Canon Bill Atwood: Why I Am Leaving the Episcopal Church

Wow. Amen.

This Really makes me ponder and reflect !  We are commanded to be no part of this world !  And
God clearly condemns homosexuality as a blasphemy,abomination,perversion.and burning lust to mention a few comments by our Creator ! And He clearly states that His congregation is a one of Unity !  Not Division !  So my comment is Who and What is going on {?}

I have deep respect for Bill Atwood, but how much has he really functioned in ecusa?  Has he not been in a parachurch ministry for several years?

Swede: Matt 18, 1 Cor 5, Galatians 1, 2nd John…

the list goes on. The NT calls the church to cast out and seperate herself from devoted and unrepentant false teachers. Canon Atwood believes ECUSA has proven herself to be such.

Prior to GC, I realized that silence was deafening from Bill’s+ direction. Since “To Mend the Net” there hasn’t been anything of significance where Cn. Atwood wasn’t a key leader.

I’d been praying for Bill+ for weeks and finally contacted him. I was not free to comment on his turning in his ECUSA credentials until he publicly announced on August 1. He has been licensed to Uganda[?] for several years and working for the Primates since ’03 that I know of. God bless him, he’s free.

Canon Atwood still remains a key leader as noted in ++Duncan’s Moderator’s Report at the ACN Council in Pittsburg. Keep him in your prayers.

Brother and Sisters in Christ, to God be the glory, great things He has done, is doing and will do in the days ahead. Eye has not seen nor ear yet heard the marvelous works our God will do in the days ahead.

What a privilege to be living at this time to serve our Lord Jesus and to be able to share the Good News!

God bless Canon Bill!

Well written and trenchant.

The only caution I have is to note that I think that we have a responsibility to warn those in ECUSA who are asleep or distracted of the icebergs looming dead ahead.

I love Canon Atwood’s flotilla imagery, but the Church as God sees it is really individual human souls regardless of their denominational label. We who see that the ship has changed course and see the icebergs cannot simply leave without warning our fellow passengers. How to do this? How long to stay before we abandon ship?

Inasmuch as TEC (at least its leadership and a clear majority of the Bishops) has already abandoned Christ, it seems that the better image is that TEC has already struck an iceberg and is already sinking.

where’s he going??

As Bob+ noted, he’s probably going to Uganda

Anglican, in communion with the ABC. He can pick his province from at least 22.

I understand his leaving TEC. However, we, orthodox and moderates, that are “sticking it out”, still need Godly clergy men and women in leadership roles.

mwo, I understand what you are asking your clergy to do. However, at some point all will have to make a choice.

One can only roll about in the muck and mire so long before we smell so bad that most will turn away their heads and will be unable to hear what we say, no matter how “Godly” our message.

Jimmy Baker and Jimmy Swagert found out how important perceptions of one’s ministry are. TD Jakes has a great sermon on this. As long as they were perceived as Godly, they flourished. When that changed. . .great ministries ceased.

The fleet imagery is near-perfect. The destination of the mutinous crew toward icy waters begs for a book to be written. The ship is taking on water, but appears fine still to cruise-minded passengers. Bill has put off at St. John, Newfoundland. Bless him; he has a ministry to fulfill.

Others of us clergy have groups of people looking to us for a signal. We are trying to gather some more passengers to fill a lifeboat. We are eyeing the lifeboats,studying the winch mechanisms, storing up food and blankets.

Some of us already leaned over the stern and painted a graffiti “Ichabod” on it. But we are making the decision to stay on board a little longer.

http://anthill.wordpress.com/

A friendly word of warning about T.D. Jakes: He is a modalist.

See this essay from Christian Research Journal:

http://www.equip.org/free/DJ900.htm

“The problem with staying in ECUSA now, is continued presence lends credibility to an institution that is no longer recognizably Christian.”  Can we remain in ECUSA (TEC) and still claim to be faithful to the Lord? Doesn’t remaining say we still share the Table with the non-belivers?  When is enough, enough.  God Bless Bill+.

Doug, even modalists can speak truth! Paul Zahl said he’s the best preacher in the USA at our clergy conference.

Bob, I agree that even modalists can speak truth. I’ve watched Jakes on TV several times, enjoyed his humorous and blunt style, and agreed with the great majority of what he says.

I raised the modalist point because modalism is one of the concerns expressed frequently by conservative Episcopalians, myself included, about our church and its tedious “God has pitched God’s tent among God’s people” liturgies.

For mwo and others who have ears to hear:

I know where I stand.  The problem is, “sticking it out” means nobody knows where you stand.

I think it is a perfectly legitimate exception for those in strong network dioceses that have a chance to contend for the institutional resources that a pretty good church could then use for mission and ministry, to stick it out and fight for the stuff God has entrusted to us.

For everyone else, this is not the time for “sticking it out.”  This is the time for pruning and cutting.  “...continued presence lends credibility to an institution that is no longer recognizably Christian.”

Unless you are on a rescue mission to bring others out of ECUSA, staying means being thrown on the pile to be burned with the other trash.

Now, I’m thinking, “How do I soften the tone of this?”  But, I don’t think I’ll try.

Agree, Doug.

Dr. Atwood makes a compelling and forceful statement of his convictions.  One can only hope the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) will finally realize what Dr. Atwood sees so clearly -that ECUSA is no longer a part the Christian faith.  ACI seems like a grieving relative clutching a corpse.  ECUSA is dead.  It is time to let it go.

Wow. I don’t think there are too many leaders of greater integrity or selflessness than Canon Bill Atwood based on what I’ve read by him and learned of his ministry over the past few years.

Having such a leader cry “Ichabod” is just incredible and so clearly confirms the reality of this tragedy and the makes the writing on the wall pretty impossible to ignore.

Andy, as a parshioner in a non-Network Diocese it was very painful for me to come to the conclusion that you and Canon Atwood articulate.  By leaving, I gave up much that I had previously valued and essentially acted against my will. I later found that was an essential part of the blessing.

In terms of the rescue mission analogy, I used it for a few months before leaving. I ultimately realized I that my continued presence was encouraging others to stay.

Lightfoot, I don’t think there’s any question that the ACN realizes that.

Tony:  No doubt you are correct.  The ACI realizes the situation in ECUSA but has taken a position that the orthodox must stay within ECUSA and change it.  This is in contrast to Dr. Atwood’s statement.

The ACN position as I understand it is the orthodox in ecusa should wait until the Anglican Communion has disenfranchised ecusa and recognized the Network as the legitimate expression of Anglicanism in the US.

Tony,

That is certainly the ACI position.

It is not the ACN position.

The ACN position is a both/and rather than either/or. The ACN embraces orthodox parishes within and outside the structure of ECUSA and does NOT encourage parishes in non-Network diocese to stay.

In fact, the parishes that comprise the 7th convocation, as bishop Duncan articulated, are central to Network strategy and he has embraced the Overland Park model and upheld the example of the Olympia parishes…all of which have peacefully departed ECUSA.

Sorry.  I meant to say ACI.

Either/or - is that like pluriform truth?

ACN “does NOT encourage parishes in non-Network diocese to stay.”

That’s an interesting statement.  I was told by a Network dean that ACN would not tell Network churches to stay or leave.  Has this changed in the two months since I was told this?

As I say over at T19, Scripture is clear that God hates divorce and yet you seem to state that amicable divorce is preferable than waiting for the Anglican Communion to act.  I personally don’t think that divorce is a good model for church actions.

Tony, what you and Martt are talking about is the same stance from two different viewpoints:

I see Matt spotlighing the ACN’s support of orthodox congregations both inside and outside.

What you heard is that theACN doesn’t either encourage or discourages congregations.

These statements aren’t contradictory.

I do not think that the Network would encourage or discourage leaving. And yet, that leaving is clearly viewed in a positive light cannot be denied now that the Moderator has held up Overland park and the Olympia parishes as models and signalled the importance of the 7th convocation in Network planning.

God hates divorce *in marriage*. He commands ostracization and seperation from false teachers and heretics.

I think maybe one should read the latest statement by the ACI thoroughly..  As I read it, I became convinced they see a division coming, and I don’t think they are quite so harsh on those who feel they must leave..
Just my humble opinion

Grannie G

Canon Atwood’s letter contains a very good description of the rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by Corporate Ecusa:

“While the trappings may appear as they have been for generations, the content of ECUSA’s faith is now formally and fundamentally antithetical to the Christian faith of Scripture and history. The message is no longer redemption, forgiveness, salvation, and transfiguration. Now it is naive acceptance and uncritical celebration. Hope is no longer appropriate because they have left the One Who is the source of hope. The leadership has departed from the One Who delivers and transforms. Further, they have constrained those who follow to have to live with what could be redeemed and healed. The institutional heart has turned to stone. It cannot turn back to flesh as long as the choice is maintained to live apart from the presence of Jesus.”

