Letters
received during the week of 28 October 2003
Proud to
be members of an inclusive church
I AM A
RECENT ADDITION TO THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION, having failed to convince
myself
of Roman Catholicism for most of my life.
I finally feel like I'm on the right track. Picked a great time
to join, though, didn't I? Talk of schism is everywhere.
What
a shame. We are so quick to draw lines and separate ourselves
from one another. We are so quick to justify our point of view
and then state with great certainty that we are the ones most
closely following the will of God.
I
don't know if sexual orientation is part of our genetic code,
if it's imposed by our early life history, or if it's a conscious
choice made some sunny afternoon, and I don't really care. If,
in Christ, there is no Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, etc.,
then there is good reason to believe that there is also no straight
nor gay. I was truly surprised, naive as it sounds, to see the
uproar surrounding the pending election of a gay bishop.
Well,
not much has changed in 2000 years. We claim that love for all
is our highest aspiration, yet we so readily withhold it for
whatever the reason du jour.
Homosexuals
have been coming through our doors and putting on the collar
all along. Episcopalians just happen to be the first to acknowledge
that fact in this manner. My wife and I are proud to be members
of a church that welcomes everyone's participation, and where
skin color, bank account, gender, sexual orientation, and political
persuasion are not as important as a person's desire to follow
Christ. We believe, as you point out, that we are all one in
Christ. Thank you.
David
Bragassa
St. Michael's Episcopal
Richmond, Virginia, USA
dbragassa@hotmail.com
27 October 2003
We really
weren't trying to incite anyone
THANKS
FOR YOUR INCITEFUL DESCRIPTION of splinter
groups. I was heartened to see you quote from the Bible, a book that
I too like
to
read
.. even the portions I don't care for.
Bill
Kotlan
Diocese of Texas, USA
bkotlan@houston.rr.com
28 October 2003
Missionary
to my own parish
AS ONE
WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING IN DALLAS, I have followed fairly closely what the popular press, both here and
abroad,
has been
saying. I neither heard nor saw any of the anger that has been
reported, but rather a resolute desire to recapture the faith
of our fathers - to make the Great Commandment and the Great
Commission the central focus of our Church. We, like many others
in ECUSA, have veered from that toward people-serving (we deserve
a pat on the back) ministries. In Dallas we repented of our complicity
and said, no more!
If
ECUSA has been doing such a wonderful job for Christ, why has
membership tumbled from a high of about 3.5 million in 1966 to
2,3 million today while our population has increased significantly?
The Great Commandment is not being served well here in America.
All
organizations have central goals, visions, missions, tenets which
guide them. When these become broken or dysfunctional, the organization
ceases to be what it was. This is not to say it is better or
worse, but it is different!
I
now consider myself to be a missionary to my own Parish after
being a member for 39 years. I will be redirecting (not decreasing)
some of my giving to those bodies which I believe will better
support my understanding of scripture.
If
this schism does eventuate, I don't believe God will prefer either
side, because if He did, then which denomination do you suppose
He likes best now? Are we Anglicans somehow superior to others?
If longevity counts, the Roman Catholics win easily.
So
finally, I believe we all choose our churches based on a large
number of factors and none of us should feel superior to any
other of us.
Clark
Oster
Christ Episcopal - Cedar Rapids
Swisher, Iowa, USA
ostersia@juno.com
28 October 2003
Passion for
the real call of the church
I ENJOYED
YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT THE QUESTION of what name the party who wants to split the Episcopal Church may choose
in
order
to
convey where they stand on the issues. If Christians spent half
as much time with half as much passion on the real call of the
church, rather than worrying about being "right", think of the
hungry children that would be fed, the homeless that would be
sheltered, and the wave of peace and justice that would break
out on the earth.
Cheryl
Murray
Dallas, Texas, USA
28 October 2003
There's no
one here to cast the first stone
YOUR OPENING
LETTER IS WAY OFF BASE. The
root cause of the dissension is not based on some predisposition of a
schism
and I am truly
shocked at your comments about the dissent being politically
based and not faith based. How absurd! I think you described
the motives of those promoting Rev. [Mr] Robinson, not those
opposing him. The opposing view is based solely on faith. Our
purpose in this life is to love God with all our heart, and all
of our mind, and all of our soul, and to love our neighbor as
ourselves. But it also teaches that as we should not sin, neither
should we condone sin. Loving a person and condoning sin are
two entirely separate actions. We love our children, but we do
not condone the wrong they do.
