did the Episcopalians decided that they could have DIVORCED bishops?"
"Hey, don't forget women's ordination either."
My husband found himself serving under a bishop who was female, Mormon by birth (so having received one baptism which was questionably Christian at all), divorced (from a guy who was Bahai), and ultimately remarried.
We became Catholic in the end at least partly because, whatever else Catholic bishops might turn out to be . . .
Posted by: Sally | Sep 22, 2007 9:43:53 AM
I used to have high hopes for the Anglicans presently leaving TEC. Unfortunately, it appears that the orthodox, Bible-believing Anglicans left 30 years ago, and the present 'conservatives' are only less liberal, they hold to the creeds, but not the Bible, and while opposing homosexual ordination, do not tolerate even Scripture condemning homosexuality. And plenty think that polity - unity over doctrine, is the rule, and are staying in. Of course if that were true, then there wouldn't be an Anglican communion in the first place.
Posted by: labrialumn | Sep 22, 2007 11:16:26 AM
Now that I don't agree with. My sense is the existing Anglicans are also strongly "structurally" conservative. This leads to them being horrified by fragmentation. To them that's almost as bad, if not worse, than any personal morality. The corporate morality implied by fragmentation gives them nightmares.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 22, 2007 11:29:27 AM
>Quite frankly, it didn't begin with the ordaination of women. It began at least as early as the Protestant Reformation.
Well it didn't start with the rebellion of ordaining women but that is a clear marker of a church in rebellion and those who submit to the authority of such a church ought to do some serious thinking. Would you care to elaborate on your second comment above?
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 11:32:19 AM
I've heard people argue against divorced bishops/ priests based on EO/RC theology, but haven't heard much on the Protestant end. Does anyone have strong opinions there? Obviously, we have the Biblical passages in the pastorals that talk about a presbyter being the husband of only one wife, but I don't know if that should be absolute or discretionary.
Posted by: Yaknyeti | Sep 22, 2007 12:17:03 PM
>Obviously, we have the Biblical passages in the pastorals that talk about a presbyter being the husband of only one wife, but I don't know if that should be absolute or discretionary.
What in the text makes it appear to have the potential to be discretionary?
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 2:20:18 PM
Speaking from the Protestantr side, I can say that I think divorced men must NOT be made bishops, even if the divorce was for acceptable reasons according to the Bible and the Orthodox churches. Higher standards are required for apostolic leadership.
Don't be so quick to judge those Episcopalians who didn't bolt 30 years ago of not holding to the Bible. Where were they supposed to go? The fact is that the so-called "continuing churches" haven't amounted to much and are as fragmentary as one might expect of Protestants.
The problem with the Reformation was the tendency to further and further schism. Where is the unity among Protestants? Where is the unity among former Episcopalians? I think that might be changing with action coming not from the individual priests and parishioners but from the wider church.
I pray to God the Southern Primates can exert some orthodox unity and discipline, even if it means forsaking Canterbury, because some of us still think Anglicanism has something worth saving
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Sep 22, 2007 2:21:39 PM
>Where is the unity among Protestants?
Obviously not in visible formal structures.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 2:24:51 PM
Don't be so quick to judge those Episcopalians who didn't bolt 30 years ago
Yes, please don't. 30 years ago I couldn't have left TEC. My mom would not have given me permission if it had occurred to me to ask.
Posted by: Matthias | Sep 22, 2007 2:28:20 PM
>>>Speaking from the Protestantr side, I can say that I think divorced men must NOT be made bishops, even if the divorce was for acceptable reasons according to the Bible and the Orthodox churches. Higher standards are required for apostolic leadership.<<<
According to ancient practice, carried down in the canons of the Orthodox Church today, a divorced man cannot even be ordained a priest.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 22, 2007 2:36:40 PM
>According to ancient practice, carried down in the canons of the Orthodox Church today, a divorced man cannot even be ordained a priest.
