Third Diocese votes to leave the TEC

[Alex Milner]

Hi Cat,

Thanks for your comments - they are appreciated.

I don't post these sorts of comments lightly, and I would prefer to persuade in the long term - but above all be honest as to how I see it.  I am also posting for the benefit of people who might find themselves in similar situations - it will be very real and personal for them.

I think there is a great deal of naivety and ignorance about - not so much the inner workings of the Diocese (no-one really understands how that works!) - but rather the variety of people within it. Some of the views held by some are very surprising (even shocking).

The experience is not isolated to myself - I remember reading a paper written by a former member of the Archbishop in Council which ran by the title "Dancing with Wolves". And I remember chatting to a prominent liberal anglican who had previous experience in federal politics, who thought that anglican diocesan politics and the pressure around archbishop elections was worse than anything they had seen in federal politics! Surely, if true, this is disgraceful for God's church.

If there is a touch of outrage in my posting about these matters, its because these matters are outrageous and a significant injustice. They persist - or rather I should say persisted during the time I was involved with the Diocese - because they were not brought to light and viewed publicly.

The analysis I offered of MAT's stated aims is an analysis of election (ie political) messages - it is the themes/messages that a political party (which is what MAT is) would like pewsitters to believe and hence be persuaded to vote for particular candidates. It's not a statement of belief.  

Imagine a secular example: a political party campaigns on the slogan "We put families first". The slogan only 'works' as a reason to vote for one party over another if it is a point of difference (ie "other parties don't always put families first").  Similarly, the implication from saying "we are committed to affirming and strengthening diversity" is that other parties "are not so committed to affirming and strengthening diversity". In substance, it's no less derogatory that the (admittedly blunt) summary I provided (which accords with my experience, I should add). The substance is the same.  What about the reverse situation: imagine that a group of orthodox anglicans campaigned on the slogan "We believe in Jesus". Wouldn't the other 'side' feel a bit put out by the implication that they didn't believe in Jesus "quite so much"?

And the situation is worse, when you appreciate that much of liberal anglo-catholicism in Mebourne is very fearful of its decline. These sorts of catchphrases play on that fear.

But by all means, if these implications are unjustified they can be refuted fairly easily. And indeed I'd like them to be refuted and rejected.  

Thankfully, we are unlikely to have another archbishop election for many years to come.

(and we are now hopelessly off topic...)

Kind regards
Alex

[Andrew Bowles]

Hi Alex Ross,

Thankyou for your personal sharing on this forum and exposing yourself to response. Your reflections reminded me of the temptations we face as young Christian men (and it is young men giving each other grief here, generally!), that Paul warns about in 2 Tim 2:22-26:

"Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

If you 'call on the Lord out of a pure heart' then you are my brother, and who cares about labels then? And if in the heat of debate (of quarrel?) we are unkind to each other, then we should genuinely apologise and not try to justify ourselves just because we think we are correct in our thinking. 'If I can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge...but have not love, I am nothing'.

peace,

Andrew

[Jereth]

Alex Milner wrote:

The experience is not isolated to myself - I remember reading a paper written by a former member of the Archbishop in Council which ran by the title "Dancing with Wolves".

Oooh, are you referring to an article published in the September 1999 edition of The Briefing, written by someone who's first name started with "M"?

That's a chilling article. Here's an extract:

In Victoria, it is quite surprising to observe the marked reserve with which clergy, as a matter of course, regard the upper echelon of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne: rare, indeed, are the times they congregate without conversation bordering on the seditious. Yet private convictions--that is, those declared openly and explicitly in safe evangelical circles--are strikingly at odds with views expressed before the wider Anglican public. Indeed, in public, the tone is almost uniformly respectful, deferential, and approving.

...

... the [diocesan] policy presents as a program which respects different traditions. But the new ecclesiology can never be content--can never succeed--with anything short of the annihilation of evangelical claims to doctrinal purity, and with the spread of the notion that the church is not only composed of a variety of authentic and diverse spirititual traditions (no matter how distorting and disdainful of SCripture) but that the whole church should partake and enjoy these benefits--evangelical congregations included.

...

Trailing closely behind the program of catholicisation... has marched a theological liberalism o a most malignant and alarming mould... The doubts about hell and final judgment have blossomed into full blown universalism; ecumenical dialogue has ripened into closer fellowship with non-Christian religious traditions; alternative readings of Scripture have evolved into textual cynicism and the subordination of Scripture to contemporary social theory; the social gospel has been updated to an intolerant and dogmatic political correctness. And what about those youthful equivocations about sexual purity? Among the many 'benefits' in store for Melbourne Anglicans who celebrate and enjoy these 'authentic spiritual traditions' is the broad acceptance of homosexual practice.

The transparent contempt with which leading liberal churchmen held evangelicalism (and which displayed itself in several fiery sessions on the Council) was, in my view, evidence that many had actually grasped the eternally irreconcilkable nature of the two completely antithetical systems. Evangelicalism, it sometimes seemed clear, could never be directly incorporated, tamed or reasoned with; it could only be manipulated for wider liberal ends.

Then again, that was almost 10 years ago. Maybe things are better now Alex?

Jereth

[Alex Milner]

Then again, that was almost 10 years ago. Maybe things are better now Alex?

They are better, I believe. I left Melbourne in September 2006, just after the time the current Archbishop was elected so can't really comment about what it's like now.

Many of the people that I suspect the article is referring to were still involved in the Diocese during my time (and in fact have been heavily involved since the late 80's/early 90's), but the key difference was the appreciation that liberal anglo-catholicism was a bit out of puff and in decline. The triumphalism the article alludes to had given way to despair and fear.

One of the people whose sermons I enjoy reading from time to time is John Davis - the vicar at St Peter's Eastern Hill. I enjoy reading what he says because, although I disagree with him, he is honest and straightforward about some of the problems. There's a frankness that I appreciate.

Just having a look at the articles on the St Peter's website I came across Muriel Porter's comment at her book launch for "The New Puritans". I've extracted a portion below as an example of the kinds of things said publicly:

Certainly those of us outside Sydney, whether we regard ourselves as liberal catholics or moderate Evangelicals or just broad church Anglicans, do bear some culpability for our vulnerability. In general, we have not met the challenges of the post-modern world very well; we have seen our constituency dwindle alarmingly by comparison with the situation in Sydney. And as I have argued in the book, we have been too nice to Sydney. We have struggled to be fair and accommodating, generous and accepting; I believe we have been at best naïve and at worst cowardly in not upholding more strongly the mainstream Anglicanism we cherish. That has been true for forty years and more; the dysfunctional national church constitution adopted in 1961 is the most glaring example of our generosity – and naivety.

But Sydney's blatant success as a rich, well-resourced, single-minded diocese spreading its influence deliberately around the country now threatens us at a newly-dangerous level. It is planting churches in a number of other dioceses, and has now developed legislation to ensure those new colonies are kept firmly linked to Sydney. With the aid of friends, it has ensured that numbers of its theological graduates have been smuggled across the border into this diocese, as one perceptive observer has recently commented to me. Its growing numbers of clergy will ensure an even larger Sydney contingent at future General Synod meetings, making significant change of the kind the rest of us would like – such as women bishops – almost impossible for the foreseeable future. Recent experience has suggested to me that, if anything, I might have underestimated the threat.

[Tim Patrick]

One thing that has surprised me in the Melbourne Diocese is this incredible obsession with Sydney. There's an amazing fixation on what happens in 'that Diocese to the north'. (Interesting aside - Sydney is actually more east than north of Melbourne. How about that?) The thought often seems to be that just about all of the substantive problems in Melbourne have brewed up in Sydney.

Of course this kind of thinking only really serves to turn us away from sober self-assessment and from the hard, honest work of asking what problems we need to address here within our own diocese. As an ex-Sydneysider (though Melbourne trained), I also find it relatively boring... I reckon Sydney's got some great beaches and I like their Chinatown better than ours, but I've really got better things to do with my time than worry about the details of who might have said what in which of their churches. My business is elsewhere: in the Melbourne Diocese!

Shifting into [Moderator] mode. This thread has moved a long way from the OP. If people are interested in keeping the discussions going, maybe a new thread could be started - that at least helps people search the site in the future. Ta.

Tim

[Andrew Stagg]

The question came up in this thread about what do liberal churches believe - I'm not going to answer that, and I'm not making any comments whatsoever about any church in australia however, I am going to post external information about what some of the clergy and bishops in TEC (The Episcopalian Church (US)) are currently promoting. Earlier in this thread a number of people including myself were strongly critised for claiming that TEC was indulging in apostacy.

I do not believe that here in Melbourne many people in are fully aware of the depth of seriousness that TEC has got itself into - as such the strong reserve people have towards anyone claiming that TEC has gone bad, and the strong criticism that Gafcon has experienced - these are both highly understandable. I hope that people can look at the articles below and begin to understand why as a church we so desperately needed a Gafcon and why the proposed new province in North America is a positive and much needed thing.

The following article extracts come from the generally well balanced online paper anglican mainstream
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/11/19/equipping-the-saints-part-iii-tec-leaders-in-their-own-words/
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/11/19/equipping-the-saints-part-iv-the-fruits-of-tecs-theology/

*EDIT* I've since figured out these article are both extracts from an excellent resource entitled"equipping the saints" published just this month by the American Anglican Council. This paper is probably the clearest articulation of what has gone wrong, and what is being done to set things right that I have yet seen. You can find the link to the full pdf editition here;
http://www.americananglican.org/site/lookup.asp?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=4741709

‘‘I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to God except through me.’ The first thing I want you to explore with me is this: I simply refuse to hold the doctrine that there is no access to God except through Jesus. I personally reject the claim that Christianity has the truth and all other religions are in error… I think it is a mistaken view to say Christianity is superior to Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism and that Christ is the only way to God and salvation.”   The Rev. Dr. George F. Regas, Rector Emeritus, All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena, California.

“The story of Jesus’ bodily resurrection is, at best, conjectural; that the resurrection accounts in the four Gospels are contradictory and confusing… the significance of Easter is not that Jesus returned to actual life but that even death itself could not end the power of his presence in the lives of the faithful.”  The Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of Washington, D.C., Easter sermon in 2002

“I would choose to loathe rather than to worship a deity who required the sacrifice of his son.”  The Rt. Rev. John Spong,  retired Bishop of Newark from  Why Christianity Must Change Or Die, 1998

“You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,” she added. “What’s important is to worship together.” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori,  San Diego Union-Tribune, April 5, 2008

“There is no single biblical morality. Few biblical scholars would claim that a monochromatic approach to ethics and human behavior exists in the Holy Scriptures…The Holy Scriptures, written in antiquity, could not and did not foresee many of the ethical questions we face in our age.” A Statement from the Episcopal Diocese of Utah, March 13, 2007

At General Convention 2003, the House of Bishops was unable to pass Resolution B001, which would have reaffirmed “Holy Scripture as the foundation of authority in our Church” and “historic positions adopted by previous General Conventions,” as well as the principle that “no member of this Church shall be forced to practice anything contrary to the clear meaning of Holy Scripture.”

General Convention 2006 refused to consider, much less approve, a resolution (D058) declaring salvation is through Christ alone because, as one Evangelism Committee member noted, the debate would likely be contentious. The Evangelism Committee voted to discharge this resolution, claiming that 1982 Resolution A047 stated the same thing. Attempts to bring the resolution to the floor for a current reading failed.

† Syncretism

Since the early 1990’s, cathedral and parish churches have experimented with Sunday liturgies that delve into paganism. One such service at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City even included praises to “Ra, the Sun god of Egypt” and “Ausar, ruler of Amenta, the realm of our ancestors.” This service was led by the diocesan bishop.

