OrthodoxWomen

2004-01-03T15:07:00.000-08:00

Women evangelical clergy unite for action
by Elisabeth Goddard, Church of England Newspaper

Eleven years ago the Church of England voted to ordain women to the priesthood.... It caused a lot of pain as well as a lot of joy....

This internal struggle was evident at NEAC4 and was keenly felt, especially by many ordained women present. There were very few ordained women speaking from the main stage, more in forums and seminars, and only one contributed to the NEAC book ‘Fanning the Flame’. At the Communion service on the Sunday morning only three women were involved in the distribution of the elements. The pain was palpable.

I believe that it would be unfair to the organisers of the Congress to suggest that all of this was done deliberately. Perhaps it is more indicative of the sorts of evangelical churches they come from that they do not know of leading ordained evangelical women who could speak in such a context.

(snip)

Out of the pain that was felt arose a common desire among the ordained women to form a new network for Women Evangelical Anglican Clergy. The aim is primarily to provide support and equipping to one another in ministry. We are aware that the challenges faced by evangelical women in ministry are particular and are often being faced for the first time as the first and second generation go through ministry. There is a need for mentoring, sharing of experience and supporting in often difficult and isolated situations.

Being an ordained evangelical woman can be hard, isolated from one’s colleagues because of one’s churchmanship and sometimes from one’s natural allies because of one’s sex. There are many ordained evangelical women in the Church of England who feel, or have been made to feel, that because their ordination has caused such pain to some parts of their own constituency, they have no place in it any more. Some indeed have very painful stories of rejection and alienation.

As we spoke and planned it became clear that there was a need for this to be (and indeed we wanted this to be) a network for all evangelical women in ordained ministry, whether they be permanent deacons or priests, and whatever their evangelical hue -- charismatic, conservative or open. The key was that we were there to support, equip and pray for one another, not to campaign; others were already doing that....

Webiste for Women Evangelical Anglican Clergy -- www.weac.org.uk

2003-12-29T18:54:00.000-08:00

Mississippi Priest Steps Down from Active Ministry

The Rev. Sandra DePriest has become the first Mississippi Episcopal [priest] to step down to protest the ordination of the church's first openly gay bishop.

DePriest told The Commercial Dispatch newspaper in Columbus that she could no longer actively serve as a priest until the gay bishop issue is resolved....

"I believe that my vows have been placed in conflict," DePriest said. "I took vows to uphold Scripture when I was ordained ... and at the same time I took vows to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church of the United States. And I cannot teach those doctrines and disciplines."

The original local story has more material, including this:

DePriest said under present arrangements, those Episcopalians would have to abandon their churches and sever financial links with the church.

"This a strong word, but it feels like blackmail," she said.

"Because for a priest whose pension is invested ... or for a congregation that disagrees with the theology of the church ... they are trapped. They are trapped if they want to hold on to their pensions and their property."

2003-12-29T18:49:00.000-08:00

The Rev. Victoria Heard sponsors resolution for Diocese of Virginia Convention

R-3 Relationship with the Anglican Communion

Whereas, Since 1607, the Church in Virginia, and later the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States of America have been in continual communion with the Church of England and with the emerging world-wide Anglican Communion; and

Whereas, the congregations of the Diocese and many of us individually have been nurtured in our
faith by our many and affectionate relationships with our Anglican sisters and brothers worldwide as we have worked together for the spread of the Gospel and the relief and care of people; and

Whereas, such relationships have provided individuals, congregations, and the Diocese as a whole
with matchless opportunities for mission and ministry that have strengthened the faith and witness of this Diocese and of the Episcopal Church; now therefore be it

Resolved, that it is the intention of the 209th Council of the Diocese of Virginia to stay in full
communion with the See of Canterbury and the other Churches and Provinces in the worldwide Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, that this 209th Council requests that the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese
take such necessary steps as to continue and maintain full communion with the See of Canterbury and the other Churches and Provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Submitted by
The Rev. Victoria Heard
plus other priests in the Diocese of Virginia

2003-12-02T21:31:00.000-08:00

The Rev. Jean Alden McCurdy Meade, PhD, reflects on Marriage and Civil Partnerships

Were there any Provinces of the Anglican Communion that broke communion with ECUSA over the ordination of women when that was first approved? My impression is that there were not; but many people, however, are comparing these two decisions and saying that the reaction is similar in most respects and will similarly die down after a while.

(I know there were American Episcopalians who left and formed new "Anglican" churches as well as individual priests and lay people who became Romans, etc. in response, but whole Provinces breaking communion?)

There have been some interesting articles lately about the proposed redefinition of "marriage' and proposed laws for civil partnerships, which I think have relevance to us as we consider whether the Episcopal Church can bless relationships other than traditional marriage. (As of now, I believe the only relationship we bless, according to our Prayer Book is Holy Matrimony - animals, shrimp fleets, and houses - but not other relationships.) I mentioned these articles to some fellow Louisiana clergy who asked me to send them out on our diocesan listserv. I don't have the ability to do that but I will try to summarize and give a few of my thoughts. I thought the readers of OrthodoxWomen might be interested too.

"One Man and One Woman" by Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, was in Friday's WSJ, and George Will's Sunday column in the T-P. They both raise interesting points about same-sex "marriages" and/or civil partnerships.

Will asks: Where is the logic, once a legally- sanctioned sexual relationship is no longer necessarily between one woman and one man, that says such unions must involve only two people? Why not three of the same sex? Why not bisexual unions as well which necessarily involve three or more of both sexes?