Not only ancient practice but scripture as well. Glad to hear it.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 2:38:36 PM
>>>Not only ancient practice but scripture as well. Glad to hear it.<<<
Taking the Pauline prescription at face value, the canons do not even permit the ordination of a widower who has remarried.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 22, 2007 3:35:04 PM
>Taking the Pauline prescription at face value, the canons do not even permit the ordination of a widower who has remarried.
Taken in context one might read it differently and scripture should always be taken in context.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 4:11:32 PM
David,
I'm looking at 1st Timothy 3. Among other things, our episkopos must (1) be the husband of one wife, (2) keep his children submissive, and (3) be thought of well by outsiders. If we exclude the divorced, should we also exclude the childless (2) (and by extension, the unmarried)? That seems strange and unwarranted. (3) also seems contingent, as it would be good to have someone who is thought of well in the community, but this needs to be balanced against Jesus' warning that "all people will hate you because of Me." Based on these, I could see some flexibility in applying (1) as well.
Christopher,
Can you explain your conviction about not having divorced bishops? Sure, they should be held to higher standards than regular Christians, but if a man was abandoned by his adulterous wife and was unable, through her hard-heartedness, to reconcile with her, does that disqualify him from being a bishop? Or a pastor/ priest? It seems strange to disqualify him for a divorce over which he may have had no responsibility.
I can see this being a problem in a tradition that emphasizes the symbolism of the pastor heavily, but that isn't the case in much of Protestantism today, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Yaknyeti | Sep 22, 2007 5:02:36 PM
>The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
I think anyone who reads that passage, as opposed to your summary, can plainly see why being divorced is not the same as being childless.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 5:08:43 PM
"... an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife ..."
Unless it could be shown that any Christian man, anywhere, in the Apostolic church could be the husband of more than one wife -- and I know of not one shred of evidence for this -- then to interpret this passage "in context" would support the view that its was not to prevent a polygamous bishop, but rather to ensure that the bishop was a man who was, or had been, married only once, that is, not remarried not only after divorce but after the death of a first wife.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 22, 2007 5:40:02 PM
"... an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife ..."
Unless it could be shown that any Christian man, anywhere, in the Apostolic church could be the husband of more than one wife -- and I know of not one shred of evidence for this -- then to interpret this passage "in context" would support the view that its was not to prevent a polygamous bishop, but rather to ensure that the bishop was a man who was, or had been, married only once, that is, not remarried not only after divorce but after the death of a first wife.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 22, 2007 5:40:31 PM
Rather context shows that this refers to management of his household. Remarriage after death would not indicate any such shortcoming. Divorce would.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 5:54:35 PM
>>>Unless it could be shown that any Christian man, anywhere, in the Apostolic church could be the husband of more than one wife -- and I know of not one shred of evidence for this -- then to interpret this passage "in context" would support the view that its was not to prevent a polygamous bishop, but rather to ensure that the bishop was a man who was, or had been, married only once, that is, not remarried not only after divorce but after the death of a first wife.<<<
Given the Church held that marriage was a once-in-a-lifetime sacrament, and actively discouraged remarriage (not blessing any second marriages at all until quite late in the day), there can be no other reading.
>>>Rather context shows that this refers to management of his household. Remarriage after death would not indicate any such shortcoming. Divorce would.<<<
No, David, as I said, the sub-apostolic Church did not approve of remarriage of any sort. Therefore, to ordain a bishop who had remarried would be contrary to the teachings of the Church, as would allowing a bishop to remarry after his ordination. In fact, the practice of elevating married men to the episcopate died out in all the apostolic Churches save the Church of the East well before such a prohibition was canonized at the Council in Trullo.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 22, 2007 7:06:29 PM
>Given the Church held that marriage was a once-in-a-lifetime sacrament, and actively discouraged remarriage (not blessing any second marriages at all until quite late in the day), there can be no other reading.
The Church doesn't hold marriage to be a sacrament.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 7:26:36 PM
"... died out in all the apostolic Churches save the Church of the East well before such a prohibition was canonized at the Council in Trullo."
As far as I can make out, the Church of the East required not merely celibacy, but never-having-been-married of all men to be ordained bishops, priests or deacons, right down to the Synod of Seleucia in 484, which, in a great change, allowed deacons, priests and even bishops to be married men and to remarry (without setting any limit on the number of remarriages) after ordination. This change was confirmed by another Synod of Seleucia in 496, which added the further requirement that men and women intending to enter the religious life had to beget or bear at least two children before voluntarily separating from their husbands or wives before becoming monks or nuns. This was all a largely unavailing attempt to placate the Zoroastrian religious establishment, for whom celibacy and refusal to procreate was one of the most heinous offenses against Ahura Mazda, as well as a crime against nature. With the fall of Sassanian Persia to the Muslims between 637 and 651, the requirement of marriage and procreation for intending monks and nuns came to an end, but it was not until the Tenth or Eleventh Century that the requirement that bishops be drawn from the monks put an end to their married episcopate; and to this day deacons and priests of the Church of the East may both be ordained as married men and also remarry, if widowed, any number of times after ordination.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 22, 2007 7:33:36 PM
"The Church doesn't hold marriage to be a sacrament."
I don't know what "church" you're referring to; certainly your statement is not true of any church older that 500 or 600 years.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 22, 2007 7:35:39 PM
>I don't know what "church" you're referring to; certainly your statement is not true of any church older that 500 or 600 years.
I understand some churches are of that opinion.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 22, 2007 7:36:29 PM
I agree that men who have divorced and remarried may not hold an ordained office. While the meaning of the text of Scripture may be open to other understandings, I believe the traditional interpretation should be followed when it is consistent with Scripture even if alternative understandings may also be plausible.
I say this as a man who has been divorced and remarried. I will not go into the circumstances other than to say that the very conservative Southern Baptist pastor who led me to the Lord and who later officiated the wedding for my second and current wife believed and instructed me that the circumstances of my divorce left me free to remarry and when I seriously considered converting to Catholicism a few years ago, both a very orthodox RCIA instructor and a priest informed me that the circumstances provided ample grounds for an annulment. I do not say that to justify my actions (had I not sinned, I would not have found myself in the circumstances surrounding this matter), but to explain that I did not remarry without carefully considering the matter and receiving pastoral counseling which I trusted. I know some here believe I sinned in remarrying. I will not debate the topic.
A few years ago, while still a member of a Southern Baptist church, I was approached by one of the leaders among the deacons about becoming a deacon. I informed the man of my circumstances and told him that I believed that I was not qualified to serve in an ordained capacity (though I did and still do serve in church-related tasks which do not call for ordination and do not place me in authority over adult members). The man then informed me that the deacons were considering relaxing the rules which forbid a divorced and remarried man from serving as a deacon. I informed him that I did not believe the congregation had any authority to do that as the prohibition was Scriptural and not merely a matter of a given congregation's or denomination's governing rules. I also urged him to oppose any such change. He then reminded me that God had forgiven me for my past sins. I told him that I agreed, but that was not relevant to the matter. Moses was forgiven by God as well, but was still barred from entering the Promised Land, and David was the apple of God's eye, but his warrior past barred him from building the Temple. Even when we are forgiven, there may still be temporal consequences which must be borne. The prohibition is because the men who serve in ordained offices must be above reproach (that is what the Scripture gives as the reason) and having had more than one wife does not leave a man above reproach. I wish my circumstances were different, but they are not. The best witness I can give now is to obey the restrictions of Scripture as traditionally understood in the Church.
So, when a woman says it is unfair that she cannot serve as a bishop, priest or pastor because of some immutable characteristic which she did not choose and cannot change (i.e., her sex), I can share with her that I also cannot serve in any ordained office because of my immutable past sin. By submitting to the clear dictates of Scripture, she and I can each bear witness to an obedient life in Christ. We can act as Moses and David and accept the restrictions which our past (or sex in the case of women) has left us bound by or we can, like King Saul, act beyond the restrictions which apply to us. Christian liberty does not mean that we can do whatever we want. As Christians, we are under an obligation to seek Gods' will and obey it to the best of our ability and understanding. When Scripture speaks on a subject and the Church has a traditional and longstanding interpretation of how that text applies, we know His will and must, if we love Him, obey.