In 2004, the Michigan chapter of Episcopal GLBT "outreach" group Oasis which is supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Michigan, helped sponsor “Together in Faith” which brought together Wiccans, shamans, Muslims, pagans, Hindus, and people of all religions and spiritualities to talk about topics such as “Sex & Spells: Gender and Political Activism in the Witchen Community.” Jim Toy who serves on several diocesan commissions and committees, led one of the workshops.

In 2004, two priests (a married couple) in the Diocese of Pennsylvania were exposed as leaders of a local society of Druids who follow a pre-Christian practice of worshiping the sun and venerating the Earth. The female priest also affirmed a pagan rite to pagan deities called "A Women’s Eucharist—A Celebration of the Divine Feminine,” which was featured on TEC’s Office of Women’s Ministries webpage. The Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison, Bishop of Pennsylvania, referred to the situation as “a small error of judgment that has been very costly to their ministry and their church, and the church at large.”

During a joint Hindu and Episcopal service celebrating an Indian Rite Mass in Los Angeles, Ca. in January 2008, a statement by diocesan Bishop Jon Bruno was read which apologized for centuries-old acts of religious discrimination by Christians, including attempts to convert Hindus. The celebrant, the Rev. Karen MacQueen, an associate priest at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Pomona, said both faiths revere "great figures who embody the divine light, who teach the divine truth." In a later interview, McQueen said, “Perhaps there are enough Christians in the world. What we need to see is more Christians really living like disciples of Jesus and practicing love towards others.”

[Jereth]

Thank you for someone finally getting back to me.

1. Wikipedia says the membership of TEC is 2 million and it has 110 dioceses. So what if 4 arch-conservative dioceses leave?

2. If the "instruments of the Anglican Communion" do not recognize a new province (which they are unlikely to), is it not meaningless anyway?

3. Does it matter how you define cross-border incursions or TEC allegedly breaking its promises? If a commitment was made not to do it, shouldn't that be a commitment in good faith? Otherwise it's just hypocrisy, showing they are no better than those they oppose.

4. "Conservatives" are always going to be "conservatives" and "liberals" are always going to be "liberals". The church is always going to split over things as it has done throughout history. America has hundreds of denominations already. The Anglican church has never all believed the same thing, it has always contained people with very different opinions. Why all the angst, especially about gays -- aren't there more important things for the church to do like poverty and sickness?

[Jereth]

hey what the? Don't tell me it's doing that again. Now it's me being cloned.
grrrr

[Luke Isham]

So this post about TEC statistics from wikipedia is not Jereth?

[Jereth]

Hi Luke,

Hmm I think it must have been one of the anonymous "observors" with whom Andrew & Andrew had been interacting. But what an honour to be used pseudonymously, hehe

I've just checked out those Wikipedia stats on TEC, however, and they are accurate (assuming Wikipedia is accurate of course! Who knows with Wikipedia). My comment would be that "2 million members" might be a bit like Australia having 60% of people nominate on the census as Christians. Who knows if it's a real "attendance" statistic. Anyway numbers don't really matter do they? (cf. Elijah) What matters is if people are faithful -- and if being faithful means leaving a denomination and realigning with orthodox people elsewhere in order to more effectively preach Christ, well good on them.

I'll leave it to Andrew to respond to the rest since he's clearly the expert on the TEC situation.

Jereth
[I write this signature with my own hand, it is the mark of genuineness of all my epistles, it is how I write )

[Andrew Stagg]

These stats come from American Anglican Councils "equipping the saints" 
http://www.americananglican.org/site/lookup.asp?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=4741709
American Anglican Council got them directly from TEC

TEC membership in 2007 was 2.11 million. In 1996 it was 2.37 million - most of the loss occurring from 2002 when numbers entered a steep decline. This rate works out as 381 people leaving every week (I suspect the 1000/week rate I read (in two places) and posted earlier, applies to this year (2008) which has probably yet to be officially published)