Will The Real Episcopalians Please
Stand Up?
By J.R. Ensey
The Episcopalian Church shocked the world recently when
they elected a practicing homosexual as bishop of New Hampshire,
one of the highest offices in American Anglicanism. The action prompted
many in that communion to consider withdrawing and forming a more
conservative Anglican movement in the United States. Although the
suggestion drew cheers from some, others counseled that the move
should not be done hastily, pointing out that to depart would leave
the gays and more liberal elements of the church in total control
of its assets. If leaving was to take place, they said, it should
be the gays and their supporters who had departed from traditional
Anglican doctrine. They called the action of their leaders who elected
the gay bishop “unbiblical and schismatic.”
That made sense to 2700 conservative Episcopalians who met recently
in Dallas, TX on October 8-9, 2003. According to a story in the
Los Angeles Times of 10/10/03 by Larry B. Stammer, “Rather
than petitioning for a separate or parallel Anglican church for
biblically orthodox Episcopalians, they decided to seek recognition
as the “successor church”—the real Episcopalians.
Because they were continuing to embrace the doctrines and morals
traditionally held by the church, they deemed they had a right to
the name and the assets.
“Many outside assume we will announce we are leaving [the
Episcopalian Church],” the Rev. Canon David Anderson, president
of the American Anglican Council, said at the emotional session.
“Everyone has been thinking we want a parallel province [church].
Not! We are not leaving. They left us. We are the rightful heirs
of all the culture and legacy and faith of the Episcopal Church.”
What if the disputed election stands and no repentance or change
of direction is forthcoming? The delegates urged disaffected members
to withhold their financial contributions from their national church
headquarters and redirect the money toward “biblically orthodox
mission and ministry.”
Why such a display of emotions? A statement issued by the conference
provided the answer: “We repudiate the General Convention’s
confirmation of a non-celibate homosexual to be a bishop of the
church, and its acceptance of same-sex blessings as part of our
common life. These actions have broken fellowship with the larger
body of Christ and have brought the Episcopal Church under God’s
judgment.” The declaration also called on primates to discipline
the bishops who “departed from biblical faith and order”
by supporting the gay bishop, Gene Robinson, and same-sex blessings,
and appealed to their leaders to “guide the re-alignment of
Anglicanism in North America.”
And how did the presiding bishop of the American Episcopal Church
respond? The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold issued a statement deploring
the use of “inflammatory rhetoric and ultimatums...In such
a climate, mutual pursuit of ways to build up rather than tear down
is made more difficult.” As one might suppose, Griswold had
supported Robinson’s election. Earlier he had made the observation
in a published interview that the scriptures did not condemn committed
homosexual relationships. Therefore, he felt it necessary to blame
the representatives of the traditional Episcopal view for inflammatory
rhetoric and for “tearing down” what they were trying
to inject into the ranks—i.e., they had what some would call
a “bad spirit.”
There were calls at the conference for Griswold’s resignation
for “abuse of the office of the presiding bishop.” The
Times article reported that “U.S. Episcopalians who opposed
Robinson and same-sex blessings are in a decided minority, based
on the votes at the General Convention, but they claim to be in
the mainstream within worldwide Anglicanism.”
Interesting developments, indeed, and a sobering commentary on our
times. Some questions come to mind:
Are there any lessons in this affair that could benefit leaders
and ministerial constituents of other religious movements?
Why are those who seek to bring down traditional barriers always
ready with a word of personal condemnation and judgment for any
who oppose their removal? Whose “inflammatory rhetoric”
in support of gay ordination ignited this conflagration in the first
place? Why must those who wish to remove barriers have to find out
the hard way why they were erected in the beginning?
Is it justifiable to assume that the Episcopalians who are remaining
faithful to the established teaching of their denomination are indeed
the rightful heirs of its culture, faith and legacy?
Let the real Episcopalians please stand up!
|