Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Speaking of Pittsburgh ...

Here's a voice of sanity speaking FROM Pittsburgh ...

The Sunday Post-Gazette ,to be specific, where this op-ed ran on 11/11/07:

Conservative activist JERRY BOWYER takes issue with the conservatives' split from the Episcopal Church, finding no support for it in biblical or Christian tradition

My wife is a reader at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in McKeesport. This means that she sometimes leads the people in prayer, including a prayer "for Katharine, our presiding bishop; Robert and Henry, our bishops; and Jay, our priest." These are our leaders. Katharine Jefferts Schori is the elected head of the U.S. branch of the church. Robert Duncan along with his assistant, Henry Scriven, leads the diocese, and Jay Geisler is the priest at St. Stephen's in McKeesport.

This past summer, Bishop Duncan instructed my wife and hundreds of other readers in the diocese to omit the prayer for Katharine. Katharine Jefferts Schori has been a frequent target for conservatives in the U.S. church ever since she was elected presiding bishop in 2006. Coming on the heels of the installation of an active and outspoken homosexual bishop, the elevation of a woman of liberal sympathies seemed a bridge too far for many conservatives.
It appeared at the time that omitting the prayer for Katharine was a steppingstone to where the bishop was really trying to take us -- outside of the Episcopal Church. You see, to include Katharine in the prayers was to acknowledge her office, and to acknowledge her office was to acknowledge our obligation to her.

Our suspicions were confirmed on Nov. 2, when the Diocese of Pittsburgh voted overwhelmingly to change its constitution to permit separation from the Episcopal Church USA.

When my wife, Susan, asked me for advice about the prayer directive, I told her that Katharine was elected lawfully under the standards of the Episcopal Church. Robert was using his authority to tell her to disregard Katharine's authority. When there is a disruption in the chain of authority, I said, "look to the highest authority." He said, "Love your enemies, pray for those who despitefully use you." If you should pray for your enemies, should you not pray even more for friends with whom you disagree?


I am not a liberal. I think the Episcopal Church made a terrible mistake when it installed Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2004. It did the church no favors when it trod the historic standards of Anglicanism under foot in a rush to make some sort of political point. It did Father Robinson no good to turn this deeply wounded man into a cause celebre with no thought to the pressure it would impose (driving him eventually into rehab). It did the world no favor to turn the church into an echo of the sexual revolution rather than a beacon out of it. Many commandments were broken, most notably that "they should be one, Father, even as You and I are one."

But the solution does not lie in breaking more commandments. The priests who voted overwhelmingly for secession this month had taken an oath of loyalty to the Episcopal Church at the time of their ordination. That oath holds whether our guys win every battle or not.

I know Republicans who simply refused to acknowledge Bill Clinton as president in the 1990s. I know Democrats who did the same regarding George W. Bush. But both presidents were elected under the rules laid out in our national Constitution.

The same thing has happened in our church. My side lost on the Gene Robinson issue. It was bitter, but it was fair.


Secession is not the biblical pattern of resistance to flawed authority. Young David served under a tyrannical and apostate King named Saul. David submitted to Saul's authority and he resisted the urge to revolt or secede. He remained faithful to Israel and Saul until the end, and then, because of his patience, became king himself.

David's great (28 times) grandson, Jesus, was a reader in the synagogue despite its shortcomings. He worshipped in the temple despite its corruption and oppression. King Herod was a murderous crook and the temple priesthood were his hired cronies and yet Mary and Joseph and Jesus were there year after year, making offerings, saying prayers, talking with rabbis.

When St. Paul was beaten by the high priest he showed him deference, not contempt. "You salute the rank," as they say in the military, "not the man."
That's because the authority of a priest or bishop doesn't come from him; it comes from God. The failings of the man, or woman, don't erase that authority. Saul would regularly try to murder David. He disregarded God and took on the responsibility to offer sacrifices himself. He murdered faithful priests. Through all of this, David saluted the office long after the man had outlived his merit.


On Oct. 31., the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA sent a letter to the bishop of Pittsburgh, directing him not to split the diocese from the denomination. Bishop Duncan replied by quoting Martin Luther, "Here I stand. I can do no other."

It's a powerful quote, but a misuse of history. Martin Luther didn't leave the Roman Catholic Church; he was kicked out. He decided to "stand" and fight. It's ironic that Bishop Duncan quoted Luther's pledge to "stand" in order to justify his intention to "walk."

