My friend Marie, who comments from time to time on Anglican Centrist, called my attention to a post on the blog of Kevin Holdsworth, Provost of St. Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow, about what's going on right now in the Episcopal Church. I thought Father Holdsworth must be channeling Father Jones when I read this:
The American church seems to have decided that honesty is the best policy. They say simply where they are at with events which have become so toxic within Anglicana. They say that they remain fully committed to the Anglican Communion and also that their methods of selecting bishops remain those of their constitution and canons. This means that those who must consent to Episcopal elections must apply their own conscience when giving consents. The Anglican world cannot simply assume that the American church will reject a bishop who happens to be gay, just because Rowan Williams (or anyone else) asks them to.
That does not mean that there will be a sudden rush of gay bishops. Nor should it. It simply means that the American church is being true to who it is.
Certainly, Father Holdsworth could be speaking for me, when he says:
The Americans have not walked away from the Anglican Communion. They have walked away a little from the idea that the conflict over LGBT issues would disappear if everyone did what Rowan Williams said and adopted the proposals of the Windsor Report. They were right to do so.
The Windsor process has little currency now. The notion that world Anglicanism could be held together by asking churches to discriminate against gay people is shot to pieces.
We need to return to the rather more basic notion that it is devotion to Jesus which holds the potential to unite Christians, not devotion to prejudice. And we must thank God that the Americans have shown us how to make that real.
After reading the harsh words of Bishop Wright the other day, it was good to be reminded that we are not alone in the world. Read the whole thing.
By Eric Von Salzen
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
What Does it All Mean?
With the passage of D025 and C056, many are wondering: What does it all mean?
In a nutshell, it seems to me that what D025 and C056 mean is that The Episcopal Church has told the truth about who and where it is on the controversial issue of fully including gay Christians living in nuptial unions into all orders within the priesthood of all believers. It also tells the truth about where the Episcopal Church is as regards our desire to remain in full communion with the other churches of the Anglican Communion.
The truth on both questions is this: we are not exactly sure yet.
We are not exactly sure what the future will bring for us on both things. We recognize that within our own body is a degree of opinion that varies from staunch support/opposition to staunch ambivalence. As such, D025 essentially upholds a degree of local option on the question of ordaining Christians in same-sex marriage-like unions. It does not in any way guarantee that all or any dioceses will be open to calling and ordaining such persons. (Yes, God calls through the Church.) It does say, however, that the discernment for such is entirely entrusted to dioceses provided they conform with those national canons which are pertinent. In other words, the resolution affirms the status quo ante (before 2006) of how discernment for clerical orders is done.
Does D025 have the effect of 'over-turning' B033? Hard to say in actual fact. B033 was not a 'rule' or a canon, it was a form of urging. Likewise, D025 is not a law either -- it simply reaffirms the sufficiency of the canons vis a vis discernment processes. When it comes right down to it, if a priest were elected to the episcopate whose 'manner of life' was likely to cause difficulty globally, D025 would not have any necessary effect on whether or not said person was consented to by the Standing Committees/House of Bishops and/or General Convention.
Does D025 have the effect of 'looking like' a repudiation of the so-called 'moratorium' sought by Windsor? Of course it does. And likely, in a way, so does C056, which has to do with marriage equality -- which similarly brings us back to a kind of status quo ante 2006 [*see Christopher's important critique of this point in comments below]. Again, it is a resolution which suggests that we support local pastoral options, and are continuing to examine what if any liturgical/canonical revisions would be made at the General Convention level down the road a stretch.
Both of these resolutions, however much they basically reset the clock to somewhere around GC 2000 (with its D039 resolution that triggered the AMiA formation), will be perceived globally as some kind of repudiation of the Windor moratoria. The real question though is, "Does this matter?"
If D025 and C056 represent an effort for the Episcopal Church to tell the truth about where we are (as messy as that is) then truth-telling is called for as to the state of the Anglican Communion.
Facts on the Ground
The fact is that those who most demanded the Windsor moratoria did not accept that we had abided by them -- and they have never made any sincere attempt even to look like they were abiding by the moratorium that applied to them. Indeed, when it comes to facts on the ground, the move
ment that has never done a single thing to abide by Windsor, has many more of them. If The Episcopal Church has one openly partnered gay bishop, and an ongoing practice of local option regarding blessing same-gender couples' unions, the GAFCON movement has created dozens of separatist/schismatic bishops, and have created a continent-size
d new province which is actively soliciting recognition by the Church of England synod to be fully recognized as a province in full communion with the See of Canterbury.
Moreover, if we are telling the truth, whereas The Episcopal Church has essentially gone not forward but "back to where we once were" -- with D025/C056 largely looking like a return to the kinds of resolutions which passed in 1991-2000 General Conventions -- the GAFCON movement has gone way off into an anachronistic future whereby the faith is expressed according to the epistemological, theological, cosmological mindset of late 17th century Britain. Notably, we have seen the full-fledged launch of what will likely be an alternative Anglican communion devoid of those developments in Anglicanism which have arisen since the Oxford Movement.
To be sure, The Episcopal Church is not an exemplary model of the Gospel and the catholic church either. I still hold that we are now, perhaps more than ever, a church convinced of the priority of our autonomy - and I find that troubling at times.
On The Other Hand
Then again, on the other hand, I also recognize that while neither salvation nor discernment of God's will are individualistic endeavors -- there is a part of the process which requires the individual (person or church) to perceive God's vocation even against the opposition of other perso's who likewise are seeking to be faithful.
I do believe that the witness to Christ given by many gay Christians (in various orders of ministry) is a fact in our midst. Their witness to so many of us in the Episcopal Church is also available to many around the Anglican Communion -- and I do believe that people will increasingly come to see that they are proclaiming Christ -- born, crucified, risen and ascended. By being a place where such witness is fostered, the Episcopal Church is, I believe, doing the hard thing (in fact) by standing for a discernment of God's will which does not yet meet easy and widespread approval.
In this, of course, it will remain to be seen whether we are doing something prophetic, or not. If we have decided to stake our selves, our souls, and our bodies on this sense that God is indeed calling for a new thing, (thereby we are perceiving ourselves to have a prophetic vocation), then of course we must do what we believe God is calling us to do. We may of course know that it won't be well or widely received by all. We must of course know that there will come pain and reaction. We must know that -- unlike the people whom Jonah spoke to -- the whole place will not immediate change their ways. We must be willing to receive the reaction against what we perceive to be true -- and to do so graciously and humbly.
Indeed, if we are acting in any way prophetically by passing D025 and C056, we must be prepared to turn the other cheek when the slaps come, and continue to maintain the posture of faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, who was born, died, rose, ascended and will come again as part of the fulfillment of God's plan before the worlds began, to make all things well.
In a nutshell, it seems to me that what D025 and C056 mean is that The Episcopal Church has told the truth about who and where it is on the controversial issue of fully including gay Christians living in nuptial unions into all orders within the priesthood of all believers. It also tells the truth about where the Episcopal Church is as regards our desire to remain in full communion with the other churches of the Anglican Communion.
The truth on both questions is this: we are not exactly sure yet.
We are not exactly sure what the future will bring for us on both things. We recognize that within our own body is a degree of opinion that varies from staunch support/opposition to staunch ambivalence. As such, D025 essentially upholds a degree of local option on the question of ordaining Christians in same-sex marriage-like unions. It does not in any way guarantee that all or any dioceses will be open to calling and ordaining such persons. (Yes, God calls through the Church.) It does say, however, that the discernment for such is entirely entrusted to dioceses provided they conform with those national canons which are pertinent. In other words, the resolution affirms the status quo ante (before 2006) of how discernment for clerical orders is done.
Does D025 have the effect of 'over-turning' B033? Hard to say in actual fact. B033 was not a 'rule' or a canon, it was a form of urging. Likewise, D025 is not a law either -- it simply reaffirms the sufficiency of the canons vis a vis discernment processes. When it comes right down to it, if a priest were elected to the episcopate whose 'manner of life' was likely to cause difficulty globally, D025 would not have any necessary effect on whether or not said person was consented to by the Standing Committees/House of Bishops and/or General Convention.
Does D025 have the effect of 'looking like' a repudiation of the so-called 'moratorium' sought by Windsor? Of course it does. And likely, in a way, so does C056, which has to do with marriage equality -- which similarly brings us back to a kind of status quo ante 2006 [*see Christopher's important critique of this point in comments below]. Again, it is a resolution which suggests that we support local pastoral options, and are continuing to examine what if any liturgical/canonical revisions would be made at the General Convention level down the road a stretch.
Both of these resolutions, however much they basically reset the clock to somewhere around GC 2000 (with its D039 resolution that triggered the AMiA formation), will be perceived globally as some kind of repudiation of the Windor moratoria. The real question though is, "Does this matter?"
If D025 and C056 represent an effort for the Episcopal Church to tell the truth about where we are (as messy as that is) then truth-telling is called for as to the state of the Anglican Communion.
Facts on the Ground
The fact is that those who most demanded the Windsor moratoria did not accept that we had abided by them -- and they have never made any sincere attempt even to look like they were abiding by the moratorium that applied to them. Indeed, when it comes to facts on the ground, the move
ment that has never done a single thing to abide by Windsor, has many more of them. If The Episcopal Church has one openly partnered gay bishop, and an ongoing practice of local option regarding blessing same-gender couples' unions, the GAFCON movement has created dozens of separatist/schismatic bishops, and have created a continent-sized new province which is actively soliciting recognition by the Church of England synod to be fully recognized as a province in full communion with the See of Canterbury.Moreover, if we are telling the truth, whereas The Episcopal Church has essentially gone not forward but "back to where we once were" -- with D025/C056 largely looking like a return to the kinds of resolutions which passed in 1991-2000 General Conventions -- the GAFCON movement has gone way off into an anachronistic future whereby the faith is expressed according to the epistemological, theological, cosmological mindset of late 17th century Britain. Notably, we have seen the full-fledged launch of what will likely be an alternative Anglican communion devoid of those developments in Anglicanism which have arisen since the Oxford Movement.
To be sure, The Episcopal Church is not an exemplary model of the Gospel and the catholic church either. I still hold that we are now, perhaps more than ever, a church convinced of the priority of our autonomy - and I find that troubling at times.
On The Other Hand
Then again, on the other hand, I also recognize that while neither salvation nor discernment of God's will are individualistic endeavors -- there is a part of the process which requires the individual (person or church) to perceive God's vocation even against the opposition of other perso's who likewise are seeking to be faithful.
I do believe that the witness to Christ given by many gay Christians (in various orders of ministry) is a fact in our midst. Their witness to so many of us in the Episcopal Church is also available to many around the Anglican Communion -- and I do believe that people will increasingly come to see that they are proclaiming Christ -- born, crucified, risen and ascended. By being a place where such witness is fostered, the Episcopal Church is, I believe, doing the hard thing (in fact) by standing for a discernment of God's will which does not yet meet easy and widespread approval.
In this, of course, it will remain to be seen whether we are doing something prophetic, or not. If we have decided to stake our selves, our souls, and our bodies on this sense that God is indeed calling for a new thing, (thereby we are perceiving ourselves to have a prophetic vocation), then of course we must do what we believe God is calling us to do. We may of course know that it won't be well or widely received by all. We must of course know that there will come pain and reaction. We must know that -- unlike the people whom Jonah spoke to -- the whole place will not immediate change their ways. We must be willing to receive the reaction against what we perceive to be true -- and to do so graciously and humbly.
Indeed, if we are acting in any way prophetically by passing D025 and C056, we must be prepared to turn the other cheek when the slaps come, and continue to maintain the posture of faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, who was born, died, rose, ascended and will come again as part of the fulfillment of God's plan before the worlds began, to make all things well.
Schism Averted - Archbishop's Decision a Rebuff for High Church Party
The New York Times
London, May 5, 1915.
The Kikuyu controversy, which threatened a year ago to disrupt the Church of England, has been settled here with hardly a ripple, so petty has the fight between high and low church appeared to opposing factions in view of the war. It was settled by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Primate, on the side of toleration, and marks a decisive defeat of the high church party.
Kikuyu is a village in tropical Africa. In June, 1913, a religious conference was held there in a Scotch Presbyterian Church, attended by Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian and Congregational missionaries and also by the two missionary Bishops of the Church of England (Episcopal). On Sept. 30 the Anglican Bishop of Zanzibar, Dr. Weston, issued his famous attack on his brother Bishops, accusing them of heresy and schism because of participating in a service with and administering communion to Nonconformists.
The question then resolved itself into the historic high and low church quarrel. High churchmen claimed that the Anglican Church is a part of the universal, or catholic, church, and as such has nothing to do with the Protestant Church, strictly speaking. They further held that Anglican clergymen cannot join in communion with Nonconformist clergymen, who, in the Anglican view, are not ordained ministers of the universal church, since the principle of Apostolic succession is denied by the Nonconformists. Therefore, Nonconformist ministers are only laymen without religious authority, in the high church view, and association with them would only stand in the way of the Anglican ideal of consolidating the English, the Roman Catholic, and Greek Catholic Churches into one authoritative Church.
The low churchmen rallied to the support of the African Bishops and accused the Bishop of Zanzibar of trying to disrupt the Church in order to enforce mediaeval views of authority which had nothing to do with Christianity.
A conference was held in Lambeth Palace in July, where evidence was taken and submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In his findings, only now made public, the Primate says there is no objection to Bishop Peel of Mombassa and Bishop Willis of Uganda attending a joint Protestant missionary meeting. He declares that although no sanction would be given to the acceptance of communion by members of the Church of England at the hands of an unepiscopally ordained minister, the Anglican Bishops at Kikuyu gave communion to devout Christians under unusual circumstances. The Primate finds their act justified, providing it is not regarded as setting a precedent.
Speaking of the Kikuyu controversy settlement, The Daily News says editorially:
"It is a decisive defeat for the Bishop of Zanzibar and marks an important advance in the attitude of the Church."
London, May 5, 1915.
The Kikuyu controversy, which threatened a year ago to disrupt the Church of England, has been settled here with hardly a ripple, so petty has the fight between high and low church appeared to opposing factions in view of the war. It was settled by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Primate, on the side of toleration, and marks a decisive defeat of the high church party.
Kikuyu is a village in tropical Africa. In June, 1913, a religious conference was held there in a Scotch Presbyterian Church, attended by Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian and Congregational missionaries and also by the two missionary Bishops of the Church of England (Episcopal). On Sept. 30 the Anglican Bishop of Zanzibar, Dr. Weston, issued his famous attack on his brother Bishops, accusing them of heresy and schism because of participating in a service with and administering communion to Nonconformists.
The question then resolved itself into the historic high and low church quarrel. High churchmen claimed that the Anglican Church is a part of the universal, or catholic, church, and as such has nothing to do with the Protestant Church, strictly speaking. They further held that Anglican clergymen cannot join in communion with Nonconformist clergymen, who, in the Anglican view, are not ordained ministers of the universal church, since the principle of Apostolic succession is denied by the Nonconformists. Therefore, Nonconformist ministers are only laymen without religious authority, in the high church view, and association with them would only stand in the way of the Anglican ideal of consolidating the English, the Roman Catholic, and Greek Catholic Churches into one authoritative Church.
The low churchmen rallied to the support of the African Bishops and accused the Bishop of Zanzibar of trying to disrupt the Church in order to enforce mediaeval views of authority which had nothing to do with Christianity.
A conference was held in Lambeth Palace in July, where evidence was taken and submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In his findings, only now made public, the Primate says there is no objection to Bishop Peel of Mombassa and Bishop Willis of Uganda attending a joint Protestant missionary meeting. He declares that although no sanction would be given to the acceptance of communion by members of the Church of England at the hands of an unepiscopally ordained minister, the Anglican Bishops at Kikuyu gave communion to devout Christians under unusual circumstances. The Primate finds their act justified, providing it is not regarded as setting a precedent.
Speaking of the Kikuyu controversy settlement, The Daily News says editorially:
"It is a decisive defeat for the Bishop of Zanzibar and marks an important advance in the attitude of the Church."
C056 as Passed -- Regarding Marriage Equality
- Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further
- Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention; and be it further
- Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further
- Resolved, That bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further
- Resolved, That this Convention honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further
- Resolved, That the members of this Church be encouraged to engage in this effort.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Schism Must Not Be Allowed To Happen - Church Times (UK)
THE SCHISM in the Anglican Communion has been spoken of as an established fact for many years. As a consequence, events such as this week’s vote in the US General Convention effectively to end the moratorium on gay bishops make little different to perceptions of how the Communion now operates. In one sense, the Episcopal Church had little to lose. The moratorium of three years ago was accepted as a painful means to help keep the Church together. But a swath of US conservatives has since left to form the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), thus undermining the moratorium’s purpose. Dr Williams appeared in Anaheim to remind the Convention, by his presence if not so much by his words, that a global relationship still existed; but that relationship, at least from the Episcopal Church’s perspect ive, has of late involved too many warnings and threats. If they were to be hanged anyway, why not for a sheep as for a lamb?
However people view the outcome — and many will welcome the unambiguous acceptance of gay and lesbian people — Tuesday was not the US House of Bishops’ finest hour. Presented with a straightforward motion from the House of Deputies, the Bishops favoured amending it to something more ambiguous. In the event, they simply tacked a phrase about “mystery” to the main motion. Neither was there much theological depth to the debate. Speakers dwelt instead on what might be acceptable to their dioceses, their consciences, or the Communion as a whole.The answer to the last question cannot yet be known, not least because, on the issue of sexuality, the Communion no longer thinks, nor now acts, as a whole. The Windsor process is not completed: it did not restrain the Americans; neither can it be invoked to censure them. Besides, those provinces that object to gay bishops have been out of communion with the US Episcopal Church since the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003. The Episcopal Church has not really broken the Communion any more than it was already.The decision exposes the flaw at the heart of attempts to order the Communion on the basis of single issues. There is no less reason to join together at the eucharist, share theological ideas, engage in jointly funded enterprises, and so on, this week than last. A few Episcopalians have said more clearly what they have believed for some time; many still disagree with them. Nothing much has changed. “Impaired communion” is a useful phrase, but it hides a tangle of relationships that range from complete agreement to utter incomprehension. The point about Anglicanism is that, up to this point, all have existed within the same body, united by an Anglican mix of reticence and charity.Of course, the accommodations this has required (not the same as compromises) have been too much for some. But unless the Communion can embrace ACNA, whose views are no different from many African provinces, and the US Episcopal Church and its web of global sympathisers, it is not trying hard enough. The great challenge of the 21st century is how people of different faiths can live together. If Christians cannot find the love that transcends differences within their own Church, how can they speak about unity to others in parts of the world where it is a matter of life and death?MUST READ: Schism Peril in Anglican Church (c. 1914)
From the New York Times (January 3, 1914)
London, Jan. 3, 1914 -- The famous Kikuyu controversy, which appeared as a cloud no bigger than a man's hand on the East African horizon last summer, is fast becoming a storm that threatens to shake the Church of England to its foundations, and on many sides fears are expressed that the controversy may result in a schism which will rend the Church in two.
For weeks many letters on the subject have been appearing in The Times, but not till this week has the controversy assumed alarming proportions. Now the newspapers are printing columns of letters daily as well as leading articles, and, if the amount of space devoted to the subject be any criterion, the Kikuyu controversy is one of the burning questions of the day, eclipising even Home Rule, David Lloyd George's land policy, and "votes for women."
Even those who seek to minimize the danger to the Anglican Church agree that history is being made, and that "Kikuyu" may become one of the significant and crucial names in the annals of the Protestant Church, marking one of the important stages in its evolution.
The cause of the threatened schism is as extraordinary as it was unexpected. The Moslem faith had been advancing rapidly in East Africa, and, to stem its advance, various Christian sects combined and held a meeting in the little town of Kikuyu in June. The sixty missionaries who assembled could have had no idea of the storm of controversy and heated feeling that would be engendered. Their object was merely to consider how the denominational missions, working in the same field, could act jointly so as to present the solid front of Christianity to Mohammedanism.
The conference was eminently successful and fraternal feeling was so strong that at the close a united communion was held, the Bishops of Uganda and Mombassa officiating.
It was the admission of the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and others to the communion administered by Anglican Bishops according to the order of the Anglican prayer book, which excited the fierce disapproval of a portion of the Church. The Bishop of Zanzibar openly accused the Bishops of Mombassa and Uganda of heresy and sought to impeach them, demanding a formal condemnation by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Then begun what has been called "the hurly-burly of the Bishops," and a flood of letters to the papers. The discussion quickly widened until now it embraces the whole subject of Christian unity. It is the general sense that the decision of the Bishop of Zanzibar's action may affect far deeper religious and ecclesiastical interests that those of the African mission field.
In a striking letter to the press, Dean Hensley Henson, Canon of Westminster Abbey, says that the appeal now is to the English people on the question as to whether the English Church shall remain Protestant or become Roman Catholic.
Lord Halifax, one of the leaders of the High Church wing, while admitting the gravity of the situation in a letter to The Times, says:
"I pray to God that the controversy may not occasion a schism which shall rend the Church in two. The dangers are only too obvious and can hardly be exaggerated. They involve consequences, affecting not only the Church of England, but the whole of Christendom."
Writing to The Times the Bishop of Oxford says he doubts if the cohesion of the Church of England was ever more seriously threatened than now, and adds:
"The reason for this is that three sections of the Church are pursuing their own principles to a point where they become really intolerable to the main body."
He concludes that unless the great body of the Anglican Church can again speedily arrive at some statement of principles, such as will avail to pull it together again, it will go on the certain way toward destruction.
The Archbishop of York in his New Year's letter to his diocese, says that unless the issues raised by the Kikuyu affair be wisely handled they will set back the course of Christian unity if only by endangering the unity of the Anglican Church.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Amended D025 Passes HoBishops
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church,; and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
