Bumped [Georgia] Fear & Loathing From Bishop Benhase—Don’t Hang Out With ACNA Folks, Clergy

It’s only a matter of time before the good Bishop mandates that his clergy not visit certain (ahem) schismatic websites, either.  Perhaps with mandatory firewalls. 

Seriously, though.  Is he banning even mere attendance?  He first says:

Episcopal clergy of the Diocese of Georgia may not participate in any service held in or by these congregations except with written permission from the Bishop.

He then adds:

attendance at a wedding or funeral held in such congregation, for reasons of previous pastoral or personal relationship, is an exception to this more general statement and requires no such permission.

Since attendance at a wedding is considered an exception to participation, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that attendance is a subset of participation.  In effect, this seems to say “Thou shalt not set foot in one of these churches.”

carl

Must be tough to live in fear.  Aren’t we ALL supposed to be spreading the Gospel?  Isn’t the goal supposed to be to lead non-believers to Christ?  Or is it to undermine other churches to grow our own (was that in Acts - I must have missed it…sorry)?

Puh-lease….

Gee, if some heretical priest stepped into a non-TEC facility would there be flashes of lightning and rolls of thunder?

I think the position taken by the Georgia handbook is an error. If we are ever to heal this division in American Anglicanism we have to begin with friendly relationships. And the Lund Principle requires all Christians to as much as we can together.

The Clergy Handbook is issued with a radar/homing device so that the bishop knows where the clergy are at all times. 

It’s funny how they’re so threatened by it all—can’t handle treating ACNA as any other ecumenical entity, huh?!

This is conistent with the policy that you can sell your property to Muslims but not to other Anglicans. As a former member/chancellor/deputy of this diocese in exile in DSC, I am very disapponted but not surprised.

I wonder if there is a conservative clergy member in Georgia willing to take a stand for Christian unity and participate in a service at an ACNA church?

Hmm…..is the good bishop now going to excommunicate every Diocese of Georgia Episcopalian…..including clergy…..for daring to even speak to one of us?  Are they going to be summarily punished for violating his episcopal fiat…..his dictum?

Would it be okay to attend an event at a mosque or to speak at one?

Would it be okay to participate in ecumenical worship services if ACNA clergy were participating?

Would they be allowed to go to a Braves game if an ACNA clergy gave the pre-game prayer?

The first thing out of the mouths of liberals when talking about the ACNA is that, “they’re not real Anglicans!” Is Benhase admitting that they are, in fact, real Anglicans?

”...is the good bishop now going to excommunicate every Diocese of Georgia Episcopalian…..including clergy…..for daring to even speak to one of us?”

No, but you will have to go to his office and get your “ACNA shot…” (circle circle dot dot…) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooties

Wow. Just wow. Yet another sign of a room-temperature IQ from DioGA.

ACNA has a minimal foothold in that diocese because Bp. Louttit never allowed the homosexual activist agenda to be openly discussed or acted on. There are no uncloseted practicing homosexual clergy in the diocese, and if SSBs are being done, they are being done very privately. Ole Rafe hears lots of rumors…I haven’t heard of any SSBs in DioGA.

Like a lot of entities these days, that diocese isn’t particularly financially stable, and churches have reported attendance drop-offs at least in part due to the shenanigans of other diocesan bishops and the General Convention.

Informed people in the diocese are aware of the personal beliefs of the current bishop, and there’s of course some concern that he might try to push that agenda through the next diocesan conventions. I wonder how many diocesan clergy are actually aware of the clergy manual.

If the homosexual agenda goes through, the diocese would certainly be fair game for ACNA and the other splinter groups. Also, the diocese shares substantial border space with the orthodox DioSC. It would blow to bits, and this bishop might find it challenging to make financial ends meet (not to mention spiritual needs). Furthermore, there are plenty of faithful Episcopalians (lay and ordained) in that diocese who could, and would, make his tenure as bishop a foretaste of eternity in hell.

