Wednesday, December 31, 2008

AAC: A personal message from Rev. Phil Ashey, Chief Operating Officer

Excerpted from the 12/5/2008 AAC Email Newsletter.


"Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to [King Nebuchadnezzar]...'If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods, or worship the image of gold you have set up.'" (Daniel 3:17-18 NIV)


Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, members and friends of AAC, in TEC,

Grace and Peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

With the formation of the Anglican Church in North America, a "Province in Formation," many of you are asking, understandably, and with some concern, "What is to become of us who choose to remain in TEC?" What about those of us who are stuck in a heterodox Episcopal church? What about those of us who have had to affiliate for the moment with another sort of church because there is no orthodox Anglican church in the ACNA within driving distance? Is our only option to stay where we are, in the furnace, and make our stand and our witness like Daniel's friends?

First, on behalf of the AAC, let me assure you that we are here, just as we have been since our beginnings, to serve you. We understand the conscientious reasons why you have chosen to remain in TEC. We honor your decision. We pray for you. More than that, we stand with you, with resources to help you make your stand in Christ.

Secondly, we believe God has a strategy that involves more than just standing in the furnace and waiting for the fire to consume you. Look at Daniel and his friends, who faced a system and authority more idolatrous and lawless than TEC. They did not conform to the culture they were in, but instead they resolved to witness to it:

* by drawing a firm line in conformity with God's word and not eating at
the King's table (Daniel 1:8),
* by learning as much as they could about Babylonian culture (Daniel 1:3-4,
17),
* by being more excellent ("ten times better") than anyone else in the
kingdom (Daniel 1:18-20);
* by being consistent throughout many changes of leadership (Daniel 1:21);
* by addressing hostile authorities directly, and with wisdom and tact
(Daniel 2:14-16);
* by avoiding isolation, taking counsel and praying together (Daniel
2:17-18);
* by asking God for discernment (Daniel 2:19);
* by resisting peer pressure, malicious accusations, the temptation to
compromise, an unpredictable king, and even a delaying God (Daniel 3:1-18)

By following this strategy, God blessed them in the furnace, brought them out, and used their faithfulness to move unbelieving authorities to proclaim throughout the whole kingdom the uniqueness and sovereignty of our God, "for no other God can save in this way." (Daniel 3:28-29)

If God has called you to remain in TEC, we believe he has a plan for your time and service, just like Daniel and his friends. And we are here to help you do it.

We intend to continue supporting you in every way we can, with resources for mission and ministry at the congregational level, with counsel in regards to TEC canons and other legal issues, and through our presence and activity in the councils of the Anglican Communion. We will be at TEC General Convention in July 2009, as we have at previous General Conventions, to provide a strategic retreat for Biblically orthodox Episcopalians serving as delegates and alternates to General Convention.

We will continue to personally visit our AAC congregations, chapters and affiliates to provide encouragement, equipping, and counsel. (In fact, if you would like a visit, I would be delighted to come to your chapter or congregation.) If you are experiencing persecution from your bishop and diocese, we will extend our support to you "In Pectore." Also, through our weekly e-newsletter and "Salt and Light" column, we will continue to spotlight TEC congregations and AAC members whose ministries witness to a robust Biblical, confessional and missional Anglicanism in 21st century America.

If God leads you into the furnace, we will stand with you. And we will discover again, in God's wonderful saving grace, how God uses that fire to loose us from our chains, and deliver us unharmed on the other side for even greater ministry!

Yours in Christ,
Fr. Phil Ashey

WISCONSIN: First Episcopal Parish Leaves Diocese of Milwaukee and TEC for CANA

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
12/31/2008

St. Edmund's Episcopal Church in Elm Grove, a congregation founded in 1874 in Milwaukee, voted overwhelmingly this week to leave the diocese and The Episcopal Church and move its canonical jurisdiction to the Convocation of North American Anglicans (CANA) based in Herndon, Va.

The Wisconsin parish congregation is following some 100 Episcopal parishes and four dioceses who have left The Episcopal Church during the past two years because they view the National Church as increasingly hostile to orthodox, traditional Christian belief and practice.

St. Edmund's is the first of what is projected to be several Episcopal parishes in Wisconsin to take this step.

"The difficult decision to make this lateral move within valid jurisdictions of the Anglican Communion was finalized after months of prayer and discussion at the Elm Grove parish. The final declaration was signed by 75 of the 84 adult communicant members of the congregation," said a press release from the church.

A spokesman for the parish note that the final decisions were made during bitter winter conditions that brought out more communicants than anticipated who wanted to sign the declaration.

In a formal letter to Bishop Steven Miller, the Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee they said the issues were theological and "beyond suffragan episcopal bedrooms in New England" and that the congregation was contending for the 'faith once delivered to the saints' and nothing less.

"We are defending the irrevocable stance on biblical authority and order firmly held by the vast majority of the world's Anglicans," they wrote.

"People of Faith are not leaving the Episcopal Church; The Episcopal Church has left them."

The congregation accused the bishop of showing "callow disrespect" for their faithfulness, good will, integrity and the ability of a congregation of thinking adults to make fully informed decisions. We wish the Diocese of Milwaukee no ill will, they wrote.

The Vestry said in their letter that the corporation of St. Edmund's Church would stay in the hands of the parish. "No action on our part may be construed by any person or persons as a dissolution, devolvement, abolition or alienation of St. Edmund's church and all assets, properties, chattel, and resources of St. Edmund's Church remain those of St. Edmund's Church."

Bishop Steven's said last month in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that the new Anglican province of North America would have "no impact on the diocese of Milwaukee."

The parish's complete statement, their doctrinal statement and letter to Bishop Stevens can be read here:

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/stedmunds_pressrelease.pdf

Monday, September 8, 2008

REMAIN FAITHFUL: Conference Hopes to Mobilize the Faithful to address New NA Province

Remain Faithful, a lay led organization comprised of orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans is planning to take a very active role in support of the establishment of an orthodox Anglican Province in North America. The Anglican communion in North America has been split into two separate churches with polarizing differences in beliefs over the past 30 years. It is apparent that a reconciliation is not going to occur as the orthodox historic faith is being compromised by new age revisionist theology.

According to noted English journalist Andrew Carey, son of retired Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, "The depressing and urgent situation in The Episcopal Church becomes ever clearer over time, despite all of the efforts of their liberal church leaders to try and persuade the rest of the Anglican Communion that really we're just like you. Close watchers of the US ... will be more aware than most of the state of that Church. Heterodoxy [unorthodoxy ] is never punished, whereas orthodox impatience is the subject of lawsuits all over the country. And the amount of heterodoxy uttered in The Episcopal Church is truly astonishing.

Even leaving aside the virtual atheism of Bishop Spong's 'Twelve Theses', we've had bishops claim that the church can 're-write the Bible', others make sweeping apologies for Christian mission to those of other faiths, while the Presiding Bishop views Jesus as just one way among many."

The laity have realized that The Episcopal Church (TEC) will not change course. Numerous orthodox Anglicans have therefore left or are contemplating leaving the Church. Remain Faithful believes strongly that the answer lies in the formation of an orthodox Anglican Province in North America as has been outlined by the Common Cause Partnership, and endorsed by GAFCON, and is committed to being a strong lay voice beside our faithful Clergy to help make this happen.

As such, Remain Faithful will be hosting its second conference on Saturday September 27, 2008 at St. Vincent 's Cathedral in Bedford, Texas.

All orthodox Anglicans are invited to attend. "Mobilizing the Faithful- Toward a Faithful Future" will begin at 10:00 a.m. on the Saturday morning and will include educational components of how we got where we are and the true differences in our beliefs, factual information for delegates and vestry members, and a call from Remain Faithful to move forward in earnest with the formation of the new orthodox Anglican Province in North America. Please rsvp on our website at http://www.remainfaithful.org/ .The conference will conclude with a lunch around 1:00 p.m.

"All across our planet orthodox Anglicans acknowledge this intolerable situation where the communion has been derailed from its historic faith by revisionists within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada. We fully support the position reached by the founders of Common Cause Partnership to form a new orthodox Anglican Province in North America, and as was highlighted at the recent GAFCON meeting of orthodox Anglicans in Jerusalem. We call on the Primates of GAFCON to formally acknowledge a new orthodox Province in North American and we stand ready as faithful laity to insure a rapid and complete formation of this new Province.

It should be stressed, we are not leaving the Church - TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada have left the historic Anglican faith. We can no longer stand by and watch the situation deteriorate further. The time for action is now." Chad Bates, Remain Faithful Chair stated.

"We must be devoted to neither man nor institution, but to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, the risen God who lived and died for our sins and is the sole source of our eternal salvation, and His revealed word to us, the Bible, which contains all things necessary for salvation and is authoritative in our behavior and daily lives. We must stand up for our faith, once delivered to the Saints. We must move forward together with our Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ who share our orthodox beliefs to share the Good News of Christ's redemption with the world."

Cora Werley, Spokesperson for Remain Faithful added. Remain Faithful is in the planning stages for how the laity can stand beside and complement faithful Clergy to move forward rapidly with this new Province formation and will b e working in conjunction with Common Cause Partnership to provide lay leadership and support for the new Province.

Remain Faithful was formed in late May of this year, but already has well over 830 members from over 60 Dioceses and over 16 countries.

The membership represents over 33,200 years of membership as Episcopalians and Anglicans. Its membership includes those from The Episcopal Church, Canada, AMiA, CANA, REC, and many other members of the Anglican Communion. For more information on Remain Faithful, go to our website at http://www.remainfaithful.org

Anglican Province of America Diocese of the West Joins Reformed Episcopal Church

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
9/7/2008

In a move that could have serious implications for the Common Cause Partnership, an entire diocese of the Anglican Province of America with some 22 plus churches has fled that Anglican jurisdiction and allied itself with the Reformed Episcopal Church in America (REC).

"I pray that you will understand that we are not leaving the APA out of any anger but are entering into the REC so we can fulfill what we have been working on for the past ten years. By transferring to the REC we remain in intercommunion with each other and still brothers," wrote the Rt. Rev. Richard Boyce, OCD Bishop of the Diocese of the West (DOW/ APA.)

In a series of letters obtained by VirtueOnline, Bishop Boyce announced this week that he was taking his diocese out of the APA and formally bringing it into the Reformed Episcopal Church, a move that angered the Presiding Bishop of the APA, the Most. Rev. Walter Grundorf, who promptly relieved Boyce of his position as Bishop and appointed the Very Rev. Douglas King as interim administrator of the DOW.

