Doing His Duty: Bishop Beckwith and Confirmation

Matt:

I totally agree.  Having been Baptist before becoming Anglican, I spent most of my life under the impression that we had to KNOW Christ before stating we were Christians.

One of the troubling things about the way Confirmation is done in ECUSA - as well as other old mainline denominations - is that it’s nothing more than ‘a 16th birthday celebration’.  You aren’t required to do more than show up. 

It is this, more than politics, which has undermined the Christianity of the church.

So, go Bishop Beckwith!

Matt -

This kind of clarity is exactly what’s needed to guide people through the spin that clouds issues like this. 

This is at the very heart of the discussion and I will share it widely with my friends and those who continue to be misled in our anything-goes Church.  Naughton and Company can’t do the hard thing (the RIGHT thing) and stand up for the Gospel under the onslaught in their diocese and I pray for them. 

Any wonder that the Washington Diocese exists today only on the back of a dead woman’s money ($1.26 million yearly and the budget still can’t balance!) and fails to grow in an area of record growth in the region’s population?

Now here’s the catch—will we wait for people who have never heard (and will never hear) of Stand Firm or other sites to come looking for us to see this clarity? 

Will we keep this an academic exercise of cyber-debate amongst ourselves or will we take this foundational part of the message to our denominational friends person-to-person and help them understand the stakes involved for them and their children if they choose to accept a gnostic gospel?

Matt+

The situation with the Confirmation Class at Edwardsville was so bad that +Beckwith convened a special Clericus on Diocesan policy concerning Confirmation. He now requires at least one session with every class to insure that proper teaching has in fact taken place in the Confirmation classes and that the Candidates in fact do conform to ALL of the Vows of the Baptismal Covenant - if that had been in place in Edwardsville the class would have been Confirmed.

Father Kennedy,

I am wondering how you think the bishop should respond to the request for alernative oversight.

Jim Naughton

FYI, folks—back in the olden days, good Bishop Austin Pardue of Pittsburgh would spend an hour “conducting a class, himself” with each Confirmation Class <b>before<b><b> he confirmed you.  And he didn’t just “quiz” us—he “taught” us!  What a concept!

Pete

P.S.  Sorry for the over-done “bold”—can’t turn it “off!”

Mr. Naughton,

Yes I do. I think our differences are so deep as to be irreconcilable. The best course, IMO, would be an amicable parting of ways. I actually agree with E.Keaton’s+ thoughts along these lines. Thank you for asking.

Fr. Kennedy,

I have tentatively advocated the same course on daily episcopalian, not as an official church flack, but just as someone trying to sort through the issues.

Does anybody know if the person wanting to be confirmed at St. Andrew’s was a practicing lesbian?  I assume this is a relevant point?  Do we know if Bishop Beckwith asked her point blank this question?  Do we know if Bp. Beckwith refuses to confirm people who have knowingly divorced a spouse and married another person, in firm violation of Scripture?

And, the question you didn’t ask RealityCheck,  does anyone think the answer to your questions are any of our business? 

Grannie Gloria

I can answer that, “NO”

RealityCheck:

Did you read the piece… I am sorry for doublechecking, but your question does not flow with the context.

The main point is this:

The bishop wants people to actually know and adhere to the baptismal covenant before being confirmed.

If one does NOT agree to the baptismal convenant THEN one is not confirmed.

To make a comparison: 

All doctors must adhere to a code of ethics before being licensed.

IF one does NOT agree to abide by those ethics, THEN one is not licensed. 

So, if you are not going to try to adhere to the baptismal covenant, you really have no business being confirmed. 

It only makes sense.

Do we live up perfectly?  No, but the point is that we are trying to become conformed to the image of Christ.

Or as Jesus would put it:  “If you love me, keep my commandments”

ok, if I am missing something here, I trust someone will point it out.  Yes, I read the article-a couple of times. Perhaps I missed something?  I don’t see that it says the person was a practicing lesbian. If a person is not practicing,  promises not to, doesn’t this make a difference?  If not, could you say why, <kindly please>.  Thank you from one who wishes to be enlightened and informed.

I do not know and I think some of your questions are beside the point. This goes beyond being a “practicing lesbian”. If the bishop determines that the parishioners are not prepared to be practicing Christians, perhaps because they deny some basic truths of Christian doctrine, then they are not fit for Confirmation. Based on the article cited above, that seems to be the case.

