There is no doubt about, but GenCon 2009 was the end of the line for Conservatives in the Episcopal Church; just as GC 2000 was "the end" for Catholics in ECUSA. Measures calling for the full inclusion of the LGBT candidates in the ordination, and authorizing the Liturgical Commission to draw up rites for Same Sex Unions effectively mean that the policy of radical inclusion has reached its logical conclusion, which, paradoxically is the "radical exclusion" of Classical Anglicanism, Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism from TEC.
Of course, the demise of the last remnants of traditional Anglicanism in TEC will not be immediate. However, there is no disguising the fact that the remaining conservative parishes are now pockets of resistence in a foreign land, and that there is no hope of a counter-revolution. They should be able to circle the wagons and survive within TEC until their present clergy retire - then they can expect to be "radically included."
However, the new TEC is not that new. It began in the 1960s with the decision of the House of Bishops not to discipline Bishop Pike for his anti-Trinitarian views. Then it continued with the ordination of women (1976); censuring of Bishop Chambers for his support of Continuing Anglicanism (1978); the first woman bishop (1987); and the removal of the conscience clauses (2000) for those opposed to Women Ordination. All of these events are landmarks on ECUSA's road to rejecting Biblical theology and morality in favour of a New Religion.
We should be very thankful for those who had the vision to see where it was all going, and created the Continuing Anglican Church. The St. Louis Congress of Concerned Churchmen (1977), and the Denver Consecrations (1978) marked a new beginning for Anglicanism based up its four fundamental:
The Bible
The Ancient Creeds
The Two Dominical Sacraments, and
The traditional threefold (male) ministry of deacon, priest, and bishop
They also had the wisdom to go a little beyond traditional Anglican doctrine and clarify the position of the Church on issues such as the number of Ecumenical Councils we accept, and where the church stands on, among other things, the sanctity of human life, and the sanctity of marriage.
Organizationally, Continuum is far from perfect, as we have become divided on secondary issues, but we have at least retained "the Faith once delivered to the Saints." After thirty years, the Continuum is reaching maturity, and seeking to work beyond the mistakes of the past - which were entirely political, not theological.
The three jurisdictions that came out of the Denver Consecrations - the Anglican Catholic Church; the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and the United Episcopal Church of North America, are sharing ministers and resources and are slowly moving forward on the issue of achieving an institutional unity that will reflect our unity of faith. I hope that those Catholic Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics who have finally run out of room in TEC will look seriously at the Continuum and realise that the Faith of their Fathers (and mothers!) is alive and well in that little church down the road.
"Measures calling for the full inclusion of the LGBT candidates in the ordination, and authorizing the Liturgical Commission to draw up rites for Same Sex Unions effectively mean that the policy of radical inclusion has reached its logical conclusion, which, paradoxically is the "radical exclusion" of Classical Anglicanism, Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism from TEC."
ReplyDeleteI don't follow your logic here. None of these measures will force any traditionalist parish to include a woman or LGBT person in their rector search, call such a person as their rector, bless same-sex unions, or otherwise change their daily life or practice. The resolutions don't have that power.
Conversely, a policy that says no women or LGBT people can be ordained, and that no same-sex union can be blessed, DOES exclude parishes that would like to call such people and bless such unions. So, if anything, the policy you would advocate for TEC is more exclusionary than the one currently in place.
I understand that traditionalists may not want to continue to live in a church that ordains women bishops, or that allows parishes to bless same sex unions. All well and good. But this is not the same as saying that traditionalist have been excluded from practicing their faith. Nobody is excluding traditionalists. Allowing women to be ordained is not exclusion. Creating a working group to draft a rite for blessing of same sex unions is not exclusion. Allowing parishes to include LGBT people in their rector searches is not exclusion. You may not like these policies, and you may decide (as you evidently did) that adoption of these policies is something you can't live with, but exclusion is not what's at issue here.
My 2 cents.
I feel compelled to reply to Mr. Peters - to say that, sadly, "exclusion" is indeed the issue. Just as the same soil cannot nourish both olive trees and huckleberries - due to the measurable and observable acidity levels of the soil - so the same church cannot sanction and cause to flourish both traditionalists and innovators. Reality bears this out in the garden and in the church.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, I am sorry to say, with Tom Peters arguments against exclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe Old Fashioned High Churchman said;
"Measures calling for the full inclusion of the LGBT candidates in the ordination, and authorizing the Liturgical Commission to draw up rites for Same Sex Unions effectively mean that the policy of radical inclusion has reached its logical conclusion, which, paradoxically is the "radical exclusion" of Classical Anglicanism, Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism from TEC."
-unquote-
As an "Old Fashioned, and Traditional High Churchman" myself, I find that merely allowing rites for same sex unions,and merely allowing ordination of women, and merely allowing ordination of those with a homosexual persuasion does not only exclude me, but runs anathema to the Holy Bible - which is the very basis and core of our faith, worship, and liturgy.
It is exclusion at its tantamount!
It excludes part of biblical doctrine, and therefore excludes bible teachings that have been adhered to for thousands of years!
It is exclusion beyond a doubt.
And I will have no part of the deceivers works within my acceptable theology now, or ever.
Do not be deceived that I am alone in my opinion, there are literally thousands and thousands of us in Anglo-Catholicism that adhere to the doctrine of the Faith once and for all delivered unto the Saints without any alterations.
To quote an Old Southern Preacher - "If it ain't in the Bible then don't preach it"!