Episcopal Church Urged to Table Disciplining Bishop

Christian Post Reporter

Thu, Jan. 24 2008 11:38 AM ET

[-]Text[+]

E-mail Print RSS More on Topic

A leading Episcopal conservative is urging the national church to halt the process of disciplining Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, who is currently moving toward disaffiliation.

"In brief, I would urge TEC (The Episcopal Church) and other Anglican bishops to pray for and take action so that this process pauses indefinitely," the Rev. Ephraim Radner said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Episcopal Church's three senior bishops stopped short of banning Duncan from his religious duties last week when the presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, sought to inhibit him. Duncan was, however, certified as having "abandoned the Communion of this Church" and Episcopal bishops are expected to vote on a final decision later this year.

The charge essentially means that the bishop has effectively left the church.

Duncan has been leading his Pittsburgh diocese toward a split with The Episcopal Church over its liberal direction on Scripture and homosexuality. The Pittsburgh bishop has expressed little hope that the national church would get back in line with Anglican tradition and is currently planning to form a separate orthodox Anglican body in the United States with other conservative bishops.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, widened rifts in the Anglican Communion when it consecrated openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003.

Radner urged the Episcopal bishops to vote to table the matter of Duncan's status and discipline "indefinitely." He believes the national church is not in a position to judge anything especially during a time of confusion and discernment.

He noted that The Episcopal Church's adherence to "the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship" of the church has been in question since 2003 and also pointed out that the national church has taken several breakaway parishes to court over church property despite requests from primates, or leading bishops of the Anglican Communion's 38 provinces, to stop litigation.

The Episcopal Church has already inhibited Bishop John-David Schofield of the San Joaquin, Calif., diocese which voted last month to break from the national church. It is now seeking disciplinary action on Duncan as well as Bishop Jack Leo Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth, which is also taking steps to remove itself from the national church.

Comments

Most recent comments

View all

DeaconScott

Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:57 pm
: 0
: 4
Flag

Gratus -

Yes, I did say that.

I don't know what "homosexualism" is, I've never heard that expression before. Do you mean "homosexuality?"

And I don't know that you mean by "the fallacy of" homosexualism. A fallacy is a logical error. Either you are using that expression incorrectly, or there is some syllogism somewhere which you think "homosexualism" refutes. Or something like that. Which is it? I appreciate your desire to be pithy, but you overshot into cryptic - I think a little more information might have been called-for.

And I can't imagine what you could possibly mean by any "fallacy of Biblical criticism!" Hermeneutics, of which biblical criticism is a part, is simply necessary for biblical interpretation, without which no understanding is possible.

Meanwhile, you seem to believe that that brief pericope from Romans is a flat prohibition on same-sex genital sexuality. That is a position which many have held, and one which is not entirely inconsistent with the text, but it is not the only interpretation, and I am confident that it is a misinterpretation.

That is a description of flawed behavior which result from "the wrath of God ... against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18, which begins the passage of which your section is a part).

Also, Matt 5:19 refers to the commandments of the Hebrew Scripture (see v 17).

I think you may have fallen prey to the dangers of proof-texting out of context (and of using archaic translations).

DeaconScott

Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:38 pm
: 0
: 4
Flag

akonda -

The Holy Spirit is referred to in many places as the Spirit of "Wisdom," which, in the Greek, is "sofia." The Holy Spirit is also frequently referred to as "the breath" of life or of God (cf the conversation with Nicodemus), which, in the Greek, is "pneuma."

Both of these are grammatically feminine nouns; consequently, it is entirely appropriate to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity using feminine pronouns or possessives.

It is entirely true that God, the Trinity, is unquestionably masculine, in at least some senses of the term. It is thus appropriate to use grammatically masculine expressions to refer to God.

And, obviously, the Second Person of the Trinity had been a man and not a woman in the human side of his Dual Nature, so it would be inappropriate to refer to him other than by using grammatically masculine expressions.

akonda

Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:52 pm
: 3
: 0
Flag

DeaconScott said
"And as I said later in my post, if we are wrong, I trust the Holy Spirit to guide us; if we are right, do you trust the Spirit enough to be led by HER guidance?" - donno who is guiding you but it is definitely not the Holy Spirit if you are referring to the Holy Spirit as 'Her' instead of 'Him'.

johnmorrison9

Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:43 am
: 1
: 0
Flag

Maryland is considering a law for same sex marriage and the activist have 50 legislators on board. I have always had the state and church in high esteem, however as the push for sexual liberties I can see no benefit or long term healing. The solutions pushed by the progressives leaves a pattern of hurt, confusion, and opens the door ever wider to evil forces that want to destroy God's creatures.

Gratus

Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:46 am
: 1
: 0
Flag

DeaconScott
Did you say the diocese of New Hampshire is open to the Spirit and Jesus' commands, and follow where he leads? Does Jesus lead his believers into the fallacy of active homosexualism (cf Romans 1:18-32) and into the fallacy of Biblical criticism?
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

DeaconScott

Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:44 am
: 0
: 5
Flag

Iranaeus -

Well, no, actually.

The Diocese of New Hampshire and the Episcopal Church followed and follow their respective Constitution and Canons, and, being open to the Spirit and Jesus' commands, go where he leads.

TEC and the House of Bishops have always stated that we desire ardently to remain in communion with Canterbury and the rest of the Communion; indeed the rest of Christ's Body on Earth, the church. And we have, at some cost to ourselves, done all that our polity allows to do of what the Communion, through the Windsor Commission, has indicated it wishes us to do.

Most emphatically, the same cannot be said of Akinola, Orombi, and others.

And as I said later in my post, if we are wrong, I trust the Holy Spirit to guide us; if we are right, do you trust the Spirit enough to be led by her guidance?

Gratus

Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:19 am
: 1
: 2
Flag

Irenaeus
Indeed, and while said. The schismatics are always the apostates, not those who want to remain faithful to Jesus Christ. Praise God for such people!

irenaeus

Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:40 am
: 2
: 0
Flag

DeaconScott,

"Disloyalty is never a good thing, especially so in the church, most especially in the highest levels of leadership in the church... They need to be given an opportunity to decide and to state with clarity whether their efforts to "disaffiliate" are what they appear to be: leaving the Episcopal Church."

These statements could also be said of the Episcopal Church's disloyalty to the Anglican Communion. Face it - the Episcopal Church is the one being disloyal and is a rogue arm.

DeaconScott

Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:03 am
: 1
: 4
Flag

Disloyalty is never a good thing, especially so in the church, most especially in the highest levels of leadership in the church. Schofield, Duncan, Iker, and others (Ackermann?) have demonstrated by their words and actions, not just conscientious disagreement, not loyal opposition, not theological dissent, but disloyalty.

They need to be given an opportunity to decide and to state with clarity whether their efforts to "disaffiliate" are what they appear to be: leaving the Episcopal Church.

Similarly, Venables, Akinola, Orombi and others need an opportunity to decide and state with clarity whether their incursions into other churches - TEC and ACC, at least - are what they appear to be: direct violations of ancient tradition and of key recommendations of the Windsor Report.

If things are as they appear to be, let it be so, and farewell. If not, let these arrant bishops return to the service which Our Lord consecrated them to, serving God's people through God's church.

If the church is headed in a wrong direction, the Holy Spirit, breathing wisdom through the church, will correct it, as the Spirit has always done. But if these bishops succeed in their efforts to destroy the church, there will be no church for the Spirit to correct.

Those who seek to destroy the church cannot be on the side of the angels, no matter how honestly they may hold their opinions, no matter how sincere they may be in their beliefs.