Fr. Kennedy and Mr. Naughton:  I wonder if amicable separation is going to require a grass roots movement from clergy and laity.  It is the one thing that seems to have advocates across the divides, and it IS heartening to hear the diverse folks willing to advocate separation use terms like “amicable” or “with one anothers’ blessing.”
I think that the fruitless meeting of key Bishops in NYC points to the need for “ground up” advocacy of amicable separation.  The PB apparently went to “stakeholders” who militated against the plan on the table, and as a priest for almost 20 years (mainly in L.A.) I can tell you that there are folks who live for convention histrionics and actually need enemies to demonize.  Such people are going to raise arguments against gracious separation.
The blogosphere might be just the place to drive such a movement - there is more (and better) communication between people of differing views here than at convention microphones or manipulative diocesan “workshops.”

Fr. Fountain,

In some ways I have been hoping someone would suggest what you have suggested. In other ways I have been dreading it. I wonder whether we have sufficient maturity and charity to work in the manner you propose. As I am sure you know, the mention of the name Griswold or Chane elicits almost Pavlovain responses in the conservative blogosphere, just as, I hasten to add, the mention of the names Duncan or Akinola elicits a similar sort of response in liberal precincts. Can we put such feelings aside? Can we resist the temptation to score debating points against our ideological adversaries long enough to work on something that may prove to be of mutual benefit? I don’t know. But I’d be willing to find out. Do you have ideas for how we should begin to explore this issue. I can make space for a conversation at daily episcopalian, or, since I was hardly greeted by a chrous of approval when I raised this issue on my own blog, perhaps Fr. Kennedy would want to make space for it here. Fr. Kennedy, what do you think about this?

Mr. Naughton,

Not only would I make space for such a conversation, I’ll set up an entirely new thread for it. Tomorrow morning I’ll write a brief intro paragraph, referencing this exchange, and then open a live thread…thank you for the suggestion. I agree with you on this completely.

It is certainly refreshing to see an Episcopal bishop stand up on a practical level for what the Episcopal Church originally said it believes-and claims it still does. It is to be prayed for that more will follow his example. There has been too much discussion and not enough action already. If the Episcopal bishops had been doing this all along, the Episcopal Church would not be in the mess it is in now to start with.
    The question as to whether some person was a lesbian or not is irrelevant. Read the paragraph again:

If the bishop has good reason to believe that candidates coming out of the church in question are not prepared to conform their lives to the teachings of the apostles and, thus, have not surrendered to the Lordship of Christ or renounced the desires of the flesh, then out of respect for the “dignity of every human being,” not to mention the high calling of his office as protector and defender of the faith, the good bishop cannot confirm these candidates.

How they refuse to conform is not relevant.
    As to Mr. Naughton’s question about alternate oversight, I believe the bishop should let them go-which is a lot more likely to happen than if the shoe was on the other foot, according to all we have seen so far. The command of St. Paul in I Corinthians 5 would seem to apply here. All we can do is pray for this parish that they would have the error of their ways revealed to them by the Holy Spirit-which many of the revisionists claim to have special contact with, anyway.

cannyscot

Fr. Kennedy,

Thanks. How do you think we should start the conversation? Maybe a statement of what each contributor would like to see as a resolution? And maybe some ground rules regarding tone, etc.? I’d really like to give this a go, but I think the conversation needs to take place in a spitball free zone, so to speak.

I do agree with regard to spit-balls. Perhaps you might like to contribute a brief paragraph or so (and I’ll do the same) describing the sort of amicable split you would like to see? If so you can either post it here or email it to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

I’ll lay down ground-rules in the initial post limiting the exchange to constructive comments.

Both of us are in fovor of this idea.  Perhaps a starting point might be what Dallas is proposing but with a much shorter time-frame.  We felt the Dallas approach was too lengthy and seems like punishment (10 years to pay?).  At this point, since both sides are digging in and no middle ground is apparent, if we could just seperate without trying to hurt each other, I think it would work.  Whatever is done, we need to be Christ-like.  To act nasty just isn’t what He would do.  We will be praying for this process and watching intensely.  We want what God wants.

That is we are in “favor” not fovor!  Where’s spellcheck, Matt?

L2: “if we could just seperate without trying to hurt each other…” is a contradiction in terms as well as proscribed by scripture.  We must find a way just to get along, which will somehow lead to wholeness.  There are several grand misconceptions, one of which is that the “revisionistas in charge” defend their turf because it will impoverish the errant reasserters.  Not true.  There are some of those revisionistas, but not many. The “revisionistas in charge” defend their turf because they are charged with a terrific responsibility they refuse to abrogate to a bunch of hotheads. Any true Christian (thanks, we have many) will respond gratefuly to positive, friendly actions which will lead us back to unity of some kind.  First, we must stop the acrimony.  No one worthy of the Name will listen to the acrimony.

Okay, I don’t get it, but then I’m not an Episcopalian, I’m Orthodox . . . .

I looked at the Church’s website, and it says that “coffee is on at 9:00 A.M.”  How do you have coffee at 9:00 A.M. and receive communion at 10:00 A.M?  Don’t you guys fast anymore?

Terebinth:

<i>L2: “if we could just seperate without trying to hurt each other…” is a contradiction in terms as well as proscribed by scripture.  We must find a way just to get along, which will somehow lead to wholeness. </i>

Sorry, but we tried this and it only led to continuing decline and and destruction of our congregation. 

There are times when you put aside differences and work as the body of Christ.  However, this is built upon the idea that we ARE the body of Christ. 

When you have a denomination (e.g. ECUSA) which denies the authority of Scripture and does not believe Jesus is the only way to heaven (e.g. He is the Christ) then, I’m sorry, I have a hard time understanding how they are ‘Christ followers’.  They are denying, not the non-essentials, but the essentials of what it means to be Christian.

    This being understood, then it is ridiculous to suggest that with opposing world views that these two groups just pretend there is no difference and get along.  We can love them, pray for them, encourage them, and speak the truth in love, but for the sake of not being ‘unequally yoked’ we must separate from them. 

This is backed up in Scripture time and time again -

1 Cor 5, for example, when a member of the congregation is sleeping with his mother in law:

3 Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit.* And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man4 in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church.* I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus.5 Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed* and he himself* will be saved on the day the Lord* returns.

Note Paul is not saying - “Just get along, and love him back to the Faith for the sake of Unity” - though, if you remember, two chapters before he speaks of the importance of Unity. 

Neither is the practice of putting up with heresy a great idea in the Old Testament - as we find out time and time again in Judges, Daniel, 1 - 2 Kings - all the prophets - major and minor.

Hanging out with apostacy is also not consistent with Church History

- ask Cramnner, for starters… who was burned at the stake for his role in creating the Anglican Church.  As well as all the saints who died for standing up for their Faith… that list goes on and on and on.

So, in terms of Anglicanism, the practice of unrelenting unity without ever separating because of apostacy fails two of the three-fold test of Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

Now, back to the point: 

Can a group of believers separate graciously without hatred/bitterness and anger?

Yes, they can.  Our congregation left our church to those few who wanted to remain ECUSA and did that in a loving way.  We have been told several times now that it was the most Godly split many had ever seen.  However, that was built (on our part) on a great deal of prayer, determination to do what was right, and respect for our brothers/sisters.  We chose not to take one thing with us and we chose to go to great lengths to make sure people knew that we loved them - it was only the stance of ECUSA that we could not take any longer. 

It was still hard, mind you, and some were determined to see only evil, but it can be done in a Godly way.

Terebinth:

Sorry, but one more - comes from my Bible reading from Titus 3 this morning:

10 If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them.11 For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them.

We are required to love one another, speak the truth in love, and walk in humility - however, none of this supersedes our responsiblity for standing up for the Truth.

Thank you, Fr.Kennedy and Mr. Naughton.  I like the idea of a “spitball free zone.”  We really need to speak constructively to approaches.  I don’t think I’m alone in needing to “fast” from hyperbole or scoring points…that sort of restraint would be good spiritual work for all who participate.  I think that a sincere movement toward gracious separation will be painful but in the right way: participants will come to see ways in which we ignore, savage or otherwise sin against those with whom we cannot agree.  We will see the ways in which sarcasm, “the last word” and cursing have filled our mouths instead of blessing and Good News.  It is time to admit that our divisions have gotten the best of us, and that we need to walk apart without malice.

Yes, but…

What do I do with this giant pile of spitballs?

Ecl.: Those are helpful but I am not one on the fence about whether events and behavior justify a split—clearly they do.  My problem is that the reasserters are clearly not in a position to handle a split.  There are some exceptions (as your church nicely pointed out) but in general there is not enough commonality around to justify calling the reasserter movement a church.  Much of the invective and heat is aimed among reasserters.  There is not yet a domestic leadership group (ACN is a start but does not appear ready for prime time).  Large issues (read WO) not addressed will become explosive.  So the exercize Matt+ proposes is a worthy one and will perhaps become a dress rehersal for future action, we shall see.

Greg, spitballs might make a good mulch (Is 2:2-4).

She’s right!

“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their spitballs into plowshares, and their brickbats into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up spitball against nation, neither shall they learn schism any more.”

Terebinth:

OK.  That’s good to know.  Sorry for the ‘knee-jerk’ reaction but I listened to three years of ‘let’s just wait and see’ or ‘we can’t upset the bishop’ or ‘we need to be a positive force in a diocese which pointedly neglects and minimalizes our congregation’.  All it did was weaken our Faith, destroy our church community, and grind any meaningful ministry to a halt.  In short, it wasn’t a good plan.  If you think about it, it makes perfect sense - how can a ministry work with a corrupt headship?  Just as a household cannot work well if the husband is a poor example for his children.

Re:  ‘Reasserters not up to splitting’

I don’t know if I agree with that.  There is a big difference in what we say in ‘blowing off steam’ and what we actually do.  When we were in the thick of things with the diocese, I would say things to my husband and close friends that certainly wouldn’t pass Christianity 101.  However, I would never say them seriously and never in the situation in which I found myself.  Do not interpret the ‘venting’ people do on this site as the state of their true Spirituality. 

This is what I know:  When we finally realized (shortly after GC 2006) that we were going to have to leave we worked with the ACN to help us get started on the process to build a new church.  They have bent over backwards to help us - and continue to do so.  They have supported our congregation better in 4 months than the entire time we were under our former diocese. 

In addition, we’ve had Anglican brothers and sisters come along side us from sister churches in our surrounding area and help in anyway possible - from providing training for church building, Eucharist (because we do not have a priest yet), even some of the items we use for the altar.  We went from being totally alone in a revisionist diocese to having great support from our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Faith.  So, our experience is that the ACN and the greater Anglican Communion is working well and doing a great job of helping those who choose to leave ECUSA.

I will tell you that the group of people I worship with are very mature Christians.  We are very fortunate to have people seasoned in their Faith and well grounded.  Part of this is because our former priest was such a Godly man and taught us well (the one before the recent one).  So, that made a great difference on how we approached this ‘leaving process’.  The people who eventually left the parish council and then created the group which led us to this place were Godly, gracious, and Faithful believers.

However, I refuse to believe that this is the only church with people like that within it.  As a matter of fact, my experience with Anglicans (the real ones) is that they are a thoughtful people who know their Faith.  So, I think leaving well is a real possibilty for many - not just a few.

Eclipse: your work sounds solid, and worthy.  But please observe: for the reasserter church to prevail or even to last a while, it must attract believers.  That will require defeating some preconceptions.  There is a whole axis of justtified preconceptions—broadcast on sites like SFIF—which are going to be hard to defeat.  So it’s fine to say “Do not interpret the ‘venting’ people do on this site as the state of their true Spirituality…” but what are folks who have experienced the “venting” to think?  How are they to discern the good works from the blather?  All this stuff is out of the tube now.  Frankly I think it is the biggest single problem the conservative church has, and I despair of an antidote.

Terebinth:

Well, that’s a good point.  I do think we need to be careful of what we say - or post in particular.  However, I don’t see much truly mean-spirited stuff on StandFirm - I see more of it from the ‘other side’ .  There are ALWAYS going to be people saying or writing stupid things - no matter what the venue/ no matter what the age.  We need to be careful - but so does any Christian organization…

There’s the counter point as well, which is even when we TRY to be careful, kind, and clear, those who choose to see evil, will.  We’ve got to experience that.  Although we stated time and time again that we loved our brothers and sisters and it was ECUSA and not them we needed to leave, one stood at our last parish meeting and said we were telling people that ‘they were going to hell’  because they weren’t a part of our new church.  That was a flat out lie straight from the pit. 

All I am trying to point out is that we cannot be held hostage by the voices of some or the perception of others.  We are only responsible to behave as Christ-like as we can and do what is right.  I just tell my brothers and sisters here as the gossip/slander continues that we just need to allow God to be our judge.  If we are acting in accordance with His Will, it will soon be apparent.  If we are not, then it will also become apparent.

I would say the same of my Anglican brothers/sisters - if we are acting in a Godly way, then He will vindicate us.  We just need make sure we ARE being Godly.

Ecl: have been away and am sorry for the delay here.  Go up and read through the thread “Sticks, stones, rubber, glue.”  It is what I am sorry to say is typical rapport among believers.  It is not a Godly exchange.  I cite it as example of what ails the orthodox movement most: not the exalted and (seemingly) impenetrable power of revisionists (they have had there day), not the remote and glacial role of GS and Canterbury, not the assets.  The orthodox cannot—given today’s attitudes—hope to recruit a viable movement among TEC’s middle.  The great irony in this is that orthodox know all this, but cannot change behavior.  As I say, I despair.

THREE CHEERS for (another) “Pete”!—for remembering:
—————————————————
“back in the olden days, good Bishop Austin Pardue of Pittsburgh would spend an hour “conducting a class, himself” with each Confirmation Class before he confirmed you.  And he didn’t just “quiz” us—he “taught” us!  What a concept!

Pete
————————————————-
What a concept, indeed!!!  Silly me, since Bishop Pardue did that for/with us, I thought “all” Bishops did that.  Silly me, indeed!

“That” <b>would<b> “eliminate the problem,” wouldn’t it?  And remove the “16th (or 12th, or whatever) birthday” casualness about the event, too, wouldn’t it?

Bishop Pardue, I can tell you, ASKED the questions in capital letters—no “church of anything goes” waffling answers, or questions, with him!  Way to go, Pete!