[Note to my Anglican friends: If the title hasn't already tipped you off, you will be offended by what follows. Stop reading here.]
Earlier we learned that the ECUSAn Executive Council, legitimized ECUSA's relationship with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Now, the ECUSAn Diocese of Washington wants to beatify the late SCOTUS Justice Thurgood Marshall (first resolution; pdf file).
Without regard for his personal safety and with immense energy, he tore down the barriers which had kept generation of African Americans from taking their rightful place in society. Thurgood Marshall was the author of major social changes from which everyone benefits. He died on January 24, 1993. . . . (emphasis added)
Well, not exactly everyone benefits from the social changes he helped to engineer. I'm thinking of his signing with the majority court in the Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, if this website, is accurate, Justice Marshall was instrumental in extending the right to an abortion into the third trimester, paving the way for partial birth abortion. Too bad for the unborn baby, er, I mean the non-person fetus thingy.
And apparently Justice Marshall thought his service as SCOTUS justice was more important than his service as a parishioner in a local parish.
Thurgood Marshall believed very strongly in the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. Consequently, once he became a Supreme Court Justice, he attended church very infrequently Concerned that he would develop partisan political views which affect his judgment as a Justice . . . . (emphasis added)
But, hey, ECUSAn Grace Cathedral thinks Justice Marshall was all that.
Before he died, Thurgood joined John Glenn as the only living Americans to have a clerestory window dedicated to them at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.
So, apparently, being a Saint in the Episcopal ChurchTM means rarely having to go to Eucharist on Sunday mornings.
'Kay.
It must also mean that you can align yourself with the majority decision in the Roe v Wade case, and still be considered a Saint in the Episcopal ChurchTM.
Indeed, given the way things are going, forget the documented miracles, it appears that qualifications for sainthood in ECUSA include two or more documented votes or judicial decisions for legalizing abortion on demand.
But if that weren't bad enough, it seems that Jesus approved of all that Justice Marshall did by giving him infallible insight into truth and justice. Check out the collect for Justice Marshall (pdf file):
Eternal and Ever-Gracious God, you blessed your servant Thurgood with special gifts of grace and courage to understand and speak the truth as it has been revealed to us by Jesus Christ. Grant that by his example we may also know you and seek to realize that we are all your children, brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ , whom you sent to teach us to love one another; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. Amen. (emphasis added)
So, Justice Marshall's judicial vote to legalize abortion on demand, and his efforts to get it extended through the third trimester, means he understood and spoke the truth "as it has been revealed to us by Jesus Christ."
Apparently I missed it, but Jesus gave an exception clause to his demand to "Suffer the little children to come unto me"--except if they happen not to be born yet.
Ichabod.
Uh, yeah. This is a problem.
First, let's note that the title wholly misses the point: Church goes back to roots to revamp its style
What is this about going back to its roots? Facing pews:
An outside observer recently took note of the re-configuration of the pews - with worshippers now facing each other rather than a priest at the pulpit - and declared, "This looks like the Quakers.""Well, I suppose it does," [Senior Warden and Head of the Vestry, Anne] Kime said, laughing.
"It's getting back to what was done before, at one time. So it's very old, but very contemporary at the same time."
Very old = Reformation England and the Quakers. Got it.
Going back to the roots is also about a priest hangin' wit' da peeps:
Then the priest decided to come down from "the pedestal" to sit with the worshippers."He wants to be a member of the congregation now. He doesn't want to be above everyone," said Kime. "So we've taken out the pulpit and the lecturn."
The new he's-one-of-us approach has been generally well-received at every service, she said.
"Jesus never sat up on high, He was down with the people," Kime noted. "Why should the priest have any more importance than anyone else?"
"As Dean Giles would say, we're supposed to be a community, worshipping together," she added. "And when you're sitting looking at the back of someone's head in front of you, and a priest up on high, you're not much of a community."
So, where did Kime & Co. get their ideas?
To help loosen things up theologically and cosmetically, St. Dunstan's turned to Anglican clergyman Richard Giles, Dean of Philadelphia Cathedral.In "Re-pitching The Tent" and other books, Giles candidly wrote about making liturgy more relevant, and a "ruthless reassessment of every detail" concerning classical church architecture.
"People did not worship in buildings originally, they were outside," Kime noted. "The building shouldn't matter at all. Dean Richard Giles' (attitude) is 'What what can we do to make the church more interesting so that outsiders will want to come and worship here?'"
Note that: "ruthless reassessment". Hmmm. Getting back to one's roots apparently means cutting oneself off from them.
No joke:
As is the case with many progressive Protestant and non-denominational churches, the St. Dunstan's service is now somewhat less about worshipping God than it is re-inventing spirituality in terms of contemporary culture's needs.
And there you have it. Turning away from worship of God to worship of contemporary man.
'Nuff said.
[H/T MCJ]
Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson has been in Britian recently discussing the issue of homosexuality. In an interview he was asked to reflect on the processes surrounding his election to his episcopate and the ramifications of all that on the Anglican Communion. He doesn't answer the question as to whether he would have done it differently, but one rather supposes from his comments, that he would not have.
The article then notes:
He acknowledges that he could be wrong and maybe should not even be speculating, but his personal view is that he does not see the American Church moving backwards. "I can't be unmade a bishop," he said.
First of all, one is a bit taken aback by such a blunt statement. If one remembers a bit of the Church's history, one is quite aware of how the saints (like St. John Chrysostom) actually fled from their priestly or episcopal ordination. One gets the feeling that St. John would not have stood up to his bishop or the patriarch and claim, "I can't be unmade a priest." (One rather supposes that like St. Gregory, he might rather have wished he could have been.)
But rather than just impugn Robinson's humility--and that would be my "eye-beam" against his "speck" anyway--I suppose I must ask the rather offensive question as to whether he has ever been made a bishop. Can the sacrament of ordination rest upon one who has been divorced, and, further, whom the Church discerns to be living in an unrepentant sinful manner--whether or not Robinson and his supporters understand his sexual behaviors to be sinful?
I suppose if Robinson had not been made a bishop in the first place--all the pomp and circumstance notwithstanding--then his statement is actually true. He can't be unmade a bishop if he never was made one.
But then, the Anglican communion is a muddle on ordination, with some factions asserting that no woman nor a man engaging in unrepentant homosexual behavior could even be made a priest or bishop. And others saying all of them can. And still others trying to stake out the middle.
That confusion alone is enough for one such as myself to have left the Anglicans. If they cannot square away their ordination theology, how can they have a sacramental one at all?
The ECUSAn Diocese of Vermont is set for its convention next week, and has posted a list of Proposed Resolutions [H/T: MCJ, T-19, Webelves] About half the way down this page is a resolution addressing a most critical and pervasive problem in ECUSA--cue sting--BIBLICAL . . . LITERALISM! (Run! Hide! Aiiaee! Save the children!)
You've got to read it to belive it:
A Resolution to Support the Episcopal Coalition to Abolish Biblical Literalism (ECABL)Resolved, That the 173rd Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont support the creation of the Episcopal Coalition to Abolish Biblical Literalism (ECABL), provide funding for ECABL for a period of three years (2006-2008) at a minimum of $1.00 each year, and receive a report from ECABL regarding its activities while it is supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont; and be it further
Resolved, That we of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont support every effort to free our Episcopal and Anglican Church from the slavery of Biblical Literalism which might be used to separate us from our sisters and brothers made in the image of God and used to marginalize persons who may be different from us: persons of color, women, and gay and lesbian persons; and be it further
Resolved, That we call upon the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church to support all international efforts to free the church from the slavery of Biblical Literalism, especially as it is used to marginalize persons different from us: persons of color, women, and gay and lesbian persons; and be it further
Resolved, That we call upon the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church to support all international efforts to celebrate the United Kingdom's Abolition of Slave Trade Act Bicentenary (1807-2007); and be it further
Resolved, That the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont support efforts in the State of Vermont to celebrate the 230th anniversary (1777 to 2007) of Vermont being the first state to abolish slavery.
Why, it's so easy. Just get rid of all the people that Jack Spong has deemed to be homophobic, and you've cured this pandemic of--cue sting--BIBLICAL . . . LITERALISM. (One finds oneself needing to write this vewy scawy phenawmenawn in all-cap italics.)
Since--cue sting--BIBLICAL . . . LITERALISM is not exactly a rampant ideology in ECUSA, what, one wonders is the rationale for attempting to stamp it out?
Here is the rationale (hint: think slavery-homosexuality analogies):
Historic Anglicanism has been based on the authority of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, and the use of these authorities leads to wise, healthy, and holy Biblical Literacy (for example, in William Wilberforce's Evangelical understanding that human slavery is antithetical to God's Word as revealed in Scripture). It is also true that Biblical Literalism has been used to support unjust and immoral positions by the Episcopal Church (including within our diocese when our own first Bishop, John Henry Hopkins, used Holy Scripture to support the practice of slavery even after the Emancipation Proclamation).We are a diocese that embraces its diversity and has been able to learn from past mistakes. The fact that we live peacefully and respectfully with Civil Unions and Holy Unions while not all agreeing is an "outward and visible sign" of God's work with us and our work on these issues together with God.
