Episcopal split gets uglier
The excerpts below come from a recent Wall Street Journal article, which (for as long as the link still works) can be found in full here. The Episcopal Church, headed by Presiding Bishop Katherine Schori is pursing an aggressive policy of...well..."persecution" is far too strong a word, but certainly "obstruction" is fair... she is pursing a policy of obstruction of alternative Anglican Churches forming in the United States. Here is what the article says:
When the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church over disagreements about what the Bible says about sexuality, the congregation offered to pay for the building in which it worshiped. In return the Episcopal Church sued to seize the building, then sold it for a fraction of the price to someone who turned it into a mosque.
The congregation is one of hundreds that split or altogether left the Episcopal Church—a member of the Anglican Communion found mostly in the United States—after a decades-long dispute over adherence to scripture erupted with the consecration of a partnered gay bishop in 2003. But negotiating who gets church buildings hasn't been easy. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said she'd rather have these properties become Baptist churches or even saloons than continue as sanctuaries for fellow Anglicans...
In 2009, breakaway Episcopalians in the U.S. and Canada formed the Anglican Church in North America, which now reports 100,000 members in nearly 1,000 congregations. This group has been formally recognized by some Anglican primates outside of the United States.
Bishop Jefferts Schori says this new Anglican group is encroaching on her church's jurisdiction, and she has authorized dozens of lawsuits "to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church." The Episcopal Church has dedicated $22 million to legal actions against departing clergy, congregations and dioceses, according to Allan Haley, a canon lawyer who has represented a diocese in one such case.
Now the Episcopal Church has upped the ante: It has declared that if congregations break away and buy their sanctuaries, they must disaffiliate from any group that professes to be Anglican.
Rather than agree to this demand to disaffiliate from Anglicanism, Pittsburgh's All Saints Episcopal Anglican Church last month walked away from the building it had inhabited since 1928. The congregation called the Episcopal Church's demand "mean-spirited" and an attempt to deny "the freedom of religious affiliation."
I have a deep kinship with the Anglican tradition, and am quick to emphasize the many elements of United Methodist liturgy, doctrine, and polity, and 'church culture' that are direct "hand-me-downs" from Anglicanism. Sometimes people ask me why I haven't become Episcopalian. If I were a layman, perhaps I would consider it - I have had the joy of working with several Episcopal congregations in Louisiana that deeply embody what is best in the Anglican tradition (I was married in one of them), and no doubt I could go about my business as a truly catholic, truly reformed, truly evangelical Christian in one of those fellowships.
Yet as a pastor, I do not believe I could serve and work under and be in some ways dependent upon the current leadership of The Episcopal Church. From an evangelical perspective, one certainly has to wonder at times about the strength of their commitment to Biblical authority or Scriptural holiness. While Scripture calls for chastity and warns against homosexual behavior (1 Cor. 6:9-11), the bishops have taken various steps to promote homosexual relationships, brushing aside the many objections to this. While Scripture calls for Christians to refrain from engaging in lawsuits in worldly courts (in the same chapter actually, 1 Cor. 6:1-8), the leadership of the Episcopal Church - which elected the liberal Schori a few years back, perhaps to send a symbolic message to the rest of the Anglican Communion that Americans are free to do whatever they want - is now (following her lead) setting aside millions of dollars to sue breakaway congregations. She is even attempting to discipline or remove bishops (such as now is happening in South Carolina) who, perhaps preferring faithfulness to Scripture and charity towards fellow believers, fail to sue these breakaway congregations.
In all fairness, the Episcopal Church is disputing the accuracy of the claims in this Wall Street Journal article but certainly these three things are in fact happening: moves toward embracing the homosexual lifestyle, lawsuits breakaway groups, and disciplining bishops who fail to sue other Anglicans.
In refusing to accommodate breakaway congregations that want to join the new Anglican Church in North America, Schori and church leaders claim that it makes no sense to sell to those who are trying to 'put you out of business.' Yet there have been alternative Anglican churches available for disaffected Episcopalians in this country for well over 100 years, so one wonders why the Episcopal Church has apparently moved recently into this more combative posture towards other Anglicans.
Schori says she wants to protect the resources of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church - but why then this waste of millions for a legal offensive against fellow Anglicans (money that could have been used for mission), all the while selling off empty properties to non-Christian groups for lower prices than what the original breakaway congregations are offering to pay (you know, the people who actually paid to build and maintain the building in the first place)? This seems like poor financial stewardship that also comes off as (and maybe simply is) spiteful.
It really is a sad situation for what has been and still is in many places a great church with a rich tradition, indeed the Episcopal Church actually helped me discern my vocation to ordained ministry. Schori's combative posture appears to have nothing at all of self-sacrificial love or "the arouma of Christ" about it, but the reek of something quite different. Another sad aspect to all this is that the moves by the Presiding bishop and members of the leadership will likely further alienate moderate church members and accelerate rather than relieve the problems faced by the church, even while many faithful lay-people, clergy, and bishops in the Episcopal Church (including some friends of mine) are truly working hard to be faithful to the word, commands, and commission of Christ.
When the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church over disagreements about what the Bible says about sexuality, the congregation offered to pay for the building in which it worshiped. In return the Episcopal Church sued to seize the building, then sold it for a fraction of the price to someone who turned it into a mosque.
The congregation is one of hundreds that split or altogether left the Episcopal Church—a member of the Anglican Communion found mostly in the United States—after a decades-long dispute over adherence to scripture erupted with the consecration of a partnered gay bishop in 2003. But negotiating who gets church buildings hasn't been easy. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said she'd rather have these properties become Baptist churches or even saloons than continue as sanctuaries for fellow Anglicans...
In 2009, breakaway Episcopalians in the U.S. and Canada formed the Anglican Church in North America, which now reports 100,000 members in nearly 1,000 congregations. This group has been formally recognized by some Anglican primates outside of the United States.
Bishop Jefferts Schori says this new Anglican group is encroaching on her church's jurisdiction, and she has authorized dozens of lawsuits "to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church." The Episcopal Church has dedicated $22 million to legal actions against departing clergy, congregations and dioceses, according to Allan Haley, a canon lawyer who has represented a diocese in one such case.
Now the Episcopal Church has upped the ante: It has declared that if congregations break away and buy their sanctuaries, they must disaffiliate from any group that professes to be Anglican.
Rather than agree to this demand to disaffiliate from Anglicanism, Pittsburgh's All Saints Episcopal Anglican Church last month walked away from the building it had inhabited since 1928. The congregation called the Episcopal Church's demand "mean-spirited" and an attempt to deny "the freedom of religious affiliation."
I have a deep kinship with the Anglican tradition, and am quick to emphasize the many elements of United Methodist liturgy, doctrine, and polity, and 'church culture' that are direct "hand-me-downs" from Anglicanism. Sometimes people ask me why I haven't become Episcopalian. If I were a layman, perhaps I would consider it - I have had the joy of working with several Episcopal congregations in Louisiana that deeply embody what is best in the Anglican tradition (I was married in one of them), and no doubt I could go about my business as a truly catholic, truly reformed, truly evangelical Christian in one of those fellowships.
Yet as a pastor, I do not believe I could serve and work under and be in some ways dependent upon the current leadership of The Episcopal Church. From an evangelical perspective, one certainly has to wonder at times about the strength of their commitment to Biblical authority or Scriptural holiness. While Scripture calls for chastity and warns against homosexual behavior (1 Cor. 6:9-11), the bishops have taken various steps to promote homosexual relationships, brushing aside the many objections to this. While Scripture calls for Christians to refrain from engaging in lawsuits in worldly courts (in the same chapter actually, 1 Cor. 6:1-8), the leadership of the Episcopal Church - which elected the liberal Schori a few years back, perhaps to send a symbolic message to the rest of the Anglican Communion that Americans are free to do whatever they want - is now (following her lead) setting aside millions of dollars to sue breakaway congregations. She is even attempting to discipline or remove bishops (such as now is happening in South Carolina) who, perhaps preferring faithfulness to Scripture and charity towards fellow believers, fail to sue these breakaway congregations.
In all fairness, the Episcopal Church is disputing the accuracy of the claims in this Wall Street Journal article but certainly these three things are in fact happening: moves toward embracing the homosexual lifestyle, lawsuits breakaway groups, and disciplining bishops who fail to sue other Anglicans.
In refusing to accommodate breakaway congregations that want to join the new Anglican Church in North America, Schori and church leaders claim that it makes no sense to sell to those who are trying to 'put you out of business.' Yet there have been alternative Anglican churches available for disaffected Episcopalians in this country for well over 100 years, so one wonders why the Episcopal Church has apparently moved recently into this more combative posture towards other Anglicans.
Schori says she wants to protect the resources of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church - but why then this waste of millions for a legal offensive against fellow Anglicans (money that could have been used for mission), all the while selling off empty properties to non-Christian groups for lower prices than what the original breakaway congregations are offering to pay (you know, the people who actually paid to build and maintain the building in the first place)? This seems like poor financial stewardship that also comes off as (and maybe simply is) spiteful.
It really is a sad situation for what has been and still is in many places a great church with a rich tradition, indeed the Episcopal Church actually helped me discern my vocation to ordained ministry. Schori's combative posture appears to have nothing at all of self-sacrificial love or "the arouma of Christ" about it, but the reek of something quite different. Another sad aspect to all this is that the moves by the Presiding bishop and members of the leadership will likely further alienate moderate church members and accelerate rather than relieve the problems faced by the church, even while many faithful lay-people, clergy, and bishops in the Episcopal Church (including some friends of mine) are truly working hard to be faithful to the word, commands, and commission of Christ.
Labels: Anglicanism, Christian Unity, Ecumenical stuff
posted by Daniel McLain Hixon at 10/25/2011
5 Comments:
What a great post; thank you for sharing it.
I would become an Episcopalian tomorrow if they would remove that heretic as Archbishop and cease their aggressive pro-gay agenda. Doesn't their decline in numbers show them anything? And I'm not even talking about decline due to departure; they're not even increasing in numbers from the gay community.
Sure, a few here and there have joined the EC. But one would imagine that for all the hoopla the Episcopal church has caused over the aggressive gay agenda in the last decade that more people would be joining her ranks. Actually, the opposite has happened.
This grieves me so. The EC has a rich history in America. We need the historical Episcopal church of America once again.
I should have clarified that by "heretic as Archbishop" I was referring to Schori, not Williams. I just wanted to sooth my conscience by following up. God bless.
These churches should have left when a woman became the leader of their denomination, not just when the denomination "ordained" openly homosexual persons.
It seems like this is how the church has always gotten on - no level in the leadership is immune to having 'tares', and yet the church must have leaders. So when a bad leader gets put in power, we get a bit of chaos... if there are still godly people who will stand up.
Is there no better way?
I can't really think of any system that is not vulnerable to ungodly leadership. If you have a strong episcopal polity (Rome being the prime example) you can thrive, until you get a wicket pope.
If you have a congregational system then it only takes a half dozen determined relatives (or a single crooked pastor) to bring havoc to the whole system.
If you have a conciliar model like the Presbyterian Church or The United Methodist Church, it is still possible that your delegates at any given council or conference may vote to move in a non-Biblical direction.
Many Churches in fact have "mixed systems."
Since you cannot always ensure that every leader is at all times godly and wise. The best defense against compromising the gospel, as far as I can tell, is having a very broad and diverse group of delegates, who do not all come from the same cultural background, but all share a commitment to Christ. Therefore it will be harder to confuse cultural suppositions with the Gospel. We see this in the UMC when many Western leaders want to relax the sexual standards of the Bible yet delegates from Africa and Asia are opposed to it. I believe those Western delegates who want this change have been shaped on this issue more by the culture than by the Bible. That is why it is a wonderful gift to have folks who came from a totally foreign culture also part of the conversation and the voting.
Of course the Anglican Communion is trans-cultural as well, yet each national church has a great deal of autonomy and that is precisely their problem. In the United Methodist Church the decisions of General Conference are binding on the whole world and the bishops must simply enfore and teach them. In the Anglican Communion there is no decision making body that is recognized by everyone to have that same universal jurisdiction. So each national church may do what is right in their own (culturally-influenced) eyes.
Post a Comment
<< Home