Is there anyone out there who has studied the situation who would argue otherwise?

Thank You for this clear statement of the present state of the Corporation.

Praise God for the Body of Christ!
There is a Balm in Gilead.

May the Lord Bless You and Keep You!

Stan

God hates divorce *in marriage*. He commands ostracization and seperation from false teachers and heretics.”

And there is a biblical way of doing this - the church tosses them out.  That is biblical (and not schismatic) separation.

Grannie, Must leave is the key.  The diocese that Matt and I are in has not yet pushed us out.  It could happen as early as next year for my parish; it has not yet happened here.

Again Tony, your understanding of “church” is to be distinguished from that of the reformers and, I would argue, that of the NT. IN fact, from the perspective Radner’s ecclesiology, the Reformation (Anglicanism in fact) is a grave mistake and error.
But what the Reformers clearly saw was that a willful consistent departure from the teaching of God’s Word is a departure from the Church whether or not the visible institution of the church recognizes that fact.

  False teachers and wolves are false teachers and wolves whether the visible church officially recognizes that fact or not and pastors are obligated to protect their flock from them regardless of whether the whole visible church declares them so.

Moreover, my view on the status and place of disassociated congregations is in full agreement with that of the Anglican Communion Network—an actual visible body of the Church—which upholds the actions of churches who have departed, unforced, from heretical dioceses.

Your view is in full agreement with a think tank.

The Titanic analogy has one simple flaw when applying it to ECUSA and the orthodox.  The Titanic had far too few lifeboats to accommodate all of the passengers and crew and so the majority on board were doomed.  In reality, our Lord provides for all who would follow.  There is no lack of lifeboats.  Nor, I believe, will there ever be, at least until the ship slips under the waves.  But those who remain aboard, knowing full well that there are lifeboats for all, are tasked by God to work to encourage those who remain to look over the side and learn that God would have them leave the heresies and sin behind.

“Again Tony, your understanding of “church” is to be distinguished from that of the reformers and, I would argue, that of the NT.”

Matt, this is a pretty strong statement.  I wonder if you have thought through the implications of what you are saying here.

“IN fact, from the perspective Radner’s ecclesiology, the Reformation (Anglicanism in fact) is a grave mistake and error.”

Has Radner said this?

“But what the Reformers clearly saw was that a willful consistent departure from the teaching of God’s Word is a departure from the Church whether or not the visible institution of the church recognizes that fact.”

Matt, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Luther tossed out of the RCC?  How about Calvin?

“False teachers and wolves are false teachers and wolves whether the visible church officially recognizes that fact or not and pastors are obligated to protect their flock from them regardless of whether the whole visible church declares them so.”

Yes, Matt, I have heard you say this.  My question on this is, did our bishop become a false teacher when he cast a vote in favor of VGR or was he a false teacher prior to this?

“Moreover, my view on the status and place of disassociated congregations is in full agreement with that of the Anglican Communion Network—an actual visible body of the Church—which upholds the actions of churches who have departed, unforced, from heretical dioceses.”

Matt, the ACN is not the Church, it is a part of the Anglican Communion.  This is where I find your error in ecclesiology. 

“Your view is in full agreement with a think tank.”

I guess this is intended to denigrate the ACN.  I find this disappointing.  Radner, Seitz, et al are good theologians, and frankly I think that they deserve better from you than this.

ACI, not ACN in the final paragraph above.

All of us, singly or corporately whether ACI, ACN, AC, CoE, TEC, ABC, CoE, ACoC, etc. are completely dependent upon God’s mercy and grace and must humbly seek Him for wisdom, guidance, correction, power, discernment to do His will.  (John 15:5) 

Only the Lord Jesus Christ can give His will to His Church.  Our walk, individually or corporately, is determined and judged by whether we do His will, seek His glory, His increase and not our own. 

The greatest danger of being a theologian (or in the case of a priest), C.S. Lewis said, was loving our thoughts (success, goals, directions, approval of men) about God more than we love Him.

He gathers, false shepherds and wolves scatter.  We will scatter and divide unless we hear Him.
We must pray to be ‘gathered’ individually and corporately completely unto Him, laying all we know, desire, believe at His feet, at the Cross, offered up to be crucified, so that His will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.
 
