Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Something I'd missed

From Anglican Mainstream, December 17:
The issue is over the authority of Scripture which does not condone the practice of homosexuality. Bishop Schori does not uphold orthodox Anglican teaching. She has promoted same-sex blessings in the church. For her, Jesus is not the only way to the Father. Her investiture sermon urged support for the mission of God as the Millennium Development Goals, which can be achieved by a little more human effort. She made no mention of sin, forgiveness or Christ’s atoning work on the cross. There was no prayer of repentance in the Communion Service at her Investiture.

Bishop Schori appears set on a path to push orthodox Anglicans out of the Episcopal Church.
. . .
She wrote to one bishop seeking APO: “You have taken vows to uphold the ‘doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church’. If you now feel that you can no longer do so, the more honorable course would be to renounce your orders in this Church and seek a home elsewhere. ….Our forebears did not build churches or give memorials with the intent that they be removed from the Episcopal Church.” Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia has written to the US equivalents of All Souls Langham Place and HTB to hold vestry members personally liable (for money) if the churches, following his protocols, vote to leave ECUSA in December.

On property Bishop Duncan has said: “For a church that hasn’t changed what it believes or where it stands, and whose people have built the buildings, often with no diocesan involvement, why should they turn that property over to somebody who has no interest in it except the claim of a hierarchical church?”
Via Ruth Gledhill.

Anglican Mainstream cites the essay as by Chris Sugden in Evangelicals Now January 2007. I could not locate it there, however.

While visiting EN I read this article -- Why is this presenting issue Communion-breaking?
Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes, on the C of E and the homosexual issue
-- to be helpful. He breaks it down into five sub-issues only one of which I find compelling:
In issues so important and divisive, no novel view in the history of the Church can or should be pursued without a clear account of the theological reasons being argued first, and the goodwill of the whole communion to pursue the idea being forthcoming.
Martin Luther King might say, though, how long must we have waited? Sometimes you need an extremist for love.

No comments: