Are You My Mother?

Thank you Fr. Rosberry. I appreciate your list. I am one who is a born, raised, and educated “congregational” evangelical, who several years ago found myself on Robert Webber’s “Canterbury Trail.” Around a year and a half-ago after a lot of prayer, study and research, I took the plunge into Anglicanism via the Anglican Mission in America. I made the choice of AMiA for a number of specific reasons, and find myself at home there, and am now in the ordination process.
But at the broader level, the list you have written out is why I became Anglican. I am hoping and praying that God will allow for a new Anglican structure in North America that is a place of “Mere Christianity,” commited to evangelical mission, under the authority of Scripture, and a part of the evangelical, catholic and orthodox Church.
It is a tenous time to become Anglican. I have to admit that I am completely foreign to the Episcopal Church and all of its struggles seem baffling to me at times. But I do believe that this the start of a new reformation and not the end of Anglicanism. I desire to be part of this process and work to carry on the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ.

How lovely to hear about your renewed sense of enduring pilgrimage and call.  Funny thing is, I can put progressive believer in almost all of the places you have the evangelical or other tags and pretty much agree with the rest of the sentence.  How interesting, still, that kinship with the Pope and the Baptists still intentionally excludes progressive believers.  Especially those in TEC.  Oh well.  We are still here, right with you, on the same planet, actually.  I have no need to persuade you to change your witness, except when in passing it bears accidental or intentionally misleading false witness about me, or even (sadly) about our world in which the Risen Lord is so at work.  Even correcting details is minor compared with the larger pilgrimage and call to Tikkun.  I like being in interfaith fellowship with the local Buddhists and with the Reform and Conservative strands of modern USA Judaism. Not to mention all the varieties of Anglican believers. Wecome to the pilgrimage club. As if you were not already, always, a full member of it in good standing by virtue of your baptism.

While there is much to admire in Fr. Roseberry’s piece, two things come to mind.
First, against 2000 years of clear Scriptural interpretation, he has divorced and remarried—as a priest of the church. How can he “benefit” from this violation of Scriptural norms (even those endorsed by Jesus, himself) while punishing others for violations not endorsed by Jesus?
Second, those who know Scripture, know that Abraham was a consummate liar. While one can admire his faith which allowed him to strike out as God’s pilgrim, one should be wary about his lifelong habit of lack of faith, evidenced by his lying whenever he needed to extricate himself from a jam.  Fr. David has skated more than close to that in his mischaracterizations of the continuing Episcopal Church.
Don’t get me wrong: I wish Fr. Roseberry and his congregation now tied to a foreign diocese well. I worry, though, about his self-serving use of Scripture and tradition: better to be honest about it and wrestle with the ambiguity which he is not willing to accord others.

Nice try fr. Woodward but no cigar

The difference between VGR and DR is that DR is obviously repentant of his divorce. Here is his quote from an ENS article in 2003:

“Roseberry acknowledged his own divorce 20 years ago as the act of “a broken person, ignorant of the Bible’s important teaching for my life. … That’s the whole point of the last three months, really—that any person living outside God’s best can change his heart and start anew.”(Roseberry, ordained in 1983, remarried the same year.).

If VGR would have the same attitude with regard to his behavior, our current troubles would not have arisen, or at least they would not be as tumultous as they are.

Sure, Tom, I know you would never be self-serving in your use of Scripture, even as you deny the bodily Resurrection and the Virgin Birth.  Heavens, no.

I wonder, since only “violations endorsed by Jesus” carry weight with you: have you ripped the entire Old Testament, all of the NT epistles and the narrative portions of the Gospel from your Bible?  You sure preach like it.

Matt,
By Fr. Roseberry’s repentance do you mean that he has “put away” his second wife? Has he done the necessary legal work to restore his first marriage?

I would hope not, because in this matter as with faithful gay relationships, the church has seen deeper into the ways of God than evident in previous moral strictures. The same, of course, is true with the status of women, minorities, slave owning, participation in war and on and on.
While +VGR undoubtedly has things about which he has repented, living in a faithful, loving relationship that has the approval of his peers is not one of them. As a man who has lived out in his life so many of the Beatitudes, there is no question that he has been declared blessed by our Saviour.
I don’t know DR+ personally, but I trust that God has brought healing and strength into his life through his own trials.
As a Biblical scholar, Matt, how do you square Jesus’ words of blessing to the crowds (as distinguished from the group of his followers/disciples) at the beginning of Matthew 5 with your belief that there is no access to the Father except through faith in Jesus Christ? Throughout the Gospels, Jesus speaks of acceptance and access to the Father as he talks to the undifferentiated crowds, but word of discipleship to the smaller crowd. He does not exclude the crowd from the kingdom, but in many places affirms their place in the loving destiny of God’s love.

Fr. Woodward, it’s a good thing Matt+ responded before I did.  I’ve had it with people who throw this at Fr. David.  He long ago repented.  And his faithfulness to his second wife demonstrates that repentance.  And, yes, he is an excellent godly leader like cheap shot artists never will be.

Phil,
  Sorry, friend, I have never denied the reality of the Virgin Birth or the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have taught them for over 40 years as an ordained priest of the church, have written about my beliefs in a variety of church publications and books of my own, published by an arm of our church.
  Why this need to attribute a lack of belief to someone who differs from you in some matters? The Episcopal Church has always allowed for dialogue within boundaries. Are you saying that you have a kind of Gnostic, secret understanding that allows you to define who is in and who is out? My assumption is that you charge me and others with unbelief because you don’t want to wrestle with what we are saying—if I’m wrong, let me know, but without the “You don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture the way I do” stuff.

Tom,
Before you dig too deep, you might want to read this.
As to the issue of divorce, there is no doubt that it is a sin and the church has much to answer for allowing it to become a matter of dime store drive through quickies - just like sex.  But we as Christians have even more to answer for - we allowed the leadership to let it happen.  May I ask where was your voice when the church decided to give it a free pass?  Just so I have this straight, you are saying that Scripture does not provide for repentence from divorce? 

Fr. Woodward,

I personally think remarriage is not possible for believers, but as an evangelical, I also recognise some ambiguity with regard to this question. In 1 Cor 7 Paul indicates that the believer who is abandoned by his or her unbelieving spouse is “not bound”. What does that mean. Does that mean simply that he or she is free to divorce in accordance with Jesus’ words in Matthew or does it mean that he or she is free to take another spouse? As I said, personally I think that this forbids remarriage, but since there is some doubt about this scripturally speaking, I will not let it be a dividing issue.

Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is always and everywhere condemned throughout the scriptures and I pray that VGR will repent of his sins and be restored. He is not being helped by a church that facilitates his sin. In fact, Jesus spoke of milstones in this regard.

As for Matt 5, yes indeed, the fact that the human race continued after the fall is an amazing act of undeserved divine blessing and grace. God blesses the world abundantly and his general grace, won by the blood of Christ at the center of history, is, will be, and has been shed on all from the beginning to the end.

Which makes it all the more terrible that even though all these blessings have been given and even though what may be known about God, his nature and his law, has been made plain to us by nature and by revelation because God has made it plain to us, yet even so all live in open rebellion against the gracious Creator. For that reason we are all guilty and deserving not only of death, but of damnation.

But thanks be to God that he has come himself in the Person of his Son Jesus Christ, to provide for the salvation of all who trust in him .

Jesus calls everyone. All anyone has to do, as Jesus says over and over again, is repent  and come to him . Salvation is both free and extremely costly

Rev. Woodward, really, I’m the one that’s sorry - that you have.  On this site:

I understand how those on the “orthodox” side are doing both—demanding a litmus test for choosing the correct understandings of “the Virgin Mary,” [note scare quotes]
…
I do not believe it is a matter of core doctrine that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus—that His birth was at the divine initiative is important, but the history of the phrase, coming from a questionable interpretation of Isaiah, particularly its function at the time it was inserted into the creed indicate that it is the divine initiative that is important, not the nuts and bolts of it. We get to differ about the nuts and bolts . . .

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1079/#10017

Woodward does not believe in the Virgin Birth (even though he has affirmed belief in both doctrines, they are not the way we have litmus tested them—who cares what it means, only that the biological miracle happened, despite serious concerns of many of the NT scholars we put in opposition to Woodward)

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/has_the_episcopal_church_really_been_falsely_accused_part_ii/#10220

I am also aware that I am probably being somewhat reckless in insisting on the Biblical accounts of the resurrection and on Paul’s teaching about the same over against a popular notion of a literal, physical resurrection.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/has_the_episcopal_church_really_been_falsely_accused_part_ii/#10233

Michael B+ . . . From which Gospel do you get a “literal physical resurrection?” There are several theologies or experiences of the resurrection in the Gospels. I don’t believe any of them are reflected in your statement.

[Michael B+’s comment was this: “I and my parishioners have always understood the virgin birth and the literal physical resurrection of Jesus as being essential to Christian faith- part of the core doctrine, if you will.”]

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/has_the_episcopal_church_really_been_falsely_accused_part_1/#10091

Phil, thanks for holding on to my piece about doctrine, which distinguishes the importance of the doctrine. I believe in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, which is required by most as part of an orthodox belief as a Christian. If you read what I wrote carefully you will see that. You and I and others can disagree about the genetics and biology involved, but not about the truth of the doctrine.
Matt, I appreciate your conciliatory tone in your response. I have no doubt but that DR is a very fine priest, just as +VRG is a very fine bishop. It sounds to me like God has blessed their ministries, though in different ways. I hope we can rejoice in that. DR is not required to leave his marriage because it is clearly against received Scripture—and Gene is not required to leave his partner. God is working good things through both of their ministries.
Blessings for Christmastide—and after,
Tom

Father Woodward, you have been busted. There is nothing I could add to the above.

Except this. Father Roseberry’s open and honest repentence of his role in his divorce and his amendment of life, demonstrates both God’s renewing power and the forgiveness and compassion that exists within the reasserting community.

Tom,
You cannot equate DHR divorce, repentence and remarriage with VGR divorce, non-repentence, SSU and non-repentence.  As my grandpappy use to say, “That dog won’t hunt.”

I have sought and received forgiveness for my sins of adultery, theft, bearing false witness amongst others. In each case I pledged to refrain from commiting those sins ever again. I ask ++VGR to to the same thing. When he does he will no longer be the single greatest source of division in the whole of the Anglican communion. If he does not seek foregiveness of the sins that the Gospel clearly delineates he is not qualified to be a Bishop in our denomination, although he may be free to serve another religion.

I apologize that I did not add the most important issue. If ++VGR does not seek forgiveness he is still welcome as a member of my parish and welcome to share the grace and forgivness of our loving God. He just may need to further instruction before he can again be a leader in the church.

those who know scripture, know that Abraham was a consummate liar. While one can admire his faith which allowed him to strike out as God’s pilgrim, one should be wary about his lifelong habit of lack of faith, evidenced by his lying whenever he needed to extricate himself from a jam.

Tom,
Consummate liar is not a term I would apply to Abraham - nor lifelong habit of lack of faith.  Let’s see, Genesis 15:6 says “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”  I could not find anywhere where it said he was without sin.  He failed to trust God twice as it related to Sarah as his wife.  He also took Hagar at Sarai’s request.  Could you fill us in on where the consummate liar comes in?  David was considered a man after God’s own heart - but we know what he did.  We also know he repented.  I have always been taught that repentence makes the sin as far from one as the east is from the west.  Fr. Roseberry has repented.  Could you lead us to a link where Gene Robinson has repented?

Repentance is a daily part of Bishop Robinson’s life. He does not have to post it on the internet, just as David Roseberry does not. The fruit of the repentance of both men is evident in their ministries. Paul tells us the source of such blessings.
Hank, Gene Robinson was fully qualified to be elected as bishop in the Church of God (that is how he and others are consecrated).
  Abraham as a liar? Read through the stories in Genesis.
Hank, I very much admire your generosity of spirit—and, I believe, your knowledge of how things are to work in the church regarding communion, etc.. We all need to have the wider vision of Christ in discerning the fullness of his Body—which always larger and wider than any of us, on our own, would allow.
  Jackie, you are aware of David Roseberry’s repentance and the fruits of that repentance in his life—though he has not repented of remarriage. I am well aware of Gene Robinson’s repentance and the fruits of that repentance in his life—though he has not repented of his partnered state. Both have violated Scriptural mandates, at least as understood by most on SFIF: thousands have witnessed the continuing presence of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in their ministries. I do not like many of DR’s statements and beliefs: you don’t like many of VGR’s. Both are committed to the building up of Christ’s kingdom. What a world, huh?

All right, let’s reign it in. Fr. Woodward, I we will have to take this to another thread or venue. This has been an interesting little exercise, but the fact is this is a very very good article. From now on the discussion on this thread will focus on the article as written. Any further mention of off-topic matters will be deleted. Fr. Roseberry put a lot of thought and soul-searching into this particular article and it has been quite helpful to me personally. Please stay on topic from now on.

Thank you, Matthew. I began my comments with praise for this article by Fr. Roseberry. Most if not all of it would serve well for a dialogue within the church. Maybe we could get the WWF to sponsor an event with Stand Firm in Faith and The Episcopal Majority?!

Dear David:

I hope soon you will be able to present this to a unified Anglican Communion in America.  I think your ponderings will be useful and helpful for all of us who want to ‘leaving what is behind - press on towards the mark’ and become the people God has called us to be.  Let’s hope in the next year you can be included in an American Branch of the Anglican Communion Conference.

Fr. Woodward:

As a Biblical scholar, Matt, how do you square Jesus’ words of blessing to the crowds (as distinguished from the group of his followers/disciples) at the beginning of Matthew 5 with your belief that there is no access to the Father except through faith in Jesus Christ?

Are you serious?  I just taught 120 kids John 14:6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.  One doesn’t need to go to seminary to figure that out…

I really like Fr Woodward’s charity ‘But….but I started off my comment with praise (Whine)’.  OK enough of that, sorry Fr Matt.

I really liked the fourth point of the piece.  I think leadership is the missing link in so much of the problems in the Church today. The rub, can you find a pastoral leader?  That would be extremely rare.  I really think the seminaries need to teach leadership and business to their students.  The church would benefit greatly.

Dear David+
Thank you for a most enlightening presentation.  I cannot imagine the pain and distress involved in yours and CCP actions.  My heart goes out to you and your family and all the parishioners who were led by the Holy Spirit to take such drastic action.  I know I speak for many when I assure you all “you are in my prayers”.  Peace and love and continued grace to you all this Christmas.

Charles

As a Biblical scholar, Matt, how do you square Jesus’ words of blessing to the crowds (as distinguished from the group of his followers/disciples) at the beginning of Matthew 5 with your belief that there is no access to the Father except through faith in Jesus Christ?

What?  The text is clear that Jesus sees the crowd, goes up the hill, and then teaches his disciples when they come to him.  He reveals to them the challenging, upside down values of the kingdom - and tells us that we will find blessing IF we live out the challenging demands.  Even IF he had addressed the crowd, he would not have been blessing them as they were, but challenging them to repent of worldly ways.
Likewise, Jesus spoke of his parables as wonderful insight for his disciples but God-inflicted confusion for those who would not believe in him (Matthew 13:12-14).

Hmmm…my comment above responded to something in this thread but was not exactly on the main topic - my apologies and here’s my connection to what Fr. Roseberry is talking about:
I want to be in the evangelizing, hope-of-glory Christian church that Fr. Roseberry envisions.  The TEC Jesus revealed in the misapplication of the Sermon on the Mount is just an inspired man - maybe with some ideas and qualities to venerate, but not of a different status than other religious figures.  The fact that TEC still offers hymns and prayers to this lesser Jesus is idolatry. TEC Jesus is not worthy of worship if he’s just another guy who says all people are good, God blesses all just as they are, etc.  TEC Jesus is just a projection of a particular type of person, a Freudian illusion, a wierd expression of narcissism.
As in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, I want to know Christ…but I have not already attained the goal in its fullness.  Jesus is not a projection of me or my politics (and certainly not of my sex life!).  Fr. Roseberry acclaims a Jesus who wants us to bust out of our own cultural, religious and other boundaries to find the path that leads to life.  This Jesus, the Word who became flesh and is revealed in Scripture, is worthy of worship and discipleship.

I pray that Father Roseberry will always have an Advent heart.  That he will alway wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior.  That he will always follow wherever Christ leads him.    Thank God for such godly men.

Fr. Tom says:

DR is a very fine priest, just as +VRG is a very fine bishop. It sounds to me like God has blessed their ministries, though in different ways.

Yes, I notice that Fr. Roseberry’s ministry is growing, whereas the Diocese of New Hampshire continues in its membership decline.

Yes, God has blessed their ministries in different ways!
“You will know them by their fruits.”

Dear Allen Lewis,
  Gee, and I wasn’t aware of the different demographics in Plano and New Hampshire. What I see on SFIF is an inability to recognize anything good in anyone’s position than your own. The house of cards will fall down if Gene Robinson succeeds or a David Roseberry is discovered to be living in a state forbidden by Scripture.
  Gene Robinson’s career has been blessed with success for decades. You will know them by their fruits.  That, of course, is the argument of the progressives—we see gay people in their relationships showing all the marks of the Spirit written about by Paul in Galatians 5. It seems that if anyone from SFIF were to acknowledge that reality there would be chaos in the organization. Too bad.

How many times did VGR run for bishop before New Hampshire elected him Fr. Tom?

I don’t think he “ran” for bishop anywhere, including New Hampshire. He was nominated and in the final three or four people considered in Rochester and at least one other diocese before being elected in New Hampshire. I do not think he had a campaign in any of the dioceses in which he was nominated—at GC 2003 he said quite openly that if it were not the will of General Convention to consent to his consecration, he would live with that. He is a very gracious man.

Dear Tom,
You just don’t get it.
Whatever that means.
But I’ll take a stab at it.
I’m sure there would be joy in Mudville if Otis Charles’ relationship with his significant other broke up.  Some people would take that as a sign of God’s Kingdom advancing, or perhaps God’s righteous hand in bringing to demise that which should never have existed.  I’m sure there would be a brass band at the Heathsville train station if word came of Bp Minns’ somehow demise. Some people would take that as a sign of God’s Kingdom advancing, or perhaps God’s righteous hand in bringing to demise that which should never have existed.  But you and I know those are simply misplaced human emotions of self-vindication.
Success or failure on human terms in this way is not the point, is it?

We know that it rains on the just and the unjust alike.  And that Jesus recognized it was possible to be filthy rich and not be in possession of such a life that would be granted an entrance into the land of light and joy.
Those human arguments advance nothing in that regard.

Once again, it is simply, Tom,  the argument of what God wants or doesn’t want, whether it makes us feel good about ourselves or not.
Forget the over-sensitive semantics, or the exaggerated and overbearing put-downs.
Get back to what God says and argue from there.  That’s where it starts, that’s where it ends.  That’s a pretty flexible statement, I’m sure you’d agree.  So I’m sure you can find a place on that continuum for you to testify.

Sorry, but my last paragraph should have started with these sentences:
“The testimony of Abraham is the same, and this is what Fr. David has been dealing with since June.  And how do we know the testimony of Abraham, Tom?  THIS is the nature of the issue.”

For the sake of clarity about recent history:

Gene was on the announced slate in two dioceses before he was elected in New Hampshire.

He placed a respectable third in the Diocese of Newark in 1998—John Croneberger won after Jack McKelvey graciously withdrew to prevent a deadlocked election.

Then Gene placed a very close second to Jack McKelvey in the Diocese of Rochester in 1999.

Timothy Fountain:  Amen - you hit the nail on the head.  I’ve thought a great deal about that.  The difference between the branch grafted into the vine and the one cut off - the cut off branch stays green for a little while and looks fine… but eventually withers.  You ask me, this is precisely what’s going on w/ ECUSA.  They looked OK after 2003 - but now are withering away.

I think I’ll stay with the True Vine.

ECUSA’s like the Titanic… she’s taking on water and is beginning to split… time to get off ‘God’s Unsinkable Ship’ and on to a lifeboat out there - for those who stay on will eventually die of cold-induced stupor.  Fr. David chose to jump into a lifeboat - thanks be to God.

Tom:

RE: “He is a very gracious man”

I’ll give you that, +VGR is very personable, however nowhere in Scripture is that a leading quality, it is in TEC, in fact I’m convinced it was the ONLY quality they check for clergy is how “nice” they are as a person. In another thread I hinted at some of my own pain from a bad situation in equalizing myself before a rebuke, sad part is that the other parties are “nice” people, in a personality contest they’d win hands down over me, it still does not make their sin acceptable. Niether does +VGR’s niceness makes his sin acceptable.

Sad part if we look at our history, most Reformers (especially Luther) did not have the qualities that TEC looks for in clergy, in fact most might fail the personality screening. I firmly believe we should look a little deeper than just “Niceness” and use more Biblical standards for leadership.

Dear Hosea 6,
  I do not appreciate being taken out of context. I did not refer to VGR as “nice.” I wrote that he and his ministry have reflected consistently the marks of the Holy Spirit as recorded by St. Paul in Galatians 5. I realize that does not fit with your preconceptions of the man—but consider that your preconceptions are wrong.
  Check out “gracious” (the word I used in describing VGR you have transformed into “nice”): that is a word used throughout Scripture to describe God. So, TEC is recruiting God-like people for the ordained ministry? and you don’t like it? 
  Taking things out of context, as you did, is careless and thoughtless—it is like someone assuming that your screen name refers to Hosea 6:8 only.

Fr. Woodward:

Sure you want to qualify G. Robinson’s ministry using Galatians 5?

“So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

This is totally off topic, but my take on Gene Robinson is this:  If he were truly a shepherd, then he would lay down his life for the sheep.  He would also be as Christ who gave himself for the church.  In Robinson’s case that would mean putting down his own desires (being a bishop) for that of the sake of the unity of the church.  In his willingness to do continue to be a bishop when he was asked NOT to destroy the unity of God’s people he not only violated the first of that list on 19, but also discord, selfish ambition, dissension and factions.  If I remember my Biblical studies - the list goes up in spiritual weight as one goes along.  To err on the physical level is not as bad as erring on the level where you destroy the churches’ witness and Faith. 

You might want to rethink that one.

None of this, however, has one WHIT to do with Fr. David’s journey of Faith - if you want to discuss G. Robinson, it should probably be on a different thread.

Tom:

My apologies if I offended you. Your word “gracious” can be synonymous with nice in some context, obviously not what you wanted thus your reply. The word “nice” is actually the word I’ve heard several who opposed his acceptance at CG03 based on Biblical grounds use of meeting the actual man. Didn’t change there prespective, nor does it change the gist of my post. It’s in line with other “reasserter” on this thread, getting to what are the actual qualifications of either DR+ or +VGR, I read as the thrust of the conversation.

However, my post was received as “careless and thoughtless” which was not my point just to upset you, I’m sorry I used your words as a lunching point to my ideas.

Tom:
Part 2 - per Free in Christ (Gal 5), I agree, but the same man also said he was a bond servant to Christ. I am free, but I am not free for sin, I am set free of the bondage of sin for use by the Lord. God loves us so much that He did set up boundries to protect us from our fallen nature.

First, thanks for the note, Hosea 6 and for your gentle spirit.

Second, Eclipse. I don’t think the game of “Gotcha” has much of a place on a theological site. You know very well I was referring to Galatians 5:22ff..  You not so effectively sidestepped what most of the people even in The Network know about Gene Robinson and his ministry—that his ministry has drawn all kinds of people to Jesus Christ and that his ministry has been without blemish.
  You said that if he were a real shepherd he would have set aside any thoughts of the episcopacy for the sake of the church: I can tell you he prayed about that, consulted with people on all sides of the issue about that with absolute integrity—and on the basis of all that, allowed his consecration to go forward.  One could use this same argument against John David Schofield, Jack Iker and Bob Duncan—their episcopates have brought untold pain to many, many faithful Episcopalians and have torn this communion apart. I know John-David and Bob well—and know that much good has come from their ministries, but they have contributed to much that has torn the heart of God.

Well lookie here, Wormwood Woodward is back. How’s Screwtape?
Odd.
What, no threats to hijack our property? Trust funds? Pensions?  Hmm. Could be an imposter.
Really now, is anyone else really getting tired of messing with this obelisk of Olympian obfustication? You have as much chance of making him a Christian as oh uh Missus Schori. Lot of wasted energy here. Again.
And that is the point. As long as he can misdirect and misinform so skillfully, time spent in countering his sophistries is time lost in evangelizing to those where there is a genuine chance of conversion.
Pray for his parishoners.
Pray for him and Mr. Robinson, Mrs. Schori, et al. Prayer works. Talking to these people doesn’t.
Quit wasting the Lord’s time arguing with stone statues with iron hearts.

I don’t know if I have ever heard a more arrogant statement than “Quit wasting the Lord’s time arguing with stone statues and iron hearts.”  Especially when the beseecher appears to me to be a stone statue with an iron heart.

Teddy Mak,
You are welcome to comment on the content of the articles or the content/context of other commenters statements but you MAY NOT make personal attacks.  If that is your desire, please post elsewhere.  This is your final warning.

commentatrix:
For 40 years I have personally, and in the company of other believing Episcopalians, been at the receiving end of the most scurrilous, calculated and untrue personal assaults from reappraising ideologues, priests, bishops, college professors and laymen.  I have had enough.
I have remained silent and watched the catastrophe of heresy overtake this ancient church while those charged with protecting it in fact deferred, and deferred and deferred yet again, capitulated, ran, hid from their duties.  My family name was extinguished in Scotland for siding with the ancient British church during the Jacobite days. Two brothers escaped the slaughter and came here. For 250 years we have not faltered in defence of this church, and certainly will not now.  Arrogant? Uncompromising? In defence of the church, yes mam, that would be me.
Notwithstanding that, I am a guest at your table. I will leave the pistols at the door, and comply with your requests. I will confine my postings to minute and carefull examination of other’s commentaries. I have 35 years experience in proactive litigative briefs, and am rather good at it.
Some may wish I had stuck to the “personal attacks.”
Thanks for the work that you do! The coming realignment of the Church is in some measure due to this site.

Teddy -  we cannot fight fire with fire or we become what we say we despise.  “Do not be overcome with evil - but overcome evil with good.”  I understand being maligned isn’t fun - but it is part and parcel of the gig if you are going to stand for what you believe.  My Dad says, “If you’re really smart, then you don’t have to tell anyone.”  I think it’s appliciable here as well - “If you are truly Godly, then you don’t have to tell anyone.”  God will justify - we don’t have too.

Fr. Woodward:

Interesting take there - however, my intent was more if one is going to quote passages they need to be in context.  Galatains 5:22 is worthless unless you adhere to what is before and after it as well.  One cannot pick and choose the Scripture they want to have but take it as a whole - in this instance, a person CANNOT have the gifts of the Spirit when pursuing the sinful nature - that is what the Scripture above is stating.  Therefore, your proposal that one can have one w/o the other simply doesn’t hold water according to the passage.

Secondly, it is not B. Duncan and B. Iker and others who chose to destroy the Communion, it was the actions of B. Robinson who CHOSE to take that position when so many begged him not too.  That is not a viable comparison.  The act of a shepherd is to ‘lay down his life (or his political stances)’ for the sheep.  If his actions are in contradiction with the Scripture, then it clearly was NOT the Spirit leading him.  As CS Lewis would submit, “He(Aslan/Jesus) is not a tame Lion, but he’s a Lion who plays by His own rules.”  If Robinson had truly been led by the Spirit - his actions would have been accord with the Spirit and the fruit would have been love, joy, peace (etc.) - however, the fruits of this particular action run much more in the line of the first list.  That tells me that his actions are NOT consistent with Christian Life or Faith.

Actually, the fruit of Bishop Robinson’s consecration have been love, joy, peace (etc.). Thousands upon thousands have recognized that—others have not. That is so with Bishops Iker, etc., I’m sure.
  You don’t follow all of Scripture—I assume you know that. Several years ago, it was decided in The Episcopal Church that the ordination of homosexual people did not violate any core doctrine of The Episcopal Church. Like slavery and a lot of other Scriptural issues, this one has been open to further guidance from the Holy Spirit—or do you have a litmus test that is somewhere in the Bible I don’t know about.l

Fr. Woodward:

No, those fruits have not been good.  Not where I live - not to the hundreds of people in my church or community - or thousands of others across the Anglican Communion.  Robinson’s actions have destroyed ministries, churches, communities and caused major angst for millions of Christians across the globe… that’s flat reality.  Destroying the Christian Global Communion is not a mark of Christ-like character… nor listed as a gift of the Spirit.

As for the second - please are you REALLY going to try to play the ‘I don’t know know the difference between the Old/New Covenant game’?  You know as well as I do that certain laws passed away under the New Covenant of Christ.  Others were reiterated and were consistent from Old/New Testament - while eating shellfish didn’t, things like avoiding homosexuality did - e.g. Romans 1 : 24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies.25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.  So, it’s a NT teaching… as you know. 

He’s not a tame lion - but He plays by His own rules.  Ever read the Last Battle - that ‘new work of the Holy Spirit’ doesn’t work real well there either.

Dear Eclipse,
  So you stand behind slavery as approved or urged by God? You stand behind the three tiered universe of the New Testament? I hope not—Biblical inerrancy is harder and harder to assert. Certainly no Biblical writer intended it.
  Bishop Robinson has not caused any of the harm you note: the harm has come from alarmists and clergy who have fanned the fires.  Look at the “Choose This Day” video put out by the Network. It was, as its producers note, produced so “orthodox” Christians could take it into homes of satisfied Episcopalians to drive them away from their church into the arms of the “righteous.”
  I don’t know where you live, but where I live (Network diocese) people are leaving the dissident churches and filling the liberal or progressive Episcopal Churches. Churches around the world are free to respond as they will. We were pretty quiet when several prominent African bishops were discovered to be in polygamous relationships—odd that they would be in the forefront in disapproving of the American church. As Kurt Vonnegutt says, “So it goes. . .”

No, Tom - there’s a difference between you/VGR (based on your comments here) and me. I KNOW I’m a sinner.  When I realize or have it pointed out to me that I am in error/walking apart from God’s will, I choose to repent and work towards getting myself back in alignment with His teachings.  What I don’t get to do is pick and choose which part of the Bible (God’s inspired Word) applies.  They all do.  Call the passages that make you uncomfortable “clobber passages”, whatever.  They apply as much as anything else does.  There are passages that make me uncomfortable - ignoring them displeases God.

Fr. Woodward:

Yes, then there’s the triple-dog-dare slavery verses. NT does NOT promote slavery… please, I might not be a seminarian, however, I am quite familiar w/ the NT.  Is there portions of Scripture dealing with slavery - yes - on how present slaves should serve their present owners.  This, as you know, was because in that political system, there was not a big push for ‘ground swell’ support.  Romans had a great way of dealing with anti-slavery folk - go ask Spartacus and his 15,000 followers… being crucified along the Appian Way… a different system - a different time.  Paul’s letters dealt with the most important things - becoming more like Christ - one can do that either slave or free.

However, if you will remember, it was because of Christ’s teaching of neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, that the men of the Enlightenment decided to put it in a political document ‘all men being created equal’.  It’s because of this doctrine that folk like Wilberforce finally overthrew the evil of slavery - Wilberforce was an Anglican and the Authority of Scripture. 

You know, it is so sad when folk who state they believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent God don’t believe He could actually take care of a single book on a small planet on the side of the Milky Way.  God is either capable of taking care of His Word and making sure His Message is translated correctly OR the implication is that He is so weak, powerless, and careless that He can’t handle the editing of 66 books.  If it’s the latter - well, perhaps we ought to look for someone a little more in control of the Universe.

<blockquote>We were pretty quiet when several prominent African bishops were discovered to be in polygamous relationships—odd that they would be in the forefront in disapproving of the American church.<blockquote>

I hate to be blunt, but put up or shut up.  This slanderous claim was made awhile back and the good folks here at Stand Firm made an offer to those who could name names.  No one did.

And this . . .

<blockquote>So you stand behind slavery as approved or urged by God? You stand behind the three tiered universe of the New Testament? <blockquote>

. . . is just sad.  Pitiful.

The blockquotes function really doesn’t work very well.  Just saying.

Dr. Witt,
George Conger, who posts regularly to the HoBD list-serve, has most of the information including names. This is no secret. It was widely publicized around the previous two Lambeths. This is not mud slinging, it is simply recitation of well known facts. Mr. Conger is a conservative and posts to many of the blogs well known to you.

Fr. Tom:  I ask you, since you brought it up, to provide us here in this thread with the names of polygamous African Bishops.  If you are so familiar with the material, it should be no problem for you to produce the requested information.  If you can’t furnish the names, then please desist. Referring us to George Conger and the wide publication (of names) around the previous two lambeths, eight and eighteen years ago, does not answer the mail. We are talking about now, 2006, not 1998 or 1988.  “Recitation of well-known facts” is a simply a way to avoid providing verifiable data.
Charles

Fr. Woodward:

No, the election of B. Robinson caused problems from day one.  Long before there ever was a ‘Choose this Day video’  long before there was an ACN.  Our church was in complete shock when it happened and people started leaving our church THEN.  It destroyed our ministry THEN - it caused irrepairable harm and damage THEN.  Therefore, that premise is not correct.  You want to talk to our Anglican brothers and sisters and find out what it’s done to their ministries with Muslims - in particular?  No, even aside from all his personal issues - the fact is that Robinson’s election has caused destruction and mayhem and impaired the Gospel.  That is why I suspect the Spirit had little to do with it.

Your diocese must be somewhere outside most of America because that is not happening anywhere I know of - everywhere the opposite is happening.  In our ACN church more and more of the ‘progressive’ church leaves and our church is growing by leaps and bounds - with Anglicans and other non-Anglicans. 

Talking about the Primates in such a way is very disrespectful… and I’m surprised you’d even bring it up.  That slander was put to rest long ago.  Just as the current set of lies about B. Ankinola willbe.

Dear William:

Love the block quotes…

Fr. Tom:
Here is your chance. Claim a great victory for the revisionist cause.  You will be carried out of this blog on the shoulders of your collegues as a hero.

  Just name one of the polygamist African Bishops you referenced. 

You can’t get away that that deception anymore, it has been thoroughly discredited.  Perhaps you should find a less informed group of Episcopaleons to practice those tactics.

Fr. Tom:

I’m with Timothy, please do not refer us to a George Conger, but since you seem to be in contact, please give us those names here on Stand Firm.

Dr. Witt:

About your block quotes, Ohhh, pretty! Maybe a little arranging of the words, but very nice.

Fr Woodward,
Unless you have names to give publicly,all you show is innuendo,an interesting word that Webster’s describes as ‘a hint or sly remark,usually derogatory;insinuation’.This would give rise to a situation that would (pardon the pun)collar you with a title the NEB refers to as ‘scandal-monger’ and would put you in some rather suspect company(Romans 1:30) not in keeping with your recent declaration on another blog.
Paddy

Well now this has been great fun. I note Mr. Woodward’s calm, reasoned and well thought out expose of our African Anglican Primates as polygamous. I’m sure we can all forgive him if their names have slipped his mind. We are graced with his insightful repitition of this Revisionist Truth. This is a wonderful example of the Liberal new Fourth Leg of the Anglican Stool, Prevaricationasneededifyourpositionisuntenableoryour’eflawedlogicfailstointimidatethetheneolithicopposition.
Looks like Welsh. Where’s Cennyd when you need him.
Seriously, hasn’t this distraction gone on far enough? Like I said earlier, time could be better spent on another set of topics, evangelizing, painting red doors, whatever.

Fr. Tom:

I offended you jumping into this discussion last time, but I guess I’ve not learned and I’ll try to answer your questions to another more directly this time.

RE: So you stand behind slavery as approved or urged by God?

This is a strawman! Slavery was regulated by God, kind of like Deut. 24 regulates divorce but long before Jesus gave us clear instruction The LORD spoke in Mal 2:16. 

RE: You stand behind the three tiered universe of the New Testament? <i>

RE:<i>I hope not—Biblical inerrancy is harder and harder to assert. Certainly no Biblical writer intended it.

Per: I hope not - okay please explain to me E=MC² okay? Dr. R.C. Sproul noted that physicist have just as much difficulty in explaining energy as theologian do God.

Per Inerrancy - which author? Human or Divine?

First pardon my missing < / “i” >, oh well, I should hit “Preview” first.

Fr. Tom:

At the risk of loosing my accolade for a “gentle spirit” spirit, I’m going to readdress the issue of graciousness. You said the fruits +VGR consecration “have been love, joy, peace (etc.)” Now I note in context that +VGR graciousness you refered to was the fact if GC03 didn’t consent he’d live w/ it, well since they did it tore the Fabric of the Communion at the deepest level, I siad he was a “nice guy” which you took exception toward, well, in your context of “gracious man” and seeing the fruits of the division, the most gracious thing +VGR could have done last year is step down.

I probably going to confuse you by saying I REALLY glad he didn’t. That would have thrown the “reasserter” camp into disarray, there would be no need for a A168 or B033, no need for a Dromantine Communique or anything else. I think the fruits of the consecration have been adequately explored above. Today the new PB gives NPR interview which make get to the root issue instead of messing around with the sexuality issue which was only the presenting issue.

{To clear up confusion, my apology was using your words to my point, that folk who met +VGR thought he was a “nice guy,” (what I took your “He is a very gracious man” to mean, obviously something different), but did not mean that I retract my logic, only sound boarding off you seem to offend you. Written communication is missing all those non-verbal, I dead set, but not meaning to viciously attack, a quiet fortitude [though if you called me ‘stubborn,’ I’d not take offense])}.

The best place to begin in dealing with the prevalence of polygamy in the African Anglican Church is with the attempt to pass Resolution 26 at Lambeth, 1988. Check out Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungne for the defense of the bishops’ practice of polygamy and the eventual settlement regarding the practice.
The Anglican Church in Kenya, finally, in 2002 passed a disavowal of their previous practices of polygamy. Just check the matter out on the web—there are scads of reliable reports, some with names, most without. If you need the names, in addition to all the documentation, one would have to wonder why.
  If you really need to know the precise names of all those who have practiced polygamy (many still do, the agreement required them not to take on any additional wives), check with any of the bishops who are now courting “orthodox” congregations. They will know, not only the names (of the husbands), but all the salacious details.

Polygamy is another straw man / grenade lobbed into the discussion to distract.

TWBSF, a couple of questions, searching for common ground concerning the basics of the Christian faith:

1. Who do you say Jesus is?
2, Do you believe all of the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds?

Why don’t we start from there and see where we can go with our discussions?

</blockquote> trying to end blockquote

</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>Fr. Woodward, you wrote “Check out Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungne for the defense of the bishops’ practice of polygamy and the eventual settlement regarding the practice.” I googled his name plus the word polygamy and found two links which appear to touch on the topic.

The first link is part of an address the Archbp gave in Berkeley CA in 2000. Polygamy is not the main topic, but he did mention it during the speech. “Leadership in the church in Africa has remained almost exclusively in the hands of men. This is well illustrated by the example of the debate at Lambeth 1988 and 1998 on the issue of polygamy. Here was an attempt to re-incorporate an aspect of many African cultures, without any regard at all to the voice of African women.” To me, this sounds as if he finds the Lambeth Resolution to be too permissive toward polygamy rather than too restrictive.

The second link is a reference to a report he presented as part of the discussion of the Resolution on Human Sexuality at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. The report includes polygamy in a third way of sexual living: “forms of behaviour which some Christians claim should not be regarded as inherently sinful but which may be less than complete expressions of the Christian way.” I can’t tell from the document I found whether ++Ndungane includes himself among the people who consider polygamy not to be inherently sinful.

Neither of these statements supports polygamy, neither of them mentions any bishops who are practicing polygamists, and neither of them mention any specific settlement unless you mean Lambeth Resolution 26 itself, which also neither supports polygamy nor deals specifically with polygamous clergy.

Do you have a specific written statement or quote from the Archbishop showing that he is a defender of polygamy in any form, let alone as a practice of bishops?

Fr. Woodward,

you claim that “many still practice polygamy”

Back up your words with evidence. Real evidence. I need a name I can verify. You can send it to me privately if you wish. I promise you that I can have it checked out in 24 hrs. 

If you cannot do this you will not be permitted to pollute these pages with malicious gossip and lies.

The choice is yours.

Fr. Tom

I have several African clergy friends including a retired bishop from Uganda. I have been told the same thing regarding the subject of polgamy: it is not tolerated in the Church. A polgamist may not received the sacraments, they may not be buried in a Church cemetary. They may be allowed to attend Church services, but nothing more. Polagmy is still part of the culture in many parts of Africa (as is exra-marital sex for men). but it is not tolerated in the Church. At least not in Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda.

FR Tom:

I can’t let this go by without comment

“One could use this same argument against John David Schofield, Jack Iker and Bob Duncan—their episcopates have brought untold pain to many, many faithful Episcopalians and have torn this communion apart. I know John-David and Bob well—and know that much good has come from their ministries, but they have contributed to much that has torn the heart of God.”

WHAT???? Untold pain to many episcopalians??? WHAT??? Because they have tried to “guard the faith, unity,  and discipline of the Church”? Because they hold up traditional moral values and teachings? Is that the pain you are refering to? These are Godly men. I have spent the last 7 years of my ministry alongside a Godly man who wears a purple shirt. The personal price they pay is beyond the comprehension of most of the priests that I know. Although I feel that +VGR should never have been consecrated and that even today he should repent and resign, I also know the pain and sacrifice that comes with the office of bishop that he too must bear. Unless you have walked in these shoes, you are in no position to judge these Godly men.

Fr. Tom,
“Several years ago, it was decided in The Episcopal Church that the ordination of homosexual people did not violate any core doctrine of The Episcopal Church.”

Did this include partnered, sexually-active homosexual people?  If so, please cite…

Gillian C,

You’ve touched on one key component to the left’s sophistry. They certainly see but fail to acknowledge the distinction between orientation and behavior. To limit a person’s sexual behavior is tantamout to denying that person’s humanity. Thus, your humanity is reduced to your reproductive organs.

Matthew, I have written George Conger for the documentation. I did not keep it on my computer—I assumed the details of bishops involved in polygamy was well enough known not to need the details.
  The decision by the Episcopal Church regarding the ordination of homosexual people involved the ordination of Barry Stopfel who was living openly with his partner, Will Lecke. Robert Williams, another gay man living with his male partner were also tangentially involved. You can read the whole story in Bishop Walter Righter’s book, “A Pilgrim’s Way.”

I seldom copy and paste here. Don’t even know that it works, however, I cannot let this pass.  This subject was hashed, and re-hashed on our group of some 1500 (+/-) worldwide membership.
I will answer by private email who posted the original..
Here goes:
Posted September4, 2003

“As Bill Atwood of the Ekklesia society has written:
“As one who spends extensive time in Africa (my first trip was in 1971) I find the church’s clarity about both the Gospel and family issues refreshing.  As Christian faith came to Africa, it was important to address polygamy, and the church did that.  They upheld the sanctity of marriage and took concrete steps to move people away from polygamy.  In any case, there is a great difference between pastorally upholding marriage and moving people toward the ideal, and the Western insanity
of arrogantly proclaiming sin to be righteousness.  The General
Convention can move to outlaw friction, too, but it won’t make a
difference to automobile design.

As to the urban myth of the small army of polygamous African bishops, I say, “Show me the brides!”  You can’t show what ain’t.
Years ago I heard of one wacky bishop who was pro-polygamy but he was forced to resign almost immediately.  When, oh when, will…[people] answer the concerns that are raised instead of trying to deflect them with ad hominum attacks?  It is like trying to obscure the cry, “The house is on fire!” by saying “Why should I listen to you, you are wearing stripes and plaid together.” 
The appropriate question is, “Is the house on fire?” (end Atwood quotation)
***********************************
“Let us state this very clearly—the african church upholds marriage but had a VERY DIIFICULT pastoral problem when the gospel came with increasing force in that many who became Christians ALREADY had more than one wife.  The ONLY reason the church did what it did was as a compassionate measure for the sake of the wives who may have been completely left in the lurch if they were cut off from familial support. It was ONLy in the case of those already married the church never said yes you may have more than one spouse. It is simply untrue to say “co-pastors in Africa are quick to turn their heads to the natives who still practice polygamy.” The church was trying to support and promote marriage but in a way that was compassionate and sensitive to their cultural context.” (name witheld)
Hope this helps… 

Grannie Gloria

Well, Thomas, you know what they say about people who assume. 

I join my voice with Matt’s.  You have been told repeatedly that drive by commenting will not be tolerated here.  You make a statement - be prepared to back it up.
I take it you did not read how seriously we take this subject.  Start <a href = “http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/witness_has_some_expaining_to_do/”> here </a>.

My cat has an imaginary friend that she chases across the yard.  I suspect she knows all those polygamous bishops, too.

Fr.  Woodward:

This discussion started with your statement how G. Robinson exudes the gifts of the spirit through his life and ministry.  Even this discussion demonstrates how this concept is flawed.  Towards the end of it - instead of increased understanding and respect of the people of God - we now have slander and bias towards a group of Godly men Once these ‘fruits’ (if you will) are more in line with the fruits of a sinful nature rather than the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 

Contrast this with the dicussion that has gone on with Fr. David’s talks - it speaks much clearer and louder than I ever could.

Matthew, I will send you the information I have been able to garner this morning off list. If you will provide me your email address, I will send it to you—and then eliminate your email address from my computer.  I have no need or desire to besmirch anyone’s name, so I am trusting that you will report your judgment as to what I have provided without the details.

My only purpose for bringing this up at all was to moderate the assumption that the African bishops are the embodiment of moral purity while those of us in TEC who are not affiliated with SFIF or its allies are morally bankrupt.
Tom Woodward

My apologies for not attaching my email address:
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Tom W.

Fr. Woodward:

My only purpose for bringing this up at all was to moderate the assumption that the African bishops are the embodiment of moral purity while those of us in TEC who are not affiliated with SFIF or its allies are morally bankrupt.

I would like you to point out in the discussion where I implied that you were - sorry, but that is very offensive.

Woodward:

It ought to be easy enough to post a name.  Just one name of one polygamous bishop.  Then the whole conversation will be over, and you will have won.

I have written to Matthew. If what I have written is not sufficient for him, I am prohibited from participating in your discussions. There is no purpose served in outing anyone publicly here.
I believe it was Connie who asked about my personal belief in Jesus Christ. I have written extensively about my belief in Jesus Christ and have taught at three of our seminaries. I have sworn twice to the vows required of all priests and deacons in TEC and have kept my vows and will keep them through death. I am an orthodox believer and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I affirm the historic creeds of the Episcopal Church. The books I have published with the Episcopal Church include one on Christian education and another on theology. Both are available on amazon.com. I have also been published by a number of Roman Catholic presses—on general theology, liturgics and the use of the arts in the church. I have been nominated for bishop in a number of dioceses, including The Diocese of the Rio Grande, two and a half years ago.

Thank you, Fr. Woodward, for your reply to my question.
Connie

Dear Rev Dr.Woodward,you still don’t answer the question as to who the ‘polygamous bishop or bishops’ are and to be blunt,in spite of your credentials and your disavowal of wanting ‘to out someone’,it still makes your comments innuendo or unfounded gossip.
Surely,with such illustrious credentials you are familiar with Conybeare’s translation of and notes on Ephesians 5:11:‘have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,yes,rather expose their foulness’,‘lay bare the real character of a thing by exposing it to open scrutiny’.Knowing that,it would seem that being party to information of such ,malevolent behavior it would behoove you to ‘expose their foulness’ given the Scripture’s admonition and your own fidelity to the church and the Lordship of Jesus.Otherwise,all the credentials fall by the wayside and the credibility that you bank on with them falls with them.And people will see the innuendo to be no more than an attempt to smear Christian bishops no better than the Arian bishops attempt to discredit Athanasius by accusing him of murder,only to have him bring in the ‘victim’ alive and whole.
So,again,would you please share names or admit the fallacy of the accusation?

RE: “I have been nominated for bishop in a number of dioceses, including The Diocese of the Rio Grande, two and a half years ago.”

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HA, H-uuuuuuuh [thud, sound of chair clattering . . . pause . . . scraping noise]

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HA, H-uuuuuuuh [thud, silence, cue Send in the Clowns music]

End.

Fr Woodward says he requested information on polygamous bishops from George Conger on 12/23, and wrote to Fr Kennedy later that same day. I would like to know from Fr Kennedy whether any actual name was included in the information you were sent. I am not asking you to reveal the name if any. I would just like to know: is there, or is there not, a polygamous bishop?

Sorry to answer this late. Having only just last night read (though not thoroughly digested) the information Fr. Woodward sent along (I’ve been travelling and Fr. Woodward’s original email was lost which meant that I needed to get a copy).

there is alot of assuming and presuming and second hand information in the info sent, but there are no names named and nothing I can follow up on. Nothing near what was billed.

Tom Woodward -
I have tried very hard to remain true to my southern upbringing and be gracious with you in our conversations.  However, you are pushing me to my limit here. 

Did you actually read the <a >article</a>  concerning the claims of polygamous bishops?  If you read the article then you know it is not a subject to be taken lightly and quite a bit of research was done before writing the article.  Liberals seem to get a kick out of trotting this sorry rumor out of the closet every now and then and use it to beat us conservatives over the head.  When called to task, they run behind a rock to hide rather than step up to the plate for the truth.  Well, as you would see if you read the article, every rock you guys have thrown out was turned over and guess what - no polygamous bishops!  Even the Anglican Communion was checked for information. 
Now you ask that we “take your word for it.”  That’s asking a lot since you have a very, very bad habit of throwing out a comment as fact and then trying to convince others that hearsay is fact.  I am tired beyond imagining of sanctimonious remarks that make sweeping claims but lack any evidence other than, of course, rumor and innuendo.  You seem to act as if your mere words should sway us in some way.  Your track record is pretty grim.  I’ve only been acquainted with you over the blog for a few months but in that time you have issued libelous statements about David Hicks having first proclaimed the statements made in his article about Gene Robinson had been “thoroughly debunked.”  When the dust settled it seems your claims were based solely on the fact that your brother who lived in a nearby town had no knowledge of the event.  Imagine that!  Then there is the infamous “documented proof” of the Schori vote.  Once again your proof is hearsay - and you can’t reveal your sources.  Now you have climbed on the polygamous bishop’s bandwagon.  Are you one of those such as Daniel Webster, +Daniel or the now defunct editorial staff of The Witness who use this rumor to advance their own agenda and when asked to pony up with the truth suddenly become tongue tied?  Mr. Webster claimed he could not reveal a name to protect the innocent.  +Daniel didn’t have the common decency or should I say courage to answer inquiries.  It amazes me that those of you who choose to use the rumor as a club then think you have the right to withhold names (to protect the innocent, of course!)  Don’t you know - that ship sailed the moment the claim left your lips - and/or - fingers.  To do otherwise is to smear the good name of all the innocent!
So here’s the deal.  If you know something to be a fact and can provide such factual evidence when called upon, please by all means use that information in this venue.  If, however, your facts consist of back room gossip, could you please limit the use of that gossip to other sites that don’t seem to mind trafficking in rumor and innuendo.  If you would like some references, contact me through the Stand Firm email (go to your account) and I’ll send you a few references.

Matt, Jackie, et al: The fact that tom woodward’s “evidence” did not deliver does not surprise me in the least.  While I believe in hearing the other person out, his comments are probably best described as “drive-by” assaults.  If you can’t make your point with facts and logic, throw in a few ad hominem comments and leave.

It is unbelievable to me that men of the cloth will continue to spread the polygamist African Bishops story without any evidence, other than a reference to someone else making a reference without any specifics. When they get called to task, they go into radio silence. 

This is one of the Big Lies of this great debate.

Dear Jackie,
  I had not seen your article before. I respect what you have written, but I need to note that nothing in your article contradicts what I sent to Matthew. There is a time difference between when the issue surfaced at Lambeth and when the various resolutions were passed in various African countries condemning polygamy.
  While there is documentation available, it is being withheld from current debates by both conservatives and liberals because the issue has been dealt with pastorally and a release of names would not serve any good purpose.  I saw the names, cited by people trusted throughout the church, but did not keep a record. I forwarded one name to Matthew and the circumstances surrounding two other bishops. I also forwarded the name of the confidant of several bishops’ wives about other matters. From his brief note, it appears that Matthew finds what I have provided insufficient—that is his call. I could not get releases to be any more specific.
  I gave more information about David Hicks than my brother’s knowledge—you can check with the school. They will back up my account. David’s name has also surfaced around other issues, each time raising questions about his credibility.
  The information about Bishop Schofield’s vote for Katharine Jefferts Schori came from a bishop who was sitting at the table with John David and saw him mark his ballot. You are free to check with Bishop Schofield.  Network bishops have acknowledged that around four or five of their rank voted for her. I don’t keep all my e-mails—but again, if you know of a Network bishop who is forthcoming, check it out.
  I have nothing to gain by these matters. As I noted in my email to Matthew, the important thing about the matter of polygamy as it came before Lambeth is that the bishops and archbishops crafted a pastoral response which said, in effect, those African Christians who have more than one wife may continue to have them as their wives, but may not take on any new wives—and that Baptized unmarried may not have more than one wife.
Tom Woodward
to Sarah Hey: As David Luckenbach, the Rector of St. Mark’s on the Mesa and a member of the Search Committee (a priest well into the way most of standfirminfaith regards things) said: “Tom, you were interviewed because we really believed you were a credible candidate for Bishop of the Rio Grande.”

Tom+ omits an important point:

... the important thing about the matter of polygamy as it came before Lambeth is that the bishops and archbishops crafted a pastoral response which said, in effect, those African Christians who have more than one wife may continue to have them as their wives, but may not take on any new wives—and that Baptized unmarried may not have more than one wife.

This is true (and reflects the most common policy historically when Christian missionaries deal with polygamous cultures, e.g. the Methodists among the Navajo in the 19th century), but it omits one crucial point—while polygamous converts may participate fully in church affairs as laymen, under no circumstances may they receive Holy Orders, much less be consecrated a Bishop.

The only credible reference to polygamy among African clergy that I’ve been able to find was an accusation against a Rwandan bishop who was also implicated in the genocide in that country and has long been completely disowned by the Rwandan church.

Although I respect everyone’s privacy as much as the next guy, I’m tired of this “confidential evidence” nonsense.  If there are specific names, let’s make them public and get it over with.

Tom,
Do you truly not see?  If you thought your claims were worthy of publication, you should have already checked your sources and been prepared to release them.  If that were not possible, then the honorable thing to do would have been to remain silent.  Once the ship of rumor leaves the dock, you loose all right to hide behind secret sources.  What I get from Matt’s response and your comment is that you forwarded him people who heard people, etc.  Not one bishop’s name.  I want the name of one bishop in a polygamous relationship.  If your intent was to deal with this matter pastorally, you missed the boat Tom.  As for Bishop Schofield, I take it your friend who “looked” at his ballot isn’t willing to come forward?  Oh, no, much easier to start a trendy rumor than to risk having to answer a question or two.  So once again, you are asking us to take your word for it.  Oh - I’ve checked on David Hicks and I find nothing that would make me disbelief his eye witness account.  Certainly, nothing you have presented would cause me to disbelieve him.  His resume’ by the way is impeccable.
So - for the record, in the future, if you want to present a believeable presence - at least on this blog, you must deal strictly with fact - not rumor or innuendo.

Jackie,

Fr. Woodward did provide a name. It was just that he did not say bishop so and so is a polygamist.

“He said, and I quote (removing names and titles):  Former XXXX[African diocese] bishop XXXX [name] was known by many to be a polygamist, though he attended Lambeth 1998 with only one wife.”

So, it is little more than gossip. But I suppose I can follow up on this.

Fr. Woodward:

I think Jackie summed it up well.  If you cannot cite the sourcework, then why bring it up as a credible point?  Makes no sense beyond trying to discredit and destroy character.  If that is the whole intent - then can you call yourself a Christian whilst doing it?  Even when we catch a brother in sin we aren’t supposed to go around parading it and using it to bolster our own claims… but gently lead them back to the way of the Cross.  If it were a ‘pastoral issue’ then it needed to stay that way - instead of trying to use it to destroy our brothers/sisters of the Southern Cone.

Seriously NOT COOL.

Let’s be clear here.  Tom has NO clue if there are or ever have been any polygamous bishops.  He’s heard and believed rumors of such but has no actual knowledge of any.  Thus he spreads gossip.  His sourcing for JDS and the alleged vote for KJS is of equal value.  Bishop’s peeking at others ballots?  What a load of ...

OK - this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever to what we are talking about right now - but I wanted to share it and since I’ve been writing on this thread and talked about teaching history, I’d thought I’d share it:

The question I asked for my Ancient Greeks test was this:  “What was Homer famous for?  Name the city he told about that was ‘sacked’ by the Athenians.  Explain how his major character in his poem figure out how to get into the city and what happened to the city after this.

Response:  Homer was sacked by men because they didn’t like his poems. 

When poetry critics go bad….

Regarding the “alleged votes…

From <a >Bp. Wimberly of Texas</a>:

...As for the vote, Bishop Jefferts Schori was consented to by our deputation in the House of Deputies with two non-consenting votes, one lay and one clergy. The House of Bishop’s vote is not public. However, I will say to you that I understand she received votes from supporters and a solid number of more conservative bishops who supposedly hope to move the split of our communion forward. Politics can make strange bedfellows. Further, this same undercurrent is attempting to undermine the good work of the Special Committee on Windsor…

From <a >Bp. Gray of Mississippi</a>:

...As I have said on other occasions, I am deeply disappointed in some of my colleagues in the House of Bishops, active and retired, who voted for Bishop Jefferts Schori, not from conviction, but in an intentional and deliberate effort to precipitate a crisis within the Communion. Their motives and actions shall have their judgment within the providence of God. You can expect me to live fully into this new day believing that God can redeem even the most mischievous of human actions…

And one final reference, which I will agree is questionable, due to DV’s poor tack record (no link this time…you know where to find him):

At least four perhaps as many as nine (or more) orthodox Episcopal Church (TEC) bishops joined in voting for Katharine Jefferts Schori as TEC’s new presiding bishop at the just-concluded General Convention in Ohio, in order to send a signal to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the wider Anglican Communion about the bankrupt state of the U.S. Church…

Deny it all you want, but there’s been enough talk about it that that’s the way the vote will be remembered.

It doesn’t bother me anymore, as I’ve come to the conclusion that God chose the right person at the right time to be our PB.  If God had to use a few unscrupulous conservative bishops to get it done, who am I to question it?

Fr. Jake,

How many orthodox bishops are there in the HOB?  What was the vote pro Schori?  Are you proposing that the orthodox vote was so significant as to turn the election pro Schori for the express purpose of accelerating a schism?  That’s delusional!  If we had that many votes, she wouldn’t have been elected in the first place and for that matter, Robinson would not have been made bishop in 2003.

Just a very few points:
1) The argument about Woodward+ withholding the name as “protection” is of course transparent nonsense. The actual, and I believe desired, effect (should he be believed) is not to “protect” anyone, but to smear suspicion over all, to in fact, tar the reputation of the innocent. That is true whether the innocent number 90% or 100%. Protection would demand silence, unless a name can be named. Total transparent rubbish, and thus not to be believed.

2) Even IF (!!!!) he had produced a name, what would he have proven? That ministers of the Gospel are sometimes unworthy? That sin sometimes rises to high levels in the Church? That could be surprising or shocking news only to someone who has not read his Prayerbook (it’s in the Articles, stuck in the “Historical Documents” section in the back).
The reason +VGR’s consecration rocked this boat was not that he is homosexual. There have been imperfect bishops before. The church survives them. The issue was that ECUSA formally approved his sin as not sin, thereby removing Holy Scripture to the “Historical Documents” section as well: interesting to read as a study of our origins, but of no real significance today.
Africa, along with the rest of the AC, is quite clear that polygamy is a sin, something that should not be done. The issue is not whether or not someone just maybe, just possibly have committed that sin.
The issue, and the disagreement, is do we sit under the Word of God, or over it.

I remember seeing a “name” once, but do NOT remember who it was.  It was indeed someone at Lambith98. 

As the story went, one Bishop (retired or dead now) came to Lambeth with two women.  One he named as his wife, he said the other was his “sister/in law/mother” or something.

The statement by the poster said, “IT DIDN"T TAKE US LONG TO FIGURE OUT THE TRUTH”.....

So, perhaps there is NO absolute proof he was a polygamist, just a lot of ‘surmising”....??? 

Par for the course if you ask me….......
Grannie Gloria

FrJake:

... and unnamed sources in the HoB, Conservative bishops most likely, were instrumental in the design of KJS many colored chausible for ordination.  One orthodox bishop, who refused to be named, stated, “We thought it would be reflect Joseph’s coat of many colors and his inevitable fate being sold into Egypt.”...

Did you know next month that Mars is going to be as big as the moon?  I am not sure if this information was given by unnamed, uncited orthodox bishops as well - but we can always hope.

I think they might be behind global warming as well… sneaky sneaky!!

On the 5th ballot, Bp. Jefferts Schori received 95 votes.  Bp. Parsley received 85 votes.  That means that if 7 bishops had voted for Parsley instead of Jefferts Schori, he would now be the PB.

7 votes decided the election.  Yes, I believe the so-called “orthodox” vote was significant in PB Jefferts Schori’s election.

At that point we would be commenting about how the orthodox skewed the election.  Do you see the foolishness of this line of argument?  He leads no where.  Either way you raise an argument.  Is there any meritorious value to this line of argument which you care to raise so as to engage in meaningful dialogue or is this meant to be arguments for arguing sake?

“It doesn’t bother me ... as I’ve come to the conclusion that God chose the right person at the right time to be our PB….”

Father Jake, we disagree on much but I agree that Schori++ was a better PB candidate than Parsley++ in that she is a more candid and open spokesman for the gravitational center of the Episcopal Church.  Both sides in the great debate are better served by honesty and candor in communications.  The opposing viewpoints are now clearly out there for people to see, and they can make an informed decision.

richardc :

I think this is called the proverbial ‘red herring agrument’.  We’ve lost the ‘Gene Robinson is walking in the Spirit agrument’ and the ‘Southern Cone bishops are polygamous agrument’ -so instead of dealing with validity of any of those ideas, let’s pretend they don’t exist and go for something else -

Interesting, but not convincing.

