Anglicans Rebuke U.S. Branch on Same-Sex Unions

New York Times ^ | February 20, 2007 | SHARON LaFRANIERE and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Mount Athos]

Facing a possible churchwide schism, the Anglican Communion yesterday gave its Episcopal branch in the United States less than eight months to ban blessings of same-sex unions or risk a reduced role in the world’s third-largest Christian denomination.

Anglican leaders also established a separate council and a vicar to help address the concerns of conservative American dioceses that have been alienated by the Episcopal Church’s support of gay clergy and blessings of same-sex unions. Although the presiding American bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, agreed to the arrangement, some conservatives described it as an extraordinary check on her authority.

The directive, issued after a five-day meeting of three dozen top leaders of the Anglican church gathering in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, constituted a severe rebuke of the small but affluent American branch. Conservative Anglicans described the communiqué as a landmark document that affirms the primacy of Scripture and church doctrine for the world’s 77 million Anglicans, only 2.3 million of whom are Episcopalians.

“This is very, very, very significant,” said Bill Atwood, who serves as a strategist for a group of the conservative bishops. “It was either call the Episcopal Church back or lose the Anglican Communion, and the group agreed it was better to call the Episcopal Church back.”

The decision comes after years of debate and remonstrations within the Anglican Communion over whether and how to force the Episcopal leaders to conform to the wider church’s view of homosexuality — a controversy that has also enveloped other mainline Christian denominations.

Episcopalians in favor of gay rights immediately urged American bishops to reject the demands. “The American church is not going to just roll over and turn back the clock on blessings,” said the Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest in Los Angeles and president of Integrity, an Episcopalian gay rights

[kalee]

ping

[WorkingClassFilth]

If things have gone this far, they're already gone.

[upchuck]

Anglican pingers

[vpintheak]

All the poor saps have to do is read the Bible and Believe. If they do that, things would never have gotten so far out of hand.

[supercat]

All the poor saps have to do is read the Bible and Believe. If they do that, things would never have gotten so far out of hand.

Believe what? It's also necessary to understand it, and such understanding is not always easy to come by.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son, however, is an excellent place to look.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[LiteKeeper]

To understand the Bible, one must have the Author on board...and that only comes through salvation. I suspect that a lot of the "advocates" are not truly members of the Kingdom, and thus clueless!

[uptoolate]

"Although the presiding American bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori

“The American church is not going to just roll over and turn back the clock on blessings,” said the Rev. Susan Russell

1 Timothy 2:11-14
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

And they wonder why they have problems of doctrinal error.

[supercat]

To understand the Bible, one must have the Author on board...and that only comes through salvation. I suspect that a lot of the "advocates" are not truly members of the Kingdom, and thus clueless!

I wonder how many people who call themselves Christian understand much of anything?

I can't really proclaim myself as some massively-studied guru, but suspect that my simple understanding of some things may in some ways be truer than the more erudite explanations given by people who fancy themselves scholars and yet don't have a gut understanding.

The Prodigal Son parable explains a lot, though not everything. Indeed, I'm not aware of any clear biblical explanation for the apparent contradiction between human free will and an omnipotent god; indeed, I've asked some religious leaders about that contradiction and generally not gotten much response. After watching The Passion of the Christ, however, I realized the key. Not sure why it came to me after seeing that movie, but it did.

To reconcile the existence of an omnipotent god with human free will, consider the game of Klondike Solitaire, as played with ordinary playing cards. Although a human is infinitely more powerful than 52 pieces of paper or acetate, if the arrangement of the cards is unfavorable nothing the player can do will allow a win. The player could simply pick up all the cards in whatever order was convenient and put them in a pile, but the person would no longer be playing Klondike Solitaire and thus could not win.

God decided to give humans free will. He didn't have to do that, but he did. Part of giving human beings free will means that they have the right to bear the consequences of their mistakes. God could simply declare that everyone was saved, but to do that would effectively negate people's free will right to make decisions that matter. While he would be within his power to do that, it would destroy the most precious aspect of his creation.

The Prodigal Son parable provides the answer: the younger son's actions were not without consequence--his spirit was broken because of them--but once the son had borne the consequences of his actions he was able to return home.

Of course, after centuries of wandering in the wilderness, the human race became pretty thoroughly lost. But Christ will provide a safe path home, for those who turn away from the wayward path and follow him.

[Huber]

Thanks to kalee and upchuck for the ping.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
[I will be interesting to see how the progressive blogs respond to all of this. Preliminary postings seem to (along with the usual missives that "justice" won't be denied) suggest a desire to take KJS to the woodshed for signing the document. --huber]

[fgoodwin]

Haven't we seen all this before? We thought the Windsor Report was going to call ECUSA on the carpet, yet GC2006 managed to weasel around its requirements.

