Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14
|
"Be on your guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be brave. Be strong. Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14 |
Obviously All Saints Episcopal Church in Long Beach, California, and St. James in Newport Beach didn't get the "All Is Well" memo from Griswold, Nunley & Co. This morning they both said sayonara to ECUSA:
All Saints’ Church, a biblically orthodox church since 1926, affirms its membership in the Anglican Communion and will no longer be affiliated with the Episcopal Church USA or the Diocese of Los Angeles.
"The members of St. James wish to move beyond this issue, so we can concentrate on our core mission: To glorify God, uphold the Holy Scripture, raise our children to love and serve Jesus Christ and share the Gospel with the world."Between them, the two churches have over 1,600 members.
The Anglican Realignment in America continues.
(Hat tip: Kendall Harmon)
Posted by Greg Griffith at August 17, 2004 01:23 PM (GMT -6:00)Interesting post here! There's more to the story as Jack Taylor of the Diocese of Dallas puts it:
"Would you be kind enough to point out in any continuing conversation about this that St. James-Newport Beach was the parish of Howard Ahmanson, who has given $200,000+ annually to the American Anglican Council (among other conservative causes within and outside the church) where David Anderson was rector before becoming president of the AAC? Consequently, seeking alternative episcopal oveorsight by someone in Africa or elsewhere is not surprising." (quoted with Jack's permission).
Father Mike,
I don't see how this amounts to "more to the story." Presumably the most likely churches to leave ECUSA are the ones who have been affiliating with AAC and other such groups all along; in other words, no one is trying to portray these events as "surprising," least of all Stand Firm. Mr. Taylor's observation is thus more properly forwarded to Bishop Bruno, not us.
Also, they didn't simply seek "alternative oversight," which by definition involves remaining part of one's diocese, and part of ECUSA. What they did was tell Bruno and ECUSA to get lost.
# Posted by: Greg Griffith at August 18, 2004 01:35 PMLeave it to Greg put in his negative overtone. I'm sure Jesus told people to get lost all the time. That's the part about go and sin more that I haven't understood, I guess.
# Posted by: Anonymous #241 at August 18, 2004 02:05 PMBruno would not sign the statement of faith to attend Plano West -- he didn't want to acknowledge Christ as the only way to the Father. Those two churches didn't tell him to get lost -- he is lost!!
St James was an orthodox church long before David Anderson got there. And thank the Lord for people like Howard Ahmanson who give generously to support the orthodox Anglican cause. It's the "Pay to Dine with Gene" fundraisers that deserve criticism!
# Posted by: Ralinda at August 18, 2004 03:08 PMto Mike: Yes, there is more to the story. The decisions at All Saints and St.James were made by their respective vestries (unanimously, I believe) with the full support of their clergy and congregations. Ahmanson and Anderson were only a part of what are 2 obviously unified parishes. It is interesting to note that both parishes are vibrant and growing as opposed to ECUSA as a whole whose membership has plunged over the past 30 years.
# Posted by: Michael Ware at August 18, 2004 03:20 PMPLEASE: . . .on the "get lost" remark
I must let you know that there are priests who have been faced with eccleiastical drastic action based on his/her bishop's read on the Canons.
One priest I know, was sent a Directive letter on June 3, 2004 telling him to withdraw the parish from the ACN. The church vestry following a congregational meeting had voted a few months previously to join the Anglican Communion Network. The priest had also been a member of the AAC for a couple of years. By the way, he called him in for a personal "friendly" meeting to discuss the action he was going to take against him. He told him that a copy of the Directive would be sent to the powers that be, including legal counsel . . . and that ecclesiastical action would be taken against him.
He referred him to a particular canon and said that if he didn't obey his order to withdraw from the ACN he would be be removed and defrocked, the priest's understanding of the Canon the Bishop directed him to read, so he would know what the outcome would be.
He was to comply with the order by July 31, 2004. He gave his resignation letter to the vestry on July 29th, and sent his resignation letter to the Bishop on July 30th. He is still a priest under holy orders and has until September 1st to renounce them or he will be renounced. SHEESH! However, he took the action he was counseled to take, and after much study and consideration gained oversight from Archbishop Kolini of Rwanda, . . .will never be defrocked and is free to be part of the realignment BEFORE the realignment. Over 100 AMiA churches have been planted in the past year. . . as we continue to wait for the realignment.
His crime? He, like many other priests and parishes in ECUSA had joined the Anglican Communion Network. He was a well-known orthodox priest in his diocese so it could have been no surprise to the bishop when the parish joined the ACN this year. As long as he didn't make any waves, his orthodox views were tolerated. This aforementioned, bishop, considers himself to be orthodox, in some ways, and had voted against the ordination of Vicky (V.) Imogene (Gene) Robinson, . . . but has become the ultimate fence sitter . . .saying that it all required "further study". Yeah, right after he retires in '05.
This priest was well-liked by the Bishop and was respected by him and others in the diocese. The bishop selected him to be a Dean 10 years ago. Why did this Bishop go off the deep end and threaten to remove him? He says, the ACN is schismatic and divisive and the unity is the most important thing. He is married to the Mother Church, ECUSA. He told this faithful priest that he had broken his ordination vows, etc. etc. The whole thing was simply galling.
But blimey, the priest and rector of the parish for nearly 12 years took him seriously; not considering it a bluff and sought counsel through other orthodox priests in his diocese and others he knew from serving 17 years in ECUSA, as to what to do. He also spoke with the leaders connected on the AAC and those in the ACN. He received phone calls and e-mails from all of the above.
What emerged was the knowledge that, at this time, there is no ECUSA oversight for those in his predicament. He had no intention of leaving ECUSA, before this happened . . .he definitely wanted to be part of a realignment. He had planned to stay and be part of that carving out process so many have talked about.
Well, guess what? Unless you are in an orthodox diocese or have a bishop willing to allow that oversight (and it is rare I might add), that priest is out on the street lock, stock and barrel. The result? Priests seeking oversight elsewhere such as the Anglican Mission in America, etc. The ones that will join and already stand with those bishops, priests, and parishes that are part of the ACN. RIght now, that oversight does not exist because Bishops themselves in ECUSA can be removed for trying to provide just that.
So, let's be careful when we say that priests tell ECUSA to get lost . . .it's the other way around.
I think it's accurate to say that the two California churches told Bishop Bruno and ECUSA they'd had it, and were leaving. "Get lost" is the shortest, most polite way of summing up their actions I felt was suitable for print.
Anonynous #241 is saying that putting canonical distance between oneself and those who preach heresy is sinful; that's a crock. Typical revisionist gobbledygook.
Baffled has his/her own objections to the use of "get lost." I think it's the subtle difference between jumping and being pushed, but that's another debate.
To me, the key point is that neither of these churches wanted to wait around to see what the Lambeth Commission has to say. It says that ECUSA is finally being shown how drastically it overplayed its hand.
It's not that these churches don't care what the Lambeth reports says. It's that they don't believe the Diocese of L.A. will. They have no reason to believe that L.A. respects Lambeth more than it values moving forward with the revisionist agenda. It's open rebellion against ECUSA and liberal dioceses. Bad, bad, bad news for 815.
# Posted by: Greg Griffith at August 18, 2004 05:12 PM[i]Anonynous #241 is saying that putting canonical distance between oneself and those who preach heresy is sinful; that's a crock. Typical revisionist gobbledygook.[/i]
What? Wow that's so far above my head it's silly! Dang Greg, let people think for themselves, quit putting words in their mouths to twist it to your anger.
I meant what I said, in extreme sarcasm. You of all should recognize that. Open your heart, dude, this pain must be really seperating you from the love of Christ. Love doesn't equal judgement.
Anon241:
I see your link takes us to an Every Voice Network page with the headline "Episcopal Church intact after gay bishop." Right below it is a story titled "L.A. parishes split over Gene." More gobbledygook, or am I missing some nuance here?
# Posted by: Greg Griffith at August 19, 2004 09:18 AMOnce again you avoid the topic at hand in an attempt to create a diversion to the truth of God's unconditional love for us. Typical of the judgemental right.
