Tuesday, July 14, 2009

A Brief Note

Alas, I got back to my room too late to blog coherently last night, and this morning D020 (my resolution on the Covenant) is being considered by Committee 8, so I want/need to be there.

The big news yesterday, of course, is that the House of Bishops concurred (essentially) with D025, and by a surprisingly (IMO) wide margin--something like 2:1. They did amend it, but the amendments are not substantive in either direction, nor are they clarifying, so I don't anticipate it will have any trouble passing the HOD when it comes back.

What does this mean? It's too early to tell, really. It's being spun different ways. You already know my take. In the HOD, the President's chancellor said during debate, "This does not repeal B033." I know of at least one self-identified "conservative" deputy (not from a diocese known for being so) who voted Aye for that reason. In the HOB, there is a reported exchange between the Bishop of Kentucky and the Presiding Bishop to the same effect. I hope reactivity can be kept low. In any case, it's not convention that decides to end a moratorium; it's the Standing Committees and Bishops-with-jurisdiction who decide to do so by giving consent. Let's see the big picture.

15 comments:

Dale Matson said...

Fr. Dan,
"What does this mean? It's too early to tell, really."
Susan Russell knows, Rowan Williams knows and I know. We have clarity and you have denial. TEC has crossed the Rubicon.

Phil said...

Dan - respectfully - this post shows you're in the right place. Enjoy it. Don't waste your time doing any more talks on "Catholic Anglicanism," though.

Joe said...

Father Dan,

I enjoy your posts, but I agree with Dale, and I do because the overwhelming vote for D025 both in all orders represented at convention shows a lack of commitment by this church (if we can still call it that) to respecting the views of the wider Anglican Communion. Anyone who thinks that a majority of the Diocesan Bishops or Standing Committee's in TEC would withhold consent for a gay or lesbian person elected to the episcopate is indeed in denial. The battle for the heart and soul of TEC is lost to the revisionists. My heart aches and I believe that Jesus weeps. Now we orthodox Anglican Christians have to find a way forward so that we can move beyond TEC just as TEC has moved beyond BO33.

God's blessings and peace.

Joe Roberts

Randy Muller said...

You wrote "it's not convention that decides to end a moratorium; it's the Standing Committees and Bishops-with-jurisdiction who decide to do so by giving consent"

Technically that is true, but GC 2009 ending the moratorium gives every Standing Committee and Bishop-with-jurisdiction a place to hide, so they will have no trouble ending the moratorium. Most will not even think there is a moratorium any longer.

Rowan Williams pleaded with them not to pass this, and they did overwhelmingly. I have a feeling things are going to change significantly.

Canon H.W. said...

"Let's see the big picture."

Father Dano, could you write a squib about what that "big picture" looks like to you?

Mousie and Christy's Mommy said...

Dan+.

When you get home from convention I hope that you can explain to me and others why you will continue to be a part of TEC after the passing of D025. If it quacks like a duck and waddles as a duck then it is truly denial to try and call it anything else.
My prayers continue to be with you.

Anonymous said...

Dear Fr. Dan,

You are such a smart man and obviously one who seeks to do the will of The Lord. I just have to ask ... How can you not notice the intent? How can you believe that non- celibate same-sex attracted men and women will not be ordained as bishops within the year? How can you believe that "traditional" bishops will not be driven out if they do not modify their beliefs? Just asking.

Louise

Fr. Christopher Cantrell SSC said...

Dan,

Take a whiff - that is the toast burning. It's done, face up to it.
YBIC,

Christopher+

Anonymous said...

Dale,
It is not helpful to those orthodox Anglicans who remain in TEC to have stones thrown by those who have left. Even though we're in the minority, we have chosen to remain with TEC and to work from within for what we believe. We each have our own reasons. Some of us have discerned through prayer that TEC is where the Holy Spirit is calling us. You have made your decision. Stop looking back. If you don't look forward, you can't see where you're going.

Dale Matson said...

Anonymous,
Fr. Dan has put himself in a public position with comments on his blog. I don't believe it is a matter of throwing stones to question his conclusions and perceptions. If you will note, I am not the only one questioning his conclusions. I'm not looking back, I'm responding to the present. Fr. Dan does not need you to defend him nor do your comments require the royal "we".

Tom Sramek, Jr. said...

It is an odd blending of the Catholic and Protestant that seems to be calling people to leave TEC. On the one hand, there is the Catholic desire to "remain in the true Church" (whatever that means) as if somehow TEC is already out of the Anglican Communion (AC), and the AC is somehow an overarching church, not the communion that it is.

On the Protestant side, there is a huge amount of angst, consternation, and furor over right belief. When has TEC ever mandated that its members, even its clergy, agree with every single thing that General Convention (GC) approves? I stay in TEC because that is where God has called me, the church that has validly ordained me, and in which the sacraments are still faithfully administered. If you want a church with a faith statement beyond the Nicene Creed, TEC isn't it.

Can we be Protestant enough to question anything that comes down to us from on high and Catholic enough to not take our marbles and go somewhere else when we don't like what we are seeing? I hope we can.

Anonymous said...

I am an outsider ... a Roman Catholic. What TEC chooses to believe and to do should not bother or even interest me at all ... except .... the Anglican denomination has been among the first (if not the very first) to accept divorce, abortion, women's ordination etc. ... which has been used to encourage other Christian churches into the acceptance of these beliefs and practice. It has had a devastating impact on so many churches and so many souls. The support of these practices by Christians has been used strategically by the secular world and incorporated more and more into legal systems. I would love to ignore what the Anglican denomination is doing ... but, unfortunately, it is impossible.

Louise

Dale Matson said...

Louise,
I am convicted by what you have said. I have always appreciated the steady course the Roman Catholic Church has provided for us as an example. I repent of those things that you note that have become acceptable in the Anglican Communion. As an Anglo Catholic in ACNA we even allow the ordination of women which may eventually create a serious problem for us. I can see how you would consider Anglicanism a threat to the health of your church.

Anonymous said...

Dale, thank you for your kind response. But I am not worried for my church. For all the faults of RCs (and there are so many, I am sorry to say), clear doctrine based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Magisterium) is the RCC's strength.

My worry is the undermining of the entire Body of Christ ... all of my brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of denomination. Many Christians I know expect increasing limits on our ability to express and to practice our religious faith ... even to the point of active persecution by the secular world in which we live.

Sadly, TEC creates the argument that Christians can accept and even embrace a re-definition of Christian marriage and sexual relationships and practices without violating Christian scripture. This creates confusion and weakens our ability to defend ourselves as a Christian community.

Divorce easily obtained undermined the entire concept of marriage as religious concept (in the RCC ... a sacrament) which lead step by step to a recognition and a celebration of any adult coupling which is not the result of force. There is no concept of chastity ... much less celibacy. How old fashion this sounds ... how archaic ... how unnecessary. But look again and see how important marriage is in understanding the relationship of Jesus to the Body of Christ. It goes beyond a merely human institution that creates a stable society. Chastity and even celibacy play an important role in creating an environment where marriage can thrive. Marraige is no longer a stable institution and look at the result in our society.

I am going on and on, but I think you understand the nature of my concern.

Louise

Dale Matson said...

Louise,
The world has traditionally hated the church but it has until now, respected it. I believe there is a coming persecution and as stated by one writer a coming collapse of Evangelicalism. Holding fast to the truths once delivered to the Saints is the only course of action for the future. Who would defend with their life the Christ that is being portrayed in the revisionist church?
Blessings to the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome.