Third Diocese votes to leave the TEC

[Andrew Stagg]

The Diocese of Quincy has voted to leave the TEC (the (US) episcopalian church).
This is the third entire diocese that has up and left TEC, amongst other reasons, because of flagrant apostasy and increasingly distressing persecution of orthodox Christians.

Quincy has voted to realign with the southern cone

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9310

[semi-interested observer]

I've heard another Texan diocese is planning to leave this coming weekend, making it 4...

1. Does anyone know what the membership of these 4 dioceses is in proportion to the entire membership of the TEC? (on paper at least)

2. Is there going to be a new North American province of the anglican Church?

3. Is this a contravention of what was agreed at Lambeth? (i.e. no more cross border actions)

4. How does any of this really matter? does anything change?

[Ken]

The way the word 'Apostasy' is bandied around on this forum is distressing, as is the constant assertion we know who 'orthodox Christians' are.
The current difficulties in the Anglican Communion should not be seen in such delight.
Why should we be happy dioceses are leaving the TEC? Since when is disunity better than unity?

Let us not be so quick to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ, and let us not think we know the truth where others do not.

[Ken]

The way the word 'Apostasy' is bandied around on this forum is distressing, as is the constant assertion we know who 'orthodox Christians' are.
The current difficulties in the Anglican Communion should not be seen in such delight.
Why should we be happy dioceses are leaving the TEC? Since when is disunity better than unity?

Let us not be so quick to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ, and let us not think we know the truth where others do not.

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your comments.

APOSTASY--A “falling away”.  A desertion of or a departure from one’s faith.  Apostasy denies the fundamental doctrines concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ.  An apostate is one who, after professing to believe the Gospel, turns away from and refutes his profession.  Apostasy differs from backsliding in that a true Christian may backslide, but an apostate was never born again. http://www.calvarybiblefellowship.com/Glossary.htm

I don't know where the above definition is originally from but it appears to fit the use on this forum.

In the case of any person who claims to be christian but supports practises that are contrary to biblical teaching (greed, or idolatry, or any form of fornication or licentiousness) I would suggest that the title of apostate fits.

I do not meet the standards as outlined in scripture, but I do accept the atoning sacrifice that Christ made.

I was reading Romans 1 (again) today and was reminded that problems will always occur when people worship the creation and not the Creator.

The current difficulties in the Anglican Communion are the fruit of many years of issues. As you say Ken, a proper response may be heartbreak. The difficulty is that we see brothers and sisters being badly hurt.

Reformation History is a very interesting read and full of just as many human failings as our current circumstances!

[Andrew Stagg]

Ken wrote:

The way the word 'Apostasy' is bandied around on this forum is distressing, as is the constant assertion we know who 'orthodox Christians' are.
The current difficulties in the Anglican Communion should not be seen in such delight.
Why should we be happy dioceses are leaving the TEC? Since when is disunity better than unity?

Let us not be so quick to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ, and let us not think we know the truth where others do not.

Hi Ken,

no one is happy about what's happening in North America. I don't think anyone is celebrating it, least of all myself. But there can be no dispute that the leadership of TEC is completely apostate. The evidence is out there for all who wish to look. And it's not like its a minor thing - the apostasy of TEC leadership is breathtakingly staggering in its scale. The size of this problem is generally not well known here in Australia - but there exists heaps of accessible information for people who would like to research more. Sadly that's a very sobering exercise.

Amoungst many wrongs that are going on, the TEC have become a church that
   - denies the nature of Christ as Gods only Son (read John)
   - denies that Christ is the only way for sinful man to be reconciled to God
   - denies that mankind is inherently sinful (read Romans)
   - have been openly promoting practices that the Bible makes it clear are sinful
       and cut us off from God. JI packer calls this practice "sactifying sin".
   - have openly persecuted orthodox pastors and bishops in their own church who have tried to
       remain faithful to all-of-scripture and have tried to remain faithful to its teachings
   - have engaged in a breathtakingly staggering amount of lawsuits aimed at evicting orthodox
       pastors from their churches and aimed at removing churches and assets from
       orthodox parishes.
   - Senior TEC leaders have made a number of public agreements that they would stop doing
       this - all of which have been flagrantly ignored.

Ken, it's great that you feel that we shouldn't judge our brothers and sisters in Christ - would that they were - but we shouldn't be going around deliberately ignoring the un-ignorable. So the question I have for you is how can we ignore what is happening to our real brothers and sisters in Christ who are being persecuted and how can we in good conscience not stand along side them?

1 Corinthians 5 has something relevant to say on this topic.

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[b]
 

Thanks for your comments,

ANDREW

[Jason]

G'day Ken,

I'm prepared to say we do know who the "orthodox Christians" are. The historic creeds of the church that are present in the Book of Common Prayer and various Australian Prayer books are a good place to start, but not the place to end. And it's clear that some people who call themselves "Christian" don't hold the fundamentals of these creeds and all that they imply.

Also, there is sufficient enough warning in Scripture about false teachers and what they teach for Christians to have a fairly comprehensive idea of what should be considered orthodox. Matters of sexuality are clearly significant enough for Christ to warn his churches about it in Revelation. Take this from the letter to Thyatira:

"Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols." (Revelation 2:20)

[Ken]

Hmm, once again you are accusing the TEC of these things, but with what authority?
Would you equally bring charges against African Bishops of an evangelical persuasion who preach hatred and violence and polygamy and homophobia? Or because they are "bible-believing Christians" they cannot be wrong? What about those "orthodox" christians who refuse eucharist from a canonically elected leader of the TEC. Are they apostate as well? And do they not condemn the second and great commandment (love thy neighbour) as being after second and third order issues (like sexuality?).

I am not surprised by the fear and hate and judgement that some on this forum peddle. Love will always win over hate and fear...

[Alex Milner]

Thinking some more about Ken's comment, and not in response to it, I am always curious about the silence of many liberal anglicans about what's been going on the TEC and Canada (and Recife). The issue isn't - as Ken asserts - that people are making quick judgments (no doubt some do); the real issue is that after 5 years of serious misconduct, why is there so little comment condemning such behaviour across the theological 'spectrum' (for want of a better word)?

Where is the outrage that parishes and individual lay vestry members are being sued by TEC? Where is the outrage that calls for restraint are openly defied? Where is the outrage at TEC's legal bills and refusal to mediate? Where is the outrage at Bishop Duncan's 'trial'? (to name but a few)

Part of the reason is probably ignorance. The facts are there to find, but you need to look - they are unlikely to make their way into the sanitised pages of TMA.

But that doesn't explain the lack of response from liberal anglican leadership, who are aware of the facts. Curious.

[Jereth]

Ken wrote:

I am not surprised by the fear and hate and judgement that some on this forum peddle.

Dear Ken,

We are all fallible and prone to erring in our conduct. However I would like to know what you mean by "fate and hear and judgement" that you have observed on this forum.

It may be fair enough that Bible-believing Christians have at times been guilty of judging others. But I have not seen any evidence of hate or fear; to whom are you suggesting that we might be exhibiting hate and fear?

regards,
Jereth

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Hi Ken,

Unfortunately you have hit a few nails squarely on the head.

I shall now sit and watch. I am guessing that you have followed a few postings and seen  

Ken wrote:

fear and hate and judgement that some on this forum peddle.

Unfortunately, at times, some strong opinions are expressed and mercy is not always evident. There are also times where the actions being criticised on this forum are clearly contrary to the teachings of scripture.

Thank you for holding up a mirror just in case I had a plank in my eye that I had not noticed..

I do have concerns about the TEC actions as reported and I have concerns when people who purport to be christians dismiss parts of scripture.

"Love covers a multitude of sins..." if there is repentance and contrition, neither "side" is perfect in this.

[Andrew Stagg]

Ken wrote:

Hmm, once again you are accusing the TEC of these things, but with what authority?
Would you equally bring charges against African Bishops of an evangelical persuasion who preach hatred and violence and polygamy and homophobia?

Ken - if you are referring to the recent articles in the press about this issue - then you should be aware that I've done my research and I'm fully aware that these charges have been openly and comprehensively disproved. Please don't waste my time with claims that have no basis in fact.

Fact being the key word here. One of the problems with the liberal church is Fact. Fact has become a blurry adjustable thing - Fact can be adjusted at will and Fact appear to be constantly shifting. I'm happy to talk to you - but Truth is Truth, for me the ground rules are that we talk about factual events that really happened.

I don't believe you've answered my original question,
how can we ignore what is happening to our real brothers and sisters in Christ who are being persecuted and how can we in good conscience not stand alongside them?
I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

[Jason]

Ken,

You've quoted the second great commandment (of Jesus), but not the first and greatest! And it is: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. It's very convenient to quote the second (love your neighbour as yourself) and make it into the sole Christian principle and doctrine. It simply won't do to subordinate every other matter of Christian doctrine and life to this one principle. The first and greatest is about loving God - loving God is the right and only context within which it is possible to love our neighbour as ourselves. So the question must be asked: What does it mean to love God? If Jesus is to be believed, then loving God involves obedience to God's commands. Hence, issues of sexuality simply cannot be relegated to second or third order issues. Biblical sexuality is a part of Christian discipleship and obedience to, and hence love, of God.

[Alex M]

Hi Ken,

With respect, it would be worth doing some fact checking if you are going to make these sorts of allegations against the African churches. By all means present any evidence you have (you never know, maybe we'll find Phil was responsible for that too after all ;) ).

But even if the allegations (/smear?) were true, it would not change the assessment of the TEC.  It's not a valid argument to say: "You can't say person X is guilty of Y; don't you know that person A is guilty of B".

Your statement: "What about those "orthodox" christians who refuse eucharist from a canonically elected leader of the TEC. Are they apostate as well?" is curious. Are you saying that if someone is "canonically elected" that that person cannot be apostate (or a heretic)? Or even if they were, that it's an unforgiveable denial of Christ to not accept communion administered from that person?

With respect, I find the position curious and don't think it accords with (my patchy) church history. Is that how the church responded to Arius or Marcion?  I remember reading somewhere that Augustine argued that baptisms performed by bishops later found to be heretical (or by clergy who had been ordained by heretical bishops?) were still valid; but you appear to be arguing the converse and much more (ie that a refusal is a denial of Christ). In any case, whatever the vagueries of church history, I am not sure how you could argue your position from Scripture.

Btw welcome to these forums! I realise you've said very little about yourself. Care to share a bit?

Kind regards
Alex

[Quiet Observor]

Good on you Ken!  I imagine there are a few of us who have found this forum and have been quietly watching it slowly transform into a viperous and self-congratulatory bastion for a particular faction of this Diocese.  All posts which don't conform are quickly shot down - and it's not surprising that the subtle bullying has kept many away from the discussions and made many uncomfortable in giving more information about themselves.  That kind of conversation would require a safe and open environment where debate was healthy and respectful - this is clearly not such a place.  

You have indeed held up a mirror - and like the lesson learnt from a familiar fairy tale, I imagine the reflection gave an unwanted answer.  

[Alex Milner]

Hi Quiet Observor,

If making anonymous ad hominum attacks against committed Christians (eg "viperous", "bullying" etc) is the way you want to behave, then by all means take it somewhere else (if you feel you must).

But if you want to engage in thoughtful discussion about the Melbourne church, then please stick around, lose the pseudonym (you really ought to be accountable with what you say), and argue your points of view in a reasoned way.

Kind regards
Alex

[Jason]

C'mon Alex, you're being a bit harsh aren't you? When you can't interact with logical and reasoned (if not, at times, very robust) debate, then what's wrong with a bit of ad hominem?

Quiet Observer, if you mean by "healthy and respectful" debate that, when I think a point is rubbish, I should say, "That's a very interesting and informed perspective, tell me more", then I think what you're asking for is not debate, but passive acceptance of all views. And why should "shooting down" a perspective be such an undesirable quality? If someone's point of view - mine or anyone else's - lacks logic, doesn't accord with Scripture, or is simply an attack on others, then it deserves the treatment it gets. If people get stuck into my ideas, I have a sufficiently intact self-esteem to deal with it.

By the way, what and how would you define "subtle bulllying"? It seems far too inclusive a term to be helpful. I could, for example, label your post "subtle bullying" by calling me, or others, "viperous and self-congratulatory".

Anyway, enough said for now, I'm going to pat myself on the back for this latest post, and then I'm going to get something to eat - probably a live rat which I'll dislocate my jaw to eat so that I can swallow it whole.

[Andrew Stagg]

Hi Quiet Observor,

I do not understand where you are coming from. You claim that "this forum and have been quietly watching it slowly transform into a viperous and self-congratulatory bastion for a particular faction of this Diocese.". Do you claim this because
  A) When people express "opinions" here they are attempting to ground them in scripture?
  B) Because these "opinions" disagree with your own they must be (by definition) completely wrong?

You need to have a good hard look at what you are claiming - there has been no bullying on this forum and people have been made very welcome to contribute their thoughts. Because this is an anglican, evangelical, scripture affirming forum people can expect their thoughts may be weighed against scripture. What's wrong with that??? How on earth do you make the claim that that's a form of "subtle bullying"???

Dear Observor, Observer has an 'e' in it. It's time you learnt to spell your real name, so that (as Alex says) you can be as accountable as the rest of us.

thanks,
ANDREW

[Tim Patrick]

[Moderator's note]

Hi all,

I've been quietly observing this thread and just want to offer a positive encouragement to you all to ensure that your posts are good, healthy examples of Christian communication.

As it says at the top, we encourage critical, yet gracious discussion. That means this is definitely a place for critical interaction - we're not embarrassed about that at all. But it also needs to be kept full of grace. Perhaps an extra measure of grace is useful when talking on line too because of the added potential for ambiguity when using this kind of forum.

My hope is that there's rarely need for moderation on this site. Facts are fine and opinions are welcome too. However, I will pull posts if they get personal or nasty.

Have fun,

Tim

[Alex Milner]

Just thinking through a couple of the posts on this thread, there a couple of questions/hypotheses I'd like to test out:

Firstly, is TEC (an example of extreme liberalism) the logical extension of similar liberal anglican views in Melbourne? Ie if left unrestrained, would liberal anglicanism create another TEC clone in Melbourne (say over 20-30 years)?

Secondly, are liberal anglicans in Melbourne silent about the abuses and misconduct by TEC because they agree (at a substantive level) with TEC's underlying position and views (even if not its methods)?

It would be interesting to hear from the liberal anglican contributors to these forums on these points.