Posted by: GL | Sep 22, 2007 9:53:59 PM
I can see this being a problem in a tradition that emphasizes the symbolism of the pastor heavily, but that isn't the case in much of Protestantism today, as far as I can tell.
Well, Yaknyeti, it seems to me that the spiritual dynamic involved in being a spiritual pastor to a church exists whether one believes it or not. Some Protestants may look at the role of pastor as being a purely functionary one, but that doesn't make it so. People will still look to him as an example. Therefore he must be the best kind of example and not a distracting one.
Divorce is a tragedy due to sin. Even if it is not the sin of the husband and he is "blameless' the stain of that tragedy will still cling to him and be a spiritual distraction.
To be ordained is not a right. It has nothing to do with our standing before God. It is a calling for a special ministry. If through no fault of your own your life now becomes a hinderance to that ministry you should not think yourself called to it. There are many other ways to serve.
I have the same feelings about those who have taken lives, even in propoer circumstances. Ex-police, ex-soldiers, those who served their country by the necessary taking of life, and even those who have done so in self defense or accidentally.
The death leaves an uncleaness, akin to that of touching a dead body which would incapicitate a priest in the Levitical code.
Unless the only Christians we have in the church all have blood on their hands we should not ordain them to be models of Christian leadership. Nor, unless all the men in our church are divorced should we consider ordained the divorced.
After all, we shouldn't ordain women, even though the most glorious created being in the universe is one. It's no impediment to being a Christian nor any judgment on their character to exclude certain people from qualification from ordained ministry.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Sep 22, 2007 10:40:46 PM
David,
I think anyone who reads that passage, as opposed to your summary, can plainly see why being divorced is not the same as being childless.
Assume I'm obtuse. I like to think I'm not, but I would like to be able to better justify what you said to the friends of mine who don't see a significant difference.
Rather context shows that this refers to management of his household. Remarriage after death would not indicate any such shortcoming. Divorce would.
I'd like a more specific breakdown, then, on how the passage ties together. What is obligatory? What are the overarching principles? Let me throw another question at you. Suppose someone was an alcoholic, but repented of it and has been sober for 30 years. Is he eligible?
Perhaps this isn't even the right passage to be arguing about, as the "husband of one wife" restriction, even by Prof. Tighe's reading, doesn't ban the divorced man from becoming an episkopos unless he remarries.
GL,
I agree that men who have divorced and remarried may not hold an ordained office. While the meaning of the text of Scripture may be open to other understandings, I believe the traditional interpretation should be followed when it is consistent with Scripture even if alternative understandings may also be plausible.
The prohibition is because the men who serve in ordained offices must be above reproach (that is what the Scripture gives as the reason) and having had more than one wife does not leave a man above reproach.
Thanks for your clear and candid response. I agree that submission to the authority of Scripture is vital, even when that inconveniences or limits me. But I'm still not convinced here. Would you be willing to dig into 1 Tim. 3 to suggest which terms are explicitly required and which are time-specific elaborations on timeless principles? (In forewarning, I might follow up by asking/ how the timeless principles apply in our culture today.)
Prof. Tighe,
Unless it could be shown that any Christian man, anywhere, in the Apostolic church could be the husband of more than one wife -- and I know of not one shred of evidence for this -- then to interpret this passage "in context" would support the view that its was not to prevent a polygamous bishop, but rather to ensure that the bishop was a man who was, or had been, married only once, that is, not remarried not only after divorce but after the death of a first wife.
I'll accept that, but would like more details. I imagine that polygamy occurred in some places where the early church penetrated. What was the response of that church to polygamists who converted?
Posted by: Yaknyeti | Sep 22, 2007 11:29:26 PM
This is going just slightly off topic, but I have a question for anyone who has the ability to answer with some knowledge of the subject.
