Archives

This report first examines the appropriateness of women being ordained as priests (presbyters) or consecrated as bishops in the One Holy and Apostolic Church in and through the Anglican Mission in America as these offices are ordered and exercised in the Anglican Communion. In addition, in a following section, it examines the question of the appropriateness of women being ordained.

By David W. Virtue 3/29/2004 BIRMINGHAM, AL--The Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham says that the recent HOB statement regarding Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight is unsatisfactory, because it withholds "jurisdiction", and makes a consistent distinction between "jurisdiction" and "pastoral oversight". The Very Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl says that what is needed for the dissenting minority, is a suspension, in love, of business as usual, indeed a suspension, for a period of time, of the constitution and canons of ECUSA analogous to the Act of Synod in the Church of England, which would provide us a safe place to stand. "We need a position of SAFETY and full recognition of our identity, not somebody else's idea of what that is supposed to mean. They should have given us some place of independent jurisdiction, simply out of concern for our deepest feelings and principles. This they have not done." Zahl said he was disappointed with the outcome, as he had been making progress towards a better statement that would have done more for those orthodox parish priests being persecuted by revisionist bishops. Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison has gone on record saying, "As a matter of conscience and in a desire to honour my ordination vows, I personally have no intention of implementing anything like Flying Bishops or whatever they call it even if it is adopted," by the House of Bishops.

By Steve Levin Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 3/28/2004 An influential Church of England bishop visiting Pittsburgh this week believes the crisis in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion over gay ordination is related to America's unilateralism. The Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright, bishop of Durham in the Church of England and former canon theologian of Westminster Abbey, said "America has been screwing the world into the socket" for years to reach agreements on land mines, global debt, the environment and trade. Yet when it came time to invade Iraq, the United States acted virtually alone, Wright said in a phone interview from England. He compared that action to the Episcopal Church's consecration of an openly gay bishop against existing church polity. "So why should the world listen to the [Episcopalians in the] United States when changing Episcopal Church law?" he asked. "It is bound to be perceived as, 'There you go again.' It's more of the same." Wright will be in Pittsburgh today through Thursday to speak at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary's Schaff Lectures and talk at churches in the region. As the fourth most important bishop in the Church of England after the bishops of Canterbury, York and London, Wright's comments carry weight beyond that province and throughout the 70-million-member Anglican Communion, which also includes the Episcopal Church, USA. Author of more than 30 books, he also is a member of the 19-member Lambeth Commission formed in October by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Its mission is to find ways of keeping the worldwide Anglican Communion from disintegrating in the wake of the Episcopal Church's ordination of an openly gay bishop and a Canadian diocese's sanctioning of same-sex blessings. Wright said the primary question to be answered by the Lambeth Commission is one of communion, not homosexuality. The consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Washington as bishop of New Hampshire was counter to several previous Anglican resolutions, he said. "We're looking at questions of how you hold the church together when that happens," Wright said. "Only secondarily is the question of homosexuality." The Lambeth Commission held its first meeting in February. A second is scheduled for North Carolina in June. Its final report to the archbishop is due in September. Wright was a logical choice for the commission. In addition to his senior position in the Church of England, he taught New Testament studies for 20 years at universities in England and Canada, and participated in numerous international debates on church doctrine. Commission members have agreed not to reveal details of their work. He has no plans during his stay to meet with Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. Duncan is moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, which seeks alternate Episcopal oversight for parishes and individuals who disagree with their diocese's stand on gay clergy and same-sex blessings. Wright's own opinion -- "It is inappropriate to ordain to regular ministries those who are active, practicing homosexuals" -- is well known. The key to any discussion, he said, is dispensing with rhetoric. "We need to claim the right and the duty to think through individual issues on a case-by-case basis instead of going with a knee-jerk reaction," he said. "The best case I can think of at this moment ... is for a lot of real listening all around. That has to be listening not to rhetoric but a real digging into what the real issues are," such as scripture and the church's creation doctrine. He is less sanguine about the future of the Anglican Communion should the debate not be resolved. The communion, he said, "simply could come apart at the seams." "We really don't know what that would look like." The topic of Wright's lectures is "Putting Paul Back Together Again."

By Wolfhart Pannenberg Good News Magazine Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people turn away from God or love other things more than God. Jesus said, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me..." (Matt. 10:37, NRSV). Love for God must take precedence over love for our parents, even though love for parents is commanded by the fourth commandment. The will of God—Jesus' proclamation of God's lordship over our lives—must be the guiding star of our identity and self- determination. What this means for sexual behavior can be seen in Jesus' teaching about divorce. In order to answer the Pharisees' question about the admissibility of divorce, Jesus refers to the creation of human beings. Here he sees God expressing his purpose for his creatures: Creation confirms that God has created human beings as male and female. Thus, a man leaves his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two become one flesh. Jesus concludes from this that the unbreakable permanence of fellowship between husband and wife is the Creator's will for human beings. The indissoluble fellowship of marriage, therefore, is the goal of our creation as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9). Since on this principle the Bible is not time bound, Jesus' word is the foundation and criterion for all Christian pronouncement on sexuality, not just marriage in particular, but our entire creaturely identities as sexual beings. According to Jesus' teaching, human sexuality as male and as female is intended for the indissoluble fellowship of marriage. This standard informs Christian teaching about the entire domain of sexual behavior. Jesus' perspective, by and large, corresponds to Jewish tradition, even though his stress on the indissolubility of marriage goes beyond the provision for divorce within Jewish law (Deut. 24:1). It was a shared Jewish conviction that men and women in their sexual identity are intended for the community of marriage. This also accounts for the Old Testament assessment of sexual behaviors that depart from this norm, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual relations. The biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22 NRSV). Leviticus 20 includes homosexual behavior among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13; it is significant that the same applies to adultery in verse 10). On these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other nations. This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament statement about homosexuality, in contrast to the Hellenistic culture that took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans, Paul includes homosexual behavior among the consequences of turning away from God (1:27). In 1 Corinthians, homosexual practice belongs with fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and robbery as behaviors that preclude participation in the kingdom of God (6:9 10); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11). The New Testament contains not a single passage that might indicate a more positive assessment of homosexual activity to counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical witness includes practicing homosexuality, without exception among the kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression to humanity's turning away from God. This exegetical result places very narrow boundaries around the view of homosexuality in any church that is under the authority of Scripture. What is more, the biblical statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to the Bible's positive views on the creational purpose of men and women in their sexuality. These texts that are negative toward homosexual behavior are not merely dealing with marginal opinions that could be neglected without detriment to the Christian message as a whole. Moreover, the biblical statements about homosexuality cannot be relativized as the expressions of a cultural situation that today is simply outdated. The biblical witness from the outset deliberately opposed the assumptions of their cultural environment in the name of faith in the God of Israel, who in Creation appointed men and women for a particular identity. Contemporary advocates for a change in the church's view of homosexuality commonly point out that the biblical statements were unaware of important modern anthropological evidence. This new evidence, it is said, suggests that homosexuality must be regarded as a given constituent of the psychosomatic identity of homosexual persons, entirely prior to any corresponding sexual expression. (For the sake of clarity it is better to speak here of a homophile inclination as distant from homosexual practice.) Such phenomena occur not only in people who are homosexually active. But inclination need not dictate practice. It is characteristic of human beings that our sexual impulses are not confined to a separate realm of behavior; they permeate our behavior in every area of life. This, of course, includes relationships with persons of the same sex. However, precisely because erotic motives are involved in all aspects of human behavior, we are faced with the task of integrating them into the whole of our life and conduct. The mere existence of homophile inclinations does not automatically lead to homosexual practice. Rather, these inclinations can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of sexual activity should not be the all-determining center of human life and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is its enrollment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and goals. The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly directing our behavior. This is the real problem; and it is here that we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not only for homosexual, but for any sexual activity that does not intend the goal of marriage between man and wife—in particular, adultery. The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as in others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that departs from that norm. Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Wolfhart Pannenberg, arguably the preeminent contemporary theologian, recently retired after 27 years as professor of systematic theology at the University of Munich, Germany, and director of the Institute of Ecumenical Theology. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl for publication in the Church Times; copyright Wolfhart Pannenberg.

By HARRY R. WEBER ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA (AP) - Moderate and liberal Episcopalians from dioceses that oppose an openly gay bishop called Saturday for church members to find common ground and tolerate differing viewpoints so the church can remain whole. Episcopalians from 11 conservative dioceses said at the conclusion of a three-day meeting in Atlanta they are trying to move past a debate that has caused divisions in the church. "There is a place for everybody in this church," said the Rev. Michael Russell, rector of All Souls' Episcopal Church in San Diego. "Because a vote was taken that a group doesn't like isn't a reason to leave the church. It's a reason to stay together in conversation." Church conservatives have heavily criticized leaders who consecrated openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in November, and have created a national oppositional organization called the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The network opposes same-sex unions and the ordination of gay clergy. Members have said they plan to defy church leaders and contend for control of parishes and dioceses, which could lead to a schism in the national church. The meeting was attended by liberal and moderate Episcopalian clergy and laypeople from conservative dioceses in California, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York, Illinois, Texas, South Carolina and Florida. They are members of organizations known as "via media" groups formed mainly to support unity in the national church. "Via media" is a Latin phrase meaning "middle way."

By Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. There seems to have been a renewed interest in the via media – indeed, this term has been invoked with increasing frequency amidst the rhetoric of the revisionists within the Episcopal Church. Many groups who support the recent consecration of Gene Robinson as a bishop of the Church are using the term via media in an attempt to corrupt its historic meaning. By applying the term to actions that can only be described as unorthodox, these elements within the Episcopal Church are ignoring the very history they claim to understand so well. The implication of this recent rhetoric is that the truth of one generation might be understood differently by the next, and that we must all be willing to create room for each other. The "middle way" of fully developed historical Anglicanism sought to be inclusive, that much is true, however, the notion of inclusion within the Anglican identity has always had definite limits and boundaries that were clearly drawn. To look to the proper usage of the term via media requires a history lesson, looking at the origin of the term with Queen Elizabeth I in the sixteenth century. The context in which the term developed historically provides some striking parallels as others before sought to define inclusion in a universal Christian manner. The break with Rome that occurred in England during the reign of Henry VIII did not represent a final or comprehensive religious solution. England was chaotically torn by years of extremism in the decade following Henry VIII's death under the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I; so bad was the national situation in 1558 that a "settlement" was needed – a compromise that would appease most English subjects. This was to provide the fertile field for the sowing of the Anglican identity – the via media. It is helpful to recall that most reformers who sought the primitive Church claimed to do so to restore catholicity; in other words, what they searched for were the elements of unity, universality, and inclusiveness. By 1558, years of protracted theological debate, both in England and on the continent of Europe, had instead yielded institutions defined by their degrees of separation. For Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, the process of reform had long since ceased to be a matter of finding points of agreement between opposing extremes; by the latter half of the sixteenth century, the road to catholicity diverged into multiple paths that were now exclusive. Elizabeth I therefore faced a dilemma of dramatic proportions as she sought a way to appease the extremes of her populace, for not only was the collective moral mindset of her people at issue, the very unity of the nation and the acceptability of her regime depended upon it. Although we cannot know precisely how many Protestants there were in England in 1559, one may assume that initially, at least, there were few (J.J. Scarisbrick, 1984). Yet Roman Catholics and Puritan Protestants alike were hostile, and Elizabeth's religious strength seems to have rested with being the reverse of her half-sister, Mary – by contrast, Elizabeth was not devout or rigid in religious practice, and was a patient and cautious realist. Because of all these factors, the idea of the via media probably came to her quite naturally. Out of Elizabeth's understanding of the necessity of political stability and unity grew a structure that would support true religious unity for the majority of her subjects. Indeed, this likely represents the greatest achievement of her reign. The Elizabethan Church of England would be historically catholic by definition, as evidenced by the broad and inclusive religious approach the queen seems to have naturally understood. At times, this unity was born of seemingly incompatible marriages of opposing principles, and herein is found the simple genius of the Elizabethan settlement. Incongruent mixes of opposing theologies represent the very essence of inclusion, and a Church must indeed embrace some diversity to be truly catholic. No one of that era disputed that the Apostolic Church and Holy Scripture were the true guides to catholicity. Not to imply that Elizabeth counted herself a patristic scholar of any degree, but the example of St. Athanasius may have influenced her. His theology provides a striking and interesting parallel for comparison, both in the sixteenth century and today. Athanasius, a fourth century Egyptian bishop, was an early champion of orthodoxy. He strongly supported the faith formalized by the Council of Nicaea in 325, in what became known as the Nicene Creed. He did not seek to define God for others precisely because the human mind, created in the image of God, cannot fathom the Divine Mind of the uncreated, transcendent God. Rather, Athanasius encouraged diversity and personal exploration within wide but recognized essential boundaries, for broad truth among Christian believers. According to Athanasius, it was precisely within tradition that individuals could find their own unique way to a personal knowledge of Christ. As diversity was a necessary characteristic of a universal Church, so for St. Athanasius the creed was a signpost for the faithful – a signpost that marked the necessary boundaries. It makes an interesting parallel to see this early patristic understanding applied so directly in the Elizabethan age, for hers was a regime that sought out diversity and embraced it within historic and catholic limits. Some might recall that Athanasius is remembered best for addressing one of the first major heresies of the Church. Arius, a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, evolved the heresy known as Arianism, which denied the true divinity of Christ. He argued that the Son of Man did not share the same full divinity as God the Father. The Son was not eternal, believed Arius, but was created from nothingness as an instrument solely for the salvation of the world. Arius was excommunicated by a Church council at Alexandria in about 320 and exiled. His following continued to grow, however. There were other theological debates that were festering during this same time, but it was the issue of the Trinity that seems to have most compelled Emperor Constantine to convene the first general council of the Church at Nicaea in 325. The new faith of the Roman Empire needed discipline, so the council's major task was, of course, to draft a comprehensive creed. The great early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that the greatest desire of Constantine was to preserve and maintain peace in his empire. To draw the parallel with sixteenth century England, there can be no doubt that it was a similar shrewd political necessity that drove the inclusive Elizabethan religious policy. At Nicaea, the writings of Athanasius were used in support of Christ's true divinity. If Christ was the Savior, Athanasius reasoned, then He could not be less than God, for only God could restore humanity to communion with Himself. What followed, of course, was the cementing of a fundamental statement of Christian belief, to set with certainty the nature of belief that all Christians must share to be a part of the catholicity of the Church. Jesus was confirmed at Nicaea as belonging to the world of the eternal and uncreated; in the creed He was and remains "true God from true God; begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." The Roman Empire needed to fix the boundaries for the faithful, to avoid further religious strife that threatened the imperial threads themselves. St. Athanasius supplied the logic and reasoning and averted a major split in Christianity in the fourth century. By parallel, Elizabeth I faced similar challenges and employed a similar approach on a smaller scale. Elizabeth brought an innate wisdom with her to the throne of England. It was a wisdom rooted in a fundamental understanding of human nature, although it was certainly never a foregone conclusion that she would possess any greater understanding of catholicity and unity than her siblings had. In her youth, Protestant teachers tutored her, and all of her life Catholics had been