Midwest Conservative Journal

DIVORCE PAPERS?

If this Times of London report is accurate, the Lambeth Commission has basically dropped the hammer on ECUSA:

The ordination of openly gay bishops in the Anglican Church is to be outlawed under controversial new proposals to be published next week to save the Church from schism.

Anglican provinces are to be told they must sign an unbreakable unity agreement which would prevent dioceses and provinces from ever ordaining gay bishops such as Gene Robinson in the US again.

A new "star chamber" will be set up to adjudicate when provinces are accused of breaking the agreement.

If deemed to have done so, they will in effect be suspended from membership of the Anglican Communion until they come back into line.

In some cases this will mean little more than the withdrawal of invitations to meetings such as the 10-yearly Lambeth Conference and the annual meetings of the primates. But in extreme cases, rebel churches could be denied the right to claim they are "in communion" with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

Each of the 38 Anglican provinces worldwide will be asked to adopt the covenant in a last-ditch attempt to save the Church from schism.

The covenant, similar to a clause in the 1998 UK Human Rights Act, will state: "No ecclesiastical authority shall act in a manner inconsistent with the terms of communion, the bonds of unity, shared by the churches of the Anglican Communion."

If ECUSA and New Westminster refuse to sign this covenant, they will effectively kick themselves out of the Anglican Communion:

Under the proposals, these churches will not be suspended but will effectively suspend themselves if they are unable to sign up to the new covenant.

Robinson will apparently be allowed to remain in place and ECUSA will not be officially kicked out. But that seems to be just about the only crumb the liberals received. Because ECUSA is apparently going to have to give up its fraudulent delegated episcopal pastoral oversight(DEPO) plan and, if it wants to remain officially Anglican, some of its precious real estate:

The Windsor Report is also expected to propose a system of "alternative episcopal oversight" for those conservative evangelical parishes in the US and Canada unable to accept the ordination of Bishop Robinson or same-sex blessings.

The US church will only be disciplined if it refuses to allow parishes to opt for alternative oversight and take their property with them. The "star chamber" will be set up to decide whether a province has breached the covenant. Each province will also have its own committee to make sure it does not breach the bonds of unity.

Will ECUSA agree? I don't see how they possibly can. In its own story, the Washington Post reports the bishops who participated in Robinson's consecration are going to be asked to apologize:

The Episcopal Church leaders who consecrated a gay bishop in New Hampshire last year will be asked to apologize Monday by an international panel appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, church officials said.

Two church officials who have been briefed on the report's contents said it will call for the approximately 50 U.S. bishops who consecrated Bishop V. Gene Robinson to express regret for the crisis they have caused in the Anglican Communion, a 77 million-member family of churches descended from the Church of England.

An idea which drew this response from a church official:

"Some request that the Episcopal Church acknowledge and recognize the deep pain that this has occasioned in other parts of the Anglican Communion . . . is fair enough," a senior U.S. church leader said.

But an apology that suggests Robinson's consecration was theologically wrong "does become highly problematic, because certainly no one who participated in the ordination of Bishop Robinson felt they were doing something contrary to the motions of the Holy Spirit," he said.

Given that last statement, I don't think these 50 bishops will apologize for anything. They've spent the last year telling people that they were right and that the Robinson election was "movement of the Spirit." Admitting that it shouldn't have been done is tantamount to having to say, "Our mistake. Gene Robinson's election wasn't really a movement of the Spirit at all. Never mind."

And this is why I don't think ECUSA can ever agree to these proposals. If they do, they implicitly accept the notion that letting practicing homosexuals be bishops is a bad thing and, by extension, that the "ministry" of Gene Robinson is not valid. The church's homosexual constituency would never stand for it.

Perhaps large numbers of these will publicly, loudly and angrily depart for the MCC, UCC or other liberal Protestant denominations, maybe even joined by Gene Robinson himself, outraged at a church that would treat him in this way. And if ECUSA should agree to this plan, it's not too tough to imagine a good many liberal Episcopal priests and bishops departing for other liberal churches as well.

ECUSA can't think that an official Anglican imprimatur is worth all this. So the early betting line is that ECUSA refuses to sign on and walks away from the Anglican world. This probably won't make the court cases disappear; indeed, if ECUSA does leave, things could get a whole lot nastier. North American conservative Anglicanism still has its work cut out for it.

Posted on 10/16/2004 1:58:03 PM , 13 comments

Submitted by Branford at 10/16/2004 2:50:45 PM

But why couldn't ECUSA agree to everything, apologize for causing pain to the Communion, and once that is done, just continue on as before? Kind of like Frank agreeing with the primates and then coming back and participating in Robinson's consecration. What is in place to discipline ECUSA for any *new* infractions?

Submitted by Mark AC at 10/16/2004 3:10:27 PM

Branford-

Would that be the function of the "star chamber" referred to in this report? It actually isn't clear to me from this report exactly how that body will be structured or how it will work. There is a reference to each province having its own committee; if that means ECUSA will be policing its own compliance, I agree that is bad news. I also wonder how this covenant would operate in a case like that of New Westminster, where a single diocese has gone off the rails.

I'll also be curious to see the precise terms of this new covenant (assuming this report is accurate and this is what's coming). The only thing mentioned here is that the consecration of openly homosexual bishops will be outlawed. Surely there would be more to it than that?

But, chewing over this report to too great a degree is probably a waste of time, as there's no way to know how accurate it is. We would probably be better advised to wait until Monday, when we'll have the real report to consider.

Submitted by Craig. at 10/16/2004 3:17:56 PM

"ECUSA can't think that an official Anglican imprimatur is worth all this."

I'm not so sure about this. The decision won't be made by the hard left or the hard right. Almost a third of the HoB is "middle of the road" and persuadable. Faced with a) losing their Anglican lapel pins, and b) a newly legitimized AAC Network, the pointy hats that didn't show up for VGR's desecration might be willing to sign despite Lutabelle's aligator tears.

Craig.

Submitted by Bill at 10/16/2004 4:14:18 PM

The question is more about how to handle "local option." The ECUSA can maintain an orthodox outward stance and continue down the road of unitarianism and sexual liberation under the covers.

Frank G. can sign on and then come back here and let each bishop do like they want in their own little fiefdoms. He wasn't shy about signing on at the primates meeting and then going as the main consecrator at VGR's shindig two week later. Why should we expect anything different this time around?

Unless there's dicipline at the diocesan level, this changes ALMOST NOTHING of the reality of the Episcopal church.

Submitted by Christopher Johnson at 10/16/2004 4:58:49 PM

I agree that this plan is only good if people are willing to enforce its provisions. And I have no doubt that ECUSA might well be able to spin their way into "compliance" with its terms. But I think this situation might be different since there will be a mechanism in place for reporting any violations ECUSA might be thinking about down the road. If 815 has to face hearings about every controversial decision it makes, it may well decide that its Anglicanism is no longer worth the trouble.

Submitted by obadiahslope at 10/16/2004 5:02:18 PM

As Chris points out, conservative parishes gain the right to leave their bishop and retain their property. This changes everything at the diocesan and parish level.
For the North Americans this provides the opportunity to put flesh on the bones of the orthodox network.
It will take boldness and even court cases to do this. Nothing this good happens without struggles and pain. But conservatives should take great heart.

Submitted by Robert+ at 10/16/2004 6:19:26 PM

Are the courts going to care if ECUSA is a part of the Anglican communion or not? I would assume they will be looking at the wording of the Dennis Canon and care little about anything coming from what they will perceive as a foreign body. The Windsor Report will hold no weight in an American court, so Network parishes are still facing a David-vs-Goliath battle against ECUSA chancellors (who, by the way, are gathering forces in Florida in the coming week). Let's hope and pray that this battle has the same outcome with the same heavenly intervention.

Submitted by A senior ECUSA priest at 10/16/2004 9:09:21 PM

Since some of ECUSA's court cases have been based on the "hierarchical church" theory (not in California, where the parishes have a good chance of winning), the Lambeth-windsor Commission, if it and the Primates rule against the ECUSA will put paid to that argument since it will have established the principle that the Anglican Communion itself is hierarchical.

Submitted by Tim at 10/16/2004 11:13:11 PM

This could be the door through which court cases could be kicked, though. In its constitutional self-definition, ECUSA is "a constituent member of the Anglican Communion." If EUCSA ceases to be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, then there may be a legal door through which orthodox parishes could exit with property, in moving their allegiance to an entity that is to be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion -- be that Network, Nigeria, or wherever.

Submitted by Perry at 10/17/2004 2:52:14 PM

The report is to be posted here, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm on Monday at 12 Noon GMT, 7:00 A.M. Eastern.