What canon am I referring to in this statement?
The angry, rich, white male is a small percentage of the world. From my short life, I've seen that they are going to be angry about one thing or another most of their lives. Guilt? Dissatisfaction? No, they simply want control over everything, which Jesus' love denies.
# Posted by: Anonymous #241 at August 19, 2004 10:05 AMAnon,
We've been over and over the "unconditional love" line. God's love for us may be unconditional, but salvation isn't. It requires that we acknowledge and repent of our sins. You and your crowd are oh-for-two on that.
I don't know where you're getting that angry rich white male control-freak thing. Perhaps too much time spent hanging out at moveon.org?
# Posted by: Greg Griffith at August 19, 2004 10:19 AMHaven't read move on, but I have read your friend Marty's website, which is scary. AWMs are the only people who are angry - white male (read competitive & homophobic) and their rich, supportive, non-working wives (read soccer mom).
Perhaps, too, you have not seen God's grace to be all-encompassing. It's the eye-opening event that I pray for others to see. Salvation by God's grace when your eyes see and your heart is opened to a new way of life. A life where your heart is emptied of anger and filled with love for God, your neighbor, and all of God's creation.
And, no, that doesn't mean judging them "righteously." Righteous love it is!
p.s. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the right and the left (since you have to divide us) are as guilty of as many heresies as the other. Thus another reason to meet in the middle, at the table.
# Posted by: Anonymous #241 at August 19, 2004 10:34 AMto: anonymous #241
That is a typical Episcopal response: Let's break out the Glenlivet and sit down and talk for a decade or three. So far, the only result of this has been the revisionists saying we are going to do it our way and if you don't like it, tough. The result has been that Episcopal membership has plunged. Another decade of this and ECUSA won't have enough members left to even qualify as a cult.
anon,
I would appreciate it if you would have at least a nickname . . . and being directed to your website favorite is a bit disingenious. Why do you want to remain anonymous if your are so committed to your views? I don't get it.
Please explain.
Oops! "you're" committed
# Posted by: baffled at August 19, 2004 12:55 PM#241 . . .my word, do I detect a bit of stereotyping here? . . .good grief, angry white males . . .do you fit in that angry white female mode? . . .what's with lumping people in categories like that . . .and you were saying, about being "judgmental", I mean????
P.S. Just for the record, I am an white Anglo-Saxon Protestant married to a WASP, and he changed as many diapers as I did, and does the laundry, does that count?
Dear Anonymous 241,
As I have before stated on one of these threads - I am neither a fundamentalist, nor a literalist concerning scripture. I am politically moderate - sometimes I vote Democrat, sometimes Republican (no ultra-conservative here). I find myself an orthodox Christian on most issues. I would be quite happy if Scripture seem to be "saying" that committed homosexual relationships were okay. However, I do not get that interpretation from "nuanced readings". I am in seminary and have taken Hebrew and Greek, and I understand enough about biblical interpretation to say this even though I certainly am not an expert. My point in telling you all of this is that some of us orthodox are not rabid judgemental conservatives with a touch of homophobia. For some of us to bless a same sex union is to misrepresent God's intentions and commit what is akin to sacrilege. There is not homophobia here, and politically I believe that homosexual people should have rights. There is no homophobia with all the orthodox people and seminarians that I know. It is just a VIOLATION OF CONSCIENCE. Is that so hard to understand?
God bless you.
Judith
# Posted by: Judith Warren-Brown at August 19, 2004 09:09 PMQuestion to those like anonymous 241 speaking about God's unconditional love. What is your response to Jesus' comments about entering through the narrow gate/door? And what about his comments about the way is broad for the rest? He says many from north, south, east and west will eat at his table --- but they still have to enter through the narrow gate/door. What in the world does this mean? (Mt 7:13, Lk 13:24). The follow up question: Does scripture speak of *conditions* to the narrow door? Be careful how you answer. Very much is at stake.
# Posted by: diakonos at August 20, 2004 12:01 PMJudith,
I'm not in seminary, so I guess in our apostolic succession there is also a hierarchy of intelligence that the lowly laity are supposed to bow down to.
Besides, none of my posts have spoken of any of the hard issues. I only speak of unconditional love, wherein you care and help your neighbor without judgement.
Diakonos,
Even narrow doors accept everyone albeit one at a time! I answer with peace and comfort in my heart without concerning over what is at stake. Stand Firm seems to be so concerned about this that they are forgetting about what it means to live life daily.
Of course, we don't really know it all, do we?
peace to all
# Posted by: Anonymous #241 at August 20, 2004 01:57 PMDear Anonymous #241,
Your comment that you are not in seminary, and that there is an hierarchy of intelligence that the lower laity are suppose to bow down to indicates that you assume that I was trying to impress you with knowledge which is not the case. I stated that I was not an expert, but the reason I mentioned what I did is to make the point that some of us orthodox have mindfully considered the issues and can come to no other conclusion than what we do. I also mentioned that I was a moderate politically to make the point that not all of us are very conservative which is how we are referred to on the Every Voice Network.
Any Christian that really knows anything about Jesus as you do will understand his unconditional love for all of us. Just look at Calvary! Orthodox understand God's grace to be all encompassing. No one is arguing that.
God bless.
Judith
diakonos,
Jesus says work very hard to enter by the narrow gate. One may also safely assume it's one at a time, so there's going to be a line. And some who thought they should be first (righteous Jews) will find themselves "last."
Given what he says about bringing people in from all four corners of the world, it seems likely he's speaking to the traditionally exclusionary Jews. They knew him, he even ate with Pharisees and tried to teach them,he was working overtime to get the message out. But as the time of his ability to teach was drawing to an end (notice what happens next in Lk. 13:31ff)there was a limit. They will see the great and most faithful of Jewish prophets and elders in the Kingdom, but not themselves--because they couldn't accept him as the Messiah.
This isn't rocket science, folks. You tell me, is it more difficult to follow Torah as it was then taught--or is it harder to throw yourself in God's arms with nothing but faith to go on? That's why Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are mentioned.
This isn't about excluding "unrepentent sinners" but about those whom Christ didn't know as His own. Who didn't claim his promises of salvation. His own include those who follow his commandments and his commandment is to love even your enemies.
BTW, those were certainly "few" Jews at the time who could stomach what Jesus said and did, and so few were, in fact saved.
You know, practicing homosexuals also know Jesus and Jesus knows them. Faith, not works, is salvation. Faith in Christ's saving life, death and resurrection for all, "whosover" believes in him. I don't see how the "conservative" element has a leg to stand on against that.
# Posted by: Micah+ at August 21, 2004 07:12 PMMicah,
Why does Jesus say that they must Strive? Is faith perhaps a Lived thing? And what does Paul mean, who teaches us that we are saved by faith not works, by saying ALSO that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?
Or perhaps I could ask it another way: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" What place does disobedience have in faith in Jesus as savior and Lord?
Is perhaps the Christian life of faith one in which we strive by God's grace to bring our life into conformity with what he commands us? If so, surely this is a lifelong practice that is never actually completed. But what happens if we refuse to do any striving? I believe Bonhoffer called it cheap grace.
# Posted by: Diakonos at August 21, 2004 07:50 PMMicah+,
Truly, Some practicing homosexuals know Jesus and Jesus knows them. Some are not Christian and do not know Jesus, but Jesus does know them.
Yes, salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. And yes, that salvation is in Christ's saving life, death, and resurrection for all whoever believe in Him.
Also, I may add that our God does not love us orthodox or "conservatives" any more than our God loves practicing homosexuals.
Are there any orthodox or conservatives on this blog who believe differently?
Judith
# Posted by: Judith Warren-Brown at August 22, 2004 02:56 AMJudith,
I don't think there's a single comment in the 1,000+ comments on this site where any orthodox claim that. In contrast, there are plenty of comments by the other camp in which we're accused of it.
# Posted by: Greg Griffith at August 22, 2004 10:28 AM