Rebecca
W. Riggins
Rocky Mount, North Carolina, USA
28 October 2003
Who does
Jesus say it is all right to exclude?
IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT, IT IS CLEAR that the only
affirmation necessary to become Christian is the statement 'Jesus is
Lord' (the homological
acclamation.) The other criterion for Christians was to live
together and meet with other Christians regularly. Developed
creedal formulas and detailed rules of membership and life came
only as the Church gradually transformed into an institution
(which by definition has its own self-perpetuation as its first
rule, like every other institution.)
The
Church developed into an institution as the prospect of an immediate
Second Coming gradually receded. That's when people decided it
was necessary for them to be in charge (claiming various conflicting
types of guidance by the Holy Spirit), and when the practice
of living as if Christ himself were truly and immediately present
among us began to dwindle among the majority of people. Admittedly,
this is no easy task; but the world would recognize Christ among
us much more clearly if we behaved as though we know he is actually
here.
Looking
at the New Testament once again, my friend Gwendolyn Scott poses
an interesting challenge: Read any one of the synoptic gospels
straight through, and at the end, tell us who Jesus says it is
all right to exclude. The answer is simple: no one. So to any
who propose schism, I can only say that according to the Bible
we Christians are meant to live together in Christian love, excluding
no one, and all the rest is commentary. Let judgment cease: it
belongs only to God.
The
Reverend Peggy Blanchard
Kingston, Tennessee, USA
revpeg@hotmail.com
30 October 2003
Morality
or moral blackmail?
I WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I would
tend to a personal bias in favour of the Episcopal Church.
This
is not because of any great affection on my part for homosexuality.
Indeed I personally would like the age of consent for homosexuality
to still be 21 in the UK; it was recently reduced to 18 by the
Labour government. What consenting homosexuals over 21 do in
private is up to them. However the "grooming" of young men under
21 by older men is a definite abomination.
On
the more purely theological front, it seems illogical to stay
in communion with other anglican provinces when they have woman
priests and woman bishops, and "closet" homosexual priests, but
then say you are out of communion because these homosexual priests
become more open and honest about their sexuality.
The
real motive seems to be to exert a conservative stranglehold
on the Anglican Church, using the fact that most conservatives
are based in the developing world. "You are against the Third
World" is a cry I have heard a lot recently. No Christian who
has read one of Christ's main injunctions - "Preach my Gospel
unto all the world" - would even start to countenance such a
thought. However if developing countries are saying that they
will only countenance co-operation with the developed world if
the developed world follows a conservative moral agenda they
are applying a form of totally un-christian and totally unacceptable
moral blackmail.
Alan
Houston
Belfast, Northern Ireland
31 October 2003
The Sunday
worshiping masses feel isolated
WHEN I
SPENT SIX MONTHS IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, some 25 years ago, the facility to worship at a church in communion with
my
own
was
something
I valued, although - like having a Queen - it is hard to explain
why.
But
the UK and USA are moving in their own directions and the differences
between our cultures are now far greater than those between our
spellings! The issue of the moment would seem to be whether the
way in which the Holy Spirit speaks to those who meet in Christ’s
name, or pray privately, depends on the particular culture of
their nation, or even their region within it.
Throughout
England, many lifelong Sunday worshipers are totally perplexed
by the views on sexuality that are developing in the Houses of
Bishops on both sides of the pond. A lifetime of spiritual leadership
about the responsibilities that derive from our unique status
as the conceptual thinkers in the animal kingdom (made in His
image and knowing right from wrong) is being questioned.
The
Holy Spirit appears to be telling most individual worshippers
not to change their understanding of how our bodies should be
used as the temples of the Holy Spirit so that the Kingdom might
be spread. Thus, not surprisingly, they find unsettling the change
of viewpoint, or even the ambivalence, of those chosen to guide
them in interpreting Scripture and turning our souls to God
Certainly,
we accept that some of the edicts of the Bible are specific to
a particular time. For example, the strictures on usury related
to a situation where bankers were a small oligopoly; in our times,
pricing drugs out of the reach of the third world might be the
equivalent. Hence, the text slinging that is going on between
liberals and evangelicals merely makes us look foolish in the
eyes of gentiles. It cannot be spiritual.
For
many, the basic concepts of our faith - as derived from the many
teachings of the Bible - not only remain unchanged, but are supported
by the Holy Spirit working daily within our souls as we try to
listen. Nevertheless, it is clear that many are hearing and revealing
divergent new concepts about how our bodies should honour their
creator. Furthermore, they are being led to use their talents
to strongly promote the new revelations. Sadly, the leaders amongst
those who doubt these to be true revelations from God resort
to the meaningless text slinging, referred to above. The Sunday
worshiping masses feel isolated, with no real champion of their
beliefs.
This
isolation is particularly so in many parts of England, where
the laity has no effective structure to voice their collective
concerns. Ninety percent of churches, deaneries and dioceses
provide no facility for the laity to discuss these issues meaningfully.
A ‘laity conference’ is usually eighty percent presentation of
an issue by the clergy, followed by group discussion of a narrow
range of topics which skirt the main issues. It seems as if ‘divide
and rule’ is the order of the day! Are the clergy and bishops
scared that the media might get hold of a shared laity concern,
which they feel might be as divisive as fascism?
Because
of this it is hard to know where are the strongest and the broken
links within the Anglican Communion. Is it a rural / city divide,
rather than C of E / ECUSA? Do the laity in sheep raising Cumbria,
UK hear the same unchanging revelations as worshipping ranchers
in Wyoming? Is it those in central parishes in both London and
New York that have received the newer revelation? Are the circumstances
within cities such as to require particular interpretations of
God’s love and thus require a spiritual leadership which embraces
love styles which rural Christians can never associate with the
temple of the Holy Spirit
Michael
Jackson
St Luke's, Slyne-with-Hest, Diocese of Blackburn
Lancaster, ENGLAND
mike-de-hest@talk21.com
1 November 2003
A toast to
the future, whatever it may be
WHATEVER
HAPPENS ON ALL SAINTS SUNDAY in New Hampshire,
let's take comfort that at least we are behaving better since the Arian-Athanasian
controversies. And should there be formal breaks in provincial
relationships, nonetheless we remain one still in a mystical
unity in God's kairos. And no doubt ECUSA still holds a special
place in the hearts of many in provinces that has chosen to part
communion and there we have a communion of heart which structures
cannot break apart.
Transitions
are always that proverbial birth pang and when the sound of fury
dies down, I have no doubt that we will emerge with a communion,
somewhat different and perhaps uncharted, but nonetheless richer
because we have chosen to struggle with issues rather than pretend
they do not exist.
A
toast to the future of our beloved Anglican Communion.
Lee
Tuck-Leong
Saint Andrew's Cathedral, SINGAPORE
tuckleong-lee@stsams.org
2 November 2003
Sophomoric
names
I FOUND
THE LEAD ARTICLE of 26
October 2003 regarding a possible split
in the World-wide Anglican Communion to be demeaning and condescending
of those you disagreed with.
In this article
you claim a group of Anglicans has sought for years to bring schism.
You then suggest sophomoric names by which those you disagree with might
wish to define themselves.
Nowhere in
your article is there an acknowledgment that this situation has been
bought about by the unilateral actions of the Episcopal Church in the
US and by the New Westminster Diocese in British Columbia.
I suggest
that if you truly wish to work for unity within the Communion as you
claim, you re-think your method to bring such to fruition, rather than
as you have done, to exacerbate its divisions.
(The Venerable)
Ron Ashford, Archdeacon Wanganui
St Peter's - Gonville, Wanganui, New Zealand
Wanganui, New Zealand
Ron.Ashford@watchdog.net.nz
2 November 2003
Editor's
note: we suggested sophomoric names for both sides, not just the one
we disagreed with.
Thank you,
New Hampshire
DEAR MEMBERS
OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF NEW HAMPSHIRE and
the United States,
We are writing
to thank you on behalf of our family and humanity everywhere for your
courage. We hope and pray that the triumph of love over fear made visible
by this act of consecration of Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire
is a giant step toward the acceptance of our differences that make this
county so rich and vibrant.
Blessings
too you and prayers for peace in the world,
Martin, Jane
and Clayton Kilmer
Cottage Grove OR 97424
2 November 2003
Earlier
letters
We launched our
'Letters to AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are
in our archives.
|