Mr. George writes that the Mass Supreme Court "radically redefined marriage to remove the requirement of sexual complementarity that links marriage to procreation and helps to provide its intelligible moral structure. He then states that the limit of same sex "marriage" to two persons in fidelity to each other are the Achilles heel of same sex marriage proponents. "No advocate has been able to identify a principled moral basis for the requirements of fidelity and exclusivity in marriage as they wish to redefine the institution."

These are the same logical questions that, as I wrote earlier, seem to me to apply to the prospect of Christian Blessings for sexual relationships outside of traditional Christian marriage. I have not seen anyone in our Church address it, just as Mr George says about the secular advocates of redefining marriage.

In the case of laws granting civil unions between two persons, George asks why the government should be interested in whether or not sexual intimacy is a part of such a relationship. Shouldn't a strictly civil union or partnership be open to any two or more adults who wish to enter into it, without any regard for whether or not there is sexual expression involved? Examples would be a widow and her daughter, or brothers and/or sisters, or the original odd couple, or some old friends who are "just" friends but want to live together and have a legal partnership. Again I ask why should it be limited to just two people? (Why not a widower and both his sons?)

Mr.. George writes, " ...domestic partnerships, if states elect to have them, should be nondiscriminatory and inclusive.... A constitutionally sound domestic partnership law would not discriminate against such people by excluding them for eligibility simply because their relationships are not sexual -- just as a nondiscriminatory and inclusive law would not undermine marriage by treating unmarried sexual partners as if they were married."

Would our Church have any problem supporting laws providing for such inclusive domestic partnerships? Would such support in any way imply that the Church would want to offer them a "Blessing." Among other well-noted considerations about the theological basis for such Blessings, that seems to be getting too involved in civil procedures to me.

Then today, the Utah bigamist has appealed his conviction on the grounds that sexual expression between consenting adults has no place in the system of law according to the Mass. Supreme Court ruling - he should be able to have as many "wives" as he pleases as long as they are of the age of consent.

2003-11-28T22:30:00.000-08:00

The Rev. Jane Brock and other NC clergy appeal to Bishop Curry

Dear Bishop Curry,

The peace of the Lord be with you. As pastors and priests of this diocese and of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we desire to lay out our concerns, distress and sadness before you, and to ask you to prayerfully and thoughtfully weigh the merits of what we say. We pray that, even at this late date, we might find some way forward together.

Your support of the ordination of Canon Eugene Robinson and vote to acknowledge the blessing of same sex unions as a part of our common life is a matter of gravest concern to us. We believe you are in serious error, and that your leadership of this diocese and the broader church is sorely hindered by your acceptance of beliefs contrary to the Word of God, and by teaching these beliefs to your flock....

2003-11-24T15:09:00.000-08:00

Can a via media be found?

I can't help but paraphrase this quote of Ndungane from the British newspaper, The Independent

"Akinola added: 'We cannot go on limping between two opinions.' But his views were countered by Archbishop Njongo Ndungane, primate of South Africa, who said that the Church was able to contend with the "creative diversity" and argued that fragmentation was not the solution. He said: 'It [the gay issue] -- my paraphrase: [apartheid] will not go away, even if people decide to go away from us. As leaders of the Church, we need to lead by example ... we should try to urge people to find common ground.' "

What Ndungane doesn't understand is that there is no common ground, just as there was no common ground between those who were for apartheid and those who were against apartheid. Should the Church in South Africa have tried to "contend with 'creative diversity'" on apartheid? Of course not! That's absurd. So it is equally absurd to for the church to try to do the same thing regarding homoerotic, behavior.

- Alison

2003-11-24T15:04:00.000-08:00

Comments from outer space

Susan Russell (President of Integrity) wrote on her Blog
"And speaking of the press, thanks be to God for Bishop Barbara Harris! From Stephan Bates’ report in The Guardian: [Bishop Harris] told the Boston Globe: "This is a power struggle as to who is going to run the church, the white boys who have always run it, or some different kinds of people. White men see their church being changed and they don't like it."

Excuse me.... but, I wasn't aware that Peter Akinola, Emmanuel Kolini, Livingstone Nkoyoyo, Yong Ping Chung, et. al. were white men resisting losing their power in the church? What part of non-white do you not understand about the majority of the Anglican Communion in the non-white Global South who are opposed to what is going on?

- Alison

2003-11-24T15:00:00.000-08:00

Money and Sanctions

I’ve been pondering the oft-repeated phrase on the part of some of ECUSA’s bishops recently that “money should not be used as a weapon.” My own new bishop coadjutor Dean Wolfe repeated it as recently as our diocesan convention on November 7th. It’s not that I can’t sympathize with those whose budgets may be affected by reduced giving – I certainly can sympathize. But, it seems strange to me that a church whose General Convention has often called on the use of economic sanctions in international diplomacy should suddenly be opposed to individuals and churches imposing sanctions on morally corrupt church leadership. But, then, again, who ever said ECUSA’s leadership was consistent or logical!