Submitted by Edward at 10/17/2004 8:59:17 PM

Unless "the terms of communion, the bonds of unity" are to be spelled out with crystalline clarity, there is nothing to stop ECUSA signing on to preserve their Anglican credentials, carrying on as they are at present, and spinning their actions to pretend compliance. Is Frank Griswold going to be afraid of a Star Chamber chaired by Rowan Williams?

Submitted by Gayle at 10/18/2004 8:49:55 AM

A girl can dream, can't she?

This would be the sweetest thing of all:

"And if ECUSA should agree to this plan, it's not too tough to imagine a good many liberal Episcopal priests and bishops departing for other liberal churches as well."

They need to leave and I know of some perfect places for them in some Methodist and even more Presbyterian churches and perhaps a goodly sprinkling of Lutheran churches as well.

But....when I heard about this "star chamber" business yesterday at church, my first thought was that it was dead on arrival. It gives too much wiggle room for Frank and his crowd to limbo out of being truly disciplined and removed from the Anglican communion. There would only be patched-up, fingers crossed behind their backs repentance and apologies. Enough, I don't want to be in communion in any way with Frank and Gene, and that means if my wishy-washy bishops goes to a HoB meeting and they have communion, I feel tainted.

Submitted by James Manley at 10/18/2004 9:45:14 AM

Looks like this was one of those plastic hammers that squeaks when you use it.

	Fr. J.
	From Bonnie: "Right now the how of coming to the truth is as important as getting to the truth. Right now, the way in which the Anglican Communion goes about the search for the elusive truth is as important as the truth itself." I went to seminary in Berkeley, CA, so I get this. Back in the 60's the cultural revolution, which started in Berkeley, phrased everything in terms of power. In part, this is because a young generation wanted to change everything though it did not have the status, titles, jobs to make those changes. To sidestep people who had such status, titles, etc. there was a shift in emphasis for them from WHO makes a decision to HOW a decision was made. This was expressed in a variety of ways. Remember the old catch phrase, "the medium is the message?" It became all about process. The process bug was all about manipulating those with authority through various processes until you get what you want. Feminists became the experts at process. Every thought and feeling of every person even tangentially involved must be expressed, recorded, reported, validated, affirmed and become part of the "data" upon which a decision is made. "OK now, let's break down in small groups and report back to the big group later. OK, every small group needs to have a facilitator of your process and a recorder/ reporter." etc. Catholic women religious were famous for this processing the process. These nuns became self appointed process cops in every organization they worked in. This spelt misery for every pastor who hired them. The process thing is pretty much over in the CC. The liberal sisters communities are retirement societies now and are irrelevant. The Catechism has abbreviated all conversations on Church teaching. Pelosi just learned that. Liturgy also is no longer endlessly processed except in L.A. But, TEC is the embodiment of the process illness. Masters of process know one single fact that every police investigator knows. If you force someone to talk long enough, you can get them to say what you want You can wear them down, break their resolve, and thereby achieve "concensus." By the 80's most CC parishes had parish TEAMS with weekly TEAM mettings. A Team mtg. is process lingo meaning everyone gets to comment and opine about everyone else's area. This mostly meant that those least competent in their own job would waste the most time opining about everyone else's area. I know a liberal pastor who was a famous master of process. In the first year his Team meetings went from 90 mins/wk to an entire day per week. This was because he never wanted to make a decision without concensus for he wasn't a "clerical priest." By his second year his meetings were back to 90 mins because the Team suddenly realized that he was willing to talk as long as it took to get everyone to see things his way. That is, the Team realized that they were really a staff. Where things were really bad was in parishes/ organizations when the boss wanted to work by concensus but wasn't the local master of concensus. Soon he found himself working 80 hours a week doing everything some part-time temporary receptionist who was a process master thought should be done. For some reason the local process master always seemed to be the one with the least responsibility, the least pay and who was only tangentially involved. There was a YouTube vid by Greg from SF about 2 years ago where Bonnie says angrily into the camera--"The only thing we ever threatened to do was stay!" As a process queen, just by staying, Bonnie wins and it would not even matter what he agenda was, LGBTQ or Mass Murder. So, this is what Ms. Bonnie Know-It-All means by "the HOW" of Truth being as important as "the WHAT" of Truth.
	8/28/2008 6:11:55 AM

	Katherine
	Fr. J., just a small quibble. Covenants before God which were binding were common in medieval times; they underlaid the feudal system. But of course the use of this language in the church, as if people make a deal with God when they are baptized, is new. And the '79 baptismal service, which I don't care for, is misused as you point out. Poor seminary training is undoubtedly a big part of the problem.
	8/28/2008 6:02:38 AM