From a political and pastoral standpoint, he’s much better off being welcoming and affirming of ACNA.

This should be interesting to watch.

Once again, the illiberality of the liberal is exposed.

In 2005 I attended the Elliot House of Studies at St. John’s Church in Savannah —a great time of study and reflection that included the Daily Offices (out of the 1928 BCP!).  Since worship according to the Book of Common Prayer is inherently participatory, I guess an overly-literal reading of this wrong-headed policy means I can’t go back!

This is so wrong-headed.  I agree w/ Fr. Rightmyer, that we need to maintain open, friendly relationships, and not pursue a scorched-earth policy.  Even my own liberal, revisionist TEC bishop urges “no boundaries,” and maintains a friendly, open-hearted attitude towards those who have left the diocese for ACNA.

Another thought: He’s actually forbiding his clergy from going somewhere to preach the Gospel.  That’s pretty messed up!

What happened to all of that “not marginalizing”, “generous pastoral response” and “radical welcome” stuff?  Guess it’s only for TEC’s anointed few. (And becoming fewer…)

As for ACNA being not being Anglican, those of you with a Facebook account should take a look at this picture.

Diocesan Convention did in fact affirm the Windsor Report and a survey indicated that over 70% were opposed to GLBT ordinations. My guess is that 90% will remain unaware of the diocesan policy discussed here. Why should this not apply to lay persons?

Shun the orthodox!  Shhhhhhuunnnnn!

Finally.  It is about time.  I was starting to worry that I would never get to be the Other®.

“In her sermon, Jefferts Schori asked, “What makes us so afraid of the other?”

“There’s something in our ancient genetic memory that ratchets up our state of arousal when we meet a stranger—it’s a survival mechanism that has kept our species alive for millennia by being wary about strangers,” she said. “But there’s also a piece of our makeup that we talk about in more theological terms—the part that leaps to judgment about that person’s sins. It’s connected to knowing our own sinfulness, and our tendency toward competition—well, she must be a worse sinner than I am—thank God!”

Are the Buddapalians, Durapalians, or Wiccapalains TEC splinter groups or core? Inquiring minds want to know.

@ PB (#18),

Why should this not apply to lay persons?

If TEC had been able to modify the disciplinary canons (Title IV) to apply to lay persons, as was proposed prior to GC 2009, then there possibly would have been consequences for laypersons who “hung out” with non-TEC Anglicans.  Punishments might include not being able to hold any elected office in a TEC congregation, etc.  Somebody woke up to the reality that lay people can just simply leave if you try to hit them with the Canons, so that part of the Title IV revisions never made it to General Convention.

But you can be sure that clergy who are under this policy in Georgia and other dioceses (notice the credit given at the end of the Georgia handbook to other dioceses from which this material was borrowed) will do everything they can to discourage their members from having anything to do with those people.

Wow, this rates right up there with a good ol’ fashioned Amish Shunnin’.

It won’t be the first time the Episcopal Church has persecuted clergy for participating in the services of other churches. In the nineteenth century the High Church party went after Evangelical clergy who attended the services of evangelical churches as well as those who participated in such services. At least one clergyman was tried and deposed. Bishop George David Cummins who sought to build better relations with the evangelical churches was strongly criticized for his attendance of their services. Cummins resigned and formed the Reformed Episcopal Church, which is now a part of the Anglican Church in North America. History has a way of repeating itself as folks do not learn from the lessons of history.

In the Diocese of British Columbia (ACoC) the bishop recently defrocked the Rev. Dr. Alistair Petrie simply for one incidence of preaching at an Anglican Network of Canada church. Alistair has been involved in an itinerant ministry for some years teaching at various churches and denominations for years. It seemed that anything but ANiC is the rule!

Is the Diocese of Georgia now ruled by episcopal fiat?  It sure looks like it is!

Subscribe

Is geography actually where a bishop derives his/her authority?  I think not.

Will he now “depose” Rowan for hanging around ++Duncan this week?
Intercessor

was starting to worry that I would never get to be the Other®.

Around here, ACNA folk are known as “Those People”.

I’m sure I must have too much wax im my ears.

Are you say’in the TEC of GA leadership, who welcome everyone with open arms due to their incredible tolerance of all views, are say’in that the TEC clergy better not be caught associating with them Orthodox folk?

I am stunned; SHOCKED I say!

Is geography actually where a bishop derives his/her authority?  I think not.

Why yes, from Mother Gay-a, and her priestess, the oceanographer.

“Though you may choose to notify the Bishop, attendance at a wedding or funeral held in such congregation, for reasons of previous pastoral or personal relationship, is an exception to this more general statement and requires no such permission.”

Please note that the ONLY exception is attendance at a funeral or wedding for “reasons of a previous pastoral or personal relationship.”

In the context of this paragraph, the word “previous” is obviously intended to mean a relationship developed prior to the person becoming a member of the ACNA. Otherwise there is no reason to insert the word in the sentence.

So, to summarize: If you develop a personal relationship with a member of the ACNA, you cannot attend their funeral or wedding, even as a spectator, sitting in the back row, without your collar. 

Absurd.

I wish Episcopal Priests in the Diocese would openly disobey this absurd regulation. But I suspect disobedience will be limited to those who are already planning to leave the denomination.

Around here, ACNA folk are known as “Those People”.

Around here, ACNA folk are know as “that guy TJ” by the 30 odd remaining Piskies.

Of which there are no doubt more than a few, I think it’s now safe to say.

If I’m a TECer is it ok to attend a Wiccan service?

[36] I thought attending three Wiccan services a year is a requirement for active membership in TEC.  (So long as you dress appropriately.)

If I’m a TECer is it ok to attend a Wiccan service?

So long as the celebrant is a TEC or ELCA cleric, or a wiccan priest or priestess in full communion with TEC, I don’t see that there would be any impediment.

If +Arkansas (TEC) issues a letter like this, we can diagnose his problem as AR-ACNA-PHOBIA.

Not to usurp our friend Br’er Rabbit, I vote a trip to the Laffin’ Place for Tim Fountain - he’s a real pundamentalist.

I wonder if the Bishop saw the photo of Archbishop Duncan celebrating the eucharist with Archbishop Orombi and Archbishop Rowan Williams?  I suppose that couldn’t happen in the Diocese of Georgia.

Let’s say a TEC Priest in Georgia is unfortunate enough to have a son who meets a girl in college who happens to be ACNA member. Sparks fly and they decide to get married next March.

As I read this, the TEC Priest could not co-officiate with an ACNA Priest at the wedding, as is often the case with ministers of other denominations. Nor could he even attend the wedding, unless he got special permission from the Bishop.

This could be fun to watch.

Sarah wrote:

How does ACNA or any other Continuing Anglican entity “undermine the geographical authority of the bishop” any more than the Roman Catholics do? What a preposterously silly assertion—the only way it could be true is if Benhase is nervous that ACNA might someday subsume TEC. Even I don’t think that will happen. All he does with that assertion is reveal his anxiety and insecurity and spite.

I suspect that his real concern is with the orthodox “stayers” within TEC. As others have noted, +Benhase is mirroring provisions from other TEC dioceses. There seem to be still a lot of orthodox (or at least strong pockets of them) within TEC and these will derive strength and encouragement from contact with other Anglicans (ACNA and continuum).

It is these orthodox within TEC who are the greatest immediate danger to the apostate leadership of TEC. (ACNA is also a danger to them, but they don’t see it yet, they think they have solved that problem by driving the ACNA-ites out and suing them for their property). But in the short to medium term, the orthodox within TEC frighten the liberals. They want to cut them off from any spiritual fellowship, intimidate them and drive them out.

The leadership of TEC is not set in stone, and I trust that one day KJS and her fellow-liberals will be thrown out.

wonder if the Bishop saw the photo of Archbishop Duncan celebrating the eucharist with Archbishop Orombi and Archbishop Rowan Williams?  I suppose that couldn’t happen in the Diocese of Georgia.

No doubt the bishop of Georgia will soon depose the Archbishop of Canterbury for attending a Eucharist with “border crossers” and giving communion to the likes of +Martin Minns and +John Guernsey.  (It would, actually, be amusing to know who took communion from who.  Which line, for instance, did the TEC observers get in?  Did they attend the Eucharist?)
  It’s not like ++Rowan is not already in trouble with TEC.  I understand he is barred for life from ever donning a mitre in the US, unless, of course, he does so within the borders of an ACNA diocese, where it appears, from the pictures with ++Duncan, he would be more warmly welcomed.

Now THAT’S waging reconciliation.

I wonder what the definition of “participate” is?  Does that mean walk in the door, sit in the pew, pray, sing the hymns, receive the Sacrament, receive the laying on of hands for healing if that is offered, or does it mean going one step further and actually taking a role in the service, i.e., vest, process, preach, celebrate, function liturgically?  As written, it could certainly imply all of the above.

Oh, and I’m also curious to know if this is an exclusive list of “no go” areas, or are there other lepers out there that TECies are expected to shun like the believers in ACNA parishes?

No. 42.

Let’s say a TEC Priest in Georgia is unfortunate enough to have a son who meets a girl in college who happens to be ACNA member. Sparks fly and they decide to get married next March.

As I read this, the TEC Priest could not co-officiate with an ACNA Priest at the wedding, as is often the case with ministers of other denominations. Nor could he even attend the wedding, unless he got special permission from the Bishop.

This could be fun to watch.

It could get better! What if TEC priest’s son falls for ACNA priest’s daughter?  What if single TEC priest falls for ACNA priest’s daughter?  Or vise versa?

That would be what you’d call a real Capulet/Montague situation, and we all know how THAT ended up!

Classic narcissism.

I can’t help but chuckle at all this posturing.  Frankly, i think Bishop Benhase is doing EXACTLY the right thing. 

Three or four trips for one of these newby Priests who were taught at some of our most Liberal Seminaries to a church like All Saints Anglican, to hear a sermon which unapologetically preaches the gospel, hard words and all, would probably find the poor Priest SLAIN by the spirit and then where would Benhase be?

He’d better keep them away from the Orthodox.  Or he WILL lose them and have a revolution on his hands.

KTF!...mrb

“You agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws.” 

The preceding responses to Bp. Benhase’s directives are disturbing and saddening, but not nearly so much so as the directives themselves.  He is not threatening Episcopalians away from Anglicanism so much as driving them away from the Church altogether.  Hopefully our older members will seek refuge from all this bitterness and misdirection in other protestant if not Anglican denominations.

The GLBT issue is the ongoing banner in the attack against Anglicans, whose very Gospel instruction is to open our doors to ALL Christian believers.  What would Christ have us do?  Certainly not to absolve consciences by setting aside the scriptures in order to compensate “maligned” victims;  by elevating them to highest orders.  How long will it take before these “consciences” come to recognize the destruction they’ve already done to the Church universal?  How can we best express our appreciation for God’s love?

RE: ““You agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws.”“

Hi Adrift—I’m not certain why you mentioned that, but on the off-chance that you have some issues with the comments on this thread, feel free to send one of the bloggers a private email using the Private Message system pointing out which ones you object to.  Of course, comments about the comments being objectionable are off-topic on any SF thread—that ends up getting the thread away from the topic of the post.

Thanks for reading and for commenting!