suspicious of her. Elizabeth herself had been the target of her sister Mary's feverish religious wrath. The necessity of survival made her a master of amalgamation. From her unique life perspective, she was able to see the benefits of inclusive diversity in a manner that eluded her predecessors and even her contemporaries elsewhere in Europe. Reformed English Catholicism thereby emerged as "Athanasian," for Elizabeth sought to anchor firmly the spiritual signpost for her people, while comprehensively addressing the diversity that was characteristic of the age in which she lived. Hers was a Church of England tethered to the church universal by the authority of Holy Scripture, traditional doctrine, sacraments, and preservation of a historic liturgy. Her approach often represented a unique blending of extremes with an awkward match of opposites, yet this was precisely what the renewal of catholicity may have required. For instance, the formula for Holy Communion reflected a Protestant expression: "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." This meshed with the formula from the original 1549 prayer book: "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life" (Guy, 1988). While not openly affirming the concept of transubstantiation, this formula nevertheless assured Christ's real presence in the Eucharist. It was a settlement of theologies, a compromise that addressed the Eucharistic understanding of a diverse group of Christians. Elizabeth was convinced that her "middle way" was the best promise for inclusiveness and unity, rather than the examples of extremism that characterized the preceding decade. Elizabeth believed that it was Mary's surrender to extremism that had wrecked the Marian Church of England and that extremism would, if allowed to dominate, do the same to hers. She seemed determined to never allow clerical extremism to dominate the religious landscape while she lived as queen. By uniting all but the most rigid extremes, the Church of England became more inclusive and universal under Elizabeth I, and therefore by definition, more catholic. The "middle way" cut a broad path in the sixteenth century, but would be incompletely defined without the limitations of Holy Scripture, the Creeds, and a reverence for history. By anchoring the signpost for her subjects, Elizabeth meant for it to endure the times. Once Parliament had completed the necessary legal services for the queen, she would not call upon it again to discuss matters of religion. In fact, Elizabeth became angry if members of Parliament attempted to initiate further church change. Upon the dissolution of the 1559 Parliament, Sir Nicholas Bacon summed up that the law now bound any decision made in Parliament, however much individuals might dissent in their private consciences. Bacon stated that the queen's religious settlement would endure, and the queen would have little patience with "those who imperiled it by trying to go before the law, or beyond the law" (Hartley, 1981). Later in her reign (January 1580) Elizabeth sent a firm admonition to the House of Commons that they were "not to deal with matters touching Her Majesty's Person or Estate, or touching Religion (D'Ewes, 1682). The via media never stretched so far as to include heresy of any nature. Also, the "middle way" never implied that Holy Scripture or tradition could be ignored for the sake of diversity and inclusion. The traditional teaching of the historic church was cemented firmly in the via media of Elizabeth I, and for the orthodox among us, continues to be a cornerstone of our Anglican identity. To invoke the great tradition of the via media to justify sin is a grave injustice to the dignity and integrity of one of the most brilliant and comprehensive settlements of unity that the Christian Church has ever known. Elizabeth I sought to include the majority of her subjects in a comprehensive religious unity, understanding that the extremes might not be appeased. In the middle, however, were the majority of Christians who recognized the boundaries of historic tradition and Holy Scripture. The modern argument focused on the state of our church today always devolves to this basis – there are many of us who cannot accept the sanction of sin as just another manifestation of inclusive Anglicanism. If modern Episcopalians are truly concerned about embracing anew the via media, then why does it now cut so narrow a path as to theologically exclude those who insist upon its original boundary - the authority of Holy Scripture?

Church of England Newspaper 3/25/2004 The American House of Bishops was this week under immense pressure to reach a compromise on providing Episcopal oversight to dissenting traditional parishes, amid an intractable divide between conservatives and liberals. Guards have been posted at the gates and a media lockdown is in force during the Episcopal Church's retreat for bishops which began on March 19 in Navasota, Texas. Aides to Presiding Bishop Frank T Griswold denied the Church was in crisis, claiming "all is well" while traditionalists predicted the imminent break-up of the Church. To add to the problems, four bishops - three members of Forward in Faith and one evangelical - have boycotted the meeting in protest to the presence of Gene Robinson while five bishops have refused to stay at the Conference Centre. Conference organisers scored a spectacular own goal by placing Bishop Bob Duncan, the leader of the dissenting 'Anglican Communion Network' in the same Bible study and prayer group as Gene Robinson, causing Bishop Duncan to withdraw. "The stakes are high," noted the Rt Rev Charles Jenkins of Louisiana, chairman of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, and the man tasked with presenting a programme of alternative Episcopal oversight (AEO) to the gathering. On March 20, Bishop Jenkins presented a revised plan of AEO to the Bishops who will debate the measure at a plenary session on March 22. Liberal bishops, including the Presiding Bishop favour temporary Episcopal oversight at the whim of the diocesan bishop. Meanwhile conservative bishops involved in the new 'Anglican Communion Network' are pressing for oversight which is largely independent of the diocesan bishop with whom individual parishes are in dispute. Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania on March 16 wrote, "As a matter of conscience and in a desire to honour my ordination vows, I personally have no intention of implementing anything like Flying Bishops or whatever they call it even if it is adopted," by the House of Bishops. Moderator of the Network of traditionalist dioceses, Bishop Robert W Duncan of Pittsburgh, thought the Jenkins plan was something "we could work with" as a temporary measure while the Lambeth Commission did its work. A row has also broken out over the contents of a letter written by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Presiding Bishop Griswold. One conservative news source reported that the letter strongly urged Bishop Griswold to find a compromise solution to the crisis were not confirmed by bishops present when the letter was read. Bishop Griswold's communications assistant did confirm that Archbishop Williams wrote to Bishop Griswold and that Bishop Griswold had read the paragraphs about the irregular Ohio confirmations held by six retired bishops last week. She did not disclose the full contents of the letter, however. One bishop described the letter as "dull" and as having dealt solely with the Primates request that AEO take place within the parameters of a Province's canons. Bishop John W Howe of Central Florida told The Church of England Newspaper, "What he read was very mild, even bland." Bishop Howe was not sanguine about the outcome of the meeting. Bishop Howe told us that he had been seated next to Bishop John Chane of Washington. He and Bishop Chane, a leader of the progressive caucus, were "agreed that we are not dealing with the real issues, but only symptoms of a crisis that is deeper than is being acknowledged." One liberal bishop, Pierre Whalon, reported from the House of Bishops this week: "There is an undertone of dread as these discussions loom in our schedule."

by Bishop Dave Bena The House of Bishops met this week in Texas to take up action on the growing number of parishes (now in the hundreds) who feel that they cannot accept Episcopal Oversight by their bishops. Most of these are traditional parishes which take Scripture very seriously and which teach and model biblical, conservative values. They have gathered that their bishops are teaching and modeling values in opposition to theirs, and are concerned that the teaching role of the bishop may threaten their position on these values. Last October, the Primates - the archbishops of the thirty-eight Churches of the Anglican Communion, our Presiding Bishop being one of them - stated in a pastoral letter, "Whilst we affirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates." Translated into "regular talk," that means that the Episcopal Church bishops were charged by the Primates to come up with a plan that would minister to parishes who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the actions of last August's General Convention regarding sexual practice. That plan would need to be made in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury. There was some drama leading up to the House of Bishops meeting this week. You may have read about it. Both the Presiding Bishop and representatives of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes were in regular consultation with Archbishop Williams right up to the eve of the meeting. The Archbishop counseled charity on everyone's part, as well as encouragement to go as far as possible in providing adequate Episcopal Oversight for traditional parishes in non-traditional dioceses. The Archbishop was instrumental in the development and implementation of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, because he realized the need the Episcopal Church has for such an organization to act as an advocate for persons and parishes who hold to orthodox Anglican teaching. And so he regularly consults with our Presiding Bishop and he regularly consults with leaders of the Network. Obviously his consultation had a positive effect on the House of Bishops meeting. While no one got the whole loaf, both sides got half a loaf. A document was produced entitled "Caring for all the Churches," in which a way through the difficulty is sketched out. The way through is called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. If a rector (or clergy in charge) and vestry petition the local bishop for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, a negotiated settlement may be reached by which a traditional bishop from another diocese can become the primary caregiver for that parish. There is an appeal process in case the parish and the local bishop cannot reach agreement. This, in my opinion, will allow traditional parishes to continue functioning in non-traditional dioceses without feeling pressure by their local bishop. Not all agree with me that this document shows promise. Some of the bishops thought the document went way too far in granting alternative episcopal oversight to traditional parishes. One bishop wanted to so obfuscate the document that it would make no sense at all. He was shouted down. And some bishops felt the document went nowhere near far enough to provide oversight. But as I read the document, I see some gains for the concept of alternative episcopal oversight. There are positives and there are negatives regarding this document: POSITIVES: Allows a way for traditional parishes in non-traditional dioceses to stay in the Episcopal Church, and receive oversight by a traditional bishop. Allows for a continuation of dioceses as territorial, in keeping with Anglican practice. Provides an way for the Episcopal Church to function while the larger Anglican Communion considers a response to the "American" issue of sexual behavior. Allows God time to work toward bringing the Episcopal Church back in the direction of its traditional heritage. Encourages bishops to be charitable with dissenting parishes, and to give up some of their "power." NEGATIVES: The document is rather sketchy on the particulars of how much pastoral care a parish can receive from a bishop from outside the diocese. Depends an awful lot on the integrity and generosity of the local bishop to allow traditional parishes to flourish without his/her attempts to liberalize them. The appeal process could be flawed in that the Provincial Bishop, who is to handle the appeal, could be less than charitable. There are no teeth in this document; it can be easily abused by a diocesan bishop indisposed to sharing power. It puts severe limits on the exercise of oversight by a bishop from outside the diocese - time limited, no jurisdiction possibilities, 2/3 majority by vestry required. In the end, it is half a loaf for those wanting Adequate Episcopal Oversight and half a loaf for those wanting Supplemental Pastoral Care. Let's give it a try. David Bena is Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese of Albany

By Gerald R. McDermott https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/ December 8, 2025   It would be perverse to charge all fulfillment theology with antisemitism. Many reject Christian Zionism for the plausible (but unfounded) reasons described in Mattson’s piece, and many are clearly philo-Semitic. But it might not be a bad idea for some of them to ask what W. D. Davies and other theologians started asking in the 1970s: “How did Christian Europe come to hate Jews?”   I will never forget the day twenty-five years ago when I replaced my replacement theology. I was leading a church tour of Israel, and we were standing on the ruins of a third-century AD synagogue at Capernaum, just a stone’s throw from the sparkling waters of the Sea of Galilee.   Our guide read from a passage I had read hundreds of times but always skipped over: “Jesus said to the crowds and his disciples, ‘On Moses’ seat have sat the scribes and the Pharisees. Everything therefore they might say, put into practice and protect’” (Matt. 23:2–3a; my emphasis and translation).   I was shocked, not only that I had never noticed, but more importantly, that Jesus was praising all the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. This was just before Jesus launched into a long tirade against what most Christians are used to hearing about: Pharisaic hypocrisy. But this overlooked prelude made me realize suddenly that my previous thinking about Jesus rejecting first-century Judaism needed scrutiny, especially my assumption that God had transferred his covenant from the Jewish people to (what rapidly became) the Gentile Church.   Recently the Reformed theologian Brian G. Mattson rehearsed traditional arguments for what I had previously believed—that because most Jews rejected Jesus after his resurrection, God replaced his covenant with Abraham’s Jewish progeny with the new covenant for followers of Jesus. No longer were the Jews his Chosen People (unless they accepted Jesus) and no longer was the land of Israel a holy land. God’s focus now was solely on his worldwide Church and all its lands.   Mattson was responding to Tucker Carlson’s now-viral claims that Christian Zionism is a “brain virus” and “Christian heresy” and that Israel does not deserve American political or religious support. Mattson’s counter was far more intelligent than most. While Christian Zionism is bad theology, he writes, many objections to it mask antisemitism. Carlson and his new allies Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens purvey “conspiratorial hatred of Jews.” Israel is typically subjected to “double standards” by its global critics, and there are “many good reasons” to support the state of Israel—though Mattson does not identify them.     Mattson adds that Christian Zionism is “probably not … a decisive departure” from Christian orthodoxy because it does not directly conflict with one of the ecumenical creeds. Christian Zionists will no doubt be cheered by this concession, perhaps like the husband who is told by his counselor that he is “probably” not a bad husband because he beats his wife only occasionally.   This “fulfillment” theologian supports his case with a selective use of quotes from Jesus and the apostle Paul, focusing on Jesus’s proclamation that he came “not to abolish but to fulfill” the Law and Prophets. Like other fulfillment theologians, he interprets “fulfill” to mean “go beyond and leave behind.” As Mattson puts it, the Jewish covenant and land are “out of gear, retired, made obsolete” in redemptive history and significance. They are the types made obsolete by their antitypes (fulfillments). Once the architect’s model is replaced by the building, the model is discarded.    This is how fulfillment theology works. But it is not how Paul thinks. He wrote that human marriage is a type or model of Christ’s marriage to the Church (Eph. 5:21–33; 2 Cor. 11:12). But once Christ came, marriage did not come to an end. And while fulfillment theology says Christ replaced the temple, He declared that God still dwelled in the temple (Matt. 23:21), Paul participated in animal sacrifices at the temple long after his conversion (Acts 21:26), and the apostles kept attending temple worship after temple leaders had delivered Jesus to death (Acts 2:46; 3:1). All this at the same time that Paul believed his own body and the church were temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16; 6;19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21–22). So the biblical record of the early church shows the Jesus movement’s leaders had no problem holding on to the type and its antiype at the same time. One did not have to replace the other.    Fulfillment theologies are like Procrustes in the Greek myth, the bandit who cut off his victim’s legs if they were too long to fit onto his iron bed. They ignore the inconvenient passages of the Bible that don’t fit their iron bed of fulfillment theology.   Such as Jesus declaring that every stroke of the pen in Torah and the Prophets is God-given (Matt. 5:17–18), which includes Moses telling Pharaoh that Israel is God’s “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22). Not to mention Jeremiah’s prophecy that as long as the sun, moon, and stars are in the sky, the offspring of Israel will never cease being a nation before God (Jer. 31:35–36). And the Old Testament repeating God’s land promise (of the lands of Canaan) to Abraham’s Jewish progeny more than one thousand times, for example, God telling Abraham in Genesis 17:8: “I will give to you and to your offspring after you … all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession” (my emphasis).   Many think that Jesus implicitly denied the land promise when He preached in the Sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5; my emphasis).   But scholars (such as here and here and here) are starting to recognize that Jesus was quoting Psalm 37:11, and that the Hebrew word for “earth” can also be translated as “land.” Since the phrase “inherit the land” occurs five times in Psalm 37, it is probable that Jesus meant “land” and not “earth.”   And what about Paul? Did he believe his Jewish brothers who had rejected Jesus thereby lost their Chosen People status? Quite the contrary. In his last major statement on the Jewish people more than twenty-five years after his conversion, he said these Jesus-rejecting brothers “are [note the present tense] beloved because of the fathers,” the patriarchs. Their “gifts and calling are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28–29).   “Calling” was a technical Jewish term for God’s choosing Abraham’s seed to be his Chosen People, and “gifts” for first-century Jews like Philo the Alexandrian philosopher and Josephus the historian always included the land promise. Lest there be doubt that Paul still believed in the land promise, Luke tells us in Acts of the Apostles that when preaching in a synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia (now Turkey), Paul told his audience that “after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, God gave this people Israel their land as an inheritance” (Acts 13: 16b–17, 19). This was more than twenty years after his Damascus road encounter, and Paul could not have been more explicit that he continued to hold to the land promise.   But it wasn’t only Jesus and Paul. The author of Hebrews says God led Abraham to a place to receive as an inheritance, and that Isaac and Jacob were heirs with him of the same promise (Heb. 11:9). Before his martyrdom, deacon Stephen said God promised to give Abraham this land as a possession and to his offspring after him (Acts 7:4–5).   Part of Mattson’s problem is that he, like most fulfillment theologians, confuses all forms of Christian Zionism with one recent and admittedly bizarre variety called dispensationalism. This came in the mid-nineteenth century from England, is focused on an unbiblical “rapture” that makes Christ’s final coming a third rather than second coming, treats the Jewish people as “earthly” and on a separate track to the eschaton, and revels in detailed End-Times schedules that go beyond what the Bible tells us.     But as I and others have shown, Christian Zionism starts in the New Testament. It was retained in part among some of the Fathers in the first three centuries, submerged during and after the Constantinian settlement, but came to the surface again among the sixteenth-century (Calvinist) Puritans in England and (Lutheran) Pietists on the continent.    