Clarity: The Bishop of Central Florida Writes His Diocese

Ok.  He won’t authorize his clergy to conduct these ceremonies.  Well and good.  but good grief, I never saw such tap dancing around and apologizing for taking such a stand!  I’m glad he’s taken the position he has, but this letter is frankly rather embarrassing.

Amen #1.  He has NOTHING to apologize for.  Standing for the Gospel is an honor, a duty and a blessing.

His “vocation as bishop” does not call him to be enabler of all diocesan parishioners. Being “pastor” to them does not mean “acknowledging” differences exist in the diocese. It means calling those who are living in active, defiant sin, bolstered by heresy, to repent. It also means calling those clergy who teach false doctrine to recant, turn in their collars, or face deliscencing procedures.

That would be truly “pastoral”

I give him credit for writing such a letter in a timely manner. He is relatively new to the position and this could not have been an easy letter to write. Given time, I pray his position will strengthen and not be diminished.

Maybe…. or maybe +Greg is being careful in his writing. He is undercutting any perception that ‘it’s my way or the highway’ and attendant criticism that might be leveled at him while at the same time asserting his responsibilities as a Bishop in the apostolic succession to conserve the faith received and not reconstruct the church as desired. Please note there is a chiastic structure in this ‘epistle’ and at the centre this phrase

I see nothing in the Scriptures or in our Anglican tradition that give me permission to expand or redefine the institution of marriage. The Scriptures and the Book of Common Prayer are clear that God established the bond and covenant of marriage; and it is my responsibility as a bishop to uphold and maintain what God has created.

Persuasive pastorality and irenic episcopality.

I too am glad to be seeing more bishops releasing letters to their parishioners.  Could it have been stronger sure but he is saying, ” Not here” and that’s major.  I wish Bishop Doyle in Texas had waited till after CG to release his paper. Then he might have been able to say “Not Here” like so many others.

Anne, now days a subtitle to pastor in many places is “enabler”

I’m so very tired of all the rationalization. This is an evil thing the convention did. This is, no matter what it’s officially called, a marriage ceremony, complete with vows, lifelong commitment, rings, etc. On top of which it likens the love of the same-sex couple to the love within the Trinity, and to the love of Christ for the church. This ceremony is the most disgusting thing yet to come out of TEC. It’s sacrilegious, blasphemous, and completely out of keeping with Scripture. The twisting and re-interpreation - indeed re-writing - of scripture TEC does is absolutely outrageous. IMHO there’s no way people who subscribe to this crap can be considered “faithful Christians.” I don’t think that Christian charity requires us to call a skunk anything other than a skunk in an effort to be nice and tolerant. I don’t think we should be tolerating homosexual behavior, abortion, or anything else that’s clearly out of keeping with scripture. Of course we shouldn’t be violent toward people we disagree with. No rational person thinks we should be; but we also shouldn’t act like their view is just another way of thinking. I think this letter from +Greg is yet another weasel-y attempt to not upset either side. I had a family doctor (who after he retired from the practice of medicine was a marriage counselor) who once said that when you try to straddle a stream with one foot on either side, the only thing you’ll get is wet *****(use your imagination). Jesus didn’t try to please everyone. Jesus took a stand. Jesus wasn’t afraid to take a stand. Jesus died on the cross.

became a marriage ocund

Have no idea what that last little fragment at the end of my post was supposed to be! If some of the wors ween’t actual words, I’d think my cat had been walking on the keys again!

While the same sex ‘blessing’ has been getting much print time, one thing that actually disturbs me equally but isn’t mentioned and that is ... Anyone can be ordained now and serve in ministry in Tec. There are no moral standards. So as much as the ‘blessing’ is unChristian, Tec will now have leaders that are morally corrupt. So even though, I am no longer in Tec, I worry about my fellow Chistians who are.

Martin, that causes me to wonder about the resolution that a candidate can’t be turned down from a position due to his/her/it’s sexual self-image.

Is it the position of these bishops that they CAN be turned down by a church if they are not straight?

There is a LOT more going on in TEC that demands a response…  Their view of scripture.  Their opinion that Jesus is not THE way…  Their response to the broad range of sexual misbehavior.  Their behavior toward conservatives.

These are all symptoms of a disease, and I don’t think you can cure it by treating the symptoms alone.