Sarah

Sarah,

Your observation that Bishop B doesn’t want the orthodox remaining in the diocese to have contact with us “splinters” is surely correct. The bishop is probably stationing watchers outside of St John’s right now, ready to tail Father Gavin should he stray too close to a church by Johnson Square. Of course, there is always phone contact - wonder how he’ll monitor that?

First, there was 815.

Then, there were The Others. 

Then there was the emissions that Shori referred to a while back (Smoke Monster, anyone??). 

..Eldritch!

Collaborative online ministry is one way of bringing people together outside of the boundaries of their parishes and dioceses.  We may need to leverage these possibilities to reach out to TEC folks.

One of the African bishops has said they need to send missionaries to Western provinces.  It’s unlikely that these will be welcome within TEC parishes.  One way we can reach such people is via online prayer and in online gatherings.  These of course aren’t the same as “real life” meetings nor any true substitute, but I have known cases of people who are in revisionist churches who find that they get more spiritual nourishment from their online Bible study groups than their parishes and other parish-affiliated groups.

Adrift, you last paragraph hits dead center. Our new churches will live or die based on how we answer your last sentence.  We must recast the focus and debate. 

We need a fresh start.

Obviously he is aware that it is going on therefore the directive to cease and desist.  Is that considered “controlling?” 
I really feel sorry for this guy.  He is in way over his head, every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it.  So he gets ugly to compensate for his many shortcomings.  I think Sarah did a fine job archiving this point with the links in the article.  I give this diocese around 10 years of viability, maybe less with the current trajectory of leadership or lack thereof.

MichaelA., before leaving the Episcopal Church when
I at long last saw my way clear to join the Catholic Church (I no longer feel the need to constantly say “Roman,“although it’s perfectly correct) and even for quite some time after that, I would have tended to agree with you that KJS and company would eventually be replaced with leaders who would be more Christian or simply more sensible and less bizarre in their approach. And by the way, for the Episcopal Church to publicly and
clearly “repent and return to the faith”(seems like an eternity since that was being discussed) is the only way I could ever take seriously those who rant about the
“horrors of Catholicism” and seriously consider returning to the Episcopal Church.
  I’d certainly like to see these false prophets be
called to account for their wickedness.  But someone
on Stand Firm has already pointed out to me how unlikely such a scenario is.  Who is left in the Episcopal Church
to insist on the needed return to the faith?  Those few
orthodox members who remain are scared to death to say a word.  Or, like some of my own relatives, they fool
themselves into thinking, “This doesn’t affect us,” as
long as their own parishes seem unaffected, while
their church crumbles around them.
  No, I am in no way sorry about the step I’ve taken
in my faith journey.  But perhaps the reason I keep
returning to this website is that I feel hurt and
betrayed beyond belief by what has happened to my
beloved Episcopal Church!

Benhase’s edicts are Exhibit “A” proving that TEO has downgraded itself into a cult and is no longer a denomination.  Cults like to restrict interaction with “outsiders”.

In re-reading this article and these comments from 2010, I believe I must say that I think Ralph’s (#12) assessment of Bishop Henry Louttit’s episcopate is overly generous.  While it may be true that he “never allowed the homosexual activist agenda to be openly discussed or acted on,” he also never allowed his ordinands to attend a conservative seminary, and he never did anything to promote a vigorous orthodoxy in the Diocese.  The result was an effete, lukewarm, establishment, TEC Diocese that leaned more toward Atlanta than South Carolina.  The result was to produce a Diocese of clergy who write statements like this one when Christ Church, Savannah, left the Diocese to join the Church of Uganda.  And the result was a Diocese that elected Scott Benhase next time around.

Every diocese that has a liberal bishop now began began its journey down the slippery slope with a lukewarm bishop who valued the TEC establishment more than biblical truth.

[30] & [34]

With regards to the term ... “Those People”... General Lee wants his phrase back.

DGA had “dialogues” on the gay issue. The ground rules were that no one could quote scripture and folks who came out of a gay life style could not be heard. I was not sure what was left and did not attend