So three centuries before dispensationalism, both Calvinists and Lutherans were concluding that Calvin and Luther were premature to assume that every promise made to the Jewish people was automatically transferred to the Gentile Church. Some of the Old Testament promises were irreducibly Jewish- and Israel-centered and should not be so spiritualized as to remove their original referents to people and places in space and time. We could call this spiritualizing a kind of Gnosticism.   And Mattson and other Reformed fulfillment theologians should know that many Christian Zionists have been Reformed—before and after the rise of dispensationalism.     Increase Mather wrote in his The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation (1669) that “the Israelites shall again possess … the Land promised unto their Father Abraham.” Mather warned against a supersessionist spiritualization of promises made to Israel: “Why should we unnecessarily refuse literal interpretations?”    At the turn of the eighteenth century, the Dutch Reformed theologian Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711) published a four-volume systematic theology that asked:    Will the Jewish nation be gathered together again from all the regions of the world and from all the nations of the earth among which they have been dispersed? Will they come to and dwell in Canaan and all the lands promised to Abraham, and will Jerusalem be rebuilt? We believe that these events will transpire.   Jonathan Edwards (1703–58), perhaps the greatest Reformed theologian after Calvin, agreed with Brakel that Calvin’s supersessionism used a hyperspiritualist hermeneutic that rode roughshod over Scripture’s plain sense. He wrote in his Blank Bible that just as the “restoration” of an individual at first involves only his soul but then later his body at the general resurrection, so too “not only shall the spiritual state of the Jews be hereafter restored, but their external state as a nation in their own land … shall be restored by [Christ].”   Karl Barth, the most influential Reformed theologian of the twentieth century, rejected dispensationalism but believed that the rise of the state of Israel was a “secular parable” that bears witness to the Light of the World in Jesus Christ. The modern history of Israel, he wrote, “even now hurries relentlessly” toward the future of God’s redemptive purposes.   Therefore Mattson and all fulfillment theologians utter something of a fantasy when they predicate that rejection of Christian Zionism “is as ‘catholic’ or universal a conviction as one may hope to find.”     Typically they declare, as Mattson does, that Christian Zionists are presumptuous to find any relation between the Bible and the current state of Israel. Mattson is right, strictly speaking, but not as much as he supposes. Consider the apostle Peter’s prophecy in his second speech in Jerusalem, that the apokatastasis is still to come (Acts 3:21).This was the word used by the (Greek language) Septuagint (the Bible for the early church) that one day there would be a return to the land by Jews from the four corners of the earth (Jeremiah 16:15; 24:6; 50:19; Hosea 11:11).   Many scholars said these Old Testament prophecies referred to the return to the land after exile in Babylon. But Peter was speaking after the resurrection of Christ. He was predicting a future worldwide return to the land—which did not occur in significant numbers for more than seventeen centuries.   Historians have documented a massive return of Jews to the land starting in the eighteenth and then flooding in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Only a prejudiced mind (recall Procrustes’s iron bed) would deny the possibility that this unprecedented return to the land was a fulfillment of not only Old Testament but also New Testament (think Peter’s) prophecy.   Is the state of Israel a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy? No. But no sooner did the Jews return to their ancestral land than they were attacked by their neighbors. Not once, but over and over. Every other people in a land has organized a state for its protection. If there is anything that the last century has taught us, it is that Jews have murderous enemies and they need a state to protect them.     The return of the Jews from the four corners of the earth in the last three centuries is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and the state of Israel is necessary for the protection of that covenanted people.   So the return of the Jews from the four corners of the earth in the last three centuries is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and the state of Israel is necessary for the protection of that covenanted people. But not only that. The state of Israel, as both sides of the political aisle have testified until recently, is a bulwark of western civilization fighting the same enemies—leftist secularism and jihadist Islam—that want to destroy our American traditions. Our support for what Israel is doing can therefore be argued both religiously and politically.   Most fulfillment theologians don’t realize the logic of their argument and where it has led historically. Their view has been called “supersessionism” because it means that the Gentile Church has superseded (gone beyond and replaced) Jewish Israel in God’s affections. The Jewish people who do not follow Jesus are no longer God’s Chosen, and the land is no different from any other.   Starting in the fourth century but beginning even earlier, Gentile Christians started thinking Jews were stubborn and perverse for refusing what seemed obvious to them: that Jesus was their messiah. Their supersessionist (fulfillment, if you will) theology implied that God had given up on them because of their obstinacy. Pretty soon they were being blamed (in “blood libels”) for epidemics and disasters, and were shortly considered a cancer that for social health must be removed. The logic was straightforward: if God has given up on the Jews, we should too. It is not surprising that the most Christianized country in history and the birthplace of the Reformation—also the country whose churches had become supersessionist—gave birth to the Holocaust.   It would be perverse to charge all fulfillment theology with antisemitism. Many reject Christian Zionism for the plausible (but unfounded) reasons described in Mattson’s piece, and many are clearly philo-Semitic. But it might not be a bad idea for some of them to ask what W. D. Davies and other theologians started asking in the 1970s: “How did Christian Europe come to hate Jews?”   Gerald McDermott teaches at Jerusalem Seminary and Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He has written and edited books on Jonathan Edwards, theology of religions, and theology of Israel. His newest book is A New History of Redemption: The Work of Jesus the Messiah Through the Millennia, Baker Academic). He and his wife live in Charlottesville, Virginia, in striking distance of their three children and fourteen grandchildren.

By Marites N. Sison, Anglican Journal   Archbishop David Crawley, acting Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, has written formal letters of protest to the Primates of Central Africa, Congo, Rwanda, and Southeast Asia, objecting to their offer of “temporary adequate episcopal oversight” to New Westminster parishes opposed to same-sex blessings—calling it interference . Four of 11 dissenting churches in the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) have accepted the offer. (A fifth primate—from Kenya—later joined.) Archbishop Crawley said: “I regret that these primates have chosen to interfere… especially since a task force has been set up by the House of Bishops to develop guidelines for episcopal oversight—and it has not completed its work.” He noted a 1998 Lambeth resolution—sponsored by two Canadian bishops—affirmed that primates should not interfere in each other’s affairs. Bishop Victoria Matthews, chair of the task force, called the offer “unfortunate.” Archbishop Bernard Malango of Central Africa—one of the offering primates—is also on the Lambeth Commission. The Church of England Newspaper reported (unconfirmed) that commission members had “chastised” him for the action. Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster said the parishes’ acceptance “means they have given up on the Anglican Church of Canada,” and “pre-empted the work of the task force.” Last year, he blocked Yukon Bishop Terrence Buckle from serving as a “flying bishop”—a role Buckle later withdrew after the task force was formed. ACiNW spokesperson Lesley Bentley expressed hope the national church would make a similar offer: “This may be a sign that time is running out.” Rev. Paul Carter, ACiNW executive director and priest at Immanuel Church Westside (a non-diocesan church plant), said oversight “will now enable us to have relief and move forward in mission while the Anglican Communion works out how to deal with false teaching—and the impending realignment.”

By the Rev. Claudia C. Kalis, Vicar, St. Bartholomew’s Anglican Church, High Springs, FL When my daughter was 3, her popsicle would sometimes break—and she’d cry, “Mom, fix it! Please fix it!” I quickly learned: some things cannot be fixed. The only solution? Give her a new one. The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has made magnanimous efforts to respond to the tear-streaked faces pleading, “Fix it! Please fix it!” But at some point—and I hope it is soon—the Network must learn what I did: some things that are broken simply cannot be fixed. They must be set aside and replaced. I applaud the Network’s leadership—and the AAC’s—for giving orthodox Anglicans a place to stand. But we are weary of standing amidst the turmoil , waiting for repair of what is irreparably shattered. There is an orthodoxy of association . As Isaiah warns: “Leave Babylon, flee from the Babylonians! Announce this with shouts of joy!” Paul writes in Ephesians: “Let no one deceive you with empty words… Therefore do not be partners with them.” Jesus says of the unrepentant brother: “Treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector.” I believe it is past time for the Network to “leave ECUSA, flee from the pagans—and proclaim it with joy.” Until then, we watch the slow demise of Anglican witness in the U.S.—while exhausting our global brothers and sisters who stand ready to help if only we act . The Network is uniquely poised to solve the crisis of Adequate Episcopal Oversight—not by begging revisionists, but by acting : Orthodox clergy become Network employees, resign diocesan posts, and serve under orthodox bishops. Their congregations redirect funds from dioceses to the Network—covering pensions, insurance, and new church plants. Convocational Deans negotiate temporary space with Roman Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists, and others (many already sympathetic). To quibble over property while our witness is at stake defies our proclaimed priorities. Let ECUSA keep the buildings—with the mortgages, utilities, insurance, and maintenance.What will Bishop Lee do when he has 50 empty, decaying churches to tend? Churches with endowments should review restrictions—many allow gifting to orthodox missionary work. These could be “gifted” to the Network. The call must shift: It is no longer the orthodox pleading for oversight—but the orthodox offering oversight to revisionist parishes. Imagine if Bishop Duncan told his revisionist congregations they needed to find “adequate oversight.” How quickly would the song change? The Network has the support. Now it needs the courage—to kick the dust off its feet, take up the cross, and sever ties with structures leading only to death. An increasing number of churches will bail for AMiA, EMS, or other bodies. If the Network delays radical action, it may find itself with no one left to lead . We do not want to play corrupt games with corrupt institutions any longer.We long to carry the Gospel— untangled from sin, evil, and death. It is time. Not to tinker.But to trust, to leap, and to build anew.

By Michael J. McManus “God save the United States and this honorable court.” With that prayer, the U.S. Supreme Court convened to hear Dr. Michael Newdow—an atheist, physician, and lawyer—argue that his daughter should not be asked to recite “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow claimed the phrase “promotes a religious belief that God exists” —which he disagrees with. “Every school morning my child is asked to stand up, face that flag, put her hand over her heart, and say her father is wrong.” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reminded him: “She does have a right not to participate.” Newdow cited Lee v. Weisman , saying she is “clearly coerced to participate.” O’Connor countered: “That was a prayer.” Newdow replied: “Well, I’m not sure this isn’t a prayer.” He noted President Bush described the Pledge as participation “in an important American tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing…” Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued the phrase is “an acknowledgment of the religious basis of the framers… who believed… that the right to vest power in the people came as a result of religious principles.” As the Declaration affirms: “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” George Washington wrote to his army: “The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.” Lincoln declared at Gettysburg: “that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” Our national motto: “In God we trust.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted the phrase is “two words sandwiched in the middle” —and children need not say them.Justice David Souter argued it’s “so tepid, so diluted… far from a compulsory prayer… beneath the constitutional radar.” Newdow insisted: “For the government to decide for you this is inconsequential is an arrogant pretension.” Chief Justice Rehnquist asked about the 1954 Congressional vote to add “under God.” “It was apparently unanimous.”“Well, that doesn’t sound divisive.”“That’s only because no atheist can get elected to public office!” —prompting laughter and applause (and infuriating Rehnquist). Legally, Newdow is on shaky ground: California courts have granted custody and educational decision-making rights to his daughter’s mother—who and her daughter —do not object to the Pledge. An AP poll found 90% of Americans favor retaining the phrase. Prediction: The Court will uphold it. Copyright © 2004 Michael J. McManus