Father W-A brings up an interesting side-bar, that Bishop Brewer did not address in his letter the equally unscriptural resolution that impacts hiring for church positions.  I cannot remember if other Bishops have addressed this (+Lawrence did, I think.)

But the fact is, it will need to be addressed.

Yes +Lawrence did- in his usual clear language in the paragraph where he mentions resolutions D002 and D019.

Let me state my concern clearly. To embrace an understanding of our human condition in which gender may be entirely self-defined, self-chosen is to abandon all such norms, condemning ourselves, our children and grandchildren, as well as future generations to sheer sexual anarchy. So long as I am bishop of this diocese I will not abandon its people to such darkness.

#10. Good point. Alas,  I doubt many liberals truly want the only remedy that would correct this *disease*.  They need it no doubt.

As mealy-mouthed as this may sound, I’d prefer it to my own diocese (CT), where apparently: 

“The triennial General Convention of The Episcopal Church ended, and the big news is that the bishops and deputies agreed on a plan that they believe will restructure The Episcopal Church (or at least lead that effort).”

The headline making mess has been swept under the CT rug….

This man obviously feels caught between two strong principles, each of which has a strong demand on his allegiance. 

Its painful sitting on the fence. 

At least he has come out and said he won’t permit SSBs, although it was obviously an effort.  And his only comment on the rest of GC is that it was “wonderful” and a “blessing”.  ACNA might soon have enough new people for another congregation in Central Florida….

“I recognize that there are faithful Christians in this Diocese and beyond who deeply disagree with me and with my decision.”

This is the rub for me.  Marriage is not a second order issue.  Maybe this is the root of the problem between Anglo Catholics and some modern “Evangelicals”- for us it is sacramental, non negotiable, for them, apparently, something you can be on either side of and remain “faithful” to Christ and the Gospel.

The bishop is saying, “I won’t allow it in this diocese for the time being, but you can do it in other dioceses, and that is ok, you are still a faithful follower of Christ.”  So, it is just a matter of opinion?

Clarity? More like weasel words. Clarity would be:

Ok, guys, the hierarchy will be coming for you if you differ from their revisionism. It will be ugly. These people will not fight fair and certainly won’t fight Christian. This organization has committed itself to a path that will end in continued rapid contraction and ultimate demise. You can stay with me and fight the coming onslaught but blessings if you go. As Christians we are not promised victory in this world.

Here is my favorite sentence in +Brewer’s letter:

While I expect our diocesan clergy to follow my directives, my affection for them will be no less for their disagreeing with my position on this matter.

IMVHO,  The sentence and the previous one to which TJ referred are simply stating his position- quite emphatically towards the diocesan clergy- that his position is not one that will be universally liked or welcomed in even in his diocese but he will continue to recognize those who hold those views as fellow Christians.  You may consider those weasel words but really I think he is recognizing that those who do support gay marriage consider themselves “faithful Christians”.  Bishop Lawrence did not mention that he expects all diocesan clergy to obey his directive and not perform such rites. I give Bishop Brewer much credit for stating that so clearly and unequivocally.  Only time will tell.

#17, Robroy, While I appreciate the clarity of your statement, such a statement in a letter to any diocese would surely be used against the bishop as a part of Title IV charge. 

With this letter, it is clear to me that the diocese of Central Florida is lost. The letter pretty much states, “We’ll agree to disagree.” That is not the role of a bishop.

the first statement from the Diocese concerning the approval of the SSB rite, on July 12, described it as: “a step back from the clear teachings of Holy Scripture…”

A STEP BACK???

I am not ready to say the Diocese of Central Florida is lost.  Just don’t believe it.

I am not saying it will be any time soon. The current one is a Rodney King, “Why can’t we all get along?” type. The next bishop will be a revisionist. It’s not like we haven’t seen this numerous times before.

The deputation from Dio CF has put out a much stronger statement than that of their bishop.  See: http://www.cfdiocese.org/article/2012/07/12/statement-deputation-diocese-central-florida

This is the sort of stuff I would expect from a diocese that once chose +Howe as their leader.  Its a pity that their current bishop does not appear to be showing the same character or fortitude, so far.

Note their very specific statement at the end:

“We stand behind our Bishop, The Rt. Rev. Gregory Orrin Brewer, in his endorsement of the minority report known as the Indianapolis Statement.”