Posted on 04/17/2005 7:10:10 AM PDT by sionnsar
From the embarrassingly one-sided House of Bishops/deputies list, the following post is of interest. It begins by quoting a post from someone else and it is to this post that Dr. Munday is responding. This is circulated with Dr. Munday’s kind permission–KSH
In a message forwarded by [ ], [a person named John] wrote:
“The liberal side has been willing for years to live in disagreement which is a sort of compromise. Now when a single vote goes against the conservatives they go crying to the conservatives in the Anglican Communion to try and get their own way rather than to continue to live in disagreement.”
Actually, the liberal side has been undermining and trying by every possible means to change the teaching of the Church for many years. Concerning ordination of homosexually active persons, the 1979 General Convention resolved that ordination of homosexuals was “not appropriate.” Nevertheless, it was already occurring in a lawless fashion, seen perhaps most conspicuously in Bp. Paul Moore’s ordination of Ellen Barrett in 1977. Twenty bishops (and, later 19 others) signed an opposition statement to the action of General Convention, saying that “we cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our diocese insofar as they relate or give unqualified expression to Recommendation Three [forbidding ordination of lesbians and gays].” Consequently, Integrity could later claim that at least 50 open gays and lesbians had been ordained to the priesthood by 1991.
The Lambeth Conference of 1998, Resolution 1.10 “reject[ed] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and stated that “[This conference] cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” Yet the ECUSA continued undeterred.
John continues: “And is it such a huge issue to have one openly gay bishop?” To the extent that it signifies rejection of a nearly 2000 year old understanding of Christian sexual morality, yes, it is a huge issue.
John continues: “I believe it is the conservatives that are out to destroy the church and nothing you can say will make me think other wise. They have made no constructive offers and have reject[ed] every attempt by the liberals to accommodate them.” Well, if nothing I can say will make you think otherwise, it is going to be hard to have a compromise, reconciliation–whatever. But for the rest of this list, can anyone help me understand what John means by “rejecting every attempt by the liberals to accommodate them?” I haven’t seen attempts by the liberals at accommodation, just a relentless push in one direction.
The bishops, at their latest meeting, agreed not to give consents to any new bishops until GC 2006, nor to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, nor to bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006. Nevertheless, some bishops since then have said they cannot direct clergy in their dioceses to refrain from blessing same sex unions. So the bishops will quit; but their clergy, who are far more likely to perform such services anyway, can go right ahead. The push continues.
Couple all of this with refusals of DEPO and inhibition and deposition of clergy, which conveniently does not require a trial, for “abandonment of the Communion of this Church"–when the clergy in question had no intention of going anywhere else–and you begin to get a picture of why conservatives don’t believe anything has been done to effect reconciliation or to accommodate them. If anyone can point out this grand effort at reconciliation or accommodation of conservatives, I’d be glad to hear about it.
–The Rev. Dr. Robert Munday is Dean of Nashotah House in Nashotah, Wisconsin
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.