Luke 10:42 - Christ said only ‘one thing’ Christ is necessary - to love and hear Him.  It is only through our ‘first love’ devotion and focus upon Christ that we can function as His Church - that is one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit, to give us devotion and focus on Christ, then He, the Holy Spirit can impart truth when our inner priorities are in order.  When individual preferences, ponderings and proclivities get in the way, we are in His way. 

In being One with Him, we are One with each other, and only then do we have love, light, and can do His work and will.

When Christ is first love, there is unity, love, mutual submission, peace and good will and there are no arguments about direction and timing. 

There is only ‘one thing’ the ‘first thing’, the glorious vision of Christ before our eyes and the purpose of telling redeeming power and joy of His Gospel.

Tony.

1. Don’t put words or implications in my mouth. I have great respect for the ACI and have never said differently. Spare me your “disappointment”. It derives only from your own rather uncharitable reading of my words…itself a disappointment.

But the ACI is a think tank.

I was merely pointing out that my position is in fact embraced by the ACN and yours is not. And, in fact, that the primates at Dromantine amended the WR’s negative perspective on boundary crossings so that they are permissable given that they are initiated by parishes and not intervening provinces, you can make a very good argument for the ACN’s position paralleling that of the primates. Your’s and the ACI’s being the minority.

2. You are completely avoiding the thrust of the argument I make with regard to false teachers. Do you deny that the bishop is a false teacher? If he is then you and I as pastors have a serious responsibity with regard to our respective flocks. I have done my best to ensure that he has neither preached nor celebrated here since 2003, when he took his first act to officially sanction heresy. Now that he has refused to repent, we are taking further action to protect the flock. You know very well the NT commands with regard to wolves and false teachers and participation with them. Rather than quibbling about time-lines it might be best to consider the fact that regardless of the past your bishop and mine is presently a false teacher. What are you doing about it?

3. The point wrt Luther and Calvin et al was that they both recognized that the RCC had departed the faith when it officially renounced the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. At that point neither Reformer considered himself in communion with the see of Rome. Yes Luther was formally kicked out of the RCC. I’m not sure about Calvin either. But, then again, the priests at Overland Park and Olympia were “defrocked” too. The question is, which came first.

4. You’ve read “Fragments”. No I do not believe he says that the Reformation was a mistake but applying the principles he suggests to the Reformation, it is very difficult to see how he would have approved. 

5. It is a strong statement and I have throught through it pretty clearly. I’m a big fan of Calvin you know.

Matt, maybe I misread you - Were you not pointing to the ACI in saying that I was relying on a think tank?  Wasn’t this to indicate the superiority of your position to that of the ACI?

2.  I asked last night, has the ACN said that parishes that remain in ecusa are wrong?  Is this what you are saying?

In terms of our bishop, I was wondering when you stopped allowing him to teach in your parish.  Was it before 2003?  If it was not before 2003, were you allowing a false teacher in the pulpit of your parish?  I have been confronting our bishop about his false teaching since 2003.  Apparently you find fault with my approach.

Your comments about other parishes suggest to me that you do see a difference between your situation and theirs.  You have not yet been defrocked.

As far as Calvin goes, I’m not sure what implications from his theology you are holding up as worthy for Anglicans to emulate.  You seem to have used the reformers (and the NT) as reasons to say that my ecclesiology (and I guess the ecclesiology of Radner) is wrong.  I think you might need to develop this before saying that I (and apparently Radner) are out of step (false teachers?) with the NT and the Reformers.

Thanks, Tony, for reminding us about the implications of the Reformation.  If Radner has indeed said that the “Reformation (Anglicanism in fact) is a grave mistake and error,” then he must think those martyrs who died for the truth of their convictions are indeed the “idiot-heroes” unbelievers have portrayed them to be.  Poor Ridley and Latimer.  How unlearned they must have been!

And here I’ve been thinking the Protestant Reformation in England was the opening of the door—perhaps not as far as I and other evangelicals would have liked—to a more biblical perspective of the New Testament faith—one free of the ruinous excesses of medieval (and superstitious) Catholicism.

I’m reminded of a remark John Stott made in his long-out-of-print (and great!) book “Jesus the Controversalist.”  He said that true apostolic succession is not the successive laying on of hands of an unbroken chain of bishops but faithfulness to the apostles’ teaching.

