Church heads for schism

The Guardian reports Church heads for schism

The 70 million-strong Anglican communion stepped closer to schism last night after the US Episcopal Church rejected an appeal by Anglicanism's worldwide leaders, headed by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, not to proceed with the consecration of the church's first openly gay bishop.

Sitting next to Dr Williams and fellow church leaders at an extraordinary press conference at Church House in London, Frank Griswold, the presiding bishop of the US church, blandly announced that only the second coming was likely to prevent him attending the consecration of Gene Robinson, a gay cleric who lives with his male partner, as diocesan bishop of New Hampshire on November 2.

Minutes earlier a strongly worded statement unanimously agreed by 37 of the 38 primates of the Anglican communion - including Bishop Griswold - had warned that: "If his consecration proceeds we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the communion itself will be put in jeopardy.

"In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of communion with the Episcopal Church.

"This will tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church."

Comments

[Steve B.]

A bit of context is worth noting.

There is an active precedent for bishops whose ministry is not recognized by much of the worldwide communion: Female bishops.

At the every-10-year gathering of bishops from the global Anglican communion in 1998, they were received warmly by most yet not at all by some of their male peers:

At least one bishop has said he will not come to Lambeth because female bishops will be present, and as many as 50 bishops have indicated that they will hold a parallel meeting in symbolic boycott. Some have indicated that they will refuse to participate even in Bible study with female bishops.

In its review of the history of ordaining and consecrating women in the Episcopal Church, ReligiousTolerance.org notes:

Eleven women were illegally ordained at the Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia, PA in 1974. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. did not formally change its canon laws to allow women priests until 1976. But it was not made compulsory on all American bishops. As a result, a "woman might find herself regarded as a priest in some, but not all, of the dioceses of the church - or as a bishop in most, but not all, of the parishes in her own diocese." As of late 1997, four dioceses still resisted: Eau Claire in Wisconsin, Fort Worth in Texas, Quincy in Illinois and San Joaquin in California.

[Rich]

I am afraid that's wishful thinking. I see a much more massive response coming on November 2. Viewing from the outside I see a game of theological chicken being played. I have looked into both driver's eyes and neither is going to turn to the side. The reason why the conservatives will not back down is precisely the context you gave. They blinked last time and they have resolved not to this time. Homosexuality is not the issue for them. Rather, it is the straw that broke the camel's back.

This may end up being a pyrrhic victory for homosexuals in the Anglican Communion. Lambeth '98 established two standards for members and bishops. It is possible that the current actions of ECUSA will establish a single standard, but that standard will be what was established for bishops. That's why the Archbishop of Canterbury who is sympathetic to the plight of homosexuals is begging Presiding Bishop Griswold to back down. But, that ain't going to happen and with it all the language of being loving and forgiving of homosexuals may go out the window.

[*** Dave]

I agree that this debate within ECUSA is a second hammer-blow after the 70s one of female ordination -- which, as is noted, is not yet accepted in all parts of ECUSA (and which the church has not made mandatory, which itself is a subject of some debate). That contentious issue both laid the groundwork for the present one, and probably set up some fissures that may now be fully opened. I agree that some number of conservatives will see the combination of actions as the final straw.

The pyrrhic victory you describe, Rich, is a real danger. By the same token, it's not clear to me that the "further study is needed" language actually represented as much of a widely populated middle ground in the debate as something that both sides could grudgingly agree to and that let the MAFS off the hook for the time being. If there is a broader schism, both in the AC and in ECUSA, I would expect that ECUSA to become more liberal; without the restraint of the conservatives, you will almost certainly see same-sex blessings, if not marriages, at the next General Convention. That could be seen as a "win." The loser may be Christian unity (though that unity is not, itself, the highest goal one can or should have).

[Rich]

I am not a prophet, nor a son of a prophet. So, we will have to wait and see what actually happens. In my mind, this is not a debate between deciveness and deliberation. It is not the decision (or lack of one) being made that is the issue but rather how it is made and how that decision is communicated. What needs to be communicated is that the leadership really cares about all of the people (cf. Ezekiel 34). I hear a deafening silence here (with some small exceptions). It seems to me that both sides are beholden to their respective agendas and the middle is beholden to peace at any cost.

Please pray that I am being way too cynical here. I have a less cynical post here.

[*** Dave]

It seems to me that both sides are beholden to their respective agendas and the middle is beholden to peace at any cost. Please pray that I am being way too cynical here.

Will do.

[Jim Wells]

The current developments in the Episcopal Church are not necessarily as painful and tragic as they are being portrayed. For several decades, the liberals within the denomination have had free reign, and traditional Christians have seen our faith ridiculed and degraded in the name of a militant secular and political orthodoxy. Again and again, we have given in and allowed ourselves to become passive.

Now that time has ended. The schism has already begun, and nothing can stop it. This is an exciting time - not a time for weeping and wailing. For decades, since the heretical antics of another Bishop Robinson forty years ago, the Anglican church has allowed heretics to frolic, and any attempt at discipline or even question them was met with accusations of "legalism". Tolerance has been transformed into a word that includes absolutely everything; even broken and sinful sexual behavior is now paraded as a symbol of righteousness. There is no discussion of healing or redemption - only the sentimentality and tantrums of those who would replace Christian morality with worship of the instinct.

The only question now is: Will the traditionalists keep moving towards the creation of a new denomination, or will we cave in to liberal demands? This is a wonderful opportunity.