"You are no longer the Diocesan Bishop of the DOW of the APA as of September 5. I have named the Very Rev. Douglas King as interim administrator." Grundorf then said that all DOW priests and parishes wishing to leave the APA must send a letter of their intention to him and request Letters Dismissory. He then said that until he hears from them, they remain in good standing and has his and the APA's full support.

He concluded his letter saying that the letters would provide for an "orderly transition" to the REC. "We have made such orderly transfers in the past between REC/APA and I hope and pray that this will be no exception."

Boyce responded from his parish in Seattle, saying that Grundorf's understanding of the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" was a misconception on his part.

"I have not resigned my jurisdiction nor has coadjutor Bishop Winfield Mott. We have only requested the REC to receive the Diocese of the West (DOW) which has not been acted upon.

"I would remind you that the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) has similar beliefs, traditions and practices on the Sacraments and Holy Orders particularly as they pertain to women's ordination.

"The DOW is a jurisdiction. I would refer you to Article 2., Sect. 6 of the Constitution of the Anglican Province of America (APA), and Canon 16, Sect. (a) and (e) which refer to the Bishop's jurisdiction. If you recall since the third century tradition has said that "Where the Bishop is, there is the Church, where the Church is there is the Bishop". Boyce went on to say that the Anglican Communion has stated through the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the basic unit of the Church is the Diocese, and you do consider yourself as Anglican."

Boyce said that no one is required by the Constitution or the Canons to send the Presiding Bishop a letter of resignation when leaving the APA. A letter Dismissory is from Diocesan Bishop to Diocesan Bishop.

Boyce blasted Grundorf saying that provincial protocol was a recent invention, "as I do not find it stated anywhere in APA documents. You, as Presiding Bishops have authority only to conduct the meetings of the House of Bishops (HOB) and to take orders for the consecration of Bishops."

"As a result of this restriction you have no authority to declare that I am no longer the Diocesan Bishop of the DOW."

Boyce argued that the APA Constitution states that a bishop shall confine the exercise of his office to his own Diocese. "Therefore as a Presiding Bishop with no authority, and functioning as a Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of the Eastern US (DEUS), you must not intrude into the affairs of the DOW."

"There is no authority conferred to you by the Constitution of the APA nor by the Canons of the APA to appoint the Rev. Douglas King, nor anyone else as an interim administrator of the DOW. This action would appear to follow The Episcopal Church (TEC) as in the case of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

"DOW Priests and Parishes do not need to send you a latter of intention of staying members of DOW. This is a Diocesan matter for DOW.

"This supposed protocol has no standing in the Constitution of the APA nor in the Canons of the APA.

"No Article of the Constitution of the APA or Canon of the APA prevents the DOW from effecting a merger with the REC, with whom we are in communion, as is the APA. We are following the time-line established by the APA and REC as this is the ten year mark leading to the merger. We just plan to do this before the rest of the APA."

Grundorf wrote to all the parishes of the DOW responding to Boyce's letter saying that while he was not totally surprised, "I am disappointed. I am also disappointed that the REC did not discuss this with me if indeed they are fully aware of all of Bishop Boyce's plans."

The Presiding Bishop said the DOW "still exists" with some having notified him that they had no intention of leaving the APA.

"Bishop Boyce has resigned from the APA, therefore he is no longer the Bishop of the APA/DOW." Grundorf who then said he was appointing King to serve as interim administrator "until such time as we can determine who is leaving and who is staying. I will then call an extraordinary Synod to reorganize and elect the appropriate officers."

Grundorf said there would be no attempt to claim church property or funds. "For all concerned in the APA and the REC, this transition must be done in a proper and orderly manner."

The PB said that one of the subjects to be addressed at their next Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas (FACA) meeting will be "jurisdiction hopping."

"I am well aware that the motivation of this action has been driven by the Common Cause Partnership (CCP). While I support much of what the CCP stands for I, along with many others, have reservations as to what will be the final decision on the ordination of women, which most of the CCP members enthusiastically support. We have stood our ground for the last 30 plus years to the theological innovations of the Episcopal Church and I do not think we should abandon our principles at this point."

One observer told VOL that APA's Diocese of the West's decision to secede was to join Common Cause by way of the REC. It is believed that, in time, CCP will form the basis of a new North American Anglican Province, an orthodox alternative jurisdiction separate from The Episcopal Church and coming under the oversight of the newly formed Global Anglican Fellowship Conference (GAFCON.)

VOL could not obtain comment from leaders of the Reformed Episcopal Church.

END

Saturday, August 30, 2008

LONDON: Archbishop of Canterbury's rescue plan for Anglican Communion rejected

Hopes of a solution for the split in the Anglican Communion over homosexuality have been further diminished after a rescue plan endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury was rejected by conservative bishops.

By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2646689/Archbishop-of-Canterburys-rescue-plan-for-Anglican-Communion-rejected.html

August 29, 2008

Clergy who have defected from their liberal national churches to join traditionalist provinces overseas said the scheme to put them in a "holding bay" before returning them home was "demeaning and unacceptable".

Meanwhile orthodox Anglican leaders have pledged to press ahead with the creation of their rival movement, claiming that it is an "illusion" to believe that the damage caused by the election of an openly gay bishop can be undone.

It comes just days after Dr Rowan Williams said that the Lambeth Conference gathering of Anglican bishops last month had exceeded expectations and showed that most wanted the 80 million-strong worldwide Communion to stay together despite deep divisions over sexuality.

A letter written by five bishops who have defected from the ultra-liberal Episcopal Church of the USA to conservative churches in Africa and South America was highly critical of the plan announced at Lambeth to create a "pastoral forum", headed by Dr Williams, that would try to resolve new crises in the Communion and act as a "holding bay" for parishes that have left their home countries.

It said: "We note that the pastoral forum proposal has been developed without any consultation with those most directly affected in North America. This had led to a number of serious misunderstandings with regard to the situation at the local level and the relationship between the bishops, clergy and congregations and their sponsoring provinces.

"We would also observe that the various analogies offered, for example, that we are disaffected children being reunited with our parents or that we are being placed in a holding bay before being restored to our proper province are both demeaning and unacceptable."

They said the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, by electing a gay bishop and sanctioning the blessing of same-sex unions, are now "diametrically opposed" to their beliefs and Anglican teaching, and added: "We can envision no way in which we could be part of pastoral forum in which either Church exercises any leadership role."

Six heads - or Primates - of Anglican provinces who are leading members of the orthodox Gafcon movement met in London last week and have now issued a statement on the outcome of their summit.

They said it was clear that some Anglicans will continue to sanctify "sinful" practices regardless of pleas to stop doing so by Dr Williams.

The Gafcon leaders also said it was right that churches who disagree with the liberal direction of some provinces should "withdraw their fellowship", and that there is "widespread impaired and broken" communion between Anglicans.

They said they were "saddened" that Lambeth did not offer a new way to resolve differences and just repeated calls for liberal innovations, and border-crossing by disaffected clergy, to stop.

The primates pointed out how long the new plans would take to come into effect and added: "Delay itself seems to be a strategy employed by some in order to resolve the issue through weariness."

END

Good News from the N.A. Realignment Movement

As reported at VirtueOnline:

CHRIST CHURCH in Plano, Texas presented the Diocese of Peru http://www.peru.anglican.org) with a gift of $500,000, enabling the expansion and development of a Leadership Center and Seminary in Lima, Peru. The Rev. Canon David H. Roseberry, rector of Christ Church Plano, said, "We have been sending mission teams to Peru for over eight years and we have been blessed through our relationship with Bishop Bill Godfrey and the people there. Our church family decided it was time to send significant financial resources to make a lasting improvement in the life of that Anglican diocese." The money, a gift from Christ Church Plano parishioners, goes toward the August 28, 2008 purchase of an existing 18,000 square foot building, formerly designed and used as a school. It will be remodeled and reconfigured to house an expanded seminary, diocese administration offices including the Bishop's office, and a worship space for the Mission Ascension. Future plans might include a dormitory for mission teams, or classroom and office space, or both. Christ Church Plano has been a long-time strategic partner of the Diocese of Peru, supplying funds, short and long-term missionaries and prayer partnership steadily throughout the year.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Getting Ready for GAFCON

The Rev. Cn. Daryl Fenton

On May 21, two Common Cause “prayer-bloggers,” the Rev. Timothy Fountain and Mr. William Schontz, quietly began to post guidance at www.prayer.united-anglicans.org for those participating in 40 days of prayer and fasting for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). Every Day, our internal statistics show that scores are logging on and praying with them.

Those of us from the Network attending this historic event are grateful for their prayers. Out of a total of more than 1,000 bishops, priests, deacons and laity who have registered for GAFCON, just over 130 will be from North America. Of the more than 280 bishops registered to attend, 19 are affiliated with Common Cause.

We are a small contingent going to what is likely the most important Anglican event in decades. We are not running the show or driving the agenda. This meeting is not about North America or our problems. It is about expanding a faithful, orthodox Anglican witness worldwide. It is also about working together to sail through the storms assailing the western colonial model that has characterized the Anglican Communion for the past century.

The storms are here and, frankly, the traditional structures of the Anglican Communion don’t appear ready to deal with them. Archbishop Williams is clearly steering the Lambeth Conference away from any sort of accounting for The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada’s increasingly brazen flouting of orthodox faith and the decisions of the last Lambeth Conference. The Anglican Covenant becomes weaker with every revision. We hear reports that the earliest we could expect to see any covenant in place would be sometime around the 2018 Lambeth Conference.

GAFCON, of course, won’t be able to make those storms disappear. It certainly can’t heal the structures of the Anglican Communion. It will, however, chart the course for world wide ministry together across the globe. It will help us get to know our fellow sailors; to prepare for the voyage ahead. And, it will remind us of where we are sailing. The mission God has given us is not simply to survive, but to live the great commandment to love our neighbor and to fulfill the great commission to share the Gospel.

We are honored to be going to GAFCON. We look forward to representing orthodox Anglicans in North America as we spend time in Jerusalem with our worldwide Anglican family. We will, of course, do our best to keep all in the Network informed about what happens at GAFCON. Expect to see regular email and website updates from us between June 22–29, as well as more in-depth reporting in the August addition of Network News, our printed newsletter.

Keep us in your prayers.

Faithfully yours,

Daryl's signature

The Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton
Chief Operating Officer
Anglican Communion Network

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

1,000 Christial Leaders, 280 Bishops Registered for GAFCON

May 20, 2008

Over 1,000 senior leaders from seventeen provinces in the Anglican Communion, representing 35 million church-going Anglicans, have registered for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem at the close of the online registration process. They include 280 bishops, almost all accompanied by their wives. Final attendance figures will depend on smooth processing of requested visas, and other factors.

GAFCON leaders have met in the period leading up to Pentecost with the leaders of Anglican, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Catholic churches and Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews in Jerusalem to brief them on the nature and purpose of GAFCON. GAFCON is concerned to affirm the continuing presence of the Church in the Holy Land.

Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, the chair of the Programme Committee reports that the programme is almost complete. "Our programme will focus on the transforming love of Christ. We will be drawing from the scriptures of the Old and New Testament in our pilgrimage, and their relevance to the challenges facing the church globally today. These include secularism, other religions, poverty and HIV/AIDS as well as moral and theological issues."

Pilgrims will visit traditional sites in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage June 22 – 29, 2008 including Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane and the Ophel Gardens and Temple steps where at the first Pentecost Peter preached and people of all nations responded. The 1,000 pilgrims will travel to Bethlehem to the Church of the Nativity and Shepherds' Field, and then to Galilee.

The goals of the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem are to:
1. Provide an opportunity for fellowship as well as to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Christ.
2. Develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians.
3. Prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority.

For further information:» click here to email the Rev'd Dr. Arne H. Fjeldstad, GAFCON Head of Communications
tel. (+47) 97 56 16 96
US phone (SkypeIn): (202) 580 8685

Breakaway congregation recognition is blow to Canadian Church

From the Church of England Newspaper


Posted by George Conger

The Anglican Church of Canada’s united front against the breakaway congregations and clergy of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) received a major blow last week after a diocesan synod voted to recognize the secessions.

“All of these churches have by their decisions stayed within the Anglican Communion,” the synod of the Diocese of Athabasca said on April 26, disputing assertions made by Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster and other Canadian bishops that by quitting the Canadian Church the secessionists were no longer Anglicans.

The Northern Alberta-based diocese adopted a series of resolutions affirming that it was in “full communion” with ANiC and its sponsor, the Province of the Southern Cone.

The diocese also expressed “its dismay” at the attempts by several bishops to respond to the secessions by turning to the civil courts. “By resorting to the civil courts so readily, the bishops of those dioceses where there are dissident parishes and clergy have displayed so visibly that, to them, the issue is power, not the will of God,” synod said, according to a statement posted on the diocesan website.

Archbishop John Clarke, metropolitan archbishop of Rupert’s Land, and Bishop of Athabasca stated the diocese’s intent was to remain “in communion with as wide a range of our brothers and sisters in Christ as is possible.”

The vote was not a step towards quitting the Canadian Church, he noted, writing “be assured that the Diocese of Athabasca is as deeply committed as ever to the Anglican Church of Canada and to the Anglican Communion.”

However, Archbishop Clarke criticized the push towards permitting same-sex blessings in the Canadian Church, expressing his disappointment with dioceses who abused the language of the church’s canons and prayer book to achieve their political ends.

“We believe that we are bound to adhere to the decisions of General Synod, not only in the letter but also in the spirit,” he said. “We understand the decision of General Synod 2007 not to endorse the right of dioceses to bless same-gender unions as meaning that it was the mind of General Synod that we should not proceed at this time.”

Monday, May 19, 2008

Christian Century: Splitting up

Anglican angst

by Jason Byassee

Last year the Church of the Resurrection in suburban West Chicago closed its doors and put its building up for sale. The Episcopal congregation had suffered membership losses 14 years earlier when some conservative members left to start their own church, also called the Church of the Resurrection, in nearby Glen Ellyn. The new congregation later aligned itself with the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA), which is connected to the Anglican Church in Rwanda.

The new Church of the Resurrection later experienced its own split, with some members leaving to launch the Church of the Great Shepherd—also affiliated with AMIA—in Wheaton. The Church of the Great Shepherd eventually closed its doors, but not before a 2004 split led to the formation of the Church of the Savior back in West Chicago. During this time the ranks of St. Mark's, an Episcopal congregation in Glen Ellyn, had been swelling—until the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay bishop in 2003, whereupon many St. Mark's members left to form All Souls, still another AMIA church, in Wheaton. Meanwhile, another split at the original Church of the Resurrection in West Chicago, which had experienced renewed growth, led to the creation of the Church of the Resurrection Anglican, a church which is overseen by the archbishop of Uganda. So now there are two Resurrection churches in the area, both formed in exodus from the original—now defunct—Church of the Resurrection, and both affiliated with African Anglican bodies, not with the Episcopal Church in the United States, sometimes abbreviated as TEC.

Got all that?

Even for Anglicans in the vicinity it takes a long memory or a flow chart to keep straight all the Episcopal-Anglican divisions and acronyms that have developed in the well-heeled suburbs of DuPage County, just west of Chicago.

Many observers of the Anglican splits assume that the key issue is homosexuality, but a closer look reveals that several other factors are also at work. In fact, the local Anglican story is largely about charismatic leaders coming and going, and congregations growing in their presence or folding in their absence. Among the AMIA folks, the juiciest disagreements have been over the ordination of women rather than the ordination of gays. And the biggest fight to date has been over the relationship between church and state in Rwanda, not in the U.S.

The energy in all these churches comes to a great extent from the many evangelicals who have converted to Anglicanism, a phenomenon outlined some 20 years ago by Robert Webber in Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail. For the most part, evangelicals joined the Episcopal Church out of an appreciation for its liturgy and tradition, not for its generally liberal approach to sexual ethics and scripture. Many of these people have an association with evangelically oriented Wheaton College, where Webber taught for many years.



The various conservative groups that have broken away from the Episcopal Church in the U.S. have conglomerated into Common Cause, a group that has formed an alliance with churches in the global South in an effort to reverse the long liberal trend of the Anglican Communion in the Northern Hemisphere. Its advocates champion a thesis advanced by historian Philip Jenkins and others: Christianity's axis of power is tilting south and east, with church membership growing rapidly in the developing world while it declines in Europe and America. The late Diane Knippers, a leader among conservative Anglicans, summarized the situation this way: "Today's statistically typical Anglican is not drinking tea in an English vicarage. She is a 26-year-old African mother of four."

And, Knippers might have added, the typical Anglican is strongly opposed to homosexuality. One of the leaders of Common Cause is Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who readily uses the word abomination in reference to homosexuality. He likens homosexuality in the church to a "cancerous lump," compares same-sex coupling to animal behavior, and supports severe prison sentences for homosexual practice.

The alliance that conservative Anglicans in the U.S. have made with African Anglicans presents an unusual challenge to the liberal Episcopalian mainstream. It's hard to accuse AMIA members of being bigoted malcontents when they are, in effect, members of African churches. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference of world Anglican leaders, John Shelby Spong, the now retired über-liberal bishop of Newark, dismissed his African colleagues who were adamantly opposed to liberalizing the church's rules on homosexuality as "superstitious, fundamentalist Christians." In remarks that have been frequently cited by his detractors, Spong complained that African Anglicans had "moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity" and had yet to face "the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we've had to face in the developing world." For AMIA and its friends, here was evidence that white so-called progressives were the real bigots.

At the local level, the growth of the original Church of the Resurrection in West Chicago was sparked in the early 1990s by its pastor, William Beasley. As a theological and moral conservative, Beasley represented a minority in the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. One element of his congregation's revitalized ministry was a program called Redeemed Lives, dedicated to helping gays and lesbians reorient their sexuality around "biblical principles" so as to embrace either heterosexuality or celibacy. Meanwhile, the Episcopal bishop of Chicago, Frank Griswold, was ordaining openly gay and lesbian pastors (contrary to canons then in place in TEC).

But when I met with Beasley, who is now a church planter with AMIA's Midwest Anglican Awakening, I could hardly get him to talk about homosexuality. Almost every question I raised he used as an opportunity to talk about reaching the unchurched: "Our goal is to reach just one-one hundredth of the unchurched people in Chicago. Out of 6 million, that's a lot!" Interestingly, it was the Church of the Resurrection that sought divorce from TEC. The Diocese of Chicago was then willing to tolerate a church that touted gay reparative therapy.

Last fall the Church of the Resurrection in Glen Ellyn hosted a regionwide AMIA event in Wheaton, with Archbishop Akinola as the honored guest. Over 1,000 worshipers from Chicagoland's two dozen or so Common Cause churches attended. A small batch of protesters mugged for the cameras outside. Akinola's very presence was a sign of Anglican division, since Anglican bishops do not ordinarily invite themselves into another diocese—and Akinola had not bothered to contact William Persell, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago.

The worship service that day was charismatic in nature—a reflection of Resurrection's normal liturgical practice (by contrast, Wheaton's All Souls AMIA church has a formal Anglo-Catholic liturgy). Hundreds of worshipers waved their hands at the high points in the eucharistic liturgy, giving the worship an almost Pentecostal quality. There were other evangelical touches, including a prayer ministry conducted by lay leaders after communion. The gathering was overwhelmingly young, with many hand-waving young mothers holding babies on their hips. Akinola made no explicit reference to homosexuality, but his challenge to the Episcopal Church was clear: "The gospel is the foundation of unity—there is no other. . . . Until we have obedience and transformation in ourselves, we can't have unity."

At a press conference afterward, Stewart Ruch, the pastor of Church of the Resurrection in Glen Ellyn, described the gathering as the fruit of grassroots-level friendships between African and American Anglicans. He would not respond to questions about protesters or about homosexuality. When I told Beasley that I was pleased not to have heard gay-bashing comments from AMIA people, he seemed puzzled: "Well, of course—that would be sinful." Ruch did say that a "true multiethnic gospel relationship" is like a marriage—each partner has different strengths and points on which correction and forgiveness are needed.

A split occurred at Church of the Resurrection (AMIA) when a group of members started the Church of the Great Shepherd, led by Lyle Dorsett, a professor of evangelism at Wheaton College. (Church of the Resurrection officially recalls this event as a church plant.) By all accounts Dorsett's charismatic personality and dynamic preaching were largely responsible for the church's growth. Great Shepherd put aside for missions half of every dollar it collected—an impressive commitment which allowed it to support mission work far beyond the capacity of most churches with 600 members.

But when Dorsett left Wheaton in 2005 to teach at Beeson Divinity School in Alabama, the future of Great Shepherd was put in question. The church closed its doors in 2007, with members scattering back to Resurrection or going elsewhere. Beasley puts a positive spin on the closure. For a church dedicated to mission, "It's no defeat to spend yourself out of existence." Resurrection's Web site blames the turmoil over Great Shepherd on the lack of episcopal oversight—now provided by AMIA and African bishops.

George Koch, pastor of Church of the Resurrection Anglican, views this history more simply: "Divorce breeds divorce." Bishop Persell, viewing the scene from the perspective of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, draws an even stronger conclusion: "If you're formed in opposition and negativity, you're bound to keep on splitting—there's always need for more purity, and you don't live with ambiguity very well, so you end up in a church of one."



When AMIA leaders talked to me about their departure from the Episcopal Church, they focused more on the doctrinal problems represented by Bishop Spong than on the sexual issues raised by the election of gay bishop V. Gene Robinson. Spong has been an outspoken advocate of gays in ministry, but as bishop he was also the author of several books on Christianity that present a sharp critique of Christian tradition and a decidedly unorthodox view of Jesus and Mary. Elizabeth Sausele, who was an associate pastor at All Souls, said that what prompted her to leave the Episcopal Church was that she didn't believe that "the faith once delivered to the apostles was being guarded by the House of Bishops. For a bishop of the church to say that Jesus didn't bodily rise from the dead and that the atonement is child abuse . . ." For her the lack of theological oversight was obvious.

Bishop Persell, however, downplays Spong's importance in this family feud: "He's one bishop among hundreds in the U.S., retired, with no vote in the House of Bishops or the convention." He added, "And most of what he says makes sense."

AMIA is determined to bring about a return to Anglican tradition. That makes Sausele's position all the more extraordinary: she is AMIA's only woman priest. A task force set up in AMIA's early days considered the issue of women's ordination and ruled against it (though women can be ordained as deacons). Sausele, having been ordained a priest in TEC, traveled to Rwanda and offered to resign her orders. Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, primate of the Church of Rwanda, delined to accept her offer. Kolini has ordained women priests in Rwanda for years, though AMIA, the North American mission he oversees, does not. Common Cause churches speak of women's ordination as an issue on which they can agree to disagree, but AMIA's stance against ordaining women has, if anything, grown stauncher. Not a few dissident Anglicans joined the group specifically because of its stance on this issue.

"I'm grateful to my core that I left TEC before 2003," Sausele says, referring to the fact that her departure happened before the election of Bishop Robinson and therefore was not about homosexuality. "It's far more grievous that the church hasn't censored people like Spong for their contradiction of foundational Christian teaching," she argues. Her critique of the Episcopal Church extends to its current presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. "The primates pleaded with the U.S. church not to do anything inflammatory" when it elected its presiding bishop, she recalls. She says her problem isn't that the church chose a woman but that its choice was a slap in the face to the churches of the global South. "She's been ordained only two years longer than I have," she said. It might have been different if the U.S. church had chosen someone with, say, a quarter of a century of experience and a Ph.D. in theology, not someone "from a tiny diocese, and she's, what, a biologist?"(Jefferts Schori is actually a geologist.)

On homosexuality, Sausele mostly faults the way that sexuality is talked about in TEC. "I'm a 42-year-old single person," she said. "I understand that I have to be celibate, and that's not always pleasant." So she dismisses the argument, which she says she hears advocates of gay ordination making, that people cannot be expected to resist their hard-wired sexual desires. Sausele also disapproves of the way that the denomination handled women's ordination. It was done, she says, without theological grounding and solely on the basis of "rights" language: "'I can be a CEO, and you can't stop me from being a priest,' they said. The church never did the theological and biblical work that needs doing."

Nevertheless, one detects a certain loneliness in Sausele. She fled TEC liberals to join AMIA traditionalists who oppose women's ordination. The recognition of the validity of her ordination by Archbishop Kolini—and some hints of openness toward women's ordination from Akinola himself—coupled with her being called to All Souls in Wheaton suggests that women's ministry may be an issue in the future for Common Cause. Will its adherents ordain women—and do it on better grounds than TEC did? Or will it be an issue on which people agree to disagree? (If so, why couldn't they have remained Episcopalians?) When I asked Alan Jacobs, a lay catechist at All Souls and an English professor at Wheaton, about women in ministry, he defended Sausele's ordination with another mention of Spong: "I don't have any problem with ordaining women. I have a problem with ordaining heretics."



Last fall, All Souls, a parish with some 150 worshipers, pulled off a coup: it announced that it was bringing Paul Rusesabagina, a hero during the Rwandan genocide, to speak. Rusesabagina is the compassionate Hutu hotel manager who rescued hundreds of his compatriots—Hutus and Tutsis—and whose story was the subject of the movie Hotel Rwanda. Rusesabagina had heard of All Souls' work to build a school in a Rwandan village and wanted to thank the congregation personally.

At the last moment, however, All Souls canceled the event, responding to a directive from Archbishop Kolini. The decision was presented to Martin Johnson, pastor of All Souls, in no uncertain terms: "There was no invitation to dialogue," he said.

The reason for the archbishop's request? Rusesabagina, a critic of Rwanda's president Paul Kagame, has maintained that Kagame's government, which claims to seek ethnic reconciliation, is made up of an elite group of Tutsis. The Anglican Church in Rwanda, which wishes to present itself as a conciliatory force as well—especially since many churches (itself included) failed to protect their people during the genocide—is closely allied to the government. So Rwanda's Anglican Church is not eager to push Rusesabagina's point of view. Rusesabagina has pointed to retaliatory killings engaged in by the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Kagame's government in turn has accused Rusesabagina of extorting money from people who took refuge in his hotel.

Much of this complex history was lost on conservative American Anglicans who had fled TEC for AMIA. Sandra Joireman, a professor of international relations at Wheaton College, says of All Souls: "A little church in Wheaton avoided the Scylla at home but not the Charybdis of African ethnic politics."

The situation is especially ironic because AMIA often uses invocations of the Rwandan genocide to its advantage. Archbishop Kolini even compares TEC with the perpetrators of the genocide, accusing it of engaging in a "spiritual genocide of the truth." He also says, "Ten years ago, when Rwanda cried out to the world for help, no one answered. So when we heard the American church crying out for help, we decided to answer." Western guilt is invoked, African heroism is lauded and AMIA can feel good about itself. But the whole narrative depends on a romanticized vision of church and state in the African country.

I asked Johnson of All Souls if his church can be accused, at best, of being ignorant of church-state relations in Rwanda or, at worst, of having a romanticized view of African Christianity. He said both accusations are fair. "We can only assent to our critics," he said. "But where we are is where we are."



Anglicanism has generally been a faith that is allied with the state. But the obvious ethical messiness of being involved with Rwandan tribal politics brings up again the question of whether AMIA can justify its departure from the Episcopal Church. "We don't exult in all this," Johnson said. "We pray God would forgive us for breaking off again, and we pray that we might reunite." Then, sounding even more like a member of TEC: "I can't stand the loss of diversity. I like a wide tent." But he stands by the decision to ally with the Rwandan church, quoting a story common in AMIA circles about an African bishop who asked his Western colleagues, "You brought us the gospel 150 years ago—why are you not preaching the same one now?"

Speaking with these former Episcopalians, I was struck that each gave me a slightly different rationale for separating from TEC. Sausele and Jacobs of All Souls focused on doctrinal issues raised by a figure like Spong. For Koch of the Anglican Church of the Resurrection the problem was what he sees as TEC's relativism in matters of salvation. For Dorsett of the now defunct Great Shepherd, it was what he calls the denomination's disdain of scripture. For Beasley, who left TEC in the early 1990s, it was liberal views on homosexuality—though he downplays that now and emphasizes issues of scripture and doctrine. Jacobs also points to what he calls TEC's elevation of tolerance as the sine qua non of the church. He told me that if TEC were in the habit of advancing theologically rigorous arguments like those offered by orthodox (and gay) theologian Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body, he'd still be in the denomination— "part of the loyal opposition" but still in communion, he said.

Theologians from Augustine onward have insisted that the effort to leave one church to start a better one results not in a better church but a worse one—and it also fosters the bad habit of defection. The history of Western Christendom attests to the wisdom of this view. The question for the Anglican Mission in the Americas is whether antagonism toward the Episcopal Church is enough to shape a coherent Anglican identity in a complex global setting.

Jason Byassee is a Century assistant editor.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

New Church Continues to Grow in Arizona

Christ Church Anglican in Phoenix, Arizona installed their new rector, the Rev. Christopher M. Schutte, in an elaborate service attended by The Rt. Rev. Daniel Gimadu, Church of Uganda, Diocese of North Mbale along with The Rt. Rev. John Guernsey, Church of Uganda, Bishop for Congregations in America. The Rt. Rev. Alexander "Sandy" Greene, Missionary Bishop from the Episcopal Province of Rwanda for the Anglican Mission in the Americas also attended along with 14 visiting clergy from the Western United States.

Fr. Schutte was ordained a Deacon and Priest at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Prescott, AZ, where he served until April, 2005. At that time, he and his growing family moved to Phoenix to serve at Christ Church of the Ascension, Paradise Valley, AZ. Fr. Schutte was called to Christ Church Anglican, a new church plant under the jurisdiction oversight of the Anglican Church of Uganda, and was received and licensed by Bishop Guernsey and Bishop Gimadu.

According to a news release, Christ Church Anglican claims 265 faithful,; 209 adults and 56 children. This is a 65% increase over numbers evidenced when the church was planted seven months ago, making Fr. Schutte rector at one of the fastest growing Anglican parishes in North America. For more information, visit their web site: www.christchurchanglicanaz.org

Source: VirtueOnline

FACA Joins Common Cause Partnership

The FEDERATION OF ANGLICAN CHURCHES IN THE AMERICAS, (FACA) at its semi-annual meeting in Summerville, S.C., voted to accept the Articles of the Common Cause Partnership (CCP) and the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partners. At its previous meeting in October 2007, FACA voted to become full partners of the Common Cause Partnership. The approval of the CCP documents is latest vote makes full partnership a reality. Also at this meeting, the Rt. Rev. Paul Hewett, Diocese of the Holy Cross, was elected as Moderator of FACA.

The addition of FACA to CCP brings an additional 232* congregations under the CCP umbrella. The FACA members are the Anglican Church in America, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Anglican Province of America, the Diocese of the Holy Cross, the Episcopal Missionary Church, and the Reformed Episcopal Church. The Most Rev. Gregory Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone, Anglican Communion, is the primatial patron of FACA.

*This number does not include the congregations of AMiA and REC, which are already full partners in CCP.

Source: VirtueOnline

Saturday, May 10, 2008

The Realignment Continues to Grow

May 09, 2008

The ordinations of four North Shore residents by Bishop Bill Murdoch, dean of
the Network's New England Convocation and bishop in the Province of Kenya, as
well as the licensing of new congregations will be livestreamed on AnglicanTV
Saturday, May 10, beginning at 2 pm EST.

Go to http://www.anglicantv.org/ to watch live.

More information is also available at: http://www.allsaintsamesbury.org/

Thursday, May 8, 2008

267 bishops say they will attend Gafcon conference

May 8, 2008

Posted by geoconger from the Church of England Newspaper:

Organizers of the June Gafcon meeting in Jerusalem report that as of April 25, 267 bishops have registered for the June meeting in Jerusalem.

Denounced as a rival gathering to the July Lambeth conference, a detailed agenda has yet to be released. Like Lambeth much of the conference will be devoted to worship and spiritual reflection. However, Gafcon will play host to bishops, clergy and lay leaders, and will also seek to formulate a common approach to the divisions of doctrine and discipline within the Anglican Communion.

Approximately 150 bishops and conferees from Muslim majority countries unable to travel freely to Israel along with the Gafcon leadership team will meet at a resort on the Dead Sea in Jordan from June 18-22, while a further 600 are expected to join the self-styled “pilgrimage” in Jerusalem from June 22-29.

Organizers note that many of the bishops attending Gafcon will also be among the 625 bishops attending the Lambeth Conference. While the Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda and their bishops have said that as it is currently organized, they will not attend Lambeth, the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone Gregory Venables announced last week that he will go to Lambeth.

Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh announced on May 6 that he would attend Lambeth and Gafcon, joining Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker and the other conservative American bishops in attending both meetings.

“After consulting with the people of Pittsburgh and our friends around the globe, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary for us to be present at both gatherings,” said Bishop Robert Duncan. The American conservative leader said that he would attend the first half of Lambeth, from July 16-25, and that his suffragan, Bishop Henry Scriven will attend from July 26-Aug 3.

At Gafcon, “we will be among friends, focused squarely on the Gospel, and dealing openly with how we build the missionary relationships, covenantal boundaries and responsible structures for the future of Anglicanism,” he said.

At Lambeth, “those who accuse us of abandoning the Anglican Communion will certainly be present and vocal,” he noted. “It is important for us to be able to respond directly to their claims about the situation in the Episcopal Church and our place in the Communion,” he said.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

CANA’s Growth Continues: Five New Priests to be Ordained in Ohio

HERNDON, Va. (April 30, 2008) – The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) will ordain five deacons into the priesthood this week in Ohio. These include Deacon Sean Templeton, Deacon Kevin Maney, Deacon Greg Heath, Deacon David Smith, and Deacon Jeremy Lile. CANA Suffragan Bishop Roger Ames and Bishop Frank Lyons of Bolivia will be presiding over the ordination liturgy this Thursday, May 1 at St. Luke’s Anglican Church in Akron, Ohio.

“It is a sign of new life in the church as we pass along leadership to a new generation. Our prayers and thoughts are with these five special ordinands this week. We are pleased that they will be continuing in their orthodox Anglican faith and that they will be able to minister to their brothers and sisters in Christ,” said Bishop Ames, who is also rector of St. Luke’s.

Once ordained, all five priests will continue as clergy members in their Anglican churches in Ohio: Deacon Lile will continue at St. Luke’s, Deacon Templeton in Holy Trinity in Milan, Deacon Smith in Church of the Good Samaritan in Cleveland Heights, Deacon Maney in St. Matthews in Westerville, and Deacon Heath in St. Anne-in-the-Fields in Madison.

“We are overjoyed over the growth of CANA in Ohio with the ordinations of these blessed deacons to the priesthood. They will no doubt serve as worthy shepherds to the flock of orthodox Anglicans in Ohio who live for profound transformation through Christ. We know that without Christ we are nothing, but with Christ there are no challenges or obstacles that we cannot overcome,” said CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns.

The ordination liturgy will take place this Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 7:00 pm EDT. St. Luke’s Anglican Church is located at 565 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road, Akron, Ohio 44333. All are welcome to attend.

The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (www.canaconvocation.org) currently consists of approximately 60 congregations and 100 clergy in 20 states. CANA was established in 2005 to provide a means by which Anglicans living in the USA, who were alienated by the actions and decisions of The Episcopal Church, could continue to live out their faith without compromising their core convictions. CANA is part of the Common Cause partnership that includes representatives of more than 250 Anglican congregations that are connected to the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Friday, April 25, 2008

From the ACN website

Transformational Change

In transactional change, we control the process of change and can clearly see the steps needed to reach our goal.

In transformational change, we are not in control, and we do not see all the steps between where we are now and where we want to be. Instead, we rely on God to give us three things:

  • A clear understanding of our present reality
  • The vision
  • The next step

Transformational Change

A—Our present reality is one of tension.

Z—Our vision is a biblical, missionary, and united Anglicanism in North America.

B—Our next step is the Global Anglican Future Conference on June 15th.

Acknowledgements

Timeline from the ACN website

This graphic shows the most significant milestones thus far in our movement. Our understanding of transformational change relates directly to this timeline: while our vision is specific, it is not detailed, and we do not know what all the steps will be between now and the realization of our vision.

timeline

References

From the ACN Website

Bell Curve

Biblical, missionary Anglicanism in North America currently exists both inside and outside of The Episcopal Church. The ACN embraces both positions and holds them in tension. This is our present reality.

bell curve

Network Bishops Conclude Productive Meeting

From the Anglican Communion Network:

Bishop Robert Duncan, moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, has released a short statement at the conclusion of the meeting of Network diocesan bishops in Chicago on April 24.

“The diocesan bishop of every Network diocese, as well as a dean representing all the Network convocations, met together in Chicago on April 24. It was an extraordinarily productive meeting. As has happened so many times before in the Network’s five year history, deepened understanding and deeper unity, despite remarkably different contexts and strategies regarding the Episcopal Church, were the fruit of the meeting. The Network’s vision of a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism was again affirmed and embraced,” stated Bishop Duncan.


Editor's Note: The three network parishes in Central NY are St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Syracuse, St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Vestal, and Good Shepherd Anglican Church, Binghamton.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

The Limits of Fellowship

By Phillip D. Jensen

1. The Misguided Title

Let me commence by saying that the title "the Limits of Fellowship" is misguided. I know I chose it myself, but it is the wrong question. It starts us off looking for the negative when the theme of the Bible is the positive.

In as much as we are able we are to live at peace with all people. We are pray for our enemies, seek their welfare, not answer evil for evil, and never take revenge (Romans 12:14-21). We are to love one another and by quiet honest work not be trouble makers to others but live properly before outsiders (1 Thessalonians 4:9-11).

And when people come to us in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we are to welcome them. Our welcome is not for the sake of disputes. We are not to be judgemental. Nor are we to exercise our freedom in Christ to harm the weak whose conscience is bound. Rather we are to serve and build one another in love (Romans 14-15).

We are to avoid quarrelling about words or foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions and quarrels about the law for they are unprofitable and worthless (2 Timothy 2:14, Titus 3:9). The youthful passions that we are to flee are contrasted with righteousness, faith, love and peace. For we are to "have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will." (2 Timothy 2:22-26)

This is our concern: the salvation of other people. For the sake of winning people to the Lord we are to set aside our own preferences and become like other people (1 Corinthians 9:19-23, 10:31-11:1). So we do not want to destroy them by our legalism nor by our liberty. When we see somebody fall into sin our concern is their repentance restoration and salvation. We go to them gently looking to ourselves lest we too be tempted (Galatians 6:1-5) and wherever possible we seek to restore the brother or sister. We are to "have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh." (Jude 22-23) Even the extreme judgement delivered to the sinner in 1 Corinthians 5 is "so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

Within congregational life the love that we have for one another is the hallmark of being a disciple of Jesus (John 13:35). The first letter of John is full of encouragement and assurance of the difference that the gospel makes in our love of one another. We call each other brothers because of our common rebirth. But such a name must be matched in our behaviour towards each other (1 John 4). Our treatment of each other as brothers should mean that we would prefer to be defrauded than to take our disputes with each other into the public domain of the courts.

Maintaining the unity that Christ has won for us by his death and resurrection is commanded of us. "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:1-6)

The desire to exclude people from the Church was championed by Diotrephes. We read of him in 3 John –

"I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good." (3 John 1:9-11)

There is little in the New Testament to encourage Christians to split or divide. In fact we are warned against the divisive person. The works of the flesh include "rivalries, dissensions, divisions," (Galatians 5:20). So in the context of foolish controversies dissensions and quarrels God says: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." (Titus 3.10-11).

a) The Paradox

But this treatment of the divisive person raises a paradox for us. For we are to divide from the divisive person.

It is not a paradox that is difficult to resolve for the error is not in division but in being divisive. It is the person who makes for division, loves division and causes division that is in the wrong. Dividing ourselves from them is the right thing to do. Division is not itself wrong but there is a spirit of divisiveness which is wrong. Yet this paradox highlights the problem that we have in dealing with our differences.

The Christian's permanent disposition is, and should always be, to build for harmony with all people especially with the people of God. Yet there comes time when we must stand out as different and in opposition to the world even with those who claim to be the people of God.

b) With Whom Do We Divide?

So with whom do we divide? When? Under what circumstances? For what purpose.?

One of the most important issues to understand is the difference in our relationship with Christians and with non-Christians.

(i) Non Christians

As the Holy People of God of course we are to be different to the world. (Ephesians 4:17-24, Colossians 3:5-17, 1 Peter 4:1-5) Indeed we must expect the world to dislike, hate and even persecute us as our Lord taught his disciples (John 15:18-20, 1 John 3:13).

We are not to expect that the world we live in is going to be so improved that we will easily live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. The parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:36-43 shows us what the world is like and will be like till the harvest comes. Now is not the time to separate the weeds of the world from the wheat that is also growing there. There is a fundamental and eternal difference between those in the kingdom of God and those who are outside. The days in which we live, are the last days when peoples' opposition to God will be great. They will not put up with sound doctrine but will gather teachers who will satisfy their own passions (2 Timothy 3:1-4 and 4:3- 4).

Sometimes we have to avoid such people. So Paul's advice to Timothy concerning Alexander the coppersmith is he "did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message." (2 Timothy 4:14-15). We do not know about this man. We do not know if he was professing to be a Christian when he did this harm to the apostle, or what the nature of harm was. But it appears to be a non-Christian that Timothy was to avoid. There is no encouragement for Christians to seek martyrdom in the New Testament so it should not be surprising that we should flee from the persecutors.

But that is not the same as avoiding the immoral. Paul apparently was misunderstood in his advice to the Corinthians. For he writes in 1 Corinthians 5: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:9 - 13).

Here is the clear distinction between our relationships with non-Christians and Christians. There should be a withdrawal of association with those who profess Christ but are living in sexual immorality as there would not be for those who make no such profession.

Thus with non-Christians except for the danger of some opponents there really is no reason to withdraw from association. We may have nothing in common and we will be divided from them by our lifestyle choices but we have no reason to withdraw from them and every reason to stay in friendship that we may share the saving message of the Cross with them.

(ii) Christians

But with Christians or those who profess themselves to be Christians - things are very different. There can be, and in 1 Corinthians 5 should be, some withdrawal from certain people because of their behaviour.

This involves us inevitably in making judgement decisions about people and behaviours. We are fairly fallible in making such judgements. We need to weigh the evidence very carefully and not jump to conclusions. But none-the-less we have to make the judgements. And as the scriptures say of the Messiah we are not to "judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he will judge the poor and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;" (Isaiah 11:3-4). So, we must judge without respect of persons but by the revealed will of God.

Our judgements will never be fully accurate or final judgements

1. We do not know enough, especially of the intention of the hearts, to make accurate or final judgements. So Paul would write: "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged (anakrino) by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God." (1 Corinthians 4:3-5). Yet Paul himself would in the very next chapter make judgements about others and call upon the church to do the same: "For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment (krino) on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 5:3-5). And in the next chapter he rebukes the church for having members turn to outsiders for judgement on disputes between them: "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge (krino) the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers?" (1 Corinthians 6:1-5).

Thus we need to follow the Lord Jesus instructions in Matthew 7 of judging as we wish to be judged - not taking the speck out of our brother's eye while we have a log in our own - but doing to others as we would have them do unto us.

c) Judgements

This will still involve making judgements - even negative ones - for we have to watch out for false prophets and to discern the difference between the narrow and wide gates. And the false prophets come purposely in deceptive appearance in order to lead astray God's people. They are a real danger - described as "ravenous wolves". Their goal is to lead astray the elect. This is not possible because God protects the elect by shortening the days of tribulation and by warning beforehand of the dangers of false prophets (Mark 13:20-22).

Judging then as the Messiah would judge means that we are no respecter of people. Our concern is with the truth. Thus we are not to accept or dismiss people on false basis.

We are not to accept or dismiss people because we "like" them. We are to love one another because we are Christian, not because we are lovable. Rather we are to bear with one another and forgive one another because in Christ we are to love one another (Colossians 3:12-15, Ephesians 2:2). It is this reality of loving one another that is the hallmark of being a one of Jesus' people (John 13:35).

Furthermore our love and acceptance of one another is not based on race, sex, class or religious background. This is the great argument of Ephesians 2-3 but also the climax of the argument in Galatians 3. "For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:27-29) Which is why we are to welcome all who come in the name of Christ without passing judgements or quarrel over opinions (Romans 14).

Nor should our judgements be based on institutional authorisation. Paul was unimpressed by the status of the Jerusalem leadership. "And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me." (Galatians 2:6). Indeed the officialdom of Israel was exactly the group who roused the crowd that called out "Crucify!" (Mark 15:1-15, John 19:6, 15).

Earlier in Mark's gospel an interesting episode records Jesus warning against judging by institutional authorisation. The event is Mark 9 where the disciples tried to stop an unnamed exorcist who was driving out spirits in the name of Jesus. Their objection to the man's ministry was that "he was not following us" (Mark 9:38). Though he was not one of the authorised disciples, he was effectively doing the ministry that they ironically were unable to do earlier in the same chapter. Jesus said: "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:39-40).

While we are to follow the example and teaching of our leaders, submitting to them in love (1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:7, 17), Jesus warned against too much authority being given to leaders. "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 23:8-12)

We are not to place ourselves under our leaders as mediators between God and us. There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). And while there is corporate sin and corporate responsibility yet "each one of us will give an account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12). It is not only Adam or humanity that will be judged or the Church that will be saved, each one of us is personably answerable to God. Being a teacher does not place anyone above judgement but rather brings them into stricter judgement (James 3:1).

2. Whom To Avoid?

So we return to our question of whom we should avoid or withdraw from? Why or when should we do it? How should we do it?

From 1 Corinthians 5 it is clearly those within Christianity not those outside.2 But which ones and why?

There are three aspects of concern to consider: fellowship, teaching, and behaviour.

a) Fellowship

Firstly then the issue of Fellowship. For the people of God were not to fellowship with everybody. Indeed one of the characteristics of the nation Israel was its requirements of holiness that were to keep it separate from other peoples. They were to take no part in the religious expressions of other nations; they were not to intermarry with them or to adopt their practices morality or laws. They were to completely destroy and dispossess those who were already in the promised land - partly as a judgement of God on their sins and partly that the people and land of God were to be completely holy.

Yet within the New Testament there is a universality and inclusion that strikes a quite different note to the exclusiveness of Israel. A different note but not one that dispenses with holiness or any separation. Indeed God's judgement on Israel's flirtations with idolatry and sinfulness is given to Christians as the example of what happens to the people of God when they compromise on holiness (1 Corinthians 10:1-10).

The command to separate oneself from idolatry is fairly clear: "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).

Eating and drinking together are expressions of fellowship - of sharing things in common. We cannot eat at the table of demons and of Christ - for we cannot share with both. There is a point at which one must decline to come to the table, for it is a hypocritical nonsense to think that we can be in fellowship with both simultaneously. There has to be renunciation and repentance before one can move from one table to another.

Total inclusiveness of a tolerant relativism is completely at odds with Christianity. In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions that show the impossibility of unequal yoking (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1).

In the Old Testament this is illustrated by the strange life of Daniel. He had to draw the line of separation when in Babylon. He drew it on the issue of eating at the king's table, at the falling down to worship the golden image, at the practice of praying toward the temple for the redemption of Israel. These were non-negotiable. Rather face death than sin.

In the New Testament the disciples would not retreat from preaching Christ even though forbidden it by lawful authority (Acts 4:18-20). If this caused division within the community it may be sad but it was what Jesus did and expected his disciples to do (Matthew 10:16-25, 34-39).

But what about fellowship with Christians? Paul tells us that divisions amongst us are inevitable so "that those who are genuine amongst you may be recognised" (1 Corinthians 11:19).

Sometimes Christian disagreement is not about recognising the genuine but simply choosing to go separate paths, while still being in good standing with each other. So Paul and Barnabas' disagreement over Mark (Acts 16:36-41) or the couple of Christians who cannot live with each other and so choose to live apart (1 Corinthians 7:10). They continue to be married to each other and are not free to marry anybody else, but will live out their obedience to Christ separately.

Sometimes the separation has to do with church discipline for the benefit of the wilful. So Paul calls upon us not to have anything to do with the lazy who will not work - "not to regard him as an enemy but warn him as a brother" (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15).

However when we offer help to strangers who come in the name of Christ to preach his gospel (3 John 5-8) then we are "fellow workers for the truth". So we are not to offer any hospitality to those who go out preaching a false gospel for "whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works" (2 John 11).

So the scriptures urge, warn and command us to avoid certain people and fellowship. We are to have nothing to do with them. We must not help or give succour to them in their work. We are not to fellowship with them in eating and drinking. This is not a matter of personal preference or choice but of obedience to God's word. He commands us not to fellowship with them.

In particular there are two groups that we are to avoid, false teachers and immoral "Christians".

b) False Teachers

On the issue of false teachers there are five aspects to consider

(i) the importance of teaching (ii) the consequence of the teaching (iii) the authority of the teacher (iv) the tolerance of false opinions (v) the separation from false teachers

(i) Firstly we must note the importance of teaching. Christianity comes from the word of God. It is taught to us - in words - the words of the Gospel. That is the form in which the salvation of God is mediated to us. The words are about actions that God has taken in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The words, if they were not about reality, would not be true and would not be saving. But the reality of Jesus death and resurrection is conveyed to us in his word taught in human speech (Luke 24:44-49). Being God's word it is powerful and dynamic, but yet extraordinary as it may seem, it is conveyed in human speech (Romans 1:16-17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

This makes Christianity very susceptible to the problem of false prophets and false teaching. When people come claiming to speak the word of God or to give the true meaning of God's word we have to pay very great attention lest we be hard hearted and rejected God's word or lest we be deceived by false teaching.

From the beginning the Devil has been a murderer, a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). By the means of false teaching he brought death into the world when he denied what God had said and reinterpreted what God meant saying: "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5).

Throughout the history of Israel in the Old Testament there has been conflict between the true prophets of God speaking his word, and the false prophets seeking to distort and deny it.

In the New Testament the struggle continued. Establishing the truth and teaching it while rejecting falsehood, exposing and rebuking it was and is a normal part of Christian living.

The Christian gospel is not an infinitely malleable set of ideas, relationships or practices. In the opening chapter of the letter to the Galatians Paul exhibits his understanding of the logical status of the gospel message. "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9).

From this passage we can see that: there is only one Gospel; that it can be distorted; it can be contradicted; that it is true independent of its preacher and that those who falsify it deserve to be damned.3

Consequently it is very important that ministers of the gospel rightly handle the word of truth and that false teachers are rebuked and silenced. This is the import of the instruction of Paul to his protégés and colleagues Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 6-7; 4:1, 6-7, 13; 2 Timothy 2:2, 14-18; 4:1-5; Titus 1:10-11, 13-14, 2:1, 15). It is also his instruction to elders (Acts 20:26-32) as being 'an apt teacher' is a prerequisite for their appointment (Tit 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-7). It is critical that an elder "must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9). The character of the ministry of the gospel is handing over the good deposit, the words and the pattern of sound words that have been taught. So faithfulness is a key prerequisite of the job (2 Timothy 1:13, 2:2) as Paul was faithful to the deposit he received (1 Corinthians 15:3).

(ii) Secondly we must note the consequences of the teaching. For the word of God is not only the great creative redemptive power for good but its perversion the very work of Satan for death and destruction.

By God's word the heavens and earth were created (Psalm 33:6, John 1:3). For the Word of God is and always has been with God and is God (John 1:1-2). So when we are dealing with the words of God we are dealing with God himself (Hebrews 4:12-13. The scriptures are breathed out by God so that what the scripture says - God says.4 This means that the word of God is living and active piercing the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart and at work in believers (Hebrews 4:12, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Thus the teaching of God's word is not merely a communication of information, but effectively the pastorally transforming work of God - bringing people to faith in God and transforming people as their minds are renewed to know the mind of God (Romans 10:17, 12:1-2). As Peter said to Jesus: "You have the words of eternal life," (John 6:68).

But Peter later wrote of dangerous consequences of false teachers and false prophets. He knew the importance of reminding Christians of the truth that they had embraced. He knew that this was not based in myths but in his eyewitness experience that accorded with the words of the divinely inspired prophets (2 Peter 1:12-21). So he wrote warning of false prophets and false teachers who would bring in secretly destructive heresies and bringing swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1). But notice that their damaging work is not confined to themselves alone. "And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words" (2 Peter 2:2-3). Peter understood that unstable people twist the scriptures "to their own destruction". He warned us "You therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability" (2 Peter 3:16-17).

The dangerous consequences of false teaching affect both the hearer and the society, in this life and the next. Paul warned Timothy "avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:16-18). It is why our Lord warned us against false prophets and false shepherds (Matthew 7:15, 24:11-12, 24:24) and reserves some of his most stringent criticism to the religious leaders and teachers of his day. The seven woes he declaims in Matthew 23 is one of the most powerful rejections and warnings about religious leaders in the scriptures. The dreadful consequences of those who follow their duly appointed but false leaders he describes as becoming a "child of hell". These false scribes and Pharisees 5 "shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."

The human capacity to be deceived is great for our hearts are sinful and deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9). Unstable people are easy pray for false teachers (2 Timothy 3:6-7) but we all need to be repeatedly warned not to be deceived (1 Corinthians 6:9, 12:1-2, 15:33, Galatians 5:21, 6:7 Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 2:8, James 1:16, 1 John 3:7). Indeed we need even to be warned against ourselves for being deceived one can deceive others - as Paul describes our present age "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Timothy 3:12-13).

(iii) Thirdly we need to understand the authority of the teacher. For though through books and articles, we encounter teaching separated from teachers, in fact teaching does not exist without teachers. And in the church teachers have the authority of leadership. We do not just submit to teaching but to people (1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:17) as we obey their instructions and imitate their faith (1 Corinthians 4:16-17, 11:1 Philippians 3:17, 4:9 2 Thessalonians 3:9).

The link between teaching and authority can be seen in 1 Timothy 2:12 but also in the pre-requisite of bishops/elders in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9. It was the task of the Apostles (Matthew 28:20). It is the task of both Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 3:6, 11-16, Titus 2:1, 15). It is the role of the leader in Hebrews 13:7, 17.

This is why the elders who labour in teaching are considered worthy of double honour (1 Timothy 5:17). It is also why the teacher is to be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1). For the tongue is very powerful in its effects and can cause great damage. It is also why the elders who are appointed to teach within the Church, must have stable and godly lives and why Timothy must devote himself to both life and doctrine (1 Timothy 4:15-16). For a teacher's obedience to the teaching is essential if he is to care for the church of God (1 Timothy 3:1-7) as well as to avoid the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-2).

(iv) Fourthly we need to note the tolerance of false opinions in the New Testament. Though the teacher is to be judged with greater strictness he does not have to be perfect before teaching. There is acceptable latitude of opinion between Christians and there are matters of indifference that teachers should not enter into.

Timothy is to let people see his progress in his life and doctrine. The teacher must hold firmly to what the apostle has taught. But he does not need to know everything. Rather he is to grow in his knowledge and understanding of God. This is the model he needs to set for the congregation (1 Timothy 4:11-16).

Between Christians there will be many different opinions. Even over issues of religious observances. The arguments on Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8-11 and Romans 14 are all premised on the possibility of Christians having different opinions on certain matters. Food laws, seasonal observations, or drinking wine are not matters central to the kingdom of God and so different attitudes of people's consciences should be allowed for. Otherwise there will be the reconstruction of justification by good works and the undermining of the centrality of justification by faith in the gracious death of our Lord and Saviour.

It is at this point that many attempts at working out with whom we can fellowship go off the rails. For people naturally want a list of the central matters over which we cannot be tolerant and a list of the peripheral matters over which we can exercise some latitude. But there is no possibility of such a list. For even a matter that is of no consequence in itself - like the food we eat or being circumcised - can in some circumstances be central to gospel fellowship. So in Galatians we are told that "neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Galatians 6:15). Thus Paul refused to submit to the false brothers who would insist on Titus being circumcised. For in the enforced circumcision of Titus he saw that "the truth of the gospel" would be compromised (Galatians 2:3-5). This concern for the truth of the Gospel also lay behind Paul's rebuke of Peter and Barnabas over food laws. For when they refused to fellowship with Gentile Christians for fear of the circumcision party - they were undermining the Gentiles' standing in Christ by faith alone (Galatians 2:11-14). It was a gospel matter even though it was about food and the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating a drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17).

There is no possibility of making the list of matters called adiaphora 6. For anything can be used to express the truth or to teach falsehood. Though there are matters that are less germane to the gospel. Over these Christians can disagree - it is even good that Christians do disagree - for it clarifies our justification is in Christ's death.

Furthermore there are some areas of truth that the Christian teacher should leave alone completely. So Paul tells Timothy, "Remind them of these things (great truths about dying and enduring with Christ) and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers... avoid irreverent babble" (2 Timothy 2:14-16 cf 1 Timothy 6:3-5) and 1 Timothy concludes, "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge,' for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you." (1 Timothy 6:20-21). He also warns Titus: "avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless" (Titus 3:9).

(v) Fifthly we must note the separation from false teachers that the Scriptures enjoin upon us. This issue is central to our place in history today.

Paul wrote to the Romans: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil." (Romans 16:17-19).

Again Paul teaches about separation from false teachers when he wrote to Timothy concerning teachers such as Hymenaeus and Philetus "who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened". We must not be afraid that God's plans will be thwarted for God know what he is sovereignly doing. He knows who are his. He uses all kinds of instruments to bring about his purpose. But, though false teachers will in time fail like Jannes and Jambres did, yet we are to "avoid such people" (2 Timothy 3:5).

John also teaches the necessity to remove yourself from support of false teaching. He wrote "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." (2 John 7-11)

This teaching of John is consistent with his instructions in his third epistle. For there he makes it clear that by helping strangers who go out in the name of Jesus we are "fellow workers for the truth".7

We cannot be rewarded as fellow workers in the truth when we support missionaries, without being criticised and judged for being fellow workers in wickedness if we give similar comfort to false teachers in their ministry. This hospitality and greeting of teachers is the flip side of Jesus' promise that whoever gives so much as a glass of cold water to a messenger because he comes in the name of Christ will not miss out on his reward (Matthew 10:42). For in helping the little ones of Jesus when they are naked, hungry and thirsty you are helping Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46). It is also indicative of the nature of Jesus teaching on how to treat the repeatedly warned and unrepentant sinner "...let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17).

So when the risen Christ addressed the church of the Ephesians he commended them for their hatred of the work of the Nicolaitans as he held against the church of Pergamum that "you have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans." (Revelation 2:6, 15). But he is really condemnatory of the church in Thyatara because of their tolerance of false teaching and the false teacher: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead" (Revelation 2:20-23).

c) Immoral "Christians"

The case of Thyatira brings us to another aspect of withdrawal of fellowship. For false teaching is one reason for withdrawal but immorality is another. Of course when the two go together, as they often/usually do, then the reasons for withdrawal are overwhelming.

(i) We All Sin

On the issue of moral behaviour, we know that we all sin - and sin in many different ways. The person who says that they have no sin or have not sinned is a liar and makes God a liar. Rather we are to walk in the light of fellowship with God and his people by confessing our sins, knowing that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:5-10).

Furthermore when we see our brother sin we are to seek to restore him gently (Galatians 6:1-5) and to pray for his forgiveness (1 John 5:16-17). Such prayer is not about "sin that leads to death". There is sin that leads to death and other sin that does not lead to death. That is, while any lawbreaking makes us accountable to the whole law (James 2:10) yet there is a differentiation between sins in the law. There is sinning accidentally8 (ignorance) and, defiantly9. There is gnat law and camel law. There are weightier matters of the law like justice and mercy and faithfulness and righteousness as well as lesser concerns like tithing mint dill and cumin (Matthew 12:7, 23:23-24). There are applications of the law that have become obsolete in the history of salvation (Hebrews 8:13) and others whose application requires us to understand their spiritual intent from the perspective of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:8-11, 10:6-11).

Thus not every sin committed by a Christian means that we withdraw from fellowship. Otherwise we would be conducting church in the proverbial telephone box and even then we too would have to leave it because of our sin. Rather the issue is how we deal with sin in our lives and the seriousness of the sin.

(ii) If We Repent

For if we repent, God is always merciful and gracious and will forgive us our sins. As John wrote: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ... My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 1:8-9, 2:1).

It is the refusal to repent that turns any trespass into "sinning defiantly" or "sinning with a high hand". For this, there can be no forgiveness, not because of the sin itself but because of the way in which the work of the Holy Spirit is resisted and despised (Numbers 15:30-31, 2 Chronicles 36:16, Matthew 12:31-32). There comes a point where the opportunity of repentance is no longer available (Hebrews 6:4-6 12:17).

Of course repentance must be real and not just to avoid punishment or to fulfil appearances (Matthew 3:7-10). Saying or even feeling sorry is not the same as repentance (2 Corinthians 7:5-13). While repentance can comfort other Christians it is only when that repentance is real. Paul did not want the Corinthians to apologise to him to make him feel better but to repent of their actions. It was their repentance toward God that made him feel better. Saying sorry for hurting somebody is not repenting - it is not even acknowledging wrongdoing let alone changing the course of life.

Jesus gives a clear process for dealing with a disciple who sins against his brother without repentance. After being warned by the offended party and warned a second time by the offended party plus one or two witnesses, the matter is to be brought before the church. It is only when he refuses to listen to the church that the offended party takes the action of separating himself.

Being unrepentant is one of the critical failures that breaches fellowship.

(iii) The Seriousness of Sin

While repentance is one such issue, the seriousness of some sins is another. As argued above while all sin is serious not all sins are equally serious. The sins that affect fellowship are those that are public denials of key gospel standards. The sins that bring dishonour to the name of Jesus, undermine the holiness of the congregation and should cause offence to the people of God are those that are intolerable.

While the church is not pure or Christians sinless, there are major breaches of public community morality that are intolerable. This is not to minimise the importance of any sin. It is just that not all sins have the same seriousness of consequence. There are those sins that do not lead to death. There are the sins that we bear with one another in forgiveness.

Take for example the economic sins in the New Testament.

The Thessalonians are warned against laziness. They are told to withhold food from the lazy man who will not work, and when he does not obey the command to earn his own keep then the congregation is to "have nothing to do with him". However this is not a final outcome but another strategy to get him to take his responsibilities seriously for Paul continues: "have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." (2 Thessalonians 3:12-15).

The words of James to the rich are much stronger. Though there is no action enjoined upon the church. But the sins of the rich in their unjust cruelty to the poor should lead the rich to "weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you." (James 5:1).

So not all sins are treated in the same way. But some are considered intolerable and therefore treated with great seriousness and direct action. For example Paul rebukes the Corinthians on many matters but it is a particular issue of sexual immorality that requires immediate and drastic action. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). This breach of standards lowers the congregation beneath the morality of outsiders. It cannot be tolerated in any shape or form.

In the next chapter he warns the Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Here is an important passage because it makes clear the exclusion from the kingdom of God. It illustrates the general reason for exclusion ("the unrighteous") with some specific and concrete examples ("sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers"). It allows for the possibility of salvation for the guilty if there is a significant change (washed, sanctified, and justified). And it warns of the deception that comes with these sins. ("Do not be deceived"10).

Both 2 Peter and Jude discuss people11 who "secretly" bring false teaching and immorality into the church. They both deny the Lord, and encourage sexual immorality amongst Christians. While both epistles warn of these people and encourage the Christians to "contend for the faith" (Jude 4) neither encourage the Christians to exclude these divisive people from the congregation. Rather the Christians are encouraged to remember that God will bring judgement as he did in the flood or in Sodom and Gomorrah and that God can be trusted by the faithful to judge the wicked and save the righteous.

(iv) The Call for Action

The risen Jesus' letter to the seven churches calls for direct action against such false prophets. But the church at Pergamum tolerated the Nicolaitans as well as those who taught as Balaam leading to sexual immorality and idolatry. To them comes the call to repent and the warning of judgement for these failings.

But much harsher is the word to the church of Thyatira: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve." (Revelation 2:20-23).

Toleration is sometimes inexcusable. This woman is teaching falsely this common combination of idolatry and sexual immorality. The church should have acted against her, not tolerated her. The Lord of the Church may patiently bear with the sin of the world, but was not going to tolerate her continued sinful teaching and practice.

So there are some people who profess to be Christians we should avoid, because of their behaviour. Such people are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3, where in the climax of the description of evil times we read of people who are "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power." These are not irreligious people these are people of professed godliness. But their lives and teaching deny the power of what they profess. And Paul's command to Timothy is "avoid such people" (2 Timothy 3:4-5).

3. Come To Lambeth

So with this canvassing of the Biblical material we come to Lambeth. Or at least we come to the invitation that our Bishops have declined. Are they right or wrong? Should others decline as well or is just a private decision that reflects personal wishes?

I am not going to rehearse the problems in the Anglican communion. Mark Thompson has just done that for us. Nor am I going to explain the nature of the Lambeth Conference, as Robert Tong has just done that for us.

However there are some matters that I need to mention to see how this Biblical material should be applied to this particular question.

a) The Incarnation of Ideas Creates Division

The incarnation of ideas creates division amongst people. As long as we are discussing an idea we can stay at the same table. Once you start teaching the idea we may have to withdraw from each other. Once one of us incarnates that idea into an action we are no longer able to continue with each other.

Take a neutral issue like infant baptism. As long as we are just talking there is no reason to separate from those who believe babies should or should not be baptised. But once somebody starts teaching it as a matter of right and wrong then those of us who disagree cannot remain in fellowship. But nothing divides us more certainly than when somebody either baptises a baby or refuses to baptise a baby or rebaptises an adult. Then when the teaching has been incarnated there is no room left for difference of opinion. At that point not only are we distanced from the person but even more from the minister and church who acted in this fashion.

Similarly notice the divisive consequences of ordaining or refusing to ordain women as priests or bishops. As long as we are just talking about it then we can continue in relationship. Once people start preaching on the matter, divisions start to emerge. But if it is your belief that we must ordain women in order to fulfil the command of God then you cannot keep talking about it, you have to do something. And once you act upon your belief then those who are by conscience opposed to this action must either deny their conscience or separate from you. So within the Anglican church there are the created no-go zones of ministry - where some places women are accepted as priests and in other places the same women are considered to be deacons or even lay.

I am not talking about the right or wrong of this illustration just the inevitable outcome that I was taught by a MOW leader in a book called "Actions Speak"12.

b) The Presenting Issue

The issue of homosexuality I do not wish particularly to discuss. It is the presenting issue on this debate so it cannot be avoided but as an issue it is of very little interest to me.

The point is in a passage like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 we are warned that these matters are deceptive. We are warned that these matters exclude people from the Kingdom of God. There has been universal acceptance of the meaning of these words down the centuries and across the spectrum of Biblical scholarship - and while there may be scholars who today want to dispute the meanings of some words they have no agreement amongst themselves or any persuasion of the vast community of scholarship. I have seen nothing to persuade me that the words sustain some unusual meaning.

Furthermore in the context of Lambeth it was only ten years ago that the gathering of world bishops accepted the traditional attitude to sexual expression.

c) The Consecrating Bishops

So on an issue that is not marginal as it involves exclusion from the kingdom of God, a group of bishops, knowingly and intentionally consecrated an unrepentant active homosexual.

Let us be clear here - the problem is not with Gene Robinson. He is not even invited to Lambeth. It has nothing to do with homophobia - if they had consecrated an unrepentant practising heterosexual adulterer the point would be exactly the same. It is not even a matter of sex. If they had consecrated a practising unrepentant thief the point would be the same.

The reason why our bishops are not attending is because of the impossibility of Christian fellowship with the consecrating bishops. They are the false teachers who have acted in a way that makes fellowship with them impossible.

The Lambeth conference is not a debating chamber. It is the formal expression of our world fellowship. The bishops join together around the table of the Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot do that with people who are practising, condoning, commending and consecrating sinfulness.

If it is believed that homosexual behaviour is right and moral, when exercised in a loving relationship, they did nothing wrong. If they believe that innocent people are being persecuted and discriminated against by our church then they did the right thing. If we are teaching that innocent people are guilty and failing to break bread with people who are truly Christ's then we are doing the wrong thing and need to repent.

But unless you are persuaded that this was either right or a matter of indifference you cannot now be associated with these leaders in Christian fellowship. If you believe that the practice of homosexuality is sinful - such as to exclude a person from the kingdom of God - then these Bishops, acting as the leaders of Christ's church, are intolerable false teachers.

It would be important to check the facts and to make sure that they did understand what they were doing and did it intentionally. It would be important to ask them to repent. To do it slowly, carefully, politely, privately and if need be publicly. But once it is clear that this is their studied intentional position then the options are clear. Either accept them for they have done the right thing or reject them for they are in serious error. There really is no middle ground left.

The last five years have demonstrated every conceivable attempt at bringing them to repentance. All has failed.

The meeting at Lambeth is the welcome acceptance of them into the continuing fellowship of God's people.

If you believe that they are wrong there is no way you can join in such a gathering of supposed Christian fellowship. It is not a matter of preference but of obedience.

You cannot accuse others of disobeying the scriptures on homosexuality while you yourselves are disobeying equally clear commands of scripture to avoid such false teachers.

d) I Would Urge

I would urge those bishops who believe that unrepentant active homosexuality is wrong not to compromise their own beliefs, the scriptures, the church of God and the holiness of Christ. If they have already accepted the invitation they should repent and apologise. It is not good to go back on your word. But you should not have given it in the first place. And to reinforce your error of judgement by attending is to make the same mistake as Herod when he executed John the Baptist. Such faithfulness to your word and promise is perverse rationalisation for continued wrongdoing.

To those bishops who go to Lambeth knowing that unrepentant homosexual activity is wrong - your profession of evangelical credentials will always be tarnished. You cannot expect God's people to trust you as you pick and choose which parts of the Bible apply to others and apply to you.

Actions have divisive effects. You are now put under incredible pressure to act on an issue that is not your own choosing. But you cannot avoid the consequences of your action. Attending is to fellowship with false teachers in their wicked work. It cannot help but diminish faithful Christians' confidence in you as a leader. To believe otherwise is a further illustration of the naivety, which leads you to attend.

The pragmatic arguments of needing to be there to uphold orthodoxy do not wash. By being there you are denying and undermining orthodoxy. You are demonstrating that the issue does not ultimately matter and that these men are the true bishops of the church.

The American bishops believe they are right and wish to change the rest of the church into accepting homosexuality. There is not the slightest indication that they are coming to Lambeth to listen to what the orthodox have to say. This is not the first round of a debate it has been going on for years. They are not ignorant of alternative viewpoints. They came last time for the final debate and they lost. They come this time with an action that they refuse to repent of. The American bishops did not listen last time they will not listen this time.

That the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited them only shows his colours. He is on record as agreeing with the American action in principle. Orthodox bishops attending, is not going to change the outcome of Lambeth just legitimise fellowshipping with false teachers or more accurately declare that their teaching is not false.

For our own diocese we need to explain the issues clearly so people will rejoice with thankfulness to God that we are led by Godly bishops who put obedience to the word of God ahead of worldly popularity. It would also be very encouraging to them to be flooded with letters and e-mails of appreciation at this difficult time.
________

Endnotes:

1. Though through the gospel ministry the human declaration of the forgiveness of God has eternal consequences. (John 20:23)
2. There are exceptions that have been discussed above such as the non-Christians we are to withdraw from are the dangerous (2 Timothy 4:14) and those who encourage us to join them in their sinful behaviour (1 Peter 4:3-5, 1 Corinthians 15:33-34).
3. anathema ESV, AV "accursed" NIV "eternally condemned". TDNT "Handing over to God's judicial wrath"
4. Nb. e.g. the ascription of authorship of Psalm 95 to God, the Holy Spirit and David in Hebrews 3-4.
5. I am not at this point arguing that anybody today is teaching what the Scribes and Pharisees taught but that false teaching is not something that Christians can ignore as harmless when our Lord was so critical of the false teachers of his day because of, amongst other things, the harm they caused to other people.
6. Things that are indifferent.
7. "Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth." 3 John 5-8
8. Numbers 15:27 ESV, NIV "Unintentionally". AV "through ignorance". The sins of ignorance concept can be seen in Leviticus 5:14ff, 1 Timothy 1:13, Hebrews 5:2, 9:7.
9. Numbers 15:30 ESV, AV. "a high hand". NIV "defiantly".
10. Interestingly a similar warning is given in two parallel passages Galatians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:6.
11. "False prophets" in 2 Peter 2.12 Eileen Baldry and Tony Vinson (eds) Longman Cheshire 1991.
________

This address was given by the Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, at the Sydney Lambeth Decision Briefing held at St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney, Friday 14th March 2008. PDF version available here. Audio available at sydneyanglicans.net. http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/images/uploads/mp3/Lambeth/Phillip%20Jensen.mp3 www.acl.asn.au