The HOB will do the same with this communiqué.

[AnalogReigns]

How much steel however, will the pro-sodomite factionalists show in the face of certain expulsion from WWAC?

I wager that their courage will fail, when not in a position to bully.

[bcsco]

I love your homily of the prodigal son and how it relates to sin and 'free will'. If I may, I'd like to make a couple observations on your text:

1) Part of giving human beings free will means that they have the right to bear the consequences of their mistakes.

I suggest "bear[ing] the consequences of their mistakes" is more our destiny than our right.

2) God could simply declare that everyone was saved, but to do that would effectively negate people's free will right to make decisions that matter.

To declare everyone saved would mean a reversal of his decision in the garden. To me, that's more significant than its affect on our 'free will'. No, I don't, in my belief, consider that God would reverse himself. But by his offering his Son as the means by which we gain salvation, he is allowing us the 'right', if you will, to take steps to reverse our own wrong. No handouts. Just compassion and an opportunity. Oh, and a magnificent demonstration of love.

Perhaps some of this seems trite alterations. I apologize. I'm simply trying to throw out some other notions.

[supercat]

1) Part of giving human beings free will means that they have the right to bear the consequences of their mistakes.

I suggest "bear[ing] the consequences of their mistakes" is more our destiny than our right.

I must disagree with you quite emphatically. Mistakes without consequences are not mistakes. For the right to make mistakes to mean anything, those mistakes must have consequences.

That isn't to say that one's rights are denied if one does not always bear the full consequences of one's mistakes. Both on a secular and spiritual level, it's generally good for the consequences mistakes to be tempered sufficiently that people can recover from them. On the other hand, it's vital that the consequences remain sufficiently severe that the mistakes are, in fact, mistakes.

To declare everyone saved would mean a reversal of his decision in the garden. To me, that's more significant than its affect on our 'free will'. No, I don't, in my belief, consider that God would reverse himself.

I don't see any fundamental problem with God changing his mind on things. Indeed, if the Bible is to be believed He has at times done so (e.g. he once thought it appropriate to use a Flood to "reset" his creation, but no longer). Returning to the Klondike analogy, though (never read anything like it elsewhere, but I think it's a good one) we don't know what rules God decided upon before starting the Game, but offering Jesus was a means for him to offer reconciliation without violating them.

But by his offering his Son as the means by which we gain salvation, he is allowing us the 'right', if you will, to take steps to reverse our own wrong. No handouts. Just compassion and an opportunity. Oh, and a magnificent demonstration of love.

It is a great show of love indeed. And it might perhaps lead one to speculate on the exact rules of the "game". Perhaps, even before Christ, the rules allowed for a person on the Day of Judgement to accept some or all of the punishment that was due to another. If such a rule existed, even if it was seldom used, it would explain the offering of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Most people would of course be limited in how much punishment they could accept on behalf of others; Christ would have no such limitation.

Even there, though, I don't think Christ is apt to offer himself to those who would not appreciate the gift. He doesn't demand much in return, but I think he does require that people recognize not only the value of his sacrifice, but also the cost--that the suffering God endures on their behalf is one of the consequences of their mistakes.

[bcsco]

" I suggest "bear[ing] the consequences of their mistakes" is more our destiny than our right."

Reply: I must disagree with you quite emphatically. Mistakes without consequences are not mistakes. For the right to make mistakes to mean anything, those mistakes must have consequences.

I never said anything of mistakes without consequences. I merely said those consequences were our destiny; and that 'destiny' seems a more fitting word than 'right'. Surely you agree that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Consequently, we all will have to answer for our sins. That is our destiny as sinners. That isn't a right God has given us; it is a consequence of 'The Fall' and of our sinful lives. I believe you misread my remark.

As Christians we are taught that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. To delve into whether he 'changes his mind' is folly for no one can know His mind. But being taught that He is the 'same', I choose to believe that the fact we don't see 'resets', as you put it, such as the flood today, doesn't necessarily mean he's changed his mind on how to respond to the world, but Christ's coming has eliminated the need for interaction. What could he do short of the final coming to supplant that?

Even there, though, I don't think Christ is apt to offer himself to those who would not appreciate the gift.

I agree. There is nothing we can do to bring God's mercy to us. It is his gift brought through the Holy Spirit. But we first have to be open to that gift. Our hearts have to be open and prepared to share in his glorious offering. God's blessings to you.