Hubby and I are Anglicans (I don't like calling ourselves Episcopalians right now, it seems that's become almost a "4 letter word" lately) currently attending our fairly conservative home parish (in Arlington) in a VERY conservative diocese (Fort Worth). Due to hubby's job we moved to North Dallas about 2 years ago, which is about 45 minutes to an hour drive from our parish. Since we are expecting our first child in January, we decided it would be a good idea to attend a nearby parish during the last few months of the pregnancy because I don't like the idea of being that far away from my Dr. and hospital just in case.
A couple of days ago I was driving aimlessly around a neighborhood near our apartment complex (due to a need to recharge my jumped battery after the lights being left on for over 24 hrs drained it...oops) and happened upon an absolutely adorable little church on a dead-end street. I noticed that the sign said Episcopal, but I looked closer and realized it is a "Reformed Episcopal Church".
Can anyone tell me if they have had any experience with the REC? And if so what is your opinion of it? I have done some research on my own and realize it is a very conservative church. So hubby and I are considering attending it while I'm uber preggers.
Posted by: Isamashii Yuubi (Courageous Grace) | Sep 23, 2007 1:01:27 AM
Dear Grace,
No harm in visiting the church. Here's some links:
http://rechurch.org/recus/recus/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Episcopal_Church
Dr. William Tighe is a veritable encyclopedia on Anglicanism and the various Anglican bodies in the United States. He's written papers on them and has even been commissioned by the Vatican to write about what he knows of Anglicanism.
James Altena is Anglican, but I am not sure whether he knows anything about REC.
Also, David Mills was a former Episcopalian for a long time. He might also be an available resource about the REC.
God's blessings on your first pregnancy and baby!
Pax in Christ alone.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 23, 2007 2:02:59 AM
>>>The Church doesn't hold marriage to be a sacrament.<<<
On the contrary, it always did, at least in the Christian East, where the theology of marriage was highly developed by the fourth century. In the West, though formal doctrine may not have been laid out, the testimony of Tertullian indicates that it was treated as a sacrament--and had perforce to be, since most Christians, not being Roman citizens until quite late in the day, had no legal standing to marry; nor could citizen Christians legally marry non-citizen Christians. Tertullian famoously compares the manner in which Christians treat marriage as compared to that of the Romans, even though the Christians cannot legally call their women wives.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 23, 2007 5:14:38 AM
Grace,
The REC church in Addison is a good place. Or, drive a bit (10 minutes) further (to 4550 Legacy Dr.) and come to Christ Church, Plano. :)
Posted by: David Roseberry | Sep 23, 2007 6:22:01 AM
>>>As far as I can make out, the Church of the East required not merely celibacy, but never-having-been-married of all men to be ordained bishops, priests or deacons, right down to the Synod of Seleucia in 484, which, in a great change, allowed deacons, priests and even bishops to be married men and to remarry (without setting any limit on the number of remarriages) after ordination. <<<
Fr. Ronald Roberson, CSP, in his "The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey" (known to all and sundry as "Janes All The World's Eastern Churches", writes of the Church of the East:
"Synods in the 5th century also decreed that celibacy should be obligatory for no one in this Church, including bishops. A number of patriarchs and bishops were married until the early 6th century, when the decision was taken to ordain only celibate monks to the episcopate. Priests, however, have always been allowed to marry, even after ordination."
It would appear that the waters are rather muddy, no?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 23, 2007 6:24:52 AM
Would you be willing to dig into 1 Tim. 3 to suggest which terms are explicitly required and which are time-specific elaborations on timeless principles?
No. I am not willing to debate the issue. I have laid out my own embarrassing circumstances and said what conclusions I have reached. If you disagree, I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. I will say that Scriptural exegesis which relies only on the text and does not take into account the understanding and practices of the early Church is what has gotten us into the mess we are witnessing today. Such an approach has led to reexamination of a host of issues, with sad consequences.
Posted by: GL | Sep 23, 2007 6:35:04 AM
>>Well it didn't start with the rebellion of ordaining women but that is a clear marker of a church in rebellion and those who submit to the authority of such a church ought to do some serious thinking. Would you care to elaborate on your second comment above?<<
Man put his own authority above that of the church. That's what this is really all about.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 23, 2007 6:42:52 AM
>Man put his own authority above that of the church. That's what this is really all about.
