ACTIVIST NJ LAYMAN AND SCHOLAR RESIGNS KEY EPISCOPAL POSTS

Feast of St. Andrew, 2003

The Rt. Rev. George E. Councell

Bishop of New Jersey

808 West State Street

Trenton, N.J.  08618-5398

Dear Bishop Councell,

It is with the deepest sense of pain and regret that I must resign as a member of the Cathedral Chapter and bring to a conclusion my service as the Senior Warden of St. Andrews, New Providence.  Over the past few months since the 74th General Convention I have prayed and sought to discern Gods guidance as I have come to these difficult decisions I still remember the excitement that filled the Cathedral last May when you were elected the Eleventh Bishop of New Jersey, and I believe that it was indeed your sincere desire to be the Bishop of all Episcopalians in this Diocese.  However, your actions since General Convention, I believe, make this vital objective impossible.

Your letter of August 15th to the Diocese, and your decision to participate in the consecration of Gene Robinson only two weeks after your own consecration, make clear that you are decisively and actively committed to one side of a complex theological debate now dividing both the Episcopal Church and the entire Anglican Communion.  As someone on the other side of that theological divide, I find that your actions now make it tragically impossible for you to fulfill your express wish to worship and serve our Lord in communion with those who disagree, within the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion.

We need to be absolutely clear what this debate is and is not about. The difference between us is not ultimately about either homosexuality or about the inclusiveness of the Church.  Nor is this even a disagreement about the interpretation of Scripture.  I have yet to see any serious effort to justify either the blessing of same sex unions or the consecration of a divorced and actively homosexual bishop from

Scripture.  You certainly offered no Scriptural justifications in your own letter to the Diocese, referring instead only to your belief in the process that led to these decisions.  What lies at the heart of the current controversy is a much deeper and more profound disagreement about the nature of Scriptural authority, and of Scripture itself, in the contemporary world.

The unique genius of the Anglican witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ

has always been intricately tied to the ability of Anglicans to understand Scripture in the light of both tradition and reason.  In steering a middle course between extreme Protestant assertions on the one hand, and equally unacceptable claims extending Roman authority, on the other, Anglican theologians not only bridged the great divide in Western Christianity opened by the Reformation, but also managed to reconnect the Western Christian heritage with that of the Eastern

Church.  These accomplishments have placed Anglicans at the center of

important global efforts to reunify the Church as a whole, efforts now

gravely imperiled by the radical actions of ECUSA.

The tragedy of the current situation is that the leadership of a small but important province of the Anglican Communion, completely convinced of its own moral righteousness, seeks to unilaterally recast the classical triad of Anglicanism, thereby elevating human reason, informed principally by ever-shifting and culturally determined values, to the status of primary vehicle through which the will of God is to be discerned.  Scripture and tradition, meanwhile, are to be relegated to the role of interpretive lenses lenses that anyone is free to employ

or ignore as circumstance dictates.  Fortunately, the historical

transformation of Anglicanism into a worldwide communion has made it impossible any longer for a single province, including the original province itself, to define Anglicanism unilaterally.  In fact, the global realignment provoked by the current crisis is almost certainly part of the necessary and historic evolution of Anglicanism on the verge of its fifth century.  Out of the current crisis will surely

emerge a revived and stronger Communion, one more capable of guarding the authentic faith and doctrine of the Church in the new millennium than the present arrangement is able to afford.  The decision of at least 20 Primates, representing over 50 million Anglicans worldwide, that a state of impaired communion now exists with you and allied bishops of ECUSA is itself a tragic though ultimately necessary step in this process of realignment and evolution.

One of the great accomplishments of Anglican Christianity has been its capacity to hold together multiple understandings and diverse experiences in a dynamic tension that simultaneously remains firmly rooted within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy.  But that wonderful informative tension is clearly not infinitely elastic, as the current leadership of ECUSA has demonstrated by moving decisively beyond fundamental and widely recognized boundaries of Christian

doctrine and faith.  Despite the historical failure of ECUSA in this respect, I remain hopeful that the current crisis will ultimately serve to renew the capacity of Anglicanism globally to hold together diverse understandings and experiences within the framework of authentic and recognizably Christian doctrine.  As for the future of ECUSA itself, I am much less hopeful.  It is already becoming difficult for many to feel themselves part of a church articulating and acting unilaterally

upon culturally inspired understandings of Christian doctrine and morality that the vast majority of identifiable Christians, across both time and space, would not recognize as genuinely Christian.

Unfortunately, the self-assured righteousness of current ECUSA leadership in pressing ahead aggressively with its own post-modern interpretations of Christianity -- even in the face of overwhelming opposition within and beyond the Anglican Communion – while breathtaking in its arrogance and audacity, offers little comfort or reassurance for those of us in doubt.

Anglican realignment is now upon us, whether we want it or not.  The time for difficult decisions is approaching.  In many parts of the Episcopal Church there is substantial resistance to the position and actions that you and other leaders have taken.  Even as hopelessly impractical and ultimately doomed arrangements for alternative episcopal oversight are explored, lawyers on both sides are evaluating

legal options and refining their strategies.  Clearly a great and completely disheartening fight looms over the considerable material patrimony of the historic Episcopal Church.  I doubt anyone is under the illusion that this process will be resolved either soon or amicably.  In the meantime, those of us who cannot accept the direction in which you and your fellow bishops are leading the Episcopal Church must find our own places in the realignment process.  There are various

options, both within and outside the framework of ECUSA, and we must each seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we attempt to discern Gods will.  Although I, like over 50 million fellow Anglicans around the world, now find that communion with you is impaired under the present circumstances, please know that I will continue to pray for you, for your ministry, for this Diocese, and for the Church

Sincerely,

Christopher S. Taylor