SOUTHWEST FLORIDA: AN OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP LIPSCOMB

19 February 2004

The Right Reverend John B. Lipscomb, Bishop

The Diocese of Southwest Florida

7313 Merchant Court

Sarasota, FL 34240

(A note to the reader: Bishop Lipscomb has invited Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America [ECUSA] to speak to our Diocesan Convention in October of 2004. Bishop Griswold has accepted. Subsequently, Bishop Lipscomb has been encouraged to rescind that invitation because of the divisive pain his presence would precipitate. Bishop Lipscomb has resisted the withdrawal of the invitation and has instead justified it as something worthwhile. You may read about the invitation and the justification by accessing the diocesan website: www.dioceseswfla.org/ezine.htm)

Dear Bishop,

Greetings to you and yours in the unique, saving love of Christ Jesus. I pray for you regularly as I understand the godly weight of responsibility inherent in your ministry. In that atmosphere of prayerfulness, I own the words of our Savior as I say to you, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death." (Mark 14:22, NKJV) Spiritual anguish and torment would not be stating the case too strongly for my feelings as I consider your invitation to Bishop Griswold, and subsequent rationale for maintaining said invitation, to speak to our Diocesan convention. I believe your decision to be an error, wrought with gravely dangerous implications for the proclamation of the Gospel be that to those who are part of the church or not. Souls are at stake.

Frank Griswold is in need of repentance and discipline, not a place at the t able of discussion. He is the single most recognizable symbol of disunity in the Anglican Communion. He is the point man who has precipitated a crisis in worldwide Anglicanism and caused 20 or more Archbishops, representing better than 50% of all Anglicans across the face of the globe to break communion with ECUSA. Griswold has rhetorically and practically repudiated Christianity. How can one such as he engage in "honest conversation," as you say, when he understands neither the Truth nor the truth? He has publicly denied the uniqueness of Christ by word and deed. He mocks the Truth. He has publicly deceived 37 Anglican primates and 70 plus million Anglicans by agreeing that a certain course of action should not be undertaken because of its disastrous implications. Then in a spate of ecclesial arrogance, less than a month later, proceeded to enthusiastically support and participate in said course of action. He mocks the truth!

The Presiding Bishop's piously effusive words and pluriform ideology are non-Christian poison-why should anyone be subjected to more of such? If someone became ill because of unknowingly ingesting arsenic, would they then partake of it knowingly? You rightfully cite your episcopal vows to "guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church." Allowing Mr. Griswold to speak to your flock would eviscerate the faith, further impair its unity and deny t he appropriate discipline of the Church. The New Testament model for dealing with a sinful brother is to point out his fault to him privately and secure repentance. Failing that, a small party of witnesses are to confront the unrepentant sinner to further explain the grave danger of his sinful ways. If such a one is still recalcitrant, then the matter is to be brought before the whole church in an effort to have him mend his ways. Failing that, he is to be treated as a pagan (Cf. Matthew 18:15-17). Frank Griswold has arrogantly spurned repeated calls for repentance-he is to be treated as an apostate, with no rightful place at the table.

For too many years "protracted, civil discourse" has served to mitigate the "faith once delivered." We in the Episcopal Church have conveniently hidden behind the cultural and voguey facade of inclusivity and diversity, welcoming wolves in among the sheep. It has been a slaughter-in terms of the sheep and of the Gospel. The cloak of diversity has served as a convenient, guilt driven ruse to allow the wolves into the church. It has provided an environment in which they can even flourish. Diversity for the sake of pseudo- inclusivity mocks our own Baptismal Covenant. When we allows sin to reign (speak authoritatively) in ECUSA (or a diocesan convention) we bring a halt to our perseverance in resisting evil; we deny the Good News of God in Christ and in doing so disrespect the dignity of every human; we make a mockery of loving our neighbors as ourselves and striving for peace and justice among all as we officially enshrine and dialogue about those things that are plainly contrary to the Word of God.

The Apostle Paul said, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (Satan)? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"(2 Corinthians 6:14-15) None! Jesus shared the Truth with sinners, he did not engage in protracted, civil discourse. If they (we) repented and followed, great, welcome to eternal life. If not, our Lord did chase them down to dialogue a bout and dilute the Truth. Indeed, he allowed "many" to go their separate way when the Truth became too much to bear (cf. John 6:60-66).

With all due respect, Right Reverend Sir, now is the time to stand squarely upon the Firm Foundation and do the godly righteous thing: rescind the invitation to our Primate. To do so would be a poignant, profound and widely recognized statement for the Truth of the Gospel. To do otherwise is to give tacit approval to all that he stands for and all that he has done. This may well be your moment in history-the single most important opportunity for the proclamation of the Good News you may ever have. Will it be a regrettable nadir for our diocese or a godly zenith?

May God have mercy on us all. I will continue to uphold you in prayer.

In Jesus' loving-kindness and faithfulness,

Jim+

(The Reverend) James T. Murphy Pastor, Rector, Friend

Church of the Nativity, Sarasota, Florida

frmurf2@verizon.net

ENGLAND: OPTIONS. WOMEN'S ORDINATION

Options

Geoffrey Kirk on which way to turn

With the priests Ordination of Women Measure 19 and its attendant Act of Synod, the Church of England entered upon what its own documents describe as an open period of reception of the new ministry. Archdeacon Judith Roses motion, which was passed by the General Synod in July 2000 marked a milestone in that journey. It asked the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focussing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England.

The Commission which resulted from (often known as the Rochester Commission from its chairman, the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester) will produce, in due time, the first official theological statement on the ordination of women since the House of Bishops Second Report (GS829) in 1982.

With the final publication of the Report , which is already available to the Bishops in draft, a number of options will lie before the Church. In a series of articles over the next months, New Directions will look at those options one by one, assess them both theologically and politically, and encourage our readers to come to a conclusion for themselves. But first of all the options need to be stated in their naked simplicity, and the ground staked out for further analysis.

The first option, of course, is to declare the open period of reception for women's ordination at an end and the experiment to have failed.

This may be a little beyond the bounds of Anglican probability, but if the notion of reception is to be taken as anything more than empty rhetoric, it has to be conceded that the Rochester Commission could (as a result of further deep theological reflection) come to agree with the Vatican and the Phanar, that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood or the episcopate. Like the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia, it would then cease to ordain women to the priesthood.

A second option would be to maintain the status quo, where women can be priests but not bishops.

Such an option would leave the period of reception open. It would frankly admit that to ordain women to the episcopate rendered women's ordination practically irreversible. It would allow for the theological uncertainties which still remain. It would preclude, for the foreseeable future, a female Archbishop of Canterbury (thus avoiding further destabilization of the Anglican Communion at a time of increasing unrest).

Some might hold that there are fundamental theological reasons why women may be priests but not bishops reasons related to the role of bishops as instruments of unity within and between dioceses, not only at home, but across the world; reasons connected to the doctrine of male headship; and reasons related to the history of the origins and development of the two orders, which might be held to render them separate and distinct.

To continue status quo would not, of course, end dispute about women in orders. Rather, it would be to allow space for the continuance of debate. It could not in the nature of things satisfy those for whom the ordination of women in 1992 was a tragic misjudgement. Nor those for whom the ordination of women in all three orders is an ethical a priori objective. It would do little if anything to improve relations with Rome and Constantinople. It would retain a major stumbling block to Methodist reunion.

A third option would be single clause legislation with no provision for dissent. This option might be thought to follow logically from the General Synod vote in 1975 that there are no fundamental objections of the ordination of women to the priesthood. It would be attractive to those who view the whole matter as one of justice and human rights and who are already impatient with the Ac t of Synod. It would have the advantage of relative legislative simplicity. It would maintain the integrity of the bishops office and the geographical integrity of existing Church of England dioceses.

Such an option, of course, would be radically unacceptable to opponents. It would force them into conscientious law-breaking on a scale hitherto unknown in the Church of England. It would place in an invidious position those bishops (the PEVs) whom the Church of England has ordained and commissioned especially to pastor and care for opponents.

A fourth option would be that women could be admitted to the episcopate, but precluded from the office of Archbishop.