Luther himself never accepted the notion of apostolic authority divorced from clear New Testament teaching.  He insisted that the bishop of Rome (and all priests and bishops) in presiding at the sacraments acted on behalf of the authority vested in the local congregation, not in the laying on of hands at ordination. In our own day, Luther’s teaching has been revived in discussions about lay presidency at the Eucharist, and it has garnered intense anger and hostility from numerous Roman Catholic and Anglican quarters.

Here’s how Luther put it:  “When a bishop consecrates, he simply acts on behalf of the entire congregation, all of whom have the same authority.  They may select one of their number and command him to exercise this authority on behalf of the others” (“An Appeal to the Ruling Class of German Nationality as to the Amelioration of the State of Christendom”).

This seems to be where we are in respect to ecclesiology.  Do we have a church that is faithful to the apostolic tradition and to that tradition alone?

And you’re right, Tony.  However scriptural and faithful the ACN may be, it is only part of the Anglican Communion.

Tony and Matt,

I’ve enjoyed listening to/viewing the exchange of ideas here, much of which appears to compress the debates and arguments amongst reasserters in the Episcopal church over the past 3 years, and over the past 20, and over the past 40.

My question is for Tony.  You and I probably agree on what stances we individuals [and for your parish?] have chosen to take.  I intend to see if the appeal to the larger church [the Anglican Communion] is successful in asking for discipline of the smaller church [the ECUSA].  If it is successful, the larger church body will have strengthened its own boundaries and integrity and be set on the path of further discipline and good order.  If it is not successful, it is my belief that the Anglican Communion will fracture into many pieces.  Some large chunk will remain with ECUSA/COE/SouthAfrica, etc, some large chunk will go with the Global South, and I have no doubt that others will hive off into various other Anglican [or other denominational] streams unconnected either with the larger reappraising or the larger reasserting branch.

In short, I believe the latter option will be disastrously fragmented and, unlike some other reasserters, I do not believe that there will be a unified Anglicanism at that point for many many many decades, although of course both “larger chunk” bodies will claim that.  I will at that point be strongly considering various options, including simply choosing the strongest, gospel-believing, most evangelizing and discipling congregational church in the community that I can find and moving forward and away from the Anglican wars.

Obviously, I hope that the former option will happen rather than the latter, but frankly it depends on Rowan Williams and the Primates, and not anything else that I can see [other than God’s will].

But I guess, in all the chaos of the past years, as I’ve observed people go [and people arrive back, ironically, having explored and realized that they are Episcopalians and wish to work for reform in their parish or diocese!], I can’t help but think that these questions of current choices are “minor details” and one cannot really judge other people’s choices during the chaos, smoke, firefighting, and actual bizarreness of the individual, family, parish, diocesan, and national complexities that we are all facing.

I’d personally love for everyone to sit tight as the chain of discipline has moved to the highest body—the Anglican Communion—and works its way downward.  I personally believe that that is scriptural, as well and in keeping not only with Paul’s exhortations to the church to discipline its members [not the members the church] but in keeping with the framework that Matthew lays out for good order.

But again, it just seems to be trifling over small details . . .

Is it important, Tony, that Matt agree with you on these matters?  If so, why is it important?  Whatever Matt’s decisions for his family and his parish in the coming weeks and months, we all know that there will be many, many such decisions of individuals and parishes—both to leave and ironically to stay—over the coming months as this mess is sorted out.

I don’t mean those questions or thoughts to be in any way disrespectful, so please don’t take the above as anything but real curiosity and interest.

I do think the position of the ACN superior to that of the ACI. I do think the ACI is a think tank and the ACN is an ecclesial body. In pointing both of these things out in the course of an argument over whose position best represents the “catholic” I was not at all “denigrating” the ACI. You read that into my response.

Response to your “2”

No, as I explained the ACN’s position on this is best characterized as both/and, while the ACI’s is either/or. Apparently you misunderstood the point and referred to this summation as an example of “pluriform” thinking. It is not. The ACN supports both parishes that stay and parishes that leave and embraces both as faithful options in keeping with biblical principles. The ACI, by way of contrast, does not. It encourages parishes to stay and discourages them from leaving.

3. I was made rector on Dec 22nd 2003. Since I have been rector, the bishop has not exercised his ministry in this parish.

4. Tony, I have said nothing about your approach. I have asked what you are doing to protect your flock. You know what I am doing to protect mine. On the contrary, you have found fault with my approach.

5. I believe they were defrocked as a part of the negotiations with their bishops after their decisions to leave, as have most rectors/priests who make these decisions, regardless of the amicability of the relations. Of course the priests in question transfer their papers to another province, but ECUSA does not recognize this transfer. I expect something along those lines for myself.

6. Tony, the debate we are having is an in-house debate. I would never call you or Radner a “false teacher” just because we disagree over ecclesiology. That is rediculous.

Sarah,

On the question is it important?  I do believe that theology is important as a reflection of what we believe God would have us believe and act.  As I have said previously, I do think that conservatives going in different directions (AMIA, now the 7th province, some to the RCC…) is not helpful to the cause of Christ or the mission of the church as it is in ecusa and the Anglican Communion.  As Anglicans we have accepted some semblence of a catholic faith and order.  The order part is why I don’t think the reformers, like Calvin, are particularly helpful for us in this situation (but that could be the subject of an entire essay).

Important, yes.  At the end of the day, can I accept that Matt has led his church in a different direction than our own.  Yes, it saddens me, but it certainly isn’t something I would break fellowship over.  While I will argue the theology, at the end of the day I will support Matt in his ministry.

Rose Mary: As Matt has said, Radner to his knowledge (and mine) has not said that the Reformation was a mistake.

I differ with Sarah H.and with Tony on the merits of the “inside” strategy, but agree at the end it is not a huge difference as long as we are viewing things from a temporary perspective. Sarah H. indicates she is waiting to see if the Anglican Communion as current constructed discliplines TEC in a way that allows her to stay; if not she is likely out. Tony, I don’t know what your end point is but you obviously serve Christ, not TEC as an institution, and like Sarah H. I would guess have your own point where you will not stay. We all have them, some of us just reached ours earlier than others.

What I have found missing from ACI and others advocating a long term inside strategy is a recognition of the reality facing the young family. As older adults, we can learn from and perhaps even enjoy the ongoing debate. However, a young family doesnt have the luxury of attending a church where the Rector is at war with the Bishop, where you can’t send your children to an Episocpal Youth camp, can’t trust denominational teaching material, and have to explain your church membership to outsiders by saying you are an “Episcopaleon, but…” It is difficult for a young family to instill good stewardship habits when it can’t contribute to its parish because its parish contributes to the Diocese which contributes to you know what. A young family doesnt have the luxury of urging their children to attend most Episcopal college ministries.

With the Titanic, it was young families (women and children) who got on the lifeboats first in order to survive.  Thats why young families in non-Network are justifiably leaving, and we must do everything we can to give them a place to go.

Far more relevant to our own ecclesiology than Luther or Calvin is that of Cranmer, whose theological conviction that the King was living in sin for having married his brother’s wife led to his elevation to ABC.  It is to his ecclesiological precedent in giving King Henry the theological justification for a break with Rome that led to the Church of England, and by the transitive property of ecclesiology, to English colonies, then to PECUSA.  While many have suggested King Henry’s divorce to be the catalyst for the English reformation, and they are not entirely incorrect, this does not mean that Cranmer’s ecclesiology arose merely out of political necessity.  He was himself very influenced by the continental Reformers, both Luther and Calvin, but the precedent for his break with Rome should not be confused with being “thrown out” of the RCC because of theological conviction.

Tony, if you were Lutheran or Calvinist, you and Radner both might be making profound ecclesiological points… however, given the fact that Henry VIII, with Cranmer having done the theological heavy lifting, simply declared himself the spiritual head of the Church of England, is your ecclesiological position, and that of Radner’s, not ironic at best?

Timothy, you make good points.  First, as one who has accepted ordination in a church of catholic faith and order, I do believe that the Anglican Communion through the ABC and Primates needs to discipline ecusa.  I don’t yet know where the end point is, as you put it, at this point.

Second, I have a ten y.o. and a 16 y.o.  My 16 y.o began going to diocesan camps when she was 9 or so(I was a chaplain at the first two camps she attended).  The last camp she went to was several years ago.  We will not allow her to go to any diocesan camps now, and my son has not and will not attend any until we are in an orthodox diocese .  This is unfortunate, but there are many Christian youth that have never attended any youth camps.

Our parish is in strong disagreement with our bishop and we have a number of young families.  Our parish has not given to the diocese since 2003 , except for designated gifts to the diocese from parishioners.  We have used the Anglican Curriculum from Cook and are now using the Group Faithweaver series.  In 18 years of overseeing Christian Education in 4 parishes, I have never used an ecusa curriculum.  When my daughter goes to college in a year we will urge her to be involved with IVCF and find a gospel-preaching church.  These are all givens for an inside strategy, but let’s look at an outside strategy.

