Total visitors right now: 151

Logged-in members:

John Boyland

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Integrity Press Release: Primates Choose Bigotry over Baptized

Monday, February 19, 2007 • 8:59 pm


Integrity Press Release: Primates Choose Bigotry over Baptized

“The primates of the Anglican Communion have utterly failed to recognize the faith, relationships, and vocations of the gay and lesbian baptized,” said Integrity President Susan Russell, responding to the communiqué released today from Dar es Salaam.

“Let us pray it doesn’t take another hundred years for yet-unborn primates to gather for a service of repentance for what the church has done to its gay and lesbian members today, as they repented in Zanzibar yesterday forwhat it did to those the church failed to embrace as full members of theBody of Christ.”

The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had thisreaction: “Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”

Integrity encourages its membership and allies to directly contact their bishops—urging them to reject the demands of the primates. Our leadership will seek an immediate meeting with the Presiding Bishop to express our deep concerns and encourage the Executive Council to insist on the inclusion ofall orders of ministry in the ongoing process of discernment on Anglican Communion issues.

PRESS CONTACTS
The Rev. Susan Russell, President


32 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

This is probably the best news of the day - thanks Susan.

[1] Posted by Eclipse on 02-19-2007 at 09:07 PM • top

The Primates have chosen the Holy Scriptures, not bigotry.  There is a big difference and the lie must be challenged every time it is repeated.

[2] Posted by David+ on 02-19-2007 at 09:13 PM • top

David:

I know, but since they have been told this repeatedly since day 1 - I have to admit to not bothering anymore.  It reminds me of the verse, “Hearing they will not hear, and seeing they will not see”  OR “the blind leading the blind”

It is not that Susan et al don’t know this, it is they CHOOSE not to know it.  There is a decided difference.

[3] Posted by Eclipse on 02-19-2007 at 09:16 PM • top

yet-unborn primates

Oh now they are concerned about the unborn….

[4] Posted by Rocks on 02-19-2007 at 09:17 PM • top

Looks like they read the Communique.  It will be up to The Episcopal Church to decide if the price is too high for them to stay in the Anglican Communion.

bb

[5] Posted by BabyBlue on 02-19-2007 at 09:19 PM • top

I diisgree with every part of this but at least they are honest too. They see the Anglican Communion as bigots. It shows how far much of TEC is from the rest of Anglicanism. The hard left of TEC, having been frustrated by the Primates, is beginning seriously to push for Independence. Poor Katharine, really one of their own, will bear much of the brunt of their wrath. Watch out for the ecclesiastical Boston Tea Party and the cries of perfidious Albion.

[6] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 09:22 PM • top

I TOLD you the Communique was good news for the orthodox! wink

[7] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 09:26 PM • top

Re:Michael Hopkin’s ‘Jesus weeps’,is that the 2 Cor.11:4 version or the Galatians 1:6-8 variation Jesus?

[8] Posted by paddy on 02-19-2007 at 09:38 PM • top

This may-and I emphasize may-blow a big hole in the wider adoption “baptismal ecclesiology” as epoused by +KJS’ old professor, Louis Weil of CDSP.  If read the way Russell reads it, the Primates have rejected that concept, especially the idea that Baptism alone brings us into full ministries of the Church.

[9] Posted by BCP28 on 02-19-2007 at 09:40 PM • top

Liz Keaton is one unhappy lady over on the HoB/D.  The above NO…., NO…. zone wouldn’t hamper her invective one bit.

[10] Posted by Bill C on 02-19-2007 at 09:47 PM • top

Mr. Hopkins writes, “sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity.” This is precious! I didn’t know they believed in idols.

I’m a big fan of this language, too: “yet-unborn primates.” I truly hope Ms. Russell has realized that God wasn’t joking, lying, or speaking in hyperbole when He said “I knew you in your mother’s womb.”

This has to be one of the very best press releases I’ve read in a long time!  It has given me a moment of hope—of course, it remains to be seen if they truly control the political instruments of ECUSA (Exec Council, HoB, GC) but I’m afraid they may.

[11] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 09:51 PM • top

Suzie’s tone suggests to me that the ECUSA will be out of the Communion before Sept.  This deals directly into the hands of the Virginia parishes etc.  If the ECUSA walks out, they have better legal standing to keep their properties.