But it isn't what the Reformation was about, at least not in the sense you imply.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 23, 2007 7:01:02 AM
Courageous Grace,
Whether the REC is for you depends where you stand in the spectrum of Anglican theology. Briefly, the REC was formed in 1873 by an ultra "Low Church" splitting off from the (then named) PECUSA due to what the REC folks saw as corrupting "papistical" influences from the High Church Tractarians. They produced a revised version of the BCP (based on the draft version of 1785 rejected by the C of E as insufficiently orthodox, rather than the 1789 BCP then in use), which also re-wrote the 39 Articles into 45 (inclluding ones explcitly condemning Lutheran and Calvinist views of the Lord's Supper as heretical) and removing large parts of the Psalter they didn't like. That book set forth five fundamental principles that were proclaimed to be perpetual and unalterable, including denial of baptismal regeneration, denial that the Lord's Supper is anything other than a strictly commemorative action (no real Presence of any sort), and assertion that episcopal ordination is only a "desireable form of polity" and not necessary for valid ordination of presbyters. (There has been much argument about whether the REC did maintain apostolic succession of episcopal orders or not, with allegations that there were purported "consecrations" of bishops performed only by presbyters. The PECUSA always conditionally re-ordained any ministers it received from the RC as a result.) The REC spent several decades under a heavy influence of dispensationalism as well.
In the last 10-20 years the RREC has progressively been shedding this checkered past and moving back to the mainstream of Low Church evangelical Anglicanism. Itr has jettisoned its own BCP to re-adopt the 1662 BCP (UK) and 1928 BCP (USA) as standards of doctrine and worship, and certainly practices episcopal ordination and consecration (whether that fixes any past problems is another matter). There have been attempts by REC apologists to explain away the now embarrassing five foundatinal principles. (I'm glad they've abandoned them, but I don't find the explanations the slightest bit convincing).
Despite this negative sounding summary of past history, I would emphasize that whatever its past problems, the REC today certainly constitutes a sound Protestant alternative to the heretical TEC, one that holds faithfully to the Nicene Creed and Scripture. If your personal inclinations are Low Church rather than High Church, you will probably find it quite satisfactory. But if you are doctrinally High Church, you will likely find it not to be your speed.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 23, 2007 7:05:54 AM
>There has been much argument about whether the REC did maintain apostolic succession of episcopal orders or not, with allegations that there were purported "consecrations" of bishops performed only by presbyters. The PECUSA always conditionally re-ordained any ministers it received from the RC as a result.
You might enjoy reading this brief bit by Pastor Leithart:
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003320.php
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 23, 2007 7:07:32 AM
>Man put his own authority above that of the church. That's what this is really all about.
But it isn't what the Reformation was about, at least not in the sense you imply.
Sure it was.
There were some folks in leadership who were breaking the rules and there was a need for tightening up. Yet breaking unity was not the answer.
"Is Christ divided?"
Man's will was put over that of God's.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 23, 2007 7:15:12 AM
>Sure it was.
No, it was about man putting himself above God's revelation (understanding that RC and EO will differ).
>There were some folks in leadership who were breaking the rules and there was a need for tightening up. Yet breaking unity was not the answer.
Why are you a Protestant?
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 23, 2007 7:17:11 AM
Psalm 81:11, ““But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels.”
The greatest expression of God’s wrath is His silence; he allows us to go our own way. Martin Luther.
The penalty of sin is sin. Augustine.
In other words, all the vile sins with which Paul ends Romans 1 are not what God does to us but what we do to ourselves. The sins, immorality, lying, hatred, murder, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, etc., are evidence that we being judged by God. He allows us to go our own way. We choose sin and that sin is in turn a scourge.
Romans 1 details the process of man’s estrangement from God. We know, that God exists, that the Bible is His word, that it is clear. We choose an interpretive process which allows us to deny that which we know. God judges us by allowing us to go our own way. He grants us the freedom we have demanded. That freedom is its own penalty.