Might as well say that ‘HoB liberals voted down the first Windsor report bill in order to invite schism and make BO33 viable.’  Same agrument - really - I mean prove ‘intent’ wrong…

Thanks be to God for those who bring +Woodward to accounting for his slight of hand with the truth. He is a magician you know.
Having been castigated for warning other posters about this individual, I have agreed to only examine his writings and make scholarly, erudite conclusions on their provable substance. I have so attempted. The task is beyond my poor skills. I feel like someone who has been asked to pick out the best part of a cow pie. I am inadequate for the task.
Those who wish to get the measure of the man and his remarkable career are advised to google him up. Visit his site.
I note with some sadness that he continues to succeed in his apparent program of confusing and misleading the faithful. Can’t you just leave him alone? Look at the wasted verbage above. Has it in any way led one soul out of error and apostacy? I think not.

thank you teddy.

teddy mak:

We write - not b/c it is a battle of ‘convincing’ but of clarifying.  Not a waste of time.  My grandmother always said she read the opposing beliefs because if she was going to agrue her faith - she needed to understand the other side.  I agree w/ her.

Fr. Woodward might be a little Wayward - but his is the position of those who disagree.  If you want to converse intelligently w/ someone who has an opposing view, you must understand their viewpoint.

RE: “On the 5th ballot, Bp. Jefferts Schori received 95 votes.  Bp. Parsley received 85 votes.  That means that if 7 bishops had voted for Parsley instead of Jefferts Schori, he would now be the PB.”

No.

First of all, on the fifth ballot, Bishop Parsley received 82, not 85 votes. 

Second, 95 votes were needed to elect a PB; Bishop Schori received exactly that. 

To elect Bishop Parsley, he would have needed to receive an additional 13 votes.  On that fifth ballot, two were voting for Bishop Alexander, six for Duque-Gomez, and three for Jenkins.  Even had you convinced all of them to switch their votes, you would still have needed two more.

No, to elect Bishop Parsley PB, you would have needed 13 bishops—plus a man with a significantly better reputation as an honest, upright, non-back-stabbing, non-persecuting and bullying person.

We didn’t have either.

One keeps forgetting that, for some orthodox bishops, there was NO WAY that they were going to vote for Bishop Parsley.  NO CHANCE.  So they scattered their votes in varying places, including Bishop Schori.  Even had the supposed 5-6 orthodox bishops who voted for Schori switched their votes, I do not believe that there was any chance for them to have voted for Parsley.

No . . . Bishop Schori is precisely representative of those who attended the convention as deputies, to the frustration and denial of the slim 40% there who were “institutionalist moderates”.  The Episcopal Church got *precisely* what they sent their deputies to vote on—a representative of the liberal activists within ECUSA.

I, for one, was gladdened that she was elected.  And the fruits of her election have paid off more than I could ever have dreamed, since she is neither a liar nor an obfuscator.  She’s a cold steel of an idealistic revisionist. 

A “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” revisionist, rather than a “let’s drop anchor and hope they all fall asleep revisionist”, which incidentally was what 815 sorely desired.

My suspicion is that the apparatchiks at 815 will be pulling their hair out in chunks over the next 9 years . . .

We should be grateful for all of the gifts that we have received over this past year.

Sarah,
You have truly learned to be as wise as a serpent, yet have retained that gentleness of a dove! lol.  thanks for your insightful analysis.  No one could have laid it out any plainer.  Kudos.

Fr Tom, I have to take exception to some of what you say about VGR, and agree with Hosea 6.8, as I was at the convention with a group of ten highschool kids in 03. I saw the interaction that took place when he went in and met with the youth. He had several security people with him, and he made comments that he was “Just like a rock star” to these kids. What I saw was a man who was more interested in being the center of attention, at that convention, than one who concerned with what his decission would do to the church. I also saw that those students who couldn’t bring themselves to except this as a “new thing” that god was doing in the church were ostricised by others as being narrow minded or homophobic. I left the EPUSA after that convention, with a heavy heart.

I am out of this one after this brief posting. My intention at the beginning was not to smear anyone, just to level the sin level by noting that all parts of the church have moral struggles. I have several friends in the African episcopate and in the lay leadership of several dioceses and know something of the glory as well as the sin of the Anglican Church in various parts of Africa.

Have it your way with David Hicks. He has had some rough times in his most recent job. I don’t like my friends smeared, as he did with Gene Robinson—and there is no credible information to back the claims of Jackie and others have made about his “observations.”

My first appearance on this blog was to respond to Matthew’s five piece response to something I wrote on The Episcopal Majority. I assumed that dialogue was honored rather than dishonored—but I know that is also a problem with TEM and similar sites. Mostly we reinforce one another’s opinions.

So, I wish you all well. I have been touched by the generous spirit of many of you and the brilliance of some. I do wish there were a forum for dialogue more than gotcha. All of us, I’m sure, are guilty of being the emperor with no clothes—and all of us are trying our best to represent our church the very best we can. You make a mistake when you assume I am not to be taken seriously—and I have made the same mistake with several of you. We all, I’m sure, love Jesus Christ and we all reverence the Bible as divinely inspired and the Word of God. So, Godspeed.
Tom Woodward

Tom+ apparently still misses the primary point of the entire controversy:

My intention at the beginning was not to smear anyone, just to level the sin level by noting that all parts of the church have moral struggles. I have several friends in the African episcopate and in the lay leadership of several dioceses and know something of the glory as well as the sin of the Anglican Church in various parts of Africa.

Noone here (or as far as I know anywhere else) has ever even suggested that any part of the church has no moral struggles.  You are being taken in by the constant revisionist propaganda line that somehow the orthodox are out to create a church that admits only the “pure”, whatever that may mean.  That would be of course an even smaller sect than ECUSA is becoming, since nobody in this fallen Creation would qualify.  Materialism, idolatry, greed, wrath, envy, and of course the Big Winner pride are near-universal, in addition to all of the currently-fashionable forms of sexual brokenness.

What is under attack by revisionists is not the purity of the membership of the church, it is the purity of the doctrine of the church.  It is profoundly irrelevant, in the last analysis, whether any African bishops are polygamous or not; the principal question is whether the African church teaches that polygamy is inherently sinful, or whether it modifies Christian doctrine in accordance with the “most progressive and organically African ways of thinking” and declares polygamy an acceptable lifestyle.  Of course, no African church has ever even considered doing this.

Many medieval monasteries were notorious for fornication and drunkenness (witness the magnificent Carmina Burana); the Church survived unscathed because these monks, whatever their behavior, made no effort to change the teaching of the Church.

It is the Gospel that is endangered here, not the (nonexistent) moral perfection of the congregation.  Until you realize that (and God knows we’ve pointed it out often enough), there is simply no use in talking to each other.

RE: “As David Luckenbach, the Rector of St. Mark’s on the Mesa and a member of the Search Committee (a priest well into the way most of standfirminfaith regards things) said: “Tom, you were interviewed because we really believed you were a credible candidate for Bishop of the Rio Grande.”

I am not certain why Tom Woodward told me this.  My laughter and falling off a chair twice had nothing to do with whether Tom Woodward was a credible candidate.  Indeed, Tom keeps listing things he has done or things he has been involved in within ECUSA as if that is some sort of “credibility booster”.

My laughter—as any ECUSA reasserter would know—was in regards to the thought that being a candidate for a bishop in the Episcopal church was actually something that would boost the orthodox credibility or reputation of the writer.

The reverse, of course, is actually the case.  My respect, in general, for the actions of the House of Bishops [with the exception of some individuals] has augured into the ground over the past three years as I have observed their character on full and glorious display for all the world to see.  I have no doubt that most Episcopalian reasserters have the same level of respect that I do for the actions of our HOB.

Sarah:

You and me both.  My respect for Episcopal bishops bottomed out this past year.  Ours in our ‘unnamed diocese’ pretended to be orthodox until he was elected.  Since that time he did everything he could think of to undermine our orthodox parish - and ultimately succeeded.  He went from telling us that he believed in the authority of Scripture, to telling us homosexuality was ‘Plan B’, to, that old party line - ‘Unity is more important to Truth’. 

My favorite, however, was when he told a group of children at children’s camp that ‘he owned the churches’. 

So, anyway… bad memories!!  You can understand, then, the feeling of blessing and gratitude we have towards our new Southern Cone bishop - who believes the Bible, believes Christ is the sole means of salvation, and believes in standing up for traditional Christianity.  Such a reason to thank God!

As a cradle (former) Episc., I have witnessed the liberal agenda at work in ECUSA all my life.  I don’t despair over recent events.  Christianity has many, many facets, which only serve to expand the universe of opportunities for the HS to touch non-believers.  Those of us who, by faithful conviction, elect to remain orthodox to what we believe scripture tells us, must find/make a new Anglican home.  God bless what remains of ECUSA when this tumult passes.  What a shame all the energy poured into this debate couldn’t instead help bring the Gospel to more people, or in some other way further the Great Commission.  Way too much navel gazing.  Blessings.