I am really liking how the shoe is now on the other foot.  It’s the liberals now who have to figure out whether they are out or in—as it should have been from the beginning.  And, by their choosing to leave, no one among the orthodox has to be the bad guy and kick them out.  This is a victory for the historic faith top to bottom!

If there were an Anglican under my roof, we’d be sipping champaign and toasting Jesus!

[12] Posted by Jason Suggs on 02-19-2007 at 09:59 PM • top

“Let us pray it doesn’t take another hundred years for yet-unborn primates

Interesting choice of words, given Integrity’s well-known enthusiasm for Holy Matrimony.

[13] Posted by ----- on 02-19-2007 at 10:08 PM • top

How she can equate slavery with not ordaining active homosexuals is utterly disgusting and highly offensive. And they call US bigots????

[14] Posted by Brit on 02-19-2007 at 10:17 PM • top

I was having a hard time posting a gracious comment about this.  Then it occurred to me that it’s hard for just about anyone to respond graciously to this.

If Integrity really wants to be included rather than just playing the victim, they’d be well advised not to issue press releases like this.

[15] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 02-19-2007 at 10:20 PM • top

As a Conservative politically, and spiritually it always angers me when
liberals resort to namecalling when I disagree with their point of view.
This has all been a very deliberate and sometimes drawn out process
with bad feelings on all sides. To be labeled a bigot for trying to stand for the “heart” of what should be our Faith is sad. It should be interesting these next several months leading to September 30.
I don’t doubt that there is a lot of hurt to go around, but defending the Truth often leads there.                Secco

[16] Posted by Secco on 02-19-2007 at 10:35 PM • top

I thought this was a no-whining zone. 

Surely Susan and Michael aren’t worried?  Why should they be?  Nothing is going to happen to slow down the GLBT juggernaut.  The primates have stated they really don’t want TEC to break up. 

There, there, Michael and Susan.  Musn’t fuss. All indications are that in the end it’s all going to go your way.  Cheer up!  You don’t really think the primates can stop you from ordaining gay bishops and blessing gay unions?  Oh, they might be able to reduce TEC’s status in the Anglican Communion—on a trial basis of course—but that’s only in a nominal sense, and is truly years and years in the future, if at all.  And besides, what difference does it make anyway?

Now get out there and liberate the oppressed and achieve those Millenium Development Goals!  Come on!

[17] Posted by DaveW on 02-19-2007 at 10:46 PM • top

“Let us pray it doesn’t take another hundred years for yet-unborn primates to gather for a service of repentance for what the church has done to its gay and lesbian members today, as they repented in Zanzibar yesterday forwhat it did to those the church failed to embrace as full members of theBody of Christ.”

Susan’s comment is the ever-popular rhetorical move that’s pulled out whenever their side is really distressed or their backs are against the wall and they can’t come up with a real argument: “We’re victims, in fact, we’re such victims that we’re very like those who experienced slavery, and you’re a bigot for not recognizing it,” which is, as someone pointed out, offensive in the extreme and ought to be an offense to those on her side as well. 

“Let us pray” should be the operative phrase in her comment, and if I were a friend of hers, I would tell her to stop there.

[18] Posted by father king's daughter on 02-19-2007 at 10:53 PM • top

Yeah, the parallels to slavery are inane and outrageous.  You’d think if Susan et al. are mere slaves, I could at least get her to mow my lawn or fetch a scotch.

[19] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-19-2007 at 11:01 PM • top

Ah, yes, Susan, predictably you resort to name-calling when things don’t exactly go your way.  How positively Christian of you. cool hmm

[20] Posted by Horseman on 02-19-2007 at 11:04 PM • top

“Instruments of Unity as idols”?  As opposed to Episcopal polity as an idol?

[21] Posted by Orthoducky on 02-19-2007 at 11:06 PM • top

um, wasn’t there going to be whining & complaining whatever the primates said, short of a complete endorsement of Integrity? This is part of the posturing to demand more “listening”, to play the outraged victim card, to throw out all the rhetorical stops to make anyone who even frowns in their direction the evil oppressive homophobic biggot… and thus to pull the “compromise” in their direction.

Heck, they already did that with their ultimatum sent via KJS that unless primatial jurisdictional oversight ceased in the U.S., they’d not even consider Windsor any more.

So I’m not sure that these blog posturings of outrage shoud be taken at face value, or be a cause of rejoicing by those who see their outrage as a measure of success.

pax,
LP

[22] Posted by LP on 02-19-2007 at 11:39 PM • top

I do feel sorry for the Integrity members out there.  The PB has betrayed their interests, and she said she would not do so.  I think those interests were misguided and misplaced, but there’s still no doubt, she betrayed them.  She threw them under the bus.  And they thought the betrayal was when she got the GC to sign off on B-whatever it was.  That’s nothing compared to this.

I feel sorry for whomever has been lead to believe one thing by their leaders, and find out they have been betrayed.  I was convinced the same thing had happened to me, earlier today.

[23] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 02-20-2007 at 01:15 AM • top

Hang on, just what’s the score here. Let’s see:

Section 10—just summarizes Windsor, and “primatal intervention” is cast as just as much a threat to unity as abandonment of the faith.

Section 11—primates have reaffirmed 1.10 in recent discussions. Nothing new there… that’s been there since 1998

Section 13—“listening process” will continue into Lambeth 2008. Helps the apostates

Section 14—the Panel of Reference, to “supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions” has had no success or traction. Score another for the apostates

Section 17—Most primates don’t like VGR. “The episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion.” Well, also nothing new here.

Section 20—“First, the Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report.” After the massive “up yours” to the Communion by PECUSA, they’re praised for taking Windsor seriously. This is a major score for the apostates.

Section 21—“lack of clarity”; “ambiguous stance”. Again, PECUSA ignores Windsor for all practical purposes—quite obviously to anyone who looks at post-Windsor developments in it—and it’s branded “ambiguous”? Score another for the apostates.

Section 23—“Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention [8] does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report.” Well, fooled *some* of them.. i.e. all that think that B033 does give the assurances. I’d say this is another score for them, even if not all the primates were fooled.

Section 24—PECUSA “has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.” ooo, didn’t fool them completely. Is this a point against the revisionists? Well, all the time the talk was that if PECUSA was found not to have complied, there would be consequences. And guess what the consequences were—hey, guys, have another seven months!! I’d say that’s a score for the revisionists again… even if they didn’t manage completely to fool the primates, they escaped any censure.

Section 25-6—The primates won’t, for now, stop crossing jurisdictional lines. Ooo, point against the apostates. Oh, but wait, the primates propose a solution for which they’ll return these parishes to PECUSAn control—KJS’ “Primatal Vicar” solution, which involves a Vicar acceptable to KJS, and with only the powers she delegates to the Vicar. In returh, the Global South parishes are transfered back to PECUSA. Once you read the terms of that agreement (I’ve analyzed it on another thread), it’s another clear victory for the revisionists—the primates have offered to “return” the GS parishes in exchange for a glorified (and equally hollow) DEPO.

Section 27—No alternate primatal oversight. “At the same time we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which must be respected.” Another score for the apostates.

Section 29—The Covenant still looms. “By making explicit what Anglicans mean by the “bonds of affection” and securing the commitment of each Province to those bonds, the structures of our common life can be articulated and enhanced.” But we’ve seen how the draft is sufficiently ambiguous that PECUSA, which has so far weasled its way out of even the more explicit Windsor report, could get out of this one too. Besides, whatever form it takes, it has to be ratified by PECUSA. I’d call this one no points to either side… it remains to be seen where the Covenant goes.

Section 30—“For there to be healing in the life of the Communion in the interim”, the Windsor report needs to be implemented. Well, unless all the GS embrace revisionism, there wasn’t going to be ‘healing’ anyway, and the translesbigays surely weren’t expecting *that*? Again, Windsor still upheld… but not enforceably, merely pointed to (yet again) as a standard. Another no-scorer.

Section 31—Some primates still need to be convinced that PECUSA actually gives a flying fig for Windsor. Hm, okay, I’ll give this a score “against” the apostates, as their smoke & mirrors has failed to completely carry the day, even though they avoided any sort of discipline or censure, the possibility may still be out there.

Section 32—Primatal oversight will have to stay… until the Primatal Vicar system is set up. Which system is a capitulation. We’ve scored that point for the apostates already.

Section 33-4—Some in PECUSA are upset over these interventions and “Many in the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests for clarity from the Primates unless they believe that actions that they perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to an end.” So PECUSA doesn’t have to respond to Windsor until the primates have returned the GS parishes. This opens the floodgates to delay and fudge. The House of Bishops could announce that until all the AMiA parishes (which, under Rwanda, “cross jurisdictional boundaries” in violation of Windsor) are returned to TEc, they won’t clarify their own stance on other parts of Windsor. Another big score for the revisionists.