This would not be immediately attractive to those who see the issue as one of human rights; but, in the way in which they put up with the schedules to the 19 Measure, they might see it as the least of all possible ills. It would gain them substantially what they wanted, until the prohibition could be overturned.

The option might, moreover, prove attractive to those Evangelicals for whom headship is an infinitely receding principle. They could (just) argue that headship in the CofE was still male! It would possibly help sustain the unit y of the Anglican Communion in the short term if other gender- and s ex-related issues did not fracture it sooner. It is hard to see how it would help those opposed to the consecration of women in theological grounds. Nor are glass ceilings attractive to WATCH and GRAS.

A fifth option would be to appoint women as suffragans, but not diocesans.

Such an approach would have all the advantages and disadvantages of the fourth option, with the additional disadvantage that the glass ceiling for w omen would be set far lower.

For Catholic Anglicans it would raise serious questions about the episcopal credentials of a new kind of minister one who acted like a bishop, but who could not in principle be preferred as a diocesan.

A sixth option would be to restructure episcopacy in such a way that it would become a team activity, with both men and women in each diocesan team. The notion would be that parishes could set up a special relationship with those members of the team who fitted their theology or predilections.

This radical idea derives from the world of ecumenical encounter, where episcope increasingly replaces episcopacy as the preferred term. It has the difficulty that it reverses the traditional monarchical view of the episcopate, with its origins in the first century, which sees the bishop (singular) as a n icon of God the Father. It would also, almost inevitably, create problems of primacy within the team should the lead bishop be male or female?

Those for whom girl-power is the primary aim would be unlikely to find this version of co-operative ministry very attractive. For those opposed it might well be seen simply as a rejection of episcopacy as the Church has received it.

A seventh option would be to adapt and expand the present provision of extended episcopal oversight.

This might be done in a number of ways. Each diocese might maintain at least one male bishop opposed to the ordination of women who would minister to dissentients. If it was objected that such a bishop would necessarily be in unimpaired communion with a female diocesan, it might be arranged that he reported instead to a male Archbishop.

Various arrangements of this kind have been proposed in Australia. Thus far they have proved singularly unpopular with the proponents of women bishops and little more in favour with those opposed. Their sole effect has been to slow down the process toward female consecrations.

The question for the Church of England would be the extent to which such bishops would usurp the juridical rights and sacramental authority of diocesans. To satisfy opponents they would need to do so to a considerable extent (at t he very least to have rights to select and ordain candidates for the ministry and to have their own ecumenical priorities). Proponents would probably denounce such arrangements as a tantamount to a new Province.

An eighth option would be the creation of a new Province of the Anglican Communion, parallel to the existing provinces of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, with orders separate and distinct from those of the Provinces of Canterbury and York.

Such a province would have all the independence and autonomy presently allowed to Anglican provinces, together with its own Provincial Synod or Governing Body. It would be created by Measure. Parishes would enter and leave it by Schedules to the Measure not unlike those in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 19. Parishes which so voted would be withdrawn, both sacramentally and juridically from the Church of England dioceses of which they had previously been part.

This option would have the advantage of continuing the process of reception to which the Church of England is committed. It would allow time (on the Gamaliel principle) to decide which opinion would prosper.

Such an arrangement would almost certainly prove extremely unpopular with proponents. But on further reflection they might begin to see that it had distinct advantages for them. It would remove dissentients from the life of the Church of England, which could then operate without the various degrees of discrimination against women priests and bishops which the other options would involve. It would remove from the General Synod the irritant of a sizeable p arty intractably opposed to further innovation. It would allow the Church of England to pursue the Methodist reunion programme and other ecumenical projects with out let or hindrance.

A New Province, moreover, would involve no ecclesiological innovation which the Anglican Communion has not already embraced in order to facilitate the ordination of women as priests and bishops.

Such a list of options may seem long, and the choices hard. But getting it right is imperative if legislation is to be passed with the required majorities, and women bishops are to have a fair chance of establishing them selves without acrimony.

The fate of recent proposals in Australia provides a cautionary tale. Opposition (from both sides) to the provisions for dissent, ensured that the primary legislation itself fell. They shot themselves in the foot, said David Chislett, reviewing the days proceedings in Brisbane 2001. One cannot help thinking that things might have been organized better.

END