Romans 1:18, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”
People know the wrong of their actions, abortion, murder, adultery - - half of what we are doing today, but refuse to admit to what they know, it gets in the way of doing what we please so we play games with ourselves. We lie to themselves and then lie to other.
Romans 1:24, “Therefore God gave them up…”
Romans 1:26, “For this reason God gave them up…”
Romans 1:28, “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up…”
The greatest expression of God’s wrath is His silence; he allows us to go our own way. Martin Luther.
The penalty of sin is sin. Augustine.
In other words, all the vile sins with which Paul ends Romans 1 are not what God does to us but what we do to ourselves. The sins, immorality, lying, hatred, murder, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, etc., are evidence that we being judged by God. He allows us to go our own way. We choose sin and that sin is in turn a scourge.
The end of this process of estrangement from God is the affirmation of sin, “And they gave hearty approval…” Our estrangement from God is complete.
Paul gives prominence to the sin of homosexuality. I personally wonder if homosexuality isn’t a barometer of society’s overall health. In our civil society, we are rapidly approaching the point where homosexuality is affirmed. In parts of the Church, homosexuality is affirmed. Men committed shameless acts with men, Romans 1:26-27; like the canary in the coal mine, a warning signs that a violation of reason and nature has occurred.
But it begins where it alwasy begins. God said, don't...And we have to accept what God has said without complete understanding, whether it is the Lord's Supper or infant baptism or salvation by grace. We have to accept what God has said and we walk by faith, we walk a little blind. But Satan says, 'did God say..."
An interpretive model is adopted which allows the denial of the real presecne and that interpretive method is then used to deny other scriptural doctrines.
"As early as 1527, Luther sensed that the Reformed denial of the real presence portended a full-blown rejection of all the other articles of faith, so that the overall state of today's Reformed Protestantism is but the inevitable end product of Zwingli's naïve rationalism." Stephenson, John R. Eschatology. Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy. 1993 Pp. xiii, 149 p.8
Posted by: mark | Sep 23, 2007 7:34:10 AM
>As early as 1527, Luther sensed that the Reformed denial of the real presence portended a full-blown rejection of all the other articles of faith, so that the overall state of today's Reformed Protestantism is but the inevitable end product of Zwingli's naïve rationalism.
Odd, given that while Luther was alive a Zwinglian understanding of the sacraments wasn't normative in reformed Christianity, still isn't confessionally, and Melancthon indicated that he and Calvin had a common understanding of the Lord's Supper.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 23, 2007 7:36:39 AM
>>Why are you a Protestant?<<
I ask myself that every single day, [JOKE] especially when I read your posts. [/JOKE]
We are all born into our families and we don't get to choose. There are the connections and affiliations associated with that, and we don't get to choose. As we grow, we begin to see places where our initial conditions were not optimal.
That has happened to me. I look around me and see thE the Apostolic Church (which I will use as shorthand for Catholic/Orthodox) is historically correct. Yet I came to that conclusion while being a member of a church you consider apostate. Since Satan can't work against Satan, I am forced to conclude the God is still using my church in some way. It is still being used by God. The question I ask myself is whether I am called to its mission.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 23, 2007 7:58:54 AM
It seems to me that if you see Rome's claimed authority to be legitimate and other's failure to accept that authority as illegitimate then you would seek to be obedient, as you understand it, and swim the Tiber.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 23, 2007 8:01:14 AM
>That has happened to me. I look around me and see thE the Apostolic Church (which I will use as shorthand for Catholic/Orthodox) is historically correct.
Just to add that if I believed that I couldn't conceive of remaining a Protestant.
>Yet I came to that conclusion while being a member of a church you consider apostate. Since Satan can't work against Satan, I am forced to conclude the God is still using my church in some way. It is still being used by God. The question I ask myself is whether I am called to its mission.
If you don't believe in what your church teaches then what sort of mission could you perform there, honorably? Being part of a church means placing yourself under their authority. To remain under their authority while rebelling against it and pursuing other ends seems problematic.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 23, 2007 8:08:54 AM