Section 35—The attached “Schedule”, which proposes the return of the GS parishes for a glorified DEPO. (Already mentioned).

:
:

Okay, so the communique is basically win after win for the apostates.

What about the Schedule.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, the “return the G.S. parishes for KJS’ Primatal Vicar” is a massive loss for those parishes.

All that remains, then, is this final section:

The Primates recognise the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church addressed the requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the Primates at their Dromantine Meeting. They value and accept the apology and the request for forgiveness made [4]. While they appreciate the actions of the 75th General Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and its recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of those responses.

PECUSA is given credit for being “serious”, and it’s mealy-mouthed apology that the primates weren’t advanced enough to appreciate the pro-translesbigay agenda and so got their feelings hurt is “valued and accepted”. And the writing off of Windsor in all but lip service is merely described as “lack of clarity.”

Now we have a <u>request</u>

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).
The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.

This merely is a repetition of those Windsor requests with which they were supposed already to have complied.

I.e. rather than being censured or disciplined for failing to live up to Windsor (as was supposed to happen now), they get another 7 months.

And, of course, as seen above, the Communique already lays the groundwork for the reply that until the Primatal Vicar system is set up (which will proably take more than 7 months), the HOB won’t make any further clarification. So expect this 7 months to stretch into 17.

If these assurances can’t be given (as they surely won’t… though the exact recipe for the fudge of that reply remains to be seen) then:

the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

i.e. the current status quo will remain, with the same vague talk about consequences. With KJS elected to that key committee, that threat of consequences—which were supposed to occur now—seems rather empty.

:

And finally, on property, the primates just rubber-stamped the Dennis Cannon. Not that anything they said was going to have any relevance in a U.S. court of law anyway. “We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent”

:
:
:

So, really, I fail to see anything for the revisionist/apostate/lesbitransgay side to complain about… save to perpetuate their “we’re the victim” PR stance as they continue to persecute the more traditionalist still hanging on in PECUSA.

I don’t think, privately, they feel betrayed by KJS. I think they’ll hail her as a hero. Not only did she prevent any disciplining of PECUSA, not only did she get its rejection thereof described as merely “ambiguous”, not only did she get honored with an important appointment—she *even* got the primates to agree to return GS parish oversight in exchange for a “Primatal Vicar” system which she will control.

Sure, they’ll whine publically, to get more traction to delay and fudge and water-down and all the other usual ploys the revisionists have been using for 40 years.

Privately, I’m sure they’re raising a glass of pink Zinfandel or lite beer and toasting her.

:

pax,
LP

[24] Posted by LP on 02-20-2007 at 02:02 AM • top

First of all, I do like this website; it is actually more “open’ than the AAC Blog, in a certain sense. There is a little more mirth here. I am not sure if I would ever want to commune with an AAC “Christian”. Christianity as boring and negative as that would push me towards another faith. That being said, it is mind-bogling that after the horrid trial and extremely unfair punishment of Oscar Wilde, and the widening understanding of homosexuality as an orientation and not a choice that our communion should be so anti-homosexual. I understand the the want for caution, but to adopt the Archbishop of Nigeria’s “Throw the Fag down the Well” as doctrine seems to be to capitulate to no understanding of current society where Ellen DeGeneres and Elton John are household names. And not bad ones; they are people in committed relationships that make some of their heterosexual rivals look trashy—Yea Brittany! I know that the ECUSA will bow out to the AC - and that they should. It is “Catholic”. But I hope - soon - we move on from this issue. The so-called “Orthodox” who hunt-and-pick through the Holy Scriptures for their idea of a Real World need to move on from their “Beat the Fag” mantra. Is there any thing else really going on here of importance?

[25] Posted by RCtoEC on 02-20-2007 at 02:43 AM • top

RCtoEC are you British?  I find that the state church model often complicates the questions you raise.
Take the state/church entanglement out of it, and you are conflating two separate issues: the human/civil rights of LGBT people, and the mission of the church. 
There are many (and probably a majority) of people who are not affronted by removal of antiquated laws against homosexuals.  Most people in the West have no interest in a police state that spies on bedrooms, and are in fact fine with removing governmental hindrances to how homosexuals dispose of their property and assign responsibilities such as power of attorney.
But, a church in which ordinands swear belief in “the Old and New Testament as the word of God, containing all things necessary to salvation” cannot bless that which is not affirmed (and in fact is seen as sin) in its own Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection.
Where the Windsor Report’s “listening process” can be helpful is to extend this Western idea to other places.  The LGBT community has a point about persecution of its members in various places, and the West can teach other parts of the world the benefits about getting government out of the moral coercion business.  But this does not mean that the church is just another employer and has to ordain everybody who fills out an application.
We’ve done “listening process” to death here in TEC…I have been ordained over 20 years and there is not enough room on this blog for me to list all of the LGBT listening events I’ve been compelled to attend from seminary forward.  I entered the ministry pretty liberal on many points - it was a) the frequent alliance of the LGBT with anti-Christian or heretical elements and b) my rediscovery of Scripture which changed my mind against SSUs and LGBT ordination.  But I’ve never advocated legal sanctions against homosexuals and do not see that kind of coercion as a service to the Gospel.

[26] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-20-2007 at 05:37 AM • top

LP,
I agree with your section by section analysis of the Communique above.
The Communique reads like TWR II—The Sequel.  There is significant retreat on jurisdictional boundaries, which will hamper missionary activity in the U.S.  There is no reason to anticipate The Pastoral Council will be more functional than the Panel of Reference because 3 is greater than 2—in votes.  The old SSB equivocation between local practice and a published RITE, e.g. something published by the Diocese, remains.
The House of Bishops will simply and regretfully agree to not to publish a “Rite of Blessing” on the diocesan level and go on their merry way.

[27] Posted by Sparky on 02-20-2007 at 06:06 AM • top

Rather than refute your tenditious reading LPR can I suggest that people simply read the documents for themselves. Please note the comments of bloggers with a track record like Matt Kennedy, David Ould and Sarah Hey as you make up your minds.

[28] Posted by obadiahslope on 02-20-2007 at 06:56 AM • top

I see this comment to the post at inchatatime…
What kind of a tactic is this, its almost lying…if her partner were of the opposite sex no one would think twice…but she still doesn’t get the fact that they are NOT BANNED from the Church - just ordained leadership positions - at least Bishops. If her partner were of the opposite sex and they were not married they would not be able to be ordained leaders of the Church also. I am being serious and concerned here…either she is lying or is so emotionally disturbed that she perceives herself the eternal victim…
I have seen another tactic also, where Liberal bloggers create Orthodox sounding names and rant in an EXTREME fashion against their cause trying to make the Orthodox seem like a bunch of extremists. This is concerning to me. They will never give up and to what extremes are they willing to go?

“This makes me so tired.
If my partner were of the opposite sex, no one would think twice about our “manner of life.” We go to church, we tithe, we vote, we pay our bills on time, we walk the dog twice a day, we do all the things our parents did—and in the suburbs, to boot. We have built a life together; we are responsible citizens and active, faithful Christians and Episcopalians.
And it’s not enough for them. It will never be enough. In their narcissism, anything that doesn’t match them in every single detail is unacceptable.
Lord Jesus, please—tell me why I should bother any more?”

[29] Posted by Conoscenzo on 02-20-2007 at 10:29 AM • top

Dear Mr. (or should I say Reverend?) Fountain,

Your reply to RCtoEC makes you sound very (small l) libertarian, so much so that I (an avowedly—small l—libertarian) could not have said it any better, assuming for the moment that by “moral coercion” you mean statutory coercion on matters of personal morals.

And, your point is distinctly ad rem and thoroughly correct. The church is not a democracy, not even a libertarian democracy. No one has a right to ordination, nor to define for themselves what is, or is not, a sacrament.

The only thing I would add to what you said to RCtoEC is that anyone who takes seriously his/her baptismal vow to ” ... strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being” will recognize that there is no exception for the activities of those human beings with whom we disagree as to the morality of particular mutually consensual actions which may be defined by the Holy Bible as sinful, but which are not appropriately defined by public law as criminal. Stated more simply, that vow does not permit us to fail to respect the dignity of only those with whom we disagree.

[30] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 02-20-2007 at 04:17 PM • top

Please forgive my editing error, the last part of the last sentence should have read “fail to respect the dignity of those with whom ...”

[31] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 02-20-2007 at 04:20 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.