- Alison

2003-11-18T15:51:00.000-08:00

Principles of Redirection of Funds
The Rev. Ruth Urban, Co-Rector
St. Peter’s by-the-Lake, Brandon, MS
AAC’s conference A Place to Stand: Declaring. Preparing.
October 8, 2003

Luke 14:28, 33 “For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and COUNT THE COST, whether he has enough to complete it…So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”

To paraphrase, we shouldn’t start with Jesus if we’re not willing to make a complete sacrifice. In light of our COUNTING the COST, I will address five principles of Redirection of Funds followed by a brief discussion of five needs to consider as we redirect financial resources. These principles and needs are a result of the brainstorming of a small group of AAC’s Affiliate Ministries and are not intended to be an exhaustive list but it will give us guidelines for redirection of funds. Redirection was chosen by the committee to make it very clear that the tithe to the Lord would be paid and not withheld. The tithe simply would not be given to the parish or diocese, or national church. Scripture makes it very clear that a tithe is not an option. Therefore, the term Redirection means taking the tithe and using it for the work of the Lord in a different place. We stress this fact because it would be too easy not to give the tithe and spend it on ourselves. Sadly, that’s being done in some churches. That only indulges the hurt or anger and does not accomplish the Lord’s work.

This leads us right into Principle One: GIVE IT ALL AWAY. All of the redirected tithes or funds should go outside of the parish. Since the money was going to go beyond the Parish to the Diocese or National Church anyway, it should STILL be sent beyond ourselves.

Principle Two: BE WILLING TO GIVE BEYOND YOUR OWN RELATIONSHIPS. Most churches give money to people with whom they are connected and to organizations with which they have personal relationships. But in the new circumstances in the Anglican Communion there will be many places where there will be a need for funds for the spread of the Gospel, places where we may currently have no personal ties. We need to be willing to give beyond our personal relationships to those whom others know and trust as faithful, orthodox servants of Christ. It is not enough for us to find a worthy recipient to whom we can redirect our giving, without fully considering the needs of other, perhaps less prominent, parts of the Body.

Principle Three: PUT FUNDS WHERE ECUSA HAS CUT THEM OFF Church budgets or well-endowed institutions may cut off funds to overseas dioceses and missionary work because of their stand for the Gospel and with us. An Archbishop in Africa has said that they can do without money from the unrighteous. They are willing to make whatever sacrifice is needed. But we have a responsibility to support those who suffer because they refuse to bow to the liberal agenda. We need to work together to restore funding through fair and equitable means.

Principle Four: INVEST IN GROWTH. Support what the Lord is already doing. See where God is moving and find out how we can get on board and help. For example, there are many new mission church plants with orthodox members and orthodox clergy who don’t want to take funds from a diocese that has rejected biblical orthodoxy. If they refuse aid from the diocese for reasons of conscience, they will need assistance to make up the difference.

Principle Five: 50/50 COMMITMENT. We challenge parishes to work toward giving away 50% of their entire budget to mission abroad and locally. This is not an overnight project. We need to work toward it. I guarantee that the Lord will mightily bless every step taken in faith toward the accomplishment of such a goal.

Now, to five needs in Redirection.

Need One: The AMERICAN ANGLICAN COUNCIL. The AAC will need funds for the work and ministry of the realignment process. It will take people and money to make it happen.

Need Two: AAC-AFFILIATED MINISTRIES. We can support ministries connected with AAC. You have received material giving the names and basic information about AAC affiliate organizations. These ministries are vital and we will be depending on them in the new alignment.

Need Three: OVERSEAS NEEDS. There are many more ministries overseas that need assistance, not the least of which are dioceses in the global south who refuse money from revisionist churches.

Need Four: CHURCH PLANTING I spoke of this in “investing in growth”. However, there is also a need to plant churches in revisionist dioceses. We must begin the task of re-evangelizing parts of our own Church and it will require financial commitment and sacrifice.

Need Five: EVANGELISM. We are not called to spend our resources only on existing church structures. We need to refocus our financial priorities on the Great Commission, both at home and abroad, working with orthodox Anglican provinces and mission agencies to complete the Great Commission by bringing the Gospel and the Church to every lost and unreached people group on earth.

We have the opportunity to set the identity, the “spiritual DNA” if you will, of the new alignment. It must be a mission-focus, disciple-making identity. We must not be united around what we don’t like or what we are angry about or even around sexuality. We must be united around the proclamation of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And we must invest our resources sacrificially in that proclamation.

ARE YOU WILLING TO COUNT THE COST?

2003-11-14T11:16:00.000-08:00

We Do Not Lose Heart!
Sermon by the Rev. Canon Mary Maggard Hays, D.Min.
The AAC's A Place to Stand: Declaring. Preparing Conference
October 7, 2003, Dallas, TX

...Why are you here? There are lots of individual reasons that you are here:
You want to follow Jesus.
You want to serve His church.
You want hope for the future.

The real reason you and I are here? Summed up in what Paul said in the Epistle we just heard – we want to be able to say, along with the apostle Paul: We do not lose heart!...

2003-11-13T22:51:00.000-08:00

More book recommendations
Gay Cox, West Newbury, MA

The Christian Mind, by Harry Blamires
Money, Sex, and Power, by Philip Turner
The Dynamics of Spiritual Life, by Richard Lovelace

2003-11-12T21:17:00.000-08:00

Testimony before Committee on Consents, August 1, 2003
The Rev. Canon Mary Maggard Hays, D.Min.
Deputy from Pittsburgh & Canon Missioner, the Diocese of Pittsburgh

I speak in opposition to the confirmation of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

This is not about Gene’s giftedness: No one in this room is questioning Gene’s Giftedness, Leadership ability, Wit or Service to the Church.

That’s not why this room is full…

This room is full because of Gene’s sexual behavior – about which he has been quite open.