	The Pilgrim
	Ken "Is it, however, accurate to say that Orthodox do share with Catholics (and Anglo-catholics) a sacramental view of baptism, which is to say that it actually has a saving effect?" Yes. It's in the Nicene Creed: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin". Also, as Mark said, for infants and unbaptised catechumens, chrismation is subsumed into the baptism ceremony, and is not done at a later date. Also, ommunion is administered to the newly baptised at the next liturgy; infants as well as adults. Jurisdictions differ, but in the Antiochean church the baby is not baptized until after being "churched," which happens forty days after birth, unless death is imminent.
	8/28/2008 5:42:40 AM

	Fr. J.
	Wow, lots of questions here tonight. Yes, Catholic converts used to be baptized conditionally. Today there are a few "Christian" churches whose baptisms the CC does not recognize: Mormons, JW's, and some others. These are not conditionally baptized but simply baptized. Conditional baptism is done today only in cases where it is unknown whether one has been baptized before, as with folks whose parents have died and whose church did not keep records--which is a lot of churches! About Baptismal Covenant, it is pretty hokey. For Catholics and Orthodox there is one and only one new covenant in the blood of Christ and it is everlasting as is stated in the Eucharistic prayer's words of institution over the cup. "Cup of my blood, blood of the new and everlasting covenant." It is Calvin who gets us all messed up here. He wrote in his Institutes that a group of baptized Christians can gather and declare a covenant before God that is binding upon them. This is absolutely unknown in Catholic/Orthodox theology. It is how a Calvinistic church is founded. The group that declares covenant becomes the elders or vestry and they select a preacher. The preacher has no sacramental role and even the two ordinances, baptism and communion, are extensions of his role as preacher of the word. There is no sacramental ordination in Calvin. Of course denominations evolved with ordination and there is almost no pure Calvinist church. Anyway, it is Calvin who gives us this very non-Catholic concept of declaring a covenant. You will notice that it is only the evangelicals generally who speak of creating covenants. Even the use of the term covenant for the new Anglican Communion constitution is really improper from a Catholic point of view. I would prefer they use the term constitution or rule or just about anything else but covenant. So, where do baptism and Eucharist fit in? Baptism is the doorway into the covenant for a Christian. One enters into the one covenant of Christ by the dying and rising of baptism. The eternal sign of this covenant is him crucified (hence crucifixes in CC churches). In baptism we die with Christ to rise with him. The Eucharist is the renewal of Christ's covenant for all the baptized present who, being properly disposed through absolution as necessary, receive Him in the Body and the Blood. Note we only see Christ's body and blood in three places: The Cross, the Eucharist and the Circumcision. All three are covenantal. Circucision is the sign of the covenant of Abraham, the Cross is the sign of the new Covenant and the Eucharist is the only way to renew the new covenant--passover sacrifice being the way to renew the old covenant. So, to speak of a Baptismal covenant as something extra that TEC members commit themselves to that other Christians do not just simply makes no sense in Sacramental Theology. I have said again and again that TEC's theological problems begin with poor seminary training. There is not nearly enough systematic theology taught, so little pet ideas get blown up into whole new teachings without anybody to say "wait a minute, that's not right." Or TEC is perhaps just not a Catholic church. The ancient concept of Baptism cannot be added to or subtracted from without making it not baptism. So, either this baptismal covenant is a redundancy or it is alien. If it is a redundancy, then it is meaningless and harmless, though confusing. If it is alien to the Gospel, then it is an initiation into a new religion. I am opting for the first interpretation. While I do think that the Baptismal Covenant is rather ridiculous I do not think it alien. Though, if TEC is another religion, which there are some good arguments for, I would wonder if getting the theology of Baptism screwed up isn't at least in part to blame. Signs of this "new religion" aspect of the Baptismal Covenant are the way people make arguments based on it. Nothing in the Baptismal Covenant text says that all the baptized are absolutely equal and the same before God. Still, the Baptismal Covenant is used as the reason for WO, Gay Ordination, SSB, the House of Deputies and the coveted TEC polity. But, I dont see any of this in the text of the "BC." Look for yourself: Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers? Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord? Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being? I dont really see any justification for using the BC as a basis for any of these new errors. However, if the intention of the minister of baptism is to do something different from what the Church has always intended by baptism, that is, if the intention is to do something really new, then this clearly a false teaching from the point of view of the CC, if I may say so.
	8/28/2008 5:19:57 AM

THE MCJ

DIVORCE PAPERS?