This resolution asks that we continue that work by looking through the "lens" of how Biblical Literalism can harm the Christian faith and be used to deny human rights to various classes of people who are different and how Biblical Literacy can help us clarify what God's Word is for today's Christians.
I confess, I'm a bit confused. Is one to use the Bible to oppose slavery, or to promote it? Which one is the--cue sting--BIBLICAL . . . LITERALISM? Since the Bible tells us to love our neighbor as ourself it is--cue sting--BIBLICAL . . . LITERALISM to promote that or not? How does one avoid--cue sting--BIBLICAL . . . LITERALISM by affirming we are to love our neighbors as ourself as the Bible says but deny the other parts of what the Bible says, like its 100% consistent condemnation of homosexual behavior? Is adultery now okay since to condemn it is apparently--cue sting--BIBLICAL . . . LITERALISM!? After all, we wouldn't want to marginalize adulterers.
From the ECUSAn West Virginian contingent of the Stand Firm group comes this disturbing collection of quotes from ECUSAn hierarchs, clergy and lay leaders.
The post begins:
Many people who support the innovations of the National Episcopal Church, claim that theological differences are simply a matter of interpretation; that both sides believe in and love the Scriptures. This is simply not true! The following public statements are from some leading clerics and theologians who all support ECUSA’s new teachings. Decide for yourself if these people really believe in the Bible or not . . . . Are they even Christian!?!?
Read it all . . . if you dare.
[link via MCJ]
In an open letter, nine of the bishops of the Anglican Communion Network have acknowledged the open breach in ECUSA, and are pledged to doing something about it.
Dear Bishop Andrew and Brothers and Sisters of the Standing Committee,Seventeen bishops, thirteen of them diocesans, wrote you on the 14th of April. We wrote you about the very public conflict between you, the Bishop and Standing Committee, and six Connecticut parishes.
In April we pled that you might turn back from this conflict. We asked whether it was not Bishop Andrew's actions that had abandoned the (Anglican) Communion: participation in the New Hampshire consecration, ordination of same-sex partnered clergy, and refusal to allow appeal to the Panel of Reference. We called on you as Bishop and Standing Committee to turn back from continued abuse and mis-application of the Canon on Abandonment of Communion [Title IV, Canon 10] in dealing with these six parishes and their clergy.
On July 13th Bishop Andrew led a team who invaded St. John's, Bristol, confiscated their buildings and accounts, and without vestry consultation installed a priest-in-charge. All of these things were done under the pretext of abandonment of communion, the Standing Committee having indicted the clergy of all six parishes on that charge on April 29th.
What do they intend to do? First, they are
shaping of a presentment against you [Bishop Smith] for conduct unbecoming [Title IV, Can.1, Sec.1 (j)] a Bishop of this Church;
They are also raising legal funds for the parishes and priests, licensing the priests, and so forth.
It's incredibly likely that counter-presentment charges may be brought against the signatories for crossing dioscesan boundaries. But ultimately, I think it unlikely that any presentments will hold. Not in the current climate of Anglican schism.
I note that my former Episcopal bishop, Peter Beckwith of Springfield, is the second signatory. He's a godly man.
According to this this ACNS press release:
The discussion of the Anglican Peace and Justice Network (APJN) was thorough and an additional session was allocated to facilitate maximum participation from the floor of the ACC. Note was duly made of the representations made to Lambeth, ACC and others concerning the Palestine/Israeli conflict. An amended resolution of three parts passed unanimously, local provinces are now to respond to the ACC resolution.Resolutions from the Anglican Peace and Justice Network
The Israeli Palestinian Conflict
The Anglican Consultative Council:
a) welcomes the September 22nd 2004 statement by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict (Pages 12 - 14 of the Report)
b) commends the resolve of the Episcopal Church (USA) to take appropriate action where it finds that its corporate investments support the occupation of Palestinian lands or violence against innocent Israelis, and
i) commends such a process to other Provinces having such investments, to be considered in line with their adopted ethical investment strategies
ii) encourages investment strategies that support the infrastructure of a future Palestinian Statec) requests the Office of the Anglican Observer to the United Nations, through or in association with the UN Working Committee on Peace in the Middle East, as well as through this Council, and as a priority of that Office, to support and advocate the implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 directed towards peace, justice and co-existence in the Holy Land.
Is this anti-semitic? Well, advocates of sanctifying same-sex behavior would say that homophobia is defined by the person who is the recipient of the alleged homophobic action. So, if we want to know if this is anti-Semitic, why not ask the Jews from around the world?
From Scotsman.com:
Rabbi Barry Marcus, the spokesman on Israel for Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, said: “Moves towards divestment represent a flawed and disastrous course.“They will do nothing to advance the twin causes of security for Israel and statehood for the Palestinians.
“The report itself took a one-sided and subjective view of the situation, and did not reflect the present reality.”
Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of British Deputies of British Jews, told The Guardian: “That Israel alone should be singled out for such treatment, particularly at a time when dialogue is beginning to prevail, shows an inequality in the treatment of the Jewish state which must raise concerns about the Church’s relationship with our community.
“Once again, the outrageous falsehoods levelled against Israel are used by the enemies of peaceful co-existence to undermine the genuine goodwill of those who want to see an end to conflict in the region.”
From the israelinsider
Neil Goldstein, AJC Executive Director, stressed: "No amount of dissembling can hide the fact that this resolution encourages divestment from companies doing business with Israel in an attempt to isolate and stigmatize the Jewish State."In condemning this "one-sided resolution about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Goldstein labeled the resolution as "lacking in moral credibility."
AJC President Paul Miller stated: "At a time when Israelis are preparing to withdraw from Gaza, such unjust interference is a significant obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
"It is disheartening," he went on to say, "that the Council did not heed the words of the former leader of the Church of England, Lord George Carey, who warned that 'Israelis are already traumatized and feel that the world is against them,' and who called the resolution 'another knife in the back'."
From the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
When a Church (any church) calls for a boycott of Jews (anywhere on G-d's earth), the Jewish collective memory refocuses. The lights dim and a film reel in our heads begins to unwind:A fast backward to the charge of collective deicide, the Judas image of ultimate treachery, original sin, the curse of exile and eternal wandering, divine retribution, the figure of the Anti-Christ, Christianity's substitution of Judaism "in spiritum" and the subsequent delegitimization of the people of Israel.
Disputations, forced conversions, Passover/ Easter blood libels, accusations of well-poisoning, importing plague and pestilence, the theft of Christian innocents, race defilement, white slave traffic.
Pogroms, autos da fe, Inquisition burnings at the stake, burning synagogues and Yeshivas, burning of Holy scrolls and prayer books.
Cathedral statues of "the Church Triumphant" alongside "the Vanquished Synagogue", exclusion from land ownership, conspiracy theories, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, expulsions, boycotts, Kristallnacht, cemetery desecration, collaboration in deportation and extermination, SILENCE...
After two millennia, we thought that the film had ended, the lights had come back on as we flash forward to a sobered Christendom that would banish the shadows forever.
Archbishop, we were so wrong:
- only one people remains an endangered species
- only one State remains unambiguously threatened with extinction in the chambers of the United Nations system
- only one nation is still denied acknowledgement of its right to sovereign legitimacyArchbishop, your vote, last Friday, for the Anglican Church's economic disinvestment of companies that trade with the Jewish State is not only biased, not only in violation of freedom of commerce provisions of the European Union and the World Trade Organization, your vote is one more traumatic frame in that never-ending film.
From little Hugh of Lincoln, the pogrom of York, the expulsion by Edward the Confessor, you have telescoped Church history of Judeophobia in England, the liberal and tolerant land of my birth. You have widened the floodgates, for if it could happen there...!
Archbishop, when you say "divestment of Israel", we hear "Kaufen nicht bei Juden", and we are filled with an immense sadness at your damage to decades of inter-faith dialogue.
We can only hope to be comforted by those Anglican friends who will reject this new preaching of the Gospel of the Anti-Christ.
Dr. Shimon Samuels
Director for International Affairs
But is this "Jewish overreaction"? Let's hear what the Palestinian Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem has to say:
The Bishop in Jerusalem, the Rt. Rev. Riah Abu al-Assal, rose to speak of the plight of Palestinian Christians and asked the “Anglican Communion take action on behalf of peace and justice for co-living, not just co-existence”.“The root cause of all the pain and suffering” in the Middle East, Bishop Riah said, “is the illegal occupation of the occupied territories, of East Jerusalem.” He advocated a two-state solution, saying demography favored the Palestinians.
Bishop Riah told the delegates “the resolution has nothing to do with punishing Israel” as “Israel has enough support from the American Administration and the Jewish lobby”.
For an Anglican bishop to lay full blame on Israel, to utterly ignore Palestinian crimes against innocent Israelis and to dismiss legitimate Jewish concerns with “Israel has enough support from the American Administration and the Jewish lobby”--well if it isn't anti-Semitic, it's over the line.
Orthodox have their own anti-Semitic sins to repent of, let's get that out in the open, so let me be clear that I'm just raising questions. And let me also say that American Protestants (and American Christians in general) often stereotype Palestinians as Muslim when there is a significant Palestinian Christian population that is often forgotten. But that a modern group of Christians post Stalinist pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust would endorse these resolutions is at best stupid, at worst . . .?
Seems many global Anglican hierarchs agree with Bishop Samson from Kenya:
Bishop Samson Mwaluda from the Anglican Church of Kenya said that they had done their homework and had listened to ECUSA and Canada but did not feel that ECUSA had listened to them: “We have repeatedly requested for biblical explanations of their actions” so “we can relate it to our tradition,” he said. “Instead of helping us in this we are crowded with political, sociological and historical reasons.” The debate at hand touches on Christian witness, morals, understanding of marriage, God’s creation of man and woman, the fall of man, and message of transformation.
Bishop Gerard of Tanzania, as quoted by David Virtue, notes:
"In this context I am personally disappointed at the presentations of ECUSA and Canada that we must embrace unholy sexual practices when a significant part of the ECUSA stands firmly with the rest of the Communion. Where was their voice why did we not hear their stories," he asked."Only experience is what they talked about. Any notion of transformation was treated in a dismissive manner and this is the heart of the issue. God's love can transform us or we are saying that sexual issues are outside God's reach. It is not just a pastoral concern but a salvation issue."
Virtue also notes that Rev. Andres Lenton, of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, says ecumenical relations where he serves are the worst that he's ever known.
Lenton likened the adulteries of Henry VIII with Robinson's consecration. "This confirms all our worst fears and justifies prejudice. Robinson's consecration confirmed our readers worst fears that a church started by an immoral king with few morals and no discipline is now divided and in disarray by a gay bishop. Our church is in disorder and disarray.""Robinson is seen as a universal decision so we are all tarred with the same brush. The real position of the Anglican Communion clarified by the Windsor Report was not newsworthy in Peru and an injustice was done to the Anglican Church and it is not worth correction by [the media]. It has been a body blow for our province."
"Stop and look what it is doing to us, but then in the Third World one gets used to one's voice being unheard. What does it matter to ECUSA when one insignificant church is wounded in Peru. A good number of individuals have left because of Robinson's consecration. They have found Christ in the Anglican Church [but] in the end they felt they had to leave. Too much clergy time has been given to say it was worth staying in the Anglican fold," he said.
Listening is a two-way street, and the rest of the Anglican Communion is ready now to be listened to.
The official Episcopal News piece reports that the presentations written (pdf file) and oral, given earlier this week, didn't do any good, in the end:
The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) today unanimously affirmed the "listening process" requested for the Anglican Communion since 1998 and, in another resolution, endorsed the Primates' February request that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada "voluntarily withdraw their members" from the ACC until the 2008 Lambeth Conference. . . .The vote on the second resolution was 30 in favor, 28 against, with 4 abstentions, according to the Anglican Communion Office, and came after a two-hour session closed to observers, guests and media.
In case you missed it: ECUSA is suspended from the ACC till 2008.
ECUSA Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold was, to say the least, a bit unhappy:
Commenting after the vote, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said: "The vote, which was contingent on the absence of the six votes of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada reveals a divide within the membership of the ACC."
Translated: "If we hadn't've been suspended to begin with, our six votes would've ensured the opposite outcome."
But of course, that's the whole point. It was ECUSA's actions under examination here. One normally doesn't let the defendent vote with the jury.
It is true that the vote was very narrow. And although the ballot was secret, the views of many of the member countries is hardly a secret. One can reasonably guess who voted how. But consider the membership of the ACC, and tally how many members hail from the "industrialized West" and how many from the "global South." And then count representation based on the Anglican membership in those respective countries. The divide is not so narrow after all.
Furthermore, consider that of the "four instruments of unity" (the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Archbishop of Canterbury), three (all but the ABC) have confirmed the historic Christian dogma of human sexuality and marriage.
Griswold continues:
"I very much hope that the listening process now mandated by the ACC will be one step in healing this divide. I also hope that the report submitted by the Episcopal Church to the members of the ACC, 'To Set Our Hope on Christ,' will be a useful contribution to that process."
I'm afraid that if the ECUSA argument hasn't persuaded the rest of the Anglican communion by now, it probably won't in the future, either. There was nothing new presented; all of it has already been considered and thoroughly vetted. More listening, especially without any substantive and substantively new argumentation, isn't going to accomplish much. Unless Griswold and ECUSA think that simply by talking long enough and forming enough commissions to study the issue will ultimately wear out the patience and good sense of the rest of the communion and they'll go ahead and acquiesce to the ECUSA same-sex agenda just to stop the unendurably unending dialogue. So far as I know, it's only the Anglicans that believe so much in the magic powers of "dialogue" and "conversation." But I digress.
What comes next in the Presiding Bishop's remarks, however, masks something one might well think of as a threat:
"The work and mission of the Anglican Communion is carried out largely through international commissions and networks in which the Episcopal Church continues as a fully active and committed participant. It is through these means and our numerous other relationships focused on mission to our hurting world that we will, with God's grace, find our way forward."
This comes across as a declaration of subversion, of the use of affluent influence, and, frankly, not very gracious. It also very much affirms that ECUSA has no interest in really listening to the "other side," but will continue--unrepentant--on the path she has determined come hell or high water to follow. ECUSA "knows" she is being led by the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the Anglican communion (let alone most of the rest of global Christianity) won't change her mind. I say that because this "process of listening" has really only gone one way; and I don't think that's really listening. Ask yourself: Does ECUSA really intend to "listen" to the "other side" to the extent that she would repent of her current actions? Then what's the point of this "listening"? Clearly that the rest of the communion will finally go along with what ECUSA wants. No. No repentance there. And despite the injection of humble statements, there's no indication of any concern on ECUSA's part that the spirit whose lead ECUSA is claiming to follow into new revelation might not be that Holy Spirit she claims.
The official news arm of the Episcopal Church has a glowing summary up of the written presentation given by its own ECUSA representatives (pdf file) to the Anglican Consultative Council as to why noncelibate same-sex relationships should not only be tolerated and accepted, but affirmed and blessed and non-celibate gays and lesbians should not be barred from clerical office.
A quick look over the full document reveals that one will not find any new arguments, but a rehashing of old arguments that have already been refuted by such able expositors as Robert A. J. Gagnon and William Witt.
[Note: For those interested in keeping up to date on the goings on at the Anglican Consultative Council conferece, got to TitusOneNine or Virtue Online. The other official sources will not provide quite as timely information nor the interesting and untold stories outside the "approved" formulas.]
One certainly can see the most difficult spot Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Cantebury is in from the remarks he made to the ACC Conference.
After an attempt to validate and justify that which seemingly both sides of the argument over tradition and authority in the Anglican communion could affirm, Dr. Williams then reveals precisely the nature of the Anglican problem:
It is said that there are times when Christians must act prophetically, ahead of the consensus and that this is such a time for some of our number. We should listen with respect to what motivates this conviction. But we also have to say that it is in the very nature of a would-be prophetic act that we do not yet know whether it is an act of true prophecy or an expression of human feeling only. To claim to act prophetically is to take a risk. It would be strange if we claimed the right to act in a risky way and then protested because that risky act was not universally endorsed by the Church straight away. If truth is put before unity - to use the language that is now common in discussing this - you must not be surprised if unity truly and acutely suffers.
In other words, there are those in the Anglican communion who elevate unity over truth. These adherents of unity seemingly fall on both sides of the issue precipitating this crisis of authority, both those promoting the consecration of a non-celibate gay and divorced bishop and those against such a consecration. But it is precisely here that truth suffers, for the sort of unity obtained at the cost of truth is not Christian unity. It may be institutional unity, an affirmation of a specific organizational identity, but it is not the sort of organic unity noted in the New Testament in the Acts and in 1 Corinthians 11-14 and Ephesians 1-4.
For Scriptural unity is never had at the expense of truth, but is always fully conformable and organically united to it. Indeed, since unity is predicated on the Person of Christ, there can be no dichotomy between truth and unity since Christ himself is the Truth.
But those who elevate truth over unity are similarly mistaken; of such are schisms and heresies made. Truth must ever find its ground in unity, which is to say, truth is always guaranteed by unity, for it is the Church that is the pillar and ground of truth, not human reason or human experience in themselves. All our human reasoning and human experienced must be sanctified and redeemed by Christ, and he does so through his Body the Church, which guides our reason and our experience to the Truth that is himself.
This is precisely why the truth of the ancient Church will never be superseded by any later truth: Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The same way of life that energized the ancient Church is the same life we can have in Christ today. But such a way of life is at one with that ancient life, whose life is Christ and grounded and fulfilled in him.
If the Anglicans continue in this dichotomization of placing truth over unity or unity over truth, they can only schism. Indeed, such fault lines seem already more than obvious to those of us outside their communion. Perhaps such a schism and dissolution of the Anglican communion is the sort of painful grace God wills for the Anglicans. But I am not a prophet and speak only from my own singular opinion.
In a development that has got to be inducing apoplexy in the ECUSAn hierarchy, David Virtue reports that it may very well be the case that the infamous Dennis Canon--which makes local parish buildings and assets to be held in trust and thus prohibits local parishes from keeping their buildings and assets should they wish to leave the denomination--wasn't ever ratified constitutionally.
Historically all Episcopal parishes owned their own property. This meant that as long as a parish paid its tithe to the diocese and the priest of said parish was orthodox in his teaching and personal life he enjoyed a measure of autonomy from the diocese.But then in 1979 at Denver General Convention everything suddenly changed. Traditional parishes came under scrutiny from liberal bishops over women's ordination and in order to stem the tide of parishes pulling out with their property the Episcopal Church changed its property canon to read that all parishes were now the property of the national church.
Virtue gives a bit of background on the origins of the Dennis Canon then continues:
But here's the kicker. Any changes to the church's canon law had to be approved at two successive general conventions. The first approval previously had passed in 1976 so the second reading of the proposed property canon change had to pass if the liberals/modernists were to stop the traditionalists from leaving with their monies, buildings and considerable trust funds. IT NEVER HAPPENED. . . .
[Rev. Lawrence W. Thompson writes] "According to the two canon lawyers appointed by the church to compile and annotate all canonical changes effected by the General Convention, Messrs. White and Dyckman, "there is no record of it (the proposed change) having passed both houses". These words were contained in a 1981 or 1982 copy of White and Dyckman's Annotated Constitution and Canon of the Protestant Episcopal Church of North America (the official and legal record of all proceedings of the convention) that I personally possessed and used almost daily in my work. A priest (later a bishop) who was physically present at the general convention and who closely watched to see whether or not this specific canonical change passed told me that it did not pass."Thompson again: "In 1989, I mentioned this to Ft. Worth bishop Clarence Pope. When he asked me to show him the citation in White and Dyckman, I learned to my utter amazement that it was no longer in the issue of White and Dyckman. It has been expunged from the latest version the bishop possessed. If I recall correctly, it was a 1985 edition. How then did this canonical change "pass"? Why was the explanatory note of the annotators expunged from subsequent editions of the annotated canons and constitution? In the years since this chicanery, almost all parishes dutifully, if not under pressure, slowly handed title to their property over to the diocese. Some fought it in the courts. A few won, but most lost these battles because the courts were reluctant to become embroiled in theological disputes preferring instead to rule upon neutral principles of law."
And the upshot of all this?
So what this boils down too is this. If it can be proven that the Dennis Canon was never officially passed at two successive general conventions then it is debatable the liberals and revisionists would win in state Supreme Courts if they argue for it. . . .If state Supreme Courts declare it invalid, then other state Supreme Courts are likely to follow those decisions. It only takes one parish to test it.
Now let me state some things clearly: Mr. Virtue, villified by many in the hierarchy and beloved of many so-called Global South hierarchs and laity, as well as of the conservative ECUSAn clergy and laity, has been known to often get it wrong. (He is also known to offer corrections to his errors immediately upon learning of them.) So we will have to wait to see how and if this story will break further.
Further, it is, um, more than obvious that I am neither a canon lawyer or an ECUSAn historian. So I have no way to speak to the facticity of these matters.
But I will say only this: If these things are, indeed, true, I think you will see a massive schism in ECUSA, with a concomitant shift in global Anglicanism. Given that, in the story, Virtue notes that twenty hierarchs are planning to meet in July to discuss matters of this sort, it may well be that this summer will make firm and real the divides that have come to more solidity since the seventies and accelerated with the Robinson consecration.
Update: According to one commentor to Virtue's story:
Unfortunately, Dr. Virtue is a bit muddled here. Changes to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church do, indeed, have to pass two consecutive General Conventions in the same language with notification of the several diocesan conventions in the interim.Changes to the Canons, however, like the so-called Dennis Canon, need only pass one General Convention, although, of course, such changes need to be approved by both houses in identical language.
On occasion, this requirement means that resolutions which have bounced back and forth for amendment or other procedural business do get lost in the process and the General Convention adjourns prior to the completion of the process. . . .
I'm not sure how or if this changes the scenario, but I thought I'd post it. (See my disclaimer vis a vis my status as canon lawyer/ECUSAn historian above!)
What do you do if your bishop starts to preach about the "new physics" and the uncertainty principle, and to make theological claims on those things? Well, you take him out to the woodshed and beat some sense into him--in a manner of speaking, of course.
Seems one Canadian Anglican bishop, Michael Ingham (yes, that Michael Ingham) gave evidence recently of his utterly ignorant appropriation of physics in his Easter sermon. The good Michael Davenport has a PhD in this stuff and decides to tell the good bishop what utter crap his sermon is in Quantum Unbelief (pdf file).
Ingham's message has to be read to be believed. For example, did you know that Jesus hasn't yet ascended all the way to heaven?
The new science has serious implications for Christian theology. The late Carl Sagan - still one of the most widely read modern scientists today - pointed out, for example, that if we take the biblical story of the Ascension of Jesus Christ literally we have a problem. If Jesus' body lifted off from the earth two thousand years ago, as the Bible says, and even if it reached the speed of light immediately (which Einstein says is the fastest speed any matter can travel) then it would have taken him a year to pass Pluto and after two thousand years Jesus is still trapped in the solar system. He's not yet ascended to heaven, Sagan said, unless we mean something else by `heaven.'
Or perhaps you didn't know that Easter, like the uncertainty principle, makes all certain knowledge impossible (including this certain proclamation that all certain knowledge is impossible)?
Easter, for example, is much more than a story about the body of Jesus walking out of a tomb. Easter is a kind of uncertainty principle thrust into the heart of our tidy, ordered universe, undermining all our theories about how things ought to be. It's an event that makes everything unstable.
Perhaps you didn't know that Diarmuid O'Murchu is not only an authority on God but on physics as well?
Diarmuid O'Murchu in Quantum Theology: the Spiritual Implications of the New Physics says we should stop thinking of God as a supernatural Being located outside the universe. Instead, he says, we should think of the universe itself as a pulsating, vibrant dance of energy alive with benign and creative potential in which God calls to us from within, not without.
Except that Ingham's calculations on Jesus' bodily ascension are flawed, the uncertainty principle does not make science uncertain and Diarmuid O'Murchu is neither a physicist nor a theologian.
Ingham would have done better to just keep it to "Happy Easter, folks!"
In any case, read all of Davenport's five-page essay linked above. It is more than worth the few minutes' satisfaction to see the sort of "scientific" nonsense Ingham spouts utterly gutted by a real scientist--and (small-o) orthodox Christian. If you want, read Ingham's message, but if you've ever listened to or read any liberal theologian's take on the "new physics" you've read what Ingham has to say.
[Note: Mike Davenport is a senior research scientist at a high-tech company in Richmond, a husband, father, and member of St. Johns (Shaughnessy) church. He has a PhD in theoretical physics from UBC, based on his research into the spin-glass statistical mechanics of recurrent neural networks.
Michael Ingham . . . doesn't.]
[Please note: My opinions and conclusions here are likely to offend my Anglican brothers and sisters. Out of charity I note this so that my friends, Anglican brothers and sisters whom I love and for whom I pray each day, can simply skip this post and avoid the offense.]
One has to pretty much be completely unaware of the Episcopal Church, or of the issues of the validation of same sex behavior and the blessing of same sex unions in the general arena of religion, not to be aware of what has transpired in the Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church's General Convention in 2003 where explicit permission (which was technically just short of the denomination's official authorization) was given for the practicing of homosexual behavior and the blessings of gay and lesbian unions. Since that time, those advocating such validations and blessings have attempted to paint the discourse in terms in reductionist terms (that it's just about sex, those opposed are homophobes, and so forth) while the opponents of such things have attempted to paint the discourse in maximalist terms (that it's about the authority of Scripture and the Tradition, that these are heretical movements worth "impaired commuion" and so on). Advocates of the validation of same sex behavior and the blessing of such unions want to point out that their opponents are guilty of hypocrisy: conservatives and traditionalists decry homosexual behavior and unions, but are more than willing to violate what has been canon law since Nicea: bishops don't cross diocesan boundaries. Thus, same sex advocates charge, the conservatives and traditionalists are hypocrites, willing to violate one form of Traditional ecclesiastical law so as to accomplish their agenda to uphold one narrow aspect of the Church's moral law.
But it would seem that the Windsor Report, which puts this understanding of the violation of diocesan boundaries to the fore in this debate has it wrong. Not only are conservatives and traditionalists justified in crossing diocesan boundaries, according to Dr. Robert Sanders, they are obligated to do so.
First of all, we can have done with the tortuous handlings of Scripture which attempt to do away with the prohibition of same sex behavior and same sex unions. Not only because these interpretations are so incoherent and do not stand up to closer scrutinty (for which see the voluminous work Robert Gagnon has done to eviscerate all these arguments--which is to say, at the end of the day, Scripture and Tradition are clear: same sex behavior is a violation of God's will and thus no same sex unions can be blessed), but more to the point, the licit or illicit nature of these acts and unions are not the point under consideration. Rather, what we must consider is whether diocesan boundaries must remain sacrosanct, even in the face of the heresy. As we will see, diocesan boundaries, though important, are not sacrosanct.
Ted Olsen, in his "Still Fighting Over Nicaea" writes:
The problem with the Windsor Report's reference to the canons of Nicaea, some conservatives have responded, is that it focuses on the wrong heretics.The Arians, who denied the full divinity of Christ, were spotlighted at the Council of Nicaea, and most of the council's work focused on accurately defining Jesus' nature. But the 20 canons adopted, in addition to setting the date of Easter and regulating aspects of church life, deal with two other heretical groups.
The first are the Cathari, or Novatians. (This is the group referenced in the eighth canon, which the Windsor Report references.) While condemned as heretics, followers of Novatian were doctrinally orthodox. Novatian, in fact, had written one of the church's important works on the Trinity. This, then, was a group that could say the Nicene Creed with pride.
Indeed, pride was the issue: Novatians were outraged at how easily those who had lapsed under persecution had been received back into the church once the pressure lifted. They were also upset with lax church attitudes toward the twice-married. The solution, as they saw it, was to appoint rival bishops to "compromised" sees, which earned them a reputation as schismatics condemned by the rest of the church. At Nicaea, the Novatian bishop Acesius was personally criticized by Emperor Constantine, who had been more conciliatory with those who denied orthodox theology.
If a Novatian wanted to return to the church's good graces, the Council of Nicaea ruled, all they had to do was to "profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church." Novatian priests could stay priests. Novatian bishops had to be under the local orthodox bishop, but in many cases didn't even have to step down in rank (whether a Novatian bishop retained the title of bishop or became a priest was up to the local orthodox bishop). It's important that the ex-Novatian "be evidently seen to be of the clergy," the Council decided, so long as "there may not be two bishops in the city."
Canon 8, however was markedly different from the other one dealing with heretics: Canon 19, which addressed the Paulianists. These followed the bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, who was known both for heresy and an opulent lifestyle. He expressly rejected the deity of Christ, whom he considered an "ordinary man" inspired by the Word of God.
A Paulianist returning to orthodoxy had to do much more than simply offer a letter professing fealty to the church. "They must by all means be rebaptized," the council declared. Even clergy "found blameless and without reproach" had to go through ordination again. Clergy found unfit were deposed. Deaconesses were laicized. In short, they held a place between heretic and unbeliever. The church may have welcomed repentant Paulianists, but it was with a reluctant handshake, not with open arms.
So the question for today is applicability. Many orthodox Anglicans in the West see the Episcopal Church (USA) not just as wayward, but as apostate. Bishops who deny the authority of Scripture and declare that God has changed his mind on matters of sexual ethics, they say, are heretics, not just schismatics. The repentance of the Paulianists is in order, not the assurances of the Novatians. Anglican liberals may find parallels between Novatian rigors on remarriage and today's conservative emphasis on sexual ethics, but that doesn't mean that the Anglican Mission in America or other groups offering "alternative oversight" are schismatics, let alone heretics.
But, as Olsen notes, we should have done with the notion that diocesan boundaries are sacrosanct. If a bishop is in heresy (moral or dogmatic), then the faithful need an Orthodox bishop and lines must be crossed. In the Olsen article above, he refers to an essay by Dr. Robert Sanders, "The American Anglican Council : Nicea and the "Invasion" of Bishops in Other Dioceses". In it, Dr. Sanders writes:
When one reads the acts of the Council of Nicea, several facts become readily apparent. First, it was understood that bishops belonged to the order of the Church. That is to say, all Christians were to be under the oversight of a bishop. Further, there was to be only one bishop in each diocese, or only one ruling bishop. Third, bishops were not to officiate in dioceses other than their own, except perhaps, by invitation. There is, however, a critical exception to these three conclusions . . .In regard to bishops, all the foregoing applies only to orthodox and morally sound bishops. Heretical bishops, morally lapsed bishops, do not belong to the Church. The faithful are not to receive Holy Communion from them nor accept their Episcopal oversight. Such bishops are outside the Church. This is utterly obvious from the canons and creed accepted by Nicea.
He proceeds to offer similar commentary as Olsen summarizes above. He then goes on to point out:
Not long after Nicea, a number of bishops embraced the Arian heresy. The orthodox were not allowed to come under their oversight. Among other things, that is what “anathematize” entails. Nevertheless, the order of the church presumed that every believer be under the oversight of a bishop. As a result, geographical areas were divided, containing both orthodox and Arian bishops, with the orthodox avoiding the communions celebrated by priests and bishops of Arian persuasion.
So what does Nicea teach us? According to Dr. Sanders:
It teaches us that believers need to come under the oversight of bishops, that they cannot receive from heretical bishops, and therefore, orthodox bishops must officiate in dioceses headed by heretical bishops. In short, if Nicea means anything, there must be a network.
The way forward here, then, is clear: orthodox must not only get out from under their heretical bishops and seek orthodox oversight, but orthodox bishops are obligated by their charism to provide oversight for orthodox beleaguered by heretical hierarchs. Indeed, not only that, orthodox bishops must anathematize, and therefore exommunicate until such time as they publicly repent and repudiate their heresies in writing, the heretical bishops.
Although his conclusion is directed to Anglicans, it seems we can discern a more general relevance as well:
It is a miserable fact that Christendom is divided into so many churches, sects, and parties. It is tragic that the Episcopal Church may well be in the process of division, adding more wounds to the body of Christ. These wounds exist because Christians are sinful. We teach false doctrine and live immoral lives. We cannot hide from this. The wounds of Christ tell us who we are. The one thing Christians cannot do is to deny these wounds exist, and even worse, to use the wounds themselves to deny the wounds. This is what the revisionists would have us do. They will use the Holy Eucharist to achieve a false unity based upon nothing but a vague sense of inclusion, bringing us together beneath a cross without cost, a cross without truth, a cross without sacrifice, and a Jesus without wounds. No, if we are divided -- and our divisions are not superficial, the very substance of the faith is at stake -- then we must set forth a crucified Christ by not celebrating Eucharists with those who deny the historical faith and morals of the universal Church. Only then can we be faithful to Christ crucified. Anything less profanes his broken body and spilt blood. That, above all, is why we must have a network.
Whether this were the third or fourth century A. D. or our own era, there is just no way around a simple historical fact: Scripture and the Tradition have repudiated the validity of same sex practices and therefore cannot bless such unions. This is disputed, of course, and the Anglican method of ecclesiology has no real way to handle the current crisis unless it does a very un-Anglican thing: take a stand on disputed doctrines. Those of us who have watched all these machinations for years, and for some of us these machinations compelled us to leave Anglicanism, and especially in the last two years, have no real hope, based on past primatial behavior, that anything of real consequence will be done. These matters likely will be pushed out once again to other committees who will study the matters that should be studied so that another commission can meet to discuss the studies and draw no conclusion other than that more study and dialogue needs to happen.
But this will not only not solve the crisis, it will only exacerbate it. Advocates of same-sex unions have wanted time to study how to maintain unity in the midst of this. They decry the so-called "rush to judgment" of some who want clear lines drawn. But the rush to judgment was made in August 2003 when all dialogue and communication was done away with as the Episcopal Church made up its collective mind to divorce itself from the consensus of the Communion and go its own way. The ECUSA hierarchy has been on record in just the past few months that they will not stop doing what General Convention 2003 said they could do if they wanted. Conservatives and traditionalists have said strong and fiery things. But no one is yet holding their breath over what the Anglican primates will do.
For the life of me, I can hardly see how the Anglican Communion, such as it now is, can hold together much longer. The Anglican churches in the U. S. and Canada were called upon to voice their regret over their part in the current schism among the provinces. So the Episcopal House of Bishops met last week, and one of them came up with this (emphasis added):
Dear All,One point must be clearly understood: the Primates' Meeting in February will determine whether or not the Windsor Report as it stands will be what we must work with. It was quite impossible to decide anything about moratoria until that happens. The Bishops committed to engage the process outlined in the Windsor Report, insofar as our polity allows. Furthermore, there must be a reciprocal gesture from the other parties named in the Windsor Report who are to effect moratoria on crossing diocesan boundaries. Anyone who claims that the House in Salt Lake City rejected *or* accepted moratoria on blessings of same-sex unions or approvals to bishops-elect who live in committed same-sex partnerships simply wasn't there. We have to wait and see what the process at the global level looks like as things unfold before we can take any action.
The most important point is that we took the Report very very seriously as a House. There was clear consensus about our real regret at having caused deep disruption in other churches' lives, adding to what the Presiding Bishop has said on several occasions. There was also a consensus on engaging the process of reconcilitation, within the bounds of our polity as a church. The "Word to the Church" reflects I believe a genuine deeply-felt word from your bishops speaking as one. . . .
Pierre Whalon
So, according to Bishop Whalon, "we'll only repent if they do." In the meantime, instead of reconciling, we commit to continue to think about reconciling.
This is an excoriable slap in the face to the rest of the Anglican Communion, an episcopal offering of the middle finger to anyone who has less money and less political clout than America. Talk about your unilateral actions.
I'm not Anglican anymore, and here is one reason why. How could I be part of a church that so blatantly offends her sister churches again and again, then blames them for lack of reconciliation (we'll have to see what they're going to do)? How could I be part of a church that is so arrogant to believe that everyone else living and dead must be wrong? How could I be part of a church that thinks the only thing they have to regret about their actions is that the other guy got upset? In short, how could I be part of a church that no longer knows how to repent?
I feel for my brother and sister Anglicans, two of whom I am thinking of right now, who can know only the pain and frustration of trying to serve God in such a context. How can they exhort anyone to repent of their sins, when the example put on by the highest levels of the denomination is that repentance is never necessary unless the other guy does so first?
May God forgive me, and ever work in me to keep me from this sort of hardening of the heart.
Since the beginning of the year, I have resolutely refrained from posting anything on my one-time church home, the Episcopal Church. I'd gotten into a bit too much criticism without having any real investment in the arguments. That, to me, didn't seem either fair or helpful.
I am, however, going to make some observations and offer my thoughts on the recent information from ECUSA about membership. (Not that ECUSA cares about my thoughts, you understand.)
According to a one page summary [via MCJ] from the Episcopal Church, the people are leaving.
In 2002, ECUSA had lost just over eight thousand active baptized members from the previous year. Last year that number jumped to nearly 36,000, or four-and-a-half times. The five year active change in membership shows a decline of two percent, and six percent over ten years (an increase of three hundred percent). The percentage of individual churches growing or declining over the past five years has held relatively stable in the mid-thirties.
Average Sunday attendance tells pretty much the same story. In 2002, there was a loss of almost twelve thousand people. In 2003 that loss nearly doubled to just more than 23,600. In 2002, the five and ten year changes in average Sunday attendance held at an increase of one percent. Last year, that percentage dropped to a two percent loss over five years, and a percent loss over ten years.
In 2002, the percentage of churches reporting an increase in average Sunday attendance were 39%, while those reporting losses were just under half at 49%. But in 2003, the percentage of churches increasing fell to 34%, while the percentage experiencing losses increased to 54%.
The monetary picture at first glance looked slightly better. The average pledge grew slightly over the five year period, and the average pledge itself increased from the previous year by almost $70. Total plate and pledge income grew by more than $30 million dollars.
What do these things tell us? Well, it makes sense that the average pledge would increase, even without an overall increase of giving, if the average membership and attendance declined to the extent they did in the past year. But given that not only the average but the overall take has increased speaks well of the remaining members that they have increased their pledges and giving. Financially, then, things look decent, even if one cannot yet relax one's vigilance.
But the decline of membership is clearly a problem. It's no secret that ECUSA has been on a trajectory of decline in membership over the last few decades. So, in general, these trends fit an already well-established pattern.
What is remarkable, however, is the increase in the loss over just one year: about a 450% increase. Given the trends, ECUSA would have lost members again, anyway. But the loss spiked last year.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the dissension and chaos within ECUSA over issues of authority and discipline (manifested microcosmically in the issues of same-sex unions and non-celibate homosexual clergy) which came to a head in GenCon03 was one important catalyst, if things such as this are impossible to boil down to a single causative factor.
ECUSA couldn't care less what I have to say, but if they want to reverse these trends, and if they do not want to see a similar sharp decline in coming years, they'd better handle their authority and discipline issues. Unfortunately, it seems they do not yet have the capacity to do so. Many Episcopalians will surely point the finger at their own who have formed a network of parishes and dioceses opposed to the actions of GenCon03, and at overseas bishops who have crossed diocesan lines to minister to parishes requesting alternative oversight. But fingers might well also be pointed at the Presiding Bishop who himself refused to be held to the last Lambeth Conference's guidelines regarding human sexuality and same-sex unions, and made public statements about consecrating Gene Robinson as bishop that were later in strong contradistinction to his public actions, as well as to other bishops and primates who similarly flouted other primatial agreed statements to pursue what they had already determined to do.
Part of the issue, however, is that ECUSA cannot agree on what constitutes proper Christian dogma (especially on sexuality matters), which is the foundation of church discipline. Church discipline itself cannot be enforced, especially as bishops selectively enforce canons or misconstrue their interpretation. Witness the fiasco under Charles Bennison in Pennsylvania. Or note the failure of any charges to be brought on various bishops for their individual sundry alleged violations. Spong has point-by-point denied every one of the tenets of the Nicene Creed, yet retains his ecclesiastical status and his pension. Pagan liturgies can be posted (and implicitly endorsed) on the ECUSA website with apparently no repurcussions against those posting them and endorsing them.
The much-vaunted Anglican via media cannot work. It's one thing to allow some quibbles over the Eucharist to save an island nation from more bloody civil war. But no nation needs saving from religious bloodbaths here, and when diametrically opposed yet fundamental beliefs (such as what it means to be human) confront each other there can be no compromise. The via media is not an ecclesiology, it's a political bandaid. And that bandaid has been ripped off.
In short, ECUSA is a house riven. There are at least two distinct bodies vying for control of the denomination and ownership of what it means to be Anglican in America. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, then surely ECUSA will fall. The only question is when.
The good Rev. Pontificator has a series of posts ruminating on Three Possible Futures of Anglicanism. (Note: The series begins with the first of four parts, scroll down the page.)
Of the options:
1. Go with revisionism. But he doesn't think this is a valid option.
2. Go with free-church evangelicalism (bishops a nice extra). This is fine in some ways, but lacks certain important and essential features of the Church.
3. Go with Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. It's the only way to be orthodox or catholic.
It's worth a good read.
Within weeks, the report from the Lambeth Commission, which met to discuss how to address the sharp disparity among Anglican bodies on the role of Scripture and tradition in the debates over human sexuality, will be made public. (It has already been delivered to the primates, as I understand it.)
As my Anglican brothers and sisters await the report and its implications, I want to commend the following publications put out by the Anglican Communion Institute (all are in .pdf format):
True Union in the Body? (against the creation of rites for the blessing of same sex unions, 2002)
Claiming Our Anglican Identity (a paper commissioned last year)
Communion and Discipline (a submission to the recently completed Lambeth Commission)
From ECUSA's Women's Ministries webpage comes this collect celebrating the 30th anniversary of the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church:
Collect for the Anniversary of the Approval of Women's Ordination
Most holy and loving God, you sent your Child Jesus Christ that there might no longer be slave or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female: Be with us this day as we rejoice in the ordination of women to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, giving thanks for their ministry among us. Fill our hearts with gratitude for those who worked and prayed unceasingly for the full and equal participation of women in our church in both holy and lay orders. Strengthen those who still struggle for the full inclusion of women in holy orders in their diocese; in the name of the Source, the Word, and the Spirit.
Amen.
(Source: Galatians 3:28)
revised 8/27/01
-The Rev. Elizabeth Rankin Geitz
I'm not about to "pile on" my former denomination, nor is this going to be about women's ordination per se. Rather, what I find objectionable is the language used (or the avoidance of other language) to refer to the Holy Trinity. In short: if this prayer isn't heresy, it is only a short half-step away.
First of all, using "Child" instead of "Son" is just simply ignorant. In Greek, whenever the word we usually translate as "child" is used in reference to Jesus, it is in masculine form. English sidesteps this because "child" is a neuter form. If the author of the collect wanted to be correct, the translation should read "your (male) child Jesus." But this is just awkward and clumsy and doesn't flow well. More to the point, what is a "male child" but a "son"? Would this author be so chary of referring to a "female child" as a daughter? Hardly. So why this circumlocution?
Apparently, and this is a far more serious matter, the author wants to avoid calling Jesus male. But why? When God became an incarnate human being, he became a man: Jesus Christ. Would the author deny this? Probably not when questioned directly. But the historical fact of Jesus being a male is crucial--if we believe in the Incarnation.
The Incarnation is not merely some dogma somebody made up once because they thought it would be a good idea. It is an historical event. Either God became a male human called Jesus Christ or he did not. If he did, then we do not have the luxury to alter those details without altering our faith. Ours is an historical faith. To deny, or alter the maleness of Jesus' humanity, is to deny the Incarnation, because not only did God became the male human Jesus, when Jesus rose from the dead, he rose with the same body, now transfigured, with which he entered the world. He does not cast off this body, but it is assumed in hypostatic union with the Holy Trinity. And thus, by grace, humans can participate in the life of God.
I should clarify that I am not insisting that it is Jesus' maleness, as opposed to his humanity, that saves us. On the principle that whatever is not assumed is not saved, this would assert that there was something defective about being female. Yet God created femaleness just as he did maleness, so both maleness and femaleness are intrinsically good. Jesus saves us by his humanity. But it is a humanity that is embodied in being a male. To deny Jesus' maleness is to deny his humanity. And to deny his humanity is to deny the Incarnation.
To use the term “child” does not necessarily deny the Incarnation. But after more than three decades of intentionally emasculating liturgical language, the neutering of Jesus as Child instead of Son is a calculated attempt to deny Jesus' maleness which is also to deny his humanity. A humanity, I assert again, that was assumed in the resurrection of his male body and brought into union with the Godhead.
In the close of the collect the Holy Trinity is addressed as “the Source, the Word, and the Spirit.” Now one can certainly take this phrase and connect it to orthodox Christian teaching. The Father is, indeed, the font or source of the Godhead. Not an aside: Source is arche in the Greek, and father is pater. Thus, it would be correct to say that Christianity is a radically patriarchal religion. Granted, feminists do not understand patriarchy in this way, but this is a fault not of orthodox theology but of human sin and sociopolitical agendas. Jesus is most definitely the Word. And, of course, the third Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. So, there is a way that it can be understood in orthodox terms.
But one wonders what the point is of referring to the Persons of the Holy Trinity in these specific terms. What would be the problem of using the traditional formula, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? What objections would the author have to this formula?
Presumably the same objections which caused her to use “Child” in place of “Son” to refer to Jesus. But here we run into an important problem. The revelation of God as Father came not from some council of exclusively male bishops, but from the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, himself. It was Jesus who taught us to pray to God as “our Father.” It was Jesus who taught us that he was God's Son (and not some neutered Child). To deny God is the Father is to deny Jesus' own revelation. To deny Jesus is the Son is to deny the Incarnation which must include all its historical particulars.
Two other things I would add: First, to neuter liturgical language in this way makes a troubling assertion, namely, that women in particular, though others as well, are unable to worship God in traditional language. In effect, women must have a special language with which to worship God. But this is dangerously close to establishing a mystery religion, into which one is initiated by learning special words for God. The revelation of Jesus is not enough. The common and understandable terms like "father" and "son" are not appropriate. They must be replaced with a "higher" language, one that is sexless, immaterial, unincarnate.
And finally, this ultimately comes down to power and authority: Do we have the power to change the revelation given us by Jesus Christ? If we do, then we call into question Jesus' own authority and the legitimacy of his revelation. But if we do that, we remove the cornerstone of our faith, and we cease to be Christian. If we do not have that authority, then to change the language Jesus has given us is to assert an authority and a power in opposition to God. And rebellion against God is the most dangerous spiritual state possible to us humans.
Were this collect merely one instance in an otherwise thoroughly traditional and orthodox set of liturgies, one might find it curious and be rightly cautious, but would not, under those conditions, need necessarily to reject it outright. However, given a sustained and intentional movement of more than three decades to deny the most basic revelations of our Lord and Savior about our God, then one is justified in characterizing this as heresy, and to rightly reject it as prayer worthy of the Church's God.
An interesting news item from my hometown.
About 40 members of an Episcopal church in east Wichita have established a new congregation within the Orthodox Church, citing their disapproval of the "decidedly liberal drift" of the Episcopal Church in recent years.
The Rev. John Flora, 57, retired rector of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, will lead the new congregation, which will begin worshipping at St. George's Orthodox Christian Cathedral in Wichita at 10 a.m. on Sunday.
Flora said he and the group of former St. Stephen's parishioners have grown frustrated with the Episcopal Church, including its approval of its first openly gay bishop in August.
"When I found the Episcopal Church in college, I really believed I had found something that was connected to the ancient church and was going to remain steadfast," Flora said.
"But my experience in the past 31 years as a priest is, there's been a slippery slide into theological relativism, and that's not where I'm at."
Officials with the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas, including Bishop Dean Wolfe, were out of town for the holidays and could not be reached for comment. . . .
Interestingly, the new church will not use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but the revised Gregorian Litugy of St. Tikhon.
The new church, St. Michael the Archangel Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church, will be the first Western Rite Orthodox parish in Kansas. It will join a growing number of Orthodox congregations that use a Western form for their liturgy, rather than the more characteristic Byzantine Rite. . . .
Leaving the 2.4 million-member Episcopal Church was "a real hard decision," Flora said, "but one I felt I had to make."
Other parishioners planning to join Flora agreed.
"This has nothing to do with St. Stephen's itself. It has everything to do with the Episcopal Church USA," said Bill Anderson, head of the St. Michael parish council.
"My belief is that we have not left the Episcopal Church; it has left us," he said. "This is not a decision we took lightly, nor is it something that just happened."
And to think, I just missed it. We came home Friday. If we'd stayed a couple of extra days, I could have been there.
[Note: About a year ago, I sent the following out to some family and friends. It reflects on my sojourn within the Episcopal Church. The story has been told frequently on my blog and home page. But since I have been critical of the powerful elite in the Episcopal Church--and really, such persons claiming Christianity but denigrating and abusing it as they do deserve criticism--I wanted to again reiterate that it's not Anglicanism nor every Episcopal Church parish that I rail against. The following was edited in two places--the bracketed note in the first sentence and one misspelling. Otherwise it remains exactly as I first wrote it. And I still fully own the thoughts expressed.]
Ten years ago [at the time I then wrote this entry] in 1992, 4 October was a Sunday, and in the Western Christian calendar, the feast of St. Francis of Assisi. It was also the day I worshipped for the first time in a formal liturgy. The liturgy was the Rite I service of the Episcopal Church's 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The church was Trinity Episcopal Church in Lawrence, Kansas. To this day, I can recall the contemplative silence that greeted me as I entered the nave. A small handful of parishioners knelt in prayer in the minutes before the service began. I took a seat in the back, bulletins in hand, prayerbook at the ready.
When the service began I experienced a drenching in the written Word of God. Having studied Scripture on my own and formally at Bible college and seminary, I recognized the numerous biblical verses and phrases that made up the liturgy. And when the time came for the reading of the Word, I was delighted at the length of the passages--one each from the Old and New Testaments and from the Gospels, and a complete Psalm. No mere couple of verses and the preacher's take on them. Here was the written Word itself, large portions, and enough to satisfy.
Here, too, was the Lord's Supper, served with a reverence and quiet beauty the penetrated right through to the heart. I did not participate in the elements with the other parishioners that day--everything was all too new for me to do so with any sort of understanding--though later the Eucharist became an important and powerful aspect of my corporate worship.
You can see, no doubt, how attractive the Episcopal Church was to me. That attraction only deepened with time, and about three and a half years later I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church. That decision was a complex one. On the one hand, the decision came only a few months after my wife and I left a ministry, after a couple of the most excruciatingly painful months either of has had known, where we'd been serving for about a year and a half. I didn't handle my decision to join the Episcopal Church very well with my wife. I suppose that is to be expected, given that we'd been married less than a year when we took on the ministry, and had unconsciously put the development of our relationship on hold for a year and a half as we tried simply to survive an abusive church with our marriage intact. On the other hand, it was the culmination of a personal
journey that had gone back to my last year and a half at Bible college. I had done as thorough and patient investigation into the Anglican tradition and the Episcopal Church as I knew then to do. I had thought and prayed about it. I had intended becoming an Episcopalian as a deep, heartfelt expression of my Restoration Movement beliefs, particularly that of unity.
About six months after having been confirmed in the Episcopal Church, my parish priest and I were talking about my previous ministry experience, and the idea was presented that perhaps, having pursued a vocation of ministry in another church context, I should seriously consider doing so in the Episcopal Church. A little more than two years later, I finally agreed to pursue ordination to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church. Anna and I weighed our educational options and decided that the Chicago area would suit our combined needs and goals best, and so in January 2000 we moved to Chicago to work and pursue our vocational and educational goals.
By the time I began my studies at the Episcopal seminary, I had had inklings that things weren't altogether healthy in the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church's legislative body, the General Convention, which meets triennially, in 1997 passed legislation mandating the acceptance by all of the ordination of women. I, myself, at the time, was not opposed to the ordaining of women to leadership positions in the church, however, I knew that many were so opposed in good conscience. For the General Convention to make mandatory what to me was a matter of personal conviction gave me some pause.
But what was merely an honest concern in early 2000, by March 2000 had become real and honest alarm. When I got to seminary I was confronted with the acceptance of cohabiting, sexually active, gay and lesbian, as well as heterosexual, students. I witnessed first hand what can only be considered racist condescension by white affluent American students who ridiculed--albeit "politely"--the conservative and biblical beliefs of the poorer African students, students who came from such countries as Nigeria and Ghana. I endured the gutting of the liturgy I had come to love so as to remove any sort of language that might refer to God or Jesus in masculine terms. Having come from a conservative and theologically sound Episcopal diocese and parish, I had to endure in silence the scorn, derision and ridicule my bishop was subjected to by students who were clearly not his moral or intellectual equal.
There was no acclimation. It was a sudden and excruciating drenching in a theological world where humans are the measure of all things, where the only thing that counts is power and the political tools by which to wield it. No doubt the pain of the experience shows clearly. But don't mistake me: there were godly men and women who were part of the seminary while I was there. I started an online email group for them. Nevertheless, we were by far the minority.
And it wasn't just the seminary. The Episcopal Church's General Convention that year (2000) passed a resolution accepting non-married "monogamous" relationships, such as cohabitation, as the moral and pastoral equivalent of marriage. In the couple of years since, heretic bishops have utilized church law in such a way as to oust conservative and traditional priests from their parishes, while in the same diocese, a priest convicted of a lewd public act has been allowed to retain his ministry.
I was ready to quit after my first term at the seminary. But ever since my dad refused to let me quit football until the season was over (of course, I didn't quit, and kept returning every autumn till I graduated high school), I've only allowed myself once or twice not to see something through to the end. So I hung in there, hoping it would get better; or failing that, hoping I might find a way to influence change. Neither happened. So on Christmas Eve morning 2001 I listed about twenty reasons why I could not continue to seek ordination in the Episcopal Church. Less than a week later, I told Anna I was not going to seek to be a priest any longer. "Good," she said. "You're making the right decision."
Mine is a life blessed with very few regrets. I've certainly committed my share of sins, and I still wince at the memory of some of them. But as far as big "life" decisions go, I've not got a lot I feel any regret over. I do regret not being an exchange student to Germany when I was given the chance in high school. I regret not planning my education after Ozark a little better. But by God's grace, for most of the rest of my life I've lived with as much integrity as a sinner such as myself can live. So when it comes to my decision to become confirmed in the Episcopal Church, given the description above, it may come as a surprise to say that any regret I feel is a mitigated one. That is to say, I can't just simply write off the previous six years and say, "Whew! I'm glad that's over. Now to move on."
Part of the reason is that it was a decision I made with my eyes wide open, with as much honesty and good faith as I could muster, and with some understanding of possible consequences. In turning down the exchange student opportunity, I pretty much acted out of fear of the unknown. In not planning my graduate education better I allowed myself to remain too confused too long about my vocation, and lost some valuable time. But in becoming a part of the Episcopal Church I was acting out my Restoration convictions and seeking something greater than the "Jesus and Me" syndrome that plagues much of modern Protestant Christianity.
Do I regret the pain, frustration and sorrow Anna and I went through at the hands of so-called "Christians"? Yes. Do I regret the temporary loss of meaningful worship, shared spiritual struggle with brothers and sisters in Christ, and a place of holy service? Yes.
But had I not gone through these past six years I would have also lost a lot of valuable insights, and lost the opportunity to sharpen and clarify my understanding of the Gospel, the Church, theology and grace. I now know better why it is important to insist on the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. I know more so now what it means to have a healthy understanding of the awful destructiveness of sin. I know better what it means to insist on holiness as the characterization of God and of our life in him. There is a great deposit of faith that has once for all been given to the Church. Having gone through this wilderness in the last six years, I now know how precious that is. And how precious the friendships I've made in the Episcopal Church.
I also know now more deeply God's providential care of us. He does redeem us, and all our acts, frustrating Satan by turning evil inside out. The pain and consequences are still there, but so is grace. And I know which is more powerful. In all things he works for the good of those who love him and are called by his name. Or as the Orthodox liturgy puts it: "He is good and loves mankind." What more do we need?
Although I never left my Restoration roots, many will have perceived me to have done so. I'll not argue the point. But if I have left my roots, I think I have now returned to them in a much deeper and original way than once was the case. Those who will have taken offense at my confirmation in the Episcopal Church will likely not understand where this journey has now brought me. God is utterly redemptive. Humans may sometimes fail to be. So be it.
Perhaps the ultimate test of regret is to answer this question: "If I had it to do over again, would I?" Knowing what I now know about the Episcopal Church? No, I would not have chosen to be confirmed in the Episcopal Church. But knowing what it is I have gained, which arguably may not have been gained in any other way? Yes, by all means.
[From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese webpage]
A Response by Metropolitan Maximos, Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh, to the Anglican General Convention’s Election of Rev. Gene Robinson as
Anglican Bishop of New Hampshire
‘THIS BODY HAS DENIED THE PLAIN TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE…’
-Anglican Bishop Robert Duncan
All conservative Christians, better yet, all Christians who believe in the Bible as the eternal, unchangeable Word of God, agree with the Anglican Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Pa., and the 19 conservative Anglican Bishops who rejected the decision of the recent Anglican General Convention in Minneapolis, Minn., to elect an openly gay clergyman to become an Anglican Bishop.
In the words of Bishop Duncan, “This body has denied the plain teaching of scripture and the moral consensus of the church throughout the ages. This body has divided itself from millions of Anglican Christians throughout the world.” Bishop Duncan reflects the reaction of not only the conservative Anglicans in the U.S.A., but also the reaction of all Christians who believe in the infallible message of the Holy Word of God treasured in the Bible and preserved in the Holy Tradition of the Church for the past over two thousand years.
In the statement of the 19 conservative Anglican Bishops which Bishop Duncan read to the convention following the election by the Bishops, Bishop Duncan said: “With grief too deep for words, the Bishops who stand before you must reject this action. We are calling upon the primates of the Anglican Communion, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury… to intervene in the pastoral emergency that has overtaken us.” In response, Rowan Williams, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, issued a statement in England, saying “difficult days lie ahead for the Anglican Church.”
The strange thing is that the gay Anglican clergyman, Gene Robinson, agrees that his opponents are right that his election “was contrary to the church’s traditional teaching against homosexuality.” But, he added: “Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and scripture does not necessarily make it wrong. We worship a living God, and God leads us into the truth.”
Unfortunately, for Rev. Robinson and his like-minded Anglicans, this statement is a betrayal of the only One Truth, which is that of the Bible, kept and perennially taught by the Holy Tradition of the Church, led by God’s Holy Spirit.
In his responses to the CNN interviewers, Rev. Robinson called upon the Spirit Who, Rev. Robinson alleged, reveals “new” truths, and he expressed pridefully that he was created gay by God.
The Holy Spirit, according to Holy Orthodoxy and the sound teaching of all Christians who follow the Bible, reveals only One Truth, the Truth of Christ. “He will lead you into the whole truth” (John 16:13), are the words of the Lord Jesus regarding the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit does not “reveal new truths”, which oppose the teaching of Christ. This is what is called betrayal of the Truth of Christ
Also, to say that God created people gay, is to say that God created people sinful. Sin is rejection of God and His Holy Will. For the Bible and the Holy Tradition of the Church, which are the source of Christian Truth according to Holy Orthodoxy and conservative Christians, to say that God created “sin” (that is rejection of God) is tantamount to blasphemy. God created sinners, who oppose Him by their sin; but, He did not create His own rejection!
The problem with this mentality of some Anglican thinkers is that they have, alas, created a false “source” of truth, which is, actually, fallacy, counteracting the true and only one source of Truth, the Bible in the Holy Tradition of the Church. This “new” but false, “source of truth” is called, in the language of these thinkers, “experience.” Orthodox members in the now defunct Orthodox-Anglican Consultation in the U.S.A. remember Anglican thinkers calling upon this “source” of “experience”: the reason why the sacrament of Holy Chrismation or Confirmation, in the contemporary Anglican perception of those thinkers, is not a sacrament anymore, is that this sacrament is not part of today’s Anglican experience…
The real reason that the dialogue between Orthodox and Anglicans in the U.S.A. stopped, was not as much the unilateral action of the “ordination” of women to the Holy Priesthood, or the unfounded accusation of Anglican people like Bishop Spong that St. Paul was a homosexual, or the Anglican liberalism regarding human sexuality, same-sex “marriages” and the like. It was expected that openly gay “clergymen” will be promoted to “bishops”, and lesbians will not only become “priests”, but also “bishops.” It was their belief that, if today’s “experience” is such, then, allegedly, the “Spirit” of God blesses it!
Do these Anglican thinkers realize that an evil spirit may be behind all these things? What the Orthodox denounce in these false practices and teachings is that, they are the practices and teachings which oppose the Will of God as taught by the Bible, thus, being the result of our fallen, sinful, human “experience!”
The Archbishop of Canterbury is right: “difficult days lie ahead for the Anglican Church.” Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh gave the reason for it: the recent Anglican Convention of Minneapolis, and all like-minded Anglicans, have “denied the plain teaching of scripture and the moral consensus of the church throughout the ages.” Nothing can replace this teaching, which is the teaching of the Spirit of God promised and given by Christ to the Christian Church. As far as the “teaching” of “experience,” advocated by the Anglican modernists, let us listen to the infallible words of Saint Paul: “even if an angel from heaven teaches you a different Gospel from the one I have taught you, let him be anathema!” (Galatians 1:8).
For reasons which my family and close friends know, this will be my last public comments on this Convention for some time to come. Although it is pretty obvious that I haven't considered myself an Episcopalian for some time (how many times have I referred to myself as an "Orthodox wannabe"?), it is the last church home I have known. It occurred to me as I followed the high profile resolutions how many emotions and feelings I still have about the Episcopal Church. In many ways it was the first church home I chose as an adult. And the deep friendship I have with the parish priest who oversaw my entry into ECUSA remains a treasured gift. I had a bishop whose courageous actions and words, and deep abiding faith I admired and knew I could trust. I had a parish-supported askesis of prayer, fasting, liturgy and Scripture which made significant changes in my ecclesiology/Christology, sacramental understanding and overall faith. Martin Thornton's Benedictine three-fold askesis of Eucharist, office and private prayers was very much my own. I would never have known of such a tool if it weren't for the library at Trinity parish.
With so much for which to be thankful, this week was the emotional equivalent of watching a slow-motion car-wreck in which your loved one was a front-seat passenger: not in control of the direction of the vehicle, and unable to stop its destructive path. I couldn't help but post the news items, but did so with the heaviest of hearts. Like Fr. David and Jeff, I sincerely couldn't believe that the Episcopal Church was being forced to make a doctrinal and ecclesial judgment not through dialogue and contemplation but through political majority. The majority may have felt they "won" over the issue of homosexuality, but it is clearer than ever that the consequences of their decision will be deep, painful and long-lasting and involve the rest of the Anglican Communion, for which little public thought seems to have been given by the majority. I wasn't around for the women's ordination issue, but by all accounts of those who were, this one is different. I'm sorry, Barbara Harris, apparently you were wrong.
I have been blessed or cursed (depending on how you view it) with an active conscience. There are just some boundaries that I cannot cross without committing existential and theological suicide. There are decisions I've made some months ago, so though the pain of this recent week and a half is surprisingly strong and deep, it was not unlooked for, and medicine is being applied. In fact, unless my wife goes into labor overnight, I'll be going for a checkup tomorrow morning.