1. What kind of youth ministry will there be for one parish that has removed herself from an innovating diocese that wouldn’t be available to an orthodox parish still in the diocese?

2.  How is the curriculum situation any different?

3. How is the college situation any different?

Christoferos, I don’t think so.  First, what Cranmer and the other reformers wanted was a reformed catholicism.  Yhey retained much more of the RCC tradition than either the Lutherans or the Calvinists. 

Second, it was Matt who was claiming to be a Calvinist.  On Calvin, consider what he had to say about the church: “Whereever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail” [Calvin then quotes Mt. 18:20].  IV.i.9

About the RCC, Calvin says: “Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them.”  IV.ii.12

Maybe old Calvin wouldn’t have as much a problem with an inside strategy as some might believe.

Re: “Sarah H. indicates she is waiting to see if the Anglican Communion as current constructed discliplines TEC in a way that allows her to stay; if not she is likely out.”

Keep in mind, though, that should the Anglican Communion fail to discipline ECUSA, I believe that the Anglican Communion will no longer exist as it is presently constituted.  The Anglican Communion will simply break apart and become “something else entirely” whatever that is.

I think that’s true of any “body” that fails to discipline itself, as sin left undisciplined continues to corrupt, disfigure, and deface individuals, churches, and communities.

It was Henry who maintained the elements of catholicism… it was as soon as he was dead, under the hapless Edward, that Cranmer began to unfold his continental reformer wings.  By that time, the ecclesiological precedent had been set, and it was not until after his martyrdom that the Elizabethan settlement took place, which was not a theological settlement, but a political one.

I do not think Dr. Ashley Null, research assistant to Diarmand MacCulloch during his writing of his biography of Cranmer, author of Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of Repentance, and general Cranmer expert, would agree with your characterization of Cranmer.

Calvin might have had an inside strategy, and Luther might have as well (although he said some nasty, nasty things about the pope, doing everything he could to get “thrown out”), but you cannot, I repeat, cannot accuse Cranmer of an inside strategy.

Where I am in error, teach me.

Tony,

Nor would he object to the outside strategy.

ECUSA as an institution does not fit Calvin’s definition of Church. There are some outposts of the Church (your parish for example) in ECUSA as there were in the Roman church of his day, but the institution of ECUSA itself can no longer lay claim to the title of the Church…at least if you buy into Calvin, which I do.

Why not remain as an outpost? This is where our discussion of how best to protect the flock comes back into play. Certainly, you can maintain a faithful presence in a fallen sect, but if you have a parish full of babies (new believers), if succession is largely in the hands of a wolf, if staying constitutes passive participation with an institution actively leading souls to hell, is this the wisest course?

Sarah, I hope I didn’t mischaracterize your position. I agree, if the AOC doesnt act, the AC will not be the same.

Tony, I don’t know where you are located, but in the South I am not aware of any sizable churches (contributing a large percentage of the Diocisian budget) in non-Network Dioceses that, as a practical matter, were allowed to eliminate, or drastically reduce, their giving.  So you have a level of seperation that these churches did not. My hats off.

Your path with your children is exactly what we were taking when we were in TEC. You have also raised excellent issues that must be confronted by the new Anglican churches. Leaving TEC caused a lot of retrospection on my part and others.  We found we can’t blame the revisinists for all our own failings, and we had some repenting to do particularly in the area of youth and family ministry. Frankly, part of the answer was that we need to put the church at the middle of our lives, including our social lives, and be a little more like our Southern Baptist bretherin in the way we approach youth and childrens ministry.  I suppose that could have been done while in TEC, but it took the divorce to get us to that point. We also found that being outside of TEC has opened up more shared ministry opportunities with orthodox, non-Anglican denominations.  Our teens have had the remarkable experience of being confirmed by an African Bishop, and to see first hand what true wealth really is.  Thats a far cry from the prior situation where we were trying to keep our Bishop and his teachings away from our children!  We also hope the break will make it easier for them to find the right church in college. My children are quick to recognize double standards, and I feared it was going to be hard for me to stear them away from Episcopal groups if I myself was unwilling to leave the denomination. As you acknowledge in discussing your daughter’s college plans, when it comes to our kids there is no “inside” strategy that is worth risking them being in the wrong hands.

The Network and the larger new Anglican churches need to fund and develop some common teaching and communication material, which I see the Network is starting to do. One positive development is that the new Anglican churches, by necessity, have embraced the power of the web, which is making their delivery more effective. Just look at some of the web pages, and listen to some of the podcasts, of the new churches. Remarkable.

Yours is a unique TEC parish; no giving to the Diocese, no infiltration of TEC teaching material, apparently no visits and sermons by the Bishop.  Perhaps that lets you operate in TEC longer than others. God bless what you have done.

Christoferos,

I’m not saying that Calvin had an inside strategy, only that he found some faithful churches inside the RCC, and I don’t see him taking them to task for being in a church that he has plenty of negative opinions about.  As far as Cranmer goes, I have read most of DM’s Cranmer, and I am not sure where I have gone wrong in characterizing Cranmer from his light.  As for Ashley Null, or even Paul Zahl, maybe they have a different take.

Thank you folks so much because every time I ride by my old parish with my young son he asks when we are going back to our church.  We were very involved at our parish and at six years old he was a better usher than many of our grown men.  I harbor a good deal of guilt for taking my family out of my parish but after years of monitoring T-19 and this blog I know I have made the right decesion.  It doesn’t make that decision much easier, however.  Again, the answer for individuals in reappraising areas (not diocises) is for orthodox congregations to reach out to them.

Like Sarah I’m in the Diocisie of Upper SC and you can call it a Windsor Diocise if yoy like but it is dominated by reappraising clergy and laypeople.  Morever there are three TEC churches in driving proximity to my home and all are reappraising.  With two young children why do I want to establish a long term relationship in my area?  Once more,

Sorry, I inadvertently sent the previous post with out editing.  Hopefully you got the point.

I understood, Lee. How far are you from Greenville or Aiken, as I may be visiting both soon. I’ve my mom, brother, sister-in-law and their kids in Aiken.

Timothy, the last visit of the bishop was after GC06 when he came and met with the vestry.  Prior to that, he had a visit in 12/03 during which he was the celebrant and preacher for both liturgies.  Between services he met with parishioners and after the later service he met with the vestry.

Close to both Bob+.  The neat thing about SC is that it is the size of a large city and has a great transportation system.  Admin would you send Bob+ my email?  Thanks.

Tony,

Ah, the meetings between the orthodox Vestry and the Bishop. I feel like a repressed memory has been brought back up in a therapy session. I need a drink.

Sorry about that, Timothy.

I have a friend who has been an avowed agnostic for as long as I have known her (about 22 years).  She has recently told me that she has decided to give religion a try and wanted to know if I could recommend a good church in Seattle.  Well, imagine, my dilemna.  I can’t just tell her to seek out your local ECUSA church.  How do I know that they even know who God is there much less how to shepherd a seeker who will need great nuturing.
Pretty sad state wouldn’t you say when you are afraid to refer someone to church because you don’t know what god they worship?

There is St. Luke’s Seattle.

Now I can see what this is about for Matt:
“Why not remain as an outpost? This is where our discussion of how best to protect the flock comes back into play. Certainly, you can maintain a faithful presence in a fallen sect, but if you have a parish full of babies (new believers), if succession is largely in the hands of a wolf, if staying constitutes passive participation with an institution actively leading souls to hell, is this the wisest course?”

It’s about succession.  If this was evident earlier in the discussion, the discussion would have been much shorter.

huh? there are three points here? what are you talking about?

Oh, I see, you think I’m leaving my parish. I’m not. Succession is an issue, but a long term one.

Lee - Great news!  You can contact any other user simply by following these instructions:  log in, click “Your Account,” then click “Member List.” When you find the member you’re looking for, you can send an email to them.

zephr - do you have personal knowledge of St.Luke’s?  Is it in Seattle proper?

I don’t know how to do a hot link, so I can’t give you one, but if you google st.luke’s episcopal seattle, you’ll pull it up.  I once met the priest there and chatted with him.  No doubt he’s orthodox and he seemed like a good, responsible priest.  The church is in Seattle proper.

Jackie,
Just a little harmless name recognition test for my sake:  Do you know of the name Dennis Bennett?

Anyway, the URL for St. Luke’s is
http://www.stlukesseattle.org/index.html
It is not downtown.  It’s in the neighborhood called Ballard.  A web map will place it for you.

There are other parishes in the vicinity that would be “safe” places for conservative/orthodox/renewal folk.  You could email them and ask for their assistance.

RGEaton