Are my fellow conservatives fully aware of the biblical and patristic teachings on schism? How do they justify a break with the Episcopal Church to which they have literally sworn loyalty? How do they justify taking Episcopal property with them? Given Paul's command to the first-century Corinthian Church not to address church issues in secular courts, how do they justify the inevitable legal battles that accompany a schism? How much will the litigation cost? Will the money come from our offerings?

There are moral questions, too. If we break with the Episcopal Church in America over gay priests, how can we then align ourselves with African bishops who tolerate polygamist priests? Paul says that a church leader is to be "the husband of one wife." Do we think that the word "husband" is inerrant but the word "one" is not?

If the Episcopal Church really has become apostate and its current leaders really are enemies of God, then how can we justify leaving the church, its resources and its sheep in their care? If not, how can we justify this separation?
Yes, there are times when it's necessary to leave one authority for another. When the New Testament writers were forced to deal with this issue, they concluded that they were compelled to obey higher authority at all times, except when it commanded them to disobey God. Roman Emperors were monstrous beasts. The church preached against them and prayed for them to repent, but Christians still obeyed the law. It wasn't until Rome ordered them to stop preaching the gospel and to offer sacrifices to Caesar that the early church was forced to disobey.

By analogy, New Hampshire can install a whole pride of gay bishops, but we don't break our oath of loyalty to the Episcopal Church until they order us to start installing them here.

Until then, the pattern of David and Jesus holds: Be faithful. Be patient. Be active in good works. And be in prayer for all in authority ... "for Katharine, our presiding bishop; Robert and Henry, our bishops; and Jay, our priest, I pray. Lord, hear our prayer."
.
Jerry Bowyer is an Episcopal vestryman, a financial journalist and the chairman of Bowyer Media (www.jerrybowyer.com).

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a great article except for the writer's criticism of the consecration of +Gene Robinson. Everyone seems to forget: it was what the people of New Hampshire wanted. They knew +Gene and wanted him for their Bishop. There was no rule that said you couldn't elect a gay bishop....so they picked the man they wanted and the rest of the church supported the people of New Hampshire. It is the way this church works. It was not about making a "political" point. The politics evolved with all the dissenters to +Gene's election plotting to hijack the church. Either we respect the dignity of every human being or we only respect straight human beings.

I am tired of +Gene being made the scapegoat, even with the best of intentions as I'm sure this writer had. Scapegoating is wrong. Exclusion is wrong. And every person who says this is the fault of +Gene Robinson is wrong as well.

As far as I am concerned, "Quitsburg" can leave. I won't miss the spiritual violence that Duncan and his ilk perpetuate. I feel sorry for those who don't want to go with him. But, maybe it time to stop blaming +Gene and blame the people of Pittsburg who elected this wacko a bishop in the first place. You were there.....maybe if you had spoken up sooner, Duncan's election wouldn't have taken place. That is the bishop's election that is at fault here, not +Gene Robinson's!

Anonymous said...

It all turns on this statement:

"..we don't break our oath of loyalty to the Episcopal Church until they order us to start installing them here".

Where has this guy been? Supposedly women's ordination (which I FAVOR) was optional and then General Convention made it a matter of faith. This is where the ordination of homosexuals has headed. One is an outcast unless one favors the innovations. How can one be loyal to the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church when General Convention decides on whim and wind what that will be? EVERYTHING is now open for innovation in this "new thing" that God is accused of doing.

BTW: Duncan has been accused of being a narrow-minded bigot. Interesting though that this "bigot" has a woman priest as the provost of his cathedral. Also interesting that this "bigot" is aligning under the leadership of Africans. Can't use that straw man after all.

Anonymous said...

Allen, last I heard Bob Pittsburgh is exploring placing the diocese under the leadership of the province of the Southern Cone, not one of the African provinces. Interestingly, the primate of SC is a white Englishman in charge of a bunch of dioceses made up primarily of brown people. Sounds kind of colonialist to me.

Anonymous said...

Well, the writer may have a point for the rest of us conservatives. In any case, it's time to be militant, because there's a great tradition at stake, not to mention some great churches, including the National Cathedral. For the sake of those assets, and for the sake of the whole society crying out for a renewal of commitment to the father-and-mother family, the bedrock of social stability, let's regain the lost ground. -- J

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

I may stand corrected for my error re: Duncan and the Southern Cone. However, the general society of foreign bishops from which he (among others)seek oversight still implies a very radical openness to those that are diverse.

My main point still remains that one can hardly be blamed for recoiling from oaths made to a Church that changes its doctrine and discipline by force of political strategists. I'm sure that the martyrs are sickened.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

"... the father-and-mother family, the bedrock ..."

Oh Heavens to Pete ... what happened to "Christ Is Made the Sure Foundation?"

Idolatry is idolatry -- whether its a golden calf or the nuclear family an idol is an idol. How about for the sake of a renewed society we put GOD back in the center of our lives and quit mucking about in other people's families?

Anonymous said...

Susan,

Well, all right, sure, Christ is our foundation. That's absolutely right. There are certain things, meanwhile, that make for the stability of society and other things that make for the opposite. Boys without fathers, for instance, are many times more likely to have run-ins with the law. There are certain tendencies that lead to the break-up of families, such as the casual attitude that some people have about adultery, and the disappearance of fathers is traceable to these tendencies. Collectively, they make up the lack of social support for the father-and-mother family. But this is in no way to dispute your assertion about Christ as the foundation. -- J

Anonymous said...

Oh, not again. J's obsession with the nuclear family.

Our kids are doing just fine, thanks, J. This is nothing about family. We know what you really ant to defend is the
"inalienable correctness of man-woman missionary position sex".

I mean, be honest about it, J. Faithfully partnered gay families raise kids, and studies show those kids are doing just fine. So it's not "save the children", is it.

You want to save children? Go deal with the absentee fathers and the single parents in the poor inner city. The kids who lack medical coverage or a parent who gives a damn. The kids who wind up in foster care in the big city and are abused or beaten.

Those are not disproportionately the kids of gay parents, J. In fact, I suspect they are disproportionately the kids of careless straight people.

But they are kid who people like you will keep in foster care away from their families, if their families happen to be gay (recent case in Utah springs to mind).

Your issue is all the ick factor, nothing else.

I'm with Susan on this one.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, that last anonymous comment about gay families was me, IT.

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, in the Old Dominion (Virginia to the Under-educated):

THE TRIAL is underway where eleven thriving colonial-rooted and newly-minted churches are fighting to separate. Even though I have friends in those churches, I hope that they lose and will be forced to abandon their properties to the Diocese of Virginia. Imagine: Thousands of Episcopalians and their bucks gone, vast empty old churches of George Washington fame, and heavily indebted new churches plopped into the lap of TEC. What a legacy that the secular media will lap up. I kinda like the idea of TRURO GYM to replace the dead property that will be left behind. Of course, other dioceses will have to pony up money to cover mortgages on empty buildings. Letters of thanks should go to 815 after they succeed.

Suzer said...

The "great tradition at stake" being what? Homophobia?

Some traditions, like segregation and slavery, are best ended.

Allen, I'm sorry to say that your nuclear family dream really has never been a reality. Some might like to think it is so, but many different family structures have existed since time began. The concept of the nuclear "mother-father-kids" family is relatively recent. We do a disservice to many who have to rely on families of choice (those who have lost their birth families for whatever reason), step-families, grandparent families, extended families (in some cultures this is the norm), single-parent families, etc. I am sure you don't mean to demean those people, who work as hard if not harder to raise children in loving and supportive atmospheres?

Instead of demeaning gay and lesbian families, perhaps you might want to join a Big Brother's group in your area? The gay and lesbian headed families I know are strong, healthy families where children are well cared for and excel in school and life. I have a family member who is a parent in such a family, whose well-adjusted children are both in college -- one at Oxford on a rather prestigious chemistry scholarship.

Your time might be put to better use helping those who actually DO need your help, than condemning those whose family make-up you disagree with. The vast majority of children in the foster care system or who are children of single parents are children of heterosexuals.

It might be best to clean up your own house, so to speak, before trying to "fix" anyone else's.

JimB said...

Allen, your comments on the Virginia situation strike a new low in bitterness. No one, least of all Bp. Lee wanted to litigate for those properties.

I do not understand why so many who claim they want to follow the plain language of the Bible cannot get the single word "gift." When you, or I or anyone else makes a donation to a church we give up the right to control its use. If any of these suites are successful for the right wing, expect so tax bills. The IRS will want its deductions back.

It is a simple concept really. The gifts come forward, are blessed with the Eucharistic elements and become part of God's church. They stop being ours.

It is ok to leave TEC, albeit even with seriously embittered people, I hope no one does. Just leave the key under the mat.

FWIW
jimB

Anonymous said...

suzer,

Never said that gay folks can't have families. My point is that gayness has been shoved down the throats of the entire Church and we're all choking to death on it.
Partnerships? OK. Families? OK. Spousal rights? OK. Domestic rights? OK. Leading in the church? OK.

Ordination: No - not until the Communion comes on board (we could do without the loud, obnoxious voices demanding it).
Marriage: No - it is not God's design for marriage for two same gendered people to unite under marriage.

Just me. And thousands like me. Notwithstanding the bishop-elect of Chicago's view, I am not in a mental breakdown over a ruined family when I say that. I truly hope that the CANA, et al folks lose and dump millions of dollars of dead and indebted property into the laps of TEC and pass the debts to the dioceses. That's where all of this has been headed - in case you didn't notice. Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. We'll leave the keys and debts to those who won't stop choking the Church to death on this issue.

The majority of world Christianity isn't buying that gayness is the new "black" or a civil right mantra.

Suzer said...

"My point is that gayness has been shoved down the throats of the entire Church and we're all choking to death on it."

I'm truly sorry that is your experience of what is happening in TEC, Allen. And I mean that with no sarcasm or snark (hard to tell, on blog comments, I know).

I am tired of the fighting over the issue as well, though I come from the other side of the aisle. Something I see as God's grace and love moving within TEC, you see as being shoved down your throat. I just can't see it your way, and you can't see it my way. And that does make me sad, because as Christians we should be able to figure this out, without resorting to anger or name-calling.

But alas, we are all human. I hear your pain and anger, I do. I personally could care less whether the church blesses my partnership as a "marriage." (Though I would appreciate if my government would not discriminate, but that's a different post altogether.) But a lot of people to care about a church blessing. I do feel that GLBT people should be ordained equally as hetero people -- God calls many different people and I don't believe He discriminates based on who we love. I do feel strongly about that, as I have experienced excellent ministering from both gay and lesbian priests in the past. Why their gifts are not considered equal to heteros by many Christians is a mystery to me.

What you see as "shoving down your throad", many others see as standing up for justice, equality, and Love. Two points of view. Who is right and who is wrong? I don't know -- perhaps only God does. All I know is that, the way I live my life as a Christian, when I come to an impasse over two differing points of view, I must decide which one proclaims God's Grace, Mercy and Love.

I wish you peace on your journey, Allen.

Your sister in Christ,

Suzer

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

Substitute "feminists" for "gayness" and you have the same rant we heard in THE LIVING CHURCH from 1974 until about a week and a half ago.

Suzer said...

Ugh -- sorry about all the typos, y'all. I'm past tired today! Please forgive....

Suzer :)

RonF said...

I always pray for the Presiding Bishop.

I can't think of anyone who needs my prayers more.

RonF said...

jim said:

When you, or I or anyone else makes a donation to a church we give up the right to control its use.

Quite right. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that people have made and are making gifts to their parish, only to have them stolen by the National Church. The National Church has every right to use gifts to it as it sees fit, as long as those uses are in accordance with the purposes that it stated when it solicited the gifts. But what the National Church is doing is assserting the right to steal the gifts that people have given their parishes.

RonF said...

If we break with the Episcopal Church in America over gay priests, how can we then align ourselves with African bishops who tolerate polygamist priests?

I am aware that polygamous converts have been permitted to maintain their existing relationships. It is my understanding that this is because to divorce their multiple wives would most likely lead to abject poverty, prostitution or death for them. They are not, however, permitted to marry again after conversion, even if their wives die (unless they ALL die).

First, this is not analagous to the Gene Robinson situation. If it was, then ordained homosexuals would have to repent of their relationships and not enter into any more of them after conversion (never mind ordination). And homosexuals who broke up their relationships upon conversion would then have to be in danger of death on that basis.

Secondly; is there actual documentation that there are polygamous priests, as opposed to simply polygamous converts?

RonF said...

There was no rule that said you couldn't elect a gay bishop....

Let's try looking at 1 Timothy 3:1-7:

This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Gene Robinson is hardly the husband of one wife given his current relationship. He's definitely got a problem with wine (although I don't know how widespread that information was at the time he was elected). And you certainly can't say he has "a good report from those who are without" - in other words, his reputation to outsiders. His relationship is in fact a huge scandal and is a lighting rod for schism.

The fact that TEC's canons don't align with Scripture is a condemnation of TEC's canons, not a reason for either the delegates of New Hampshire or General Convention to ignore Scripture and support Gene Robinson's election.

RonF said...

From the original post:

The priests who voted overwhelmingly for secession this month had taken an oath of loyalty to the Episcopal Church at the time of their ordination.

Let's take a look at the oath they took (presuming they were ordained post-1979):

The Bishop says to the ordinand

Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of
Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in
accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and
your work?

Answer

I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I
do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.

What's primary here? Christ and Scripture, or TEC? What should someone who has taken this oath do when they perceive that TEC has left the narrow path and turned aside from the Word of God? Who's the ultimate source of truth here? God? Or General Convention?