Every bishop, priest and deacon proclaims and signs in public the same oath:
We say: “I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation…”

Bishops, in particular, are called to guard the Faith and to proclaim the Word of God…

And their lives are meant to demonstrate what the Scriptures say: They are to be “A wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ.”

The Scriptures, the Word of God, are clear that homosexual behavior is wrong, sinful. Some may argue that the Scriptures oppose the ordination of women, too.
But it is not the same: The Bible is filled with examples of women who exercise ministry leadership. It is full of affirmation of women who function in such ways. The only debatable question is the extent of that role.

But nowhere in the Bible does it speak about homosexual behavior in positive terms. Walter Wink, well-known theologian who supports same sex relationships, bluntly admitted in the Christian Century last year: “Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same sex behavior and there is no getting around it…”

We need bishops who will keep the promises they made at ordination: to honor and defend the Word of God.

2003-11-12T20:47:00.000-08:00

The New Testament Speaks on Same-Sex Eroticism
Dr. Edith Humphrey
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

This is Dr. Edith Humphrey's famous talk at the National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC4) conference in July 2003 in England. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest....

2003-11-12T20:35:00.000-08:00

What is Disordered Sexuality?
Dr. Edith M. Humphrey (a member of the Primate's Theological Commission)
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

...This paper will concentrate upon what the Scriptures and the continuing tradition of the Christian community have said about sexual desire, sexual expression and sexual activity in a world that was created in wholeness, but which has been marred by deadly disorder and sin....

2003-11-12T20:27:00.000-08:00

Why This Issue?
Dr. Edith Humphrey
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

...Why this issue? Because what we think and say and do about our sexuality is intimately connected to who we are – who we are in the created order, who we are in society, who we are with our spouses and friends, who we are ecclesially, and who we are in the new creation which God has brought into being and which he will complete through the work of the Holy Spirit. It is no doubt because of the inter-relatedness of this issue that it brings forth visceral reactions, for good or for ill. Those who have difficulty thinking seriously about the intricacies of Trinitarian relationships are galvanized to consider this present question. In so doing, they find themselves on the brink of multiple very serious questions....

2003-11-12T20:18:00.000-08:00

Condemnation to Blessing
The Rev. Jean McCurdy Meade, PhD
Vicar, Mount Olivet Episcopal Church, New Orleans, Louisiana

Dr. McCurdy highlights distinctions among condemnation, intolerance, tolerance, acceptance, and blessing. And, she makes the astute observation.....

"As far as I understand it, Christians have always offered blessings upon all sorts of people, things, animals, and events. But the only relationship that has been blessed is Holy Matrimony."

2003-11-12T20:10:00.000-08:00

Marriage, Divorce, and Same-Sex Relationships
The Rev. Jean McCurdy Meade, PhD
Vicar, Mount Olivet Episcopal Church, New Orleans, Louisiana

Good question! ....Another question arises about how to dissolve such a same-sex or opposite-sex "blessing." We have divorce in place as a civil procedure to end a marriage which otherwise continues until one party dies. Since there is no “divorce” procedure, would a “blessed” relationship be dissolved by one person simply announcing it is over?...

2003-11-12T19:49:00.000-08:00

The Gospel of Transformation

To the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8.2-11), Jesus said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go and sin no more." Jesus did not say, "Go and sin some more."

The Gospel of Jesus Christ reaches out to the marginalized and to the mainstream and offers them the hope of a transformed life -- "Go and sin no more."

2003-11-12T19:46:00.000-08:00

Talking-points for the Special Convention of the Diocese of Central Florida, 9/20/03
The Rev. Dr. Susan Bubbers
Rector, St. Elizabeth’s, Sebastian, FL

I rise to speak in favor of Resolution R-2.
I believe it is both Biblical and reasonable to ask the Primates to intervene.

Acts 15 provides an example of how the early church wrestled with doctrine, and how they went about finding a resolution.
The account of the Jerusalem Council, you may recall, recognizes that there was a gathering of apostles that represented the leadership of the worldwide church at that time. These leaders listened to the debate and testimony of those who had a disagreement. Verse 6 especially says, “And the apostles and elders came together to look into this matter.”

Verse 12 indicates that it was only after this group of leaders arrived at a consensus through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that James spoke, and summarized the conclusion, and then identified a course of action. Verse 22 says that the gathered leaders then again had the role of choosing how to proceed.

I believe it would help to provide a solid spiritual foundation for whatever the outcome of all this will be to have clear guidance from those whom we claim to recognize as leaders of our present worldwide communion. These leaders, to us, are the Primates. It is a reasonable role for them to play.

I believe it is a Biblical request, and that it is also a reasonable request that all of us can make.

Please join me in voting “YES” to R-2.

2003-11-12T19:45:00.000-08:00

Talking-points for the Special Convention of the Diocese of Central Florida, 9/20/03
The Rev. Dr. Susan Bubbers
Rector, St. Elizabeth’s, Sebastian, FL

I’d like to speak for a moment about apples and oranges, about how I can affirm the ordination of women, and also oppose the recent actions of GC.

Paul wrote in Rom. 16:7 - Greet... Junia (female according to most reliable texts)... outstanding among the apostles, who was in Christ before me...

1 Tim. 3:11 - says female deacons are to be dignified.
Titus 2:3 - says female presbyters are to be reverent.

These and other Scriptures provide clear, positive teaching in favor of recognizing the ministry of women. The ordination of women rests on an appeal to this Scriptural basis, NOT on an appeal to civil-justice of some kind.

People of good conscience can both appeal to SCRIPTURE and yet arrive at different conclusions, such as in the case of women’s ordination. But we’re both appealing to the same source of Authority. One reason I love the Episcopal Church is because we have been able to agree to disagree about our understanding of our common Source of Truth, Scripture.

HOWEVER, this most recent issue is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Apples and oranges.
Nowhere in Scripture is there an example of the gay-lifestyle in ministry.
There are no Scriptures that are even unclear on the subject.
All Scriptures that address it clearly prohibit it.

So, in this recent issue we are NOT faced with 2 groups agreeing to disagree over Scripture.
We are faced with 1 group that still looks to the Bible as the Guidebook for our Faith,
and another group that has developed an ENTIRELY NEW APPROACH as to HOW TO DEFINE A FAITH SYSTEM.

When I was ordained, I made my vows in the context of a Faith System based on Scripture, and to THAT I must remain loyal.
Therefore, in order to remain associated with Truth, I have no choice but to disassociate from the alternative Faith system.
Please vote with me in favor of Disassociation.

2003-11-12T19:39:00.000-08:00

Why ordain women and not homosexuals?
Claudia Nalven

First, let's address ontology. Scripture does not support the view that
homosexuality is God-given. However, it does affirm that male and female
were both created in God's own image. (Gen 1:27) We are fallen. Our
sexuality is also fallen. Gay or straight - regardless of how we
received our sexual inclinations - we are still bound by God's call to
express our sexuality within marriage between male and female.

Now, let's talk about role. Those who do not support women's ordination
claim that God specifies certain roles for men and certain roles for
women. To act outside of these roles is sinful. I would agree, except
that I don't see that the Bible stringently defines these roles.

God commissioned Adam and Eve equally to /"Be fruitful and multiply and
fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea
and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves
on the earth." /(Gen. 1:28)/ /Role and status differentiation are
presented as a consequence of the fall. (3:16-17)

True, Paul says that women should keep silent and not be teachers in
church in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12. Yet, the message of the
rest of scripture prevents us from taking this as a general rule for all
people at all times. Miriam and Deborah are examples of Old Testament
women who stepped outside traditional roles to serve as prophets. Ruth
and Esther were examples of women who were channels of God's redemptive
activity in the world. Jesus had female disciples. And women served in
leadership throughout the New Testament Church, often alongside Paul,
himself.

How did women serve in the New Testament Church? They taught men (Acts
18:26). They were examples of Godly lives (Titus 2:3-4, 1 Peter 3:5).
They risked their lives (Romans 16:3). They had churches in their house
(Col. 4:15). They went to prison (Romans 16:17). They labored alongside
Paul (Phil. 4:3). They prayed and prophesied aloud in church (1 Cor.
11:4-5).

Were they ordained? Did they celebrate Eucharist? Did they bless,
absolve, and consecrate? Of course we can't expect to find this in
scripture.

The Bible testifies to a change in the roles of women, slaves, gentiles,
and other outcasts. Undoubtedly, these changes caused some disorder and
confusion in the early church. It remains a stumbling block for some
today. So Paul's caution for mutual submission is as necessary today as
it was then. It is important not to force the ministry of ordained women
on anyone. Yet, surely we can see a distinction between the ordination
of women and the ordination of practicing homosexuals.

2003-11-12T19:20:00.000-08:00

Recommended reading from the Rev. Joan Mattia
Ph.D. student, University of Birmingham, England

When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity, by Karen Jo Torjesen (Harper:1995)

What Paul Really Said About Women: An Apostle's Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love, by John Temple Bristow (Harper: 1988).

2003-11-12T19:13:00.000-08:00

The Great Divide: Pastoral Theology and Christian Witness
The Rev. Alice C. Linsley
Diocese of Lexington

The 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church approved the election of V. Gene Robinson as bishop by a narrow margin. On Sunday, November 2, he was consecrated Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in defiance of the Anglican Primates. Now Episcopalians in New Hampshire are under Robinson’s “spiritual” authority though some regard him as “morally unfit” to be a bishop. Several parishes are seeking realignment through alternative episcopal oversight.

Another disturbing action of Convention involved the passage of a bishop’s option to locally oversee same sex unions. Both actions are “justified” on the basis of positioning the Episcopal Church to provide ministry to, with, and through gay and lesbian persons. Some of the bishops who approved Robinson’s election and the “local option” say that this, for them, is a pastoral issue. These bishops have raised an important question. Are Episcopalians to be guided in decision making by Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Pastoral Theology? And if so, which pastoral theology are we to follow?

Before exploring this matter, a distinction must be made between pastoral theology and pastoral care. Pastoral care encompasses the clergy’s care for those who seek the church’s protection, guidance, absolution and sacraments. Pastoral care is directed especially to families, children, elderly, the sick, prisoners, bachelors, spinsters, widows, widowers, the dying and their families, the penitent, those seeking to join the church, the mentally ill and the physically challenged, the immigrant, the homeless, the poor, the addicted and recovering addicts. The church has never denied pastoral care to gay and lesbian people, whether celibate or sexually active. Pastoral care should be neither prejudiced nor judgmental. It involves prayer, companionship and compassion, and it is done best when informed by Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

Pastoral care is also delivered through the government of the church, specifically through legislation that increases the church’s outreach to those who have need of forgiveness, hope, healing and salvation. The ordination and consecration of Hispanic priests and bishops has not significantly increased the Hispanic population in the Episcopal Church. It is true that a Hispanic needing pastoral care might identify more readily with a Hispanic priest or deacon, but often their backgrounds and cultures are very different. Women may identify more with women clergy, but often they do not. So the question must be posed: “Have the actions of General Convention increased the Episcopal Church’s outreach to homosexual persons?” Of course this has yet to be seen.

Pastoral theology is distinct from and yet related to pastoral care. There are several schools of pastoral theology, but two are essential to the discussion at hand: the Evangelical school and the Existential school. The Evangelical school relates pastoral care to the abiding, transcendental and sacramental nature of the Church. It is therefore concerned with dogma and holiness, and it asserts that the preaching of God’s Word brings salvation. The Existential school relates pastoral care to the particular moment or event. Existential pastoral theology works out compromises to address concerns of the here and now and to position the church to better address the social situation. There is between these two schools a great divide. It appears that the majority of Episcopalians stand on the side of Existential Pastoral Theology, and for many this may be unwittingly. Fewer stand on the side of Evangelical Pastoral Theology.

This divide has become increasingly evident in the Episcopal Church over the past thirty years. We have clergy who, though they take a vow to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the church, fail to do so. They openly and shamelessly preach and teach contrary to Christianity and gather disciples who also undermine the historic faith. We have bishops who try to overthrow the church’s faith, arguing against what the scriptures teach about Jesus’ conception and birth as God in the flesh. They attack God’s establishment of marriage as a union between man and woman, arguing that non-marital sexual relations are acceptable between partners of the same sex as long as they are monogamous, consensual, and committed. They undermine the mystical union of Christ with his bride, the Church, arguing that there is no future consummation.

Often these clergy have found support for their attacks on Christianity from seminary professors who have deconstructed God’s truth to gratify their own egos. They have written books and gained media attention for their apostasy. Apostate bishops have received mild rebuke because Episcopalians have swallowed the liberal line that diversity of opinion is what makes our church strong and appealing to the open-minded. Orthodox clergy are now faced with congregations that will not hear the word of God if it seems intolerant of other views. This is where such a strident existential pastoral theology has led.

The debate of the past thirty years has centered primarily on human sexuality. The debate has brought to the fore the eschatological division that has existed among Protestants since the 1960’s. On the one hand are those overly concerned with an eschatological timetable, and on the other hand are those who hold a realized eschatology. The student of scripture will realize that neither of these is permissible. Constructing a timetable for the events of the last days by piecing together scriptures is dangerous and unhelpful. Jesus said that no one knows the hour when the Son of Man will come. He admonished his followers to be alert as we await the day of his coming. Equally dangerous is the notion that Jesus has already brought the promised resolution to God’s people. Jesus spoke of his coming as a wedding feast. The pastoral letters are full of expectation of the second coming when Christ and his bride will consummate their union. The student of scripture will recognize that the analogy of the church as the bride speaks of betrothal and betrothal looks to consummation.

The debate over human sexuality directly relates to Christian eschatology. Suggesting that same sex unions are approved of God confuses and blurs the vision of a future consummation between Christ (male) and the Church (female). Paul says that this is a sacred mystery into which we catch a glimpse when we see a man and a women living in Christian marriage. We are to inquire of the Holy Spirit into this mystery, not cast it aside or reframe it to fit contemporary mores. Church doctrine and discipline serve to protect the precious bride of Christ until He returns. God promises in his word that the Bride will be presented pure, blameless and radiant. This is one of the most encouraging promises of scripture for the time in which we live.

2003-11-09T23:07:00.000-08:00

An Interview with the Rev. Fleming Rutledge
Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Week of November 7, 2003

...In the crucifixion we see the entire human race summed up in Jesus, who lived it for us. He suffered ultimate abandonment and condemnation and took it all into himself and brought it and us through into eternal life. "Recapitulation" is the word that the church father Irenaeus used for this. The term well conveys the sense that in Christ we see the entire history of humanity acted out and perfected, therefore recapitulated. But not only perfected -- carried forward into the divine life of God...

2003-11-09T22:54:00.000-08:00

Marriage For Life
Elaine Storkey's Thought For The Day - 2nd May 2001
Dr. Elaine Storkey, Senior Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford

Well, it seems marriage vows are in the news again as a twice divorced ageing rock star calls for their revision. He apparently wants the words 'till death us do part' removed from the traditional wedding ceremony, with the marriage certificate reshaped along the lines of a dog licence and renewed annually. He says it's unrealistic in the 21st century to expect couples to stay together for life.

Rod Stewart isn't alone, of course. There are many sceptics. Advice in a magazine to a young woman contemplating marriage suggests: "Take a long, cool look at the chap and ask yourself: 'is this really the guy I want my kids to spend every other weekend with?'" Cynicism is rampant and it's normal for someone who's been hurt to blame marriage. We can understand why people struggling with pain and rejection want to find some other system: a dog-licence type arrangement, where they won't be so vulnerable.

But it's not that simple. Because entering into marriage isn't like owning a dog, where we're fined if he fouls the footpath or chases the neighbour's chickens. There, all the legal and moral responsibility belongs to the owner, and none to the dog. But marriage is an agreement between two equal partners who come together to make promises to each other as the basis for their love. And the marriage vows aren't something extraneous to the relationship, but define the very meaning of love. Love is to be faithful, trusting, open, forgiving, humble, kind, self-giving. There isn't any other kind of love. For a marriage to be a marriage, it has to be a union of committed, mutual loving. Vulnerability is what it's all about.

Those who want revision often think this New Testament view of marriage is for some ideal world, not the real world of the 21st century where people live longer, complicated lives. But there never was an ideal world. The biblical teaching on marriage was given to people who were every bit as selfish, preoccupied, and lustful as we are today. The wedding vows before God recognize that and create a space for a faithful relationship which can grow closer with the years and offer stability to the next generation. It's not the contract which needs to be renewable, but the marriage; not an annual dog-licence we need, but a daily sharing of intimacy, time and good communication.

Perhaps the real issue for the 21st century is an attitude problem. If we put self-fulfilment at the centre of all relationships, commitment is a chore and vulnerability a threat. And we can never fully recognize the God-given glory of that other person. To do that we need love and acceptance and a faithfulness which continues for better for worse, till death parts us.

2003-11-09T22:23:00.000-08:00

More on Women, Homosexuality, and the Bible
The Rev. E. Kathleen Christopher
Arlington, VA

In a nutshell: the ordination of women is not a salvation issue; condoning (and ordaining) practitioners of homoerotic behavior IS.

Contrary to the view of some who oppose both the legitimizing of homosexual behavior and the ordination of women as priests, saying that both are violations of God-given gender roles, the problem with homosexual erotic behavior is not an issue of gender roles -- it is an issue of vital morality. Homoerotic behavior is a violation of the seventh commandment, prohibiting adultery. Scripture makes it clear that Godly sexual activity is limited to the confines of marriage between one man and one woman. Scripture says "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exo 20:14) and "it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman" (Lev 18:22) and repeats that admonition throughout the Old and New Testaments.

There is no way that the ordination of a woman as a priest, and her fulfilling that calling, could legitimately be construed as a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. Nowhere in scripture does it say in plain language "Thou shalt not ordain a woman a priest" or "it is an abomination to ordain a woman a priest." There are some passages that some people interpret as prohibiting women serving as priests, and I respect those who interpret scripture that way. But it is interpretation, not a clear non-disputable injunction by God not to commit a spiritually fatal sin by engaging in that behavior.

The issue of homoerotic behavior is not only one of basic and vital moral behavior -- it is a matter of salvation. 1Cor 6:9-10 says: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."(NRSV). Over and over again in scripture, homoerotic behavior is classified with the most abhorrent of sins. The ordination of women as priests, no matter how personally objectionable to some people, is NEVER listed in scripture as a cause of loss of salvation. To consecrate as bishop a man who proudly proclaims to practice homoerotic behavior is to hold up as a bishop, a shepherd, a role model in God's Church a man who, according to scripture, is condemned to Hell.

Let me say clearly here that I am not interested in debating whether this particular individual will spend eternity down below -- I cannot say that of any person. I can only relate what scripture says. To ordain as priest or elevate as bishop an unrepentant avowed homoerotic-practitioner is to ordain/elevate a person who is condemned according to God's Holy Word. The same thing cannot be said of ordaining a woman (unless she is engaged in the same perversion or some other sin specifically listed as one that will prevent a person from entering the Kingdom of Heaven).

From the beginning of the Church -- starting with the lifetime of Jesus -- the role that women are to play in the Kingdom on God on Earth has been disputed. In sharp contrast, the role of unrepentant homoerotic practitioners has never been anything but clear and concise -- they have no place in God's Kingdom.

Women being ordained as priests is not a salvation issue; active homosexuals flaunting and promoting their behavior and being consecrated as bishops IS.

2003-11-09T15:01:00.000-08:00

Marysville Episcopal Church expects to lose members
Appeal-Democrat.com
Marysville-Yuba City, CA
August 8, 2003

[The Rev. Joy] Gartman was ordained a priest by the Episcopal Church in 1995. She said the ordination of women, which began in the 1970s, is different from the ordination of gays because the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality but says nothing against women becoming priests.

She pointed to a passage in I Corinthians which says that homosexuals - in addition to the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers - will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The gay issue creates tension in the church because Christians are told to love sinners and, at the same time, adhere to standards of justice and righteousness, Gartman said.

Christians can love sinners without condoning their behavior, she said.

2003-11-09T14:47:00.000-08:00

The Discipleship Task in a Great Commission Church: Re-directing Ministry toward the Great Commissiosn
The Rev. Canon Dr. Alison L. Barfoot, Co-Rector
Christ Episcopal Church, Overland Park, KS
AAC Conference – A Place to Stand: Declaring. Preparing
October 7-9, 2003, Dallas, TX

Kendall Harmon called us yesterday to make conversion one of the three essentials of Anglicanism, and said, “I want to know how many people in your parish have met Jesus Christ and have been transformed by his love?” What would we need to do in our parishes to re-direct our ministry and mission in order to answer that question?

Think about every entry point into your church through which new people can come – baptism, pre-marriage, confirmation, Sunday worship, adult education, small groups, etc. What would you need to do to re-direct the ministry of your church so that it helps people meet Jesus Christ and be transformed by his love?

What would your confirmation class look like? Are we more interested in producing good Episcopalians who know the colors of the liturgical seasons? Or, disciples of Jesus, who confess him openly and boldly as their Lord and Savior and are seeing their lives transformed by his love? How do we need to re-direct our confirmation classes to produce disciples?

What about our baptism preparation classes? How converted are the parents whose children are being baptized? Are we more interested in making sure the family knows how to go through the baptismal liturgy? Or, that the parents are converted to Jesus Christ and know what the gospel is to teach to their child? How do we need to re-direct our baptism preparation classes to produce disciples of the parents who will raise their children to be disciples of Jesus?

What about our adult education classes or our small groups? Do they study Susan Howatch novels or the Poisonwood Bible or the Celestine Prophecy? Or, do we offer Bible study that offers people the liberating and transforming Word of God and shows them how to read Scripture for themselves in order to hear God? How do we need to re-direct our adult education programs and our small group ministries in order to help people meet Jesus Christ and be transformed by his love?

And, what about our vestries? Is conversion to Christ necessary for vestry membership? It’s not in the canons, but what do you think? How do we need to re-direct the nomination process for the vestry to be focused on electing committed disciples of Jesus into our parish leadership?

Or, what about our pastoral care ministries? Does our pastoral care tell people that the problems and struggles in their lives are normal to the human condition? Or, do we help people walk through the cross and see God transform their lives as a witness and testimony to his power. How do we need to re-direct our pastoral care ministry so that its fruit is the transformation of people’s lives?

And, what about our parish mission statements? Are they recognizably linked to the Great Commission? Are they memorable? Or, are they so long and cumbersome that no one can remember it? How do we need to re-direct our parish mission statements in order to be something that every member of the church can recite on demand and has meaning to them in how they live out their Christian life in the church and in the world?

And, what about our outreach committees? Are they budget allocation committees? Or, do they mobilize the members of our parishes into hands on, relational ministry with the poor, the neglected, refugees, immigrants, our international mission partners, and even unreached people groups around the world. Finishing the task of global evangelization is possible….if we reclaim the Discipleship Task of a Great Commission Church.
How do we need to re-direct our outreach committees and outreach budgets to make disciples among the least, the last, and the lost?

And, if you are like many of my friends, who are a minority of biblically orthodox Christians in a lukewarm parish, and are not sure what to do, please “do not lose heart.” You can offer to teach or mobilize disciples to teach the baptism class, or the confirmation class, or to lead a small group Bible study. You can begin to re-direct the ministry of your church toward the discipleship task by living out that call. Be a missionary to your own church!

What we need to do is reclaim discipleship as the main thing of the church's life. And, then, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

We're not here just to say No to GC, but to say Yes to "the main thing." We're here to not only declare "No", but to prepare to become the church Jesus always wanted us to be. To declare “Yes.” "Yes" I want to stand up and be counted for Jesus in the things that matter in this world - the transformation of people's lives into the image of Jesus, and the establishment of beachheads of his kingdom throughout every community, in every country, and on every inhabitable continent!

Ron and I know that there are many Episcopal Churches that have made the Great Commission of Jesus Christ the first priority in their life and work. We celebrate what God is doing in our day to raise up disciple-making churches.

During the next few minutes, we want to show you a video that will be like going on a field to trip to one among many of the disciple-making parishes in the Episcopal Church. Through this video technology, we will take you to visit our parish – Christ Episcopal Church in Overland Park, Kansas. Our parish is a predominantly white, suburban Episcopal Church. This video field trip will last only thirteen minutes, but we hope this brief experience will give you a feel for what we mean when we talk about a disciple-making culture.

Let’s listen in on a conversation we had just last week with some of our parishioners who are talking about how discipleship to Jesus has released God’s transforming power in their lives.

We pick up the conversation with Roy Jackson, a member of Christ Church --

2003-11-09T14:02:00.000-08:00

The Role of the Laity
Diane Knippers
Source: AAC News
October 9, 2003
An address given by Diane Knippers at the AAC's Oct. 7-9, 2003 "A Place to Stand: Declaring, Preparing." conference.

Last spring, my parish bookstore launched what we call Truro’s Great Books program. Each month for one year we are encouraged to read a book that is either a Christian classic or about a monumental Christian leader. I’m about to start a biography of Martin Luther, called appropriately Here I Stand. But during the General Convention, I was reading a biography of John Chrysostom. Perhaps it goes without saying that I didn’t have a lot of time for personal reading during convention. But on several nights I read a page or two about church fights in the fifth century. It was wonderfully bracing and strangely comforting as I was engaged in our own tragic church conflict at the dawn of the 21st century.

Before we get into specifics about legal and financial matters – temporal matters in the church which are the distinct province of the laity – we thought it would be helpful to take a brief look at the particular role and responsibility of the laity in the preservation of authentic Christian teaching. Now some of you who know church history will be alarmed at my earlier Chrysostom reference in the context of examining the role of the laity. Let me assure you right now that I will not be advocating riots in the streets, one response of the faithful in fifth century Constantinople. I have thought about a demonstration around the National Cathedral, but not riots.

For the next 15 minutes, I’m going to talk – plainly – to my fellow lay members of the Episcopal Church. Those of you who are clergy are welcome to take a 15-minute coffee break, or you may listen quietly.

The first thing I want to emphasize is that we are the church. One thing of which we laity must repent is our tendency to be cowed by clericalism. Of course we respect our godly leaders, and of course we respect of the offices and roles of bishops and priests. But the model that Scripture gives us for the Church of Jesus Christ is not a corporate flow chart or a military chain of command. It is a body. All the members are necessary, all play a role, all are to be honored. And let’s face it, we are a very big part of the body.

So, what is our role in preservation of Christian truth?

Have you noticed that you can go almost anywhