Letters
from 5 to 12 November 2006
Like
all letters to the editor everywhere, these letters are
the opinions of the writers and not Anglicans Online.
We publish letters that we think will be of interest
to our readers, whether we agree with them or not. If
you'd like to write a letter of your own, click here.
+Bob
Duncan's missing church...
Your
comment on Bob Duncan's remarks contained this phrase, "The
chapel he experienced as a student at Trinity College
in Hartford, College in the late 1960s."
As
the Chaplain of Trinity College from 1964 to 1990,
I assure you that, although Bob Duncan was quite
active in the Chapel, what he experienced there and
then is very much in continuity with that now being
realized here and now in the Episcopal Church. We
were doing the new liturgies, peace masses, draft
counselling, arguing for the ordination of women,
the first meeting of gay students at Trinity took
place in the Chapel's choir room, etc. etc. Drew
Smith of Connecticut was a senior crucifer a couple
of years before Duncan graduated.
I
have frequently wondered what church he finds has
been taken from him. Perhaps it was his sunday school
in the Diocese of New Jersey.
The
Reverend. Canon Alan C. Tull, Th.D,
Retired, attends and preaches at St. Mark's Cathedral,
Salt Lake City
Orem, Utah, USA
a.c.tull@usa.net
7 November 2006
...absolutely
not Trinity College Chapel
Your
remark that perhaps the church Bishop Duncan had
taken away was "The chapel he experienced as a student
at Trinity College in Hartford, College in the late
1960s" is simply wrong.
A
1959 graduate, I have been in touch with Trinity
on a continuing basis. In the late 1960s I served
as assistant academic dean of the nearby Hartford
Seminary and was in frequent touch with the College.
Neither
the Department of Religion nor the Chapel (separate
college divisions) reflect anything about Duncan.
The
Reverend Canon Dr. Richard T. Nolan, retired
St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Lake Worth, Florida
West Palm Beach, Florida, USA
9 November 2006
Names,
meaning, and power
Thanks for
that wonderful
sermon from Wellington. As for what's in a name.
Quite a lot, for the story of the name of the American
Church is much more complex than the letters
of Bishop Whalon and Dr Trempers might suggest. That story
is traced in a fascinating and learned way by Robert
W. Shoemaker in "The Origin and Meaning of the name
'Protestant Episcopal'", published in 1959. The shorter
name was authorised soon after, in 1967, but a change
had missed out by one vote back in 1910! And the
use of the word "Protestant" was questioned as early
as 1807.
Oddly
enough, in England the name "Protestant" at one time
was used almost exclusively of members of the Established
Church and the word remains in some of the Church's
official formularies, notably in the Order for a
Coronation.
In
the US, "Episcopalian" came mainly from another minority
Church, that of Scotland. But members of the American
Church have in practice been described in various
other ways such as "Churchmen", "Protestant Catholicks" (1641),
the "Orthodox", "Reformed Catholics", and "American
Catholics" - although not with as many names as are
found now among the numerous tiny "continuing" churches,
sadly separated from communion with Canterbury.
"Anglican" for
a long time was rare although Thomas Jefferson used
it in 1788 of church people in Virginia. One might
note that the "ecclesia Anglicana" of Magna Carta
(= English Church) is not as old as "ecclesia Angliae" (=
Church of England) used, for example, by St Anselm,
with "chirche of Engelond" itself becoming common
from the later 14th century. (But save us from AnglicanISM!)
I
guess you are right about "Church of America", but
the Church of Ireland did not change its name when
disestablished, and it is also a minority Church
though less so than the US Episcopalian. In Australia,
the word "Anglican" does remind us of our vital link
to the See of Canterbury (which some in Sydney would
seek to weaken). On the other hand, many of the ordinary
C.of E. patients I meet in hospital every week do
not use or even recognise the term "Anglican". "Church
of England" still works, although it is interesting
to note that "Episcopal" (as well as "English" -but
not "Anglican") was often used in Australia in the
19th century for what was officially for a good part
of the century "the United Church of England and
Ireland". And today some at least would prefer "Episcopal".
I
for one, eccentrically, think we should simply call
our Church (as was suggested in the 1890s and again
by Archbishop Fisher in the 1950s) "the Church of
Australia". Roman Catholic numbers are now larger,
but Roman Catholics belong to one international Church.
Ours is a autonomous national Church, by far the
largest purely Australian one, even though part of
the wider Communion. Such a name, I think, would
ring bells. It would remove the disadvantages (the
un-Australian associations) of the names "Anglican" and "C.
of E.". As with "the Church of Ireland", it need
not suggest any exclusive or exalted position. And
it would be a reminder that the little Church founded
by Richard and Mary Johnson among the convicts and
marines at Sydney Cove in 1788 is the "canonical",
first, and most historic Church of our land, worthy
of its members' service and affection, and deserving
of loyalty to its own broad and deep heritage and
tradition.
The
Reverend John Bunyan
St John the Baptist's, Canberra & King's Chapel Boston
Campbelltown, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
jrbpilgrim@bocnet.com.au
6 November 2006
Adjustable
Jesus?
Women
have been leaders in the church from
the get-go.
We've
always had homosexual believers, sometimes in the
pulpit, who have had to deal with their own sins
and weaknesses like everyone else. And the church
has often reflected the social errors of its time,
whether it was slavery in the past or the easily
adjustable moral mechanism of our time. But all of
this is business as usual and not the real issue.
Recently
I visited an ECUSA church and heard from the pulpit
that we are Christians only by accident of geography
and that God has revealed Himself otherwise in other
places. Thus, if we know Jesus alone, our God is
too small. I left that parish that morning never
to return, thinking I had lost my church, at least
that particular venue. You rightly chastise the Bishop
of Pittsburgh for that pronoun, pointing out that
it is God’s church. Well, then, let me say
that someone had taken God’s church away from
Him.
It
may be true, as you write, that "Stasis, in
creation, is death." We have always changed
and we will continue to do so. However, some things
don't change — namely the One who is the
same, yesterday, today, and forever. I've come
to believe, rather than merely to suspect, that the
real agenda in much of the change in the ECUSA has
nothing to do with women or gay marriage, which are
decoys. The ultimate goal for many who will never
admit it and may not even know it about themselves
is a new Jesus — one who is a little more adjustable.
In such circumstances, creation is death and stasis
is life.
Don
E. Thompson
All Saints Episcopal Church, Bakersfield, California
Buttonwillow, California, USA
7 November 2006
'A
theological question for our modern age'
The
investiture of the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal
Church (USA) was a wonderful celebration for the
whole Church of Christ and a witness to the possibility
of grace and reconciliation between all Christians.
Like many, the people of Saint Peter's and I gathered
together to watch the service in our parish hall
through the internet. So many of the images of the
liturgy were striking, most especially the presentation
of oil by another Christian Bishop, Muslim and Jew.
We
chose to participate fully in the experience and
to share communion. The electronic experience of
this liturgy begs a theological question for our
modern age: How to consecrate? Should a local celebrant
celebrate concurrently? Should we commune from the
reserve sacrament? Should the prayer for additional
consecration be used after the PB began distributing?
Could the Eucharistic prayer be said to consecrate
both in Washington and locally?
This
question has sparked an interesting conversation
with both other clergy and members of Saint Peter's.
I am unfamiliar with any guidelines circulated before
this event, but it would seem to be a worthwhile
pursuit to ponder.
As
always, a deep debt of thanks and gratitude to AO
and your ministry.
The
Reverend. Jeffrey Ross
St. Peter's Episcopal Church
Lewes, Delaware, USA
frjeffross@aol.com
6 November 2006
Fire
and water
I
have been a regular reader of Anglicans Online since
1999 and I was surprised at your "attitude" in the
issue for the week of November 5th.
When
I signed both ordination vows (as Deacon and as Priest)
I vowed that I did indeed believe the Old and New
Testaments to be the Word of God. In all charity,
I cannot see how you can't realize that the Episcopal
Church is "revising" those Scriptures.
I
do not want to appear more spiritual, but Jesus plainly
said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." How
can our new Presiding Bishop say that all people
can reach God through their own human experience
of the divine? I wonder what the early Christian
martyrs would say to her? As
the fire was lighted at their feet to turn them into
a human torch for believing salvation is in Jesus
Christ, I wonder if they would rather have said, "This
is foolish. I am dying for something that's not necessary
anyway. Those people can get to God without Jesus;
why should I suffer untold agony for a faith that's
not important for everyone? (Even though Jesus said
it was for ALL people.)
Your
implications that the Episcopal Church has not changed
in the essentials, as Bishop Duncan claims, do not
seem to "hold water" in my opinion.
The
Reverend Roger A. Stinnett
St. Philip's Episcopal Church
Joplin, Missouri, USA
7 November 2006
'A
living being to whom I belong'
Thank
you so much for the words in your front-page letter.
While I always turn to AO the first thing on Monday
morning, delayed this week by being airborne much
of Monday, I especially appreciate this week's column
as it gave me to thought. And I realized that we
can never speak of MY church as an object belonging
to ME but only as a living being to whom I belong.
As the Church is never a thing, it cannot be taken
away, though indeed we may depart from her.
I
was airborne Monday, returning from the East Coast
where I visited my granddaughter and witnessed Bishop
Katharine's Investiture and Seating. I can hardly
wait to read your comment on those glorious occasions.
Our church, the one we belong to which does not belong
to us, is indeed alive and very, well.
Again,
thank you for your continuing efforts to keep the
matrix of the Anglican Communion in communication
(I attended the workshop "The Compass Rose and the
Matrix" led by Mark Harris at the November 3rd "Faithful
Gathering of the Episcopal Majority" so am thinking
in both/and terms.
Lee
Lemmon
Trinity Episcopal Church, Los Angeles
Huntington Park, California, USA
leelemmon@earthlink.net
7 November 2006
The
definite article and that state university in Ohio
Dr.
Catherine TREMPER of Hilliard, Ohio writes about
the "branding" with
reference to The Episcopal Church and The Ohio State
University. She is incorrect in that it was a recent
change to refer to Ohio State as "The Ohio State
University."
I
graduated in 1966 and it was The Ohio State then
and it has been since the beginning. The phrase means
that it is The State University of Ohio.
A
Buckeye transplant in Texas,
The
Reverend Stephen Secaur
St. Paul's Episcopal Church
Woodville, Texas, USA
scsecaur@yahoo.com
7 November 2006
What
do you want from a church?
All
that a person — who feels he must join a church — can
do is to decide what he must have from that church.
With some it is the sacraments, with some the ritual,
with many the fellowship, and with others it is a
club they have joined. In
the last case (and in some cases, for those seeking
fellowship), it is not terribly important what goes
on in the church proper. If the sermon is bearable-to-good
and the food afterwards is good, they will stick.
To those who really need the sacraments and have
decided that they fit into the "Episcopal or Anglican" Church,
change comes harder.
I
also have lived through the changing prayers books,
women in the priesthood, all the worry over sexuality,
and who is or can be in a state of grace (as if we
would know). In the end, each person must look at
what the church is to him, make sure that it is what
Jesus promised, and then settle in for a just and
reasonable conversation with fellow communicants.
Jesus
must have wondered, too, if he was meant to preach
to the people we meet in the Gospels. They were certainly
not of one mind before they met Him. It was after...
JC
Eriksen
St Clare's Episcopal Church
Blairsville, Georgia, USA
9 November 2006
Earlier
letters
We launched
our 'Letters to AO' section on 11 May 2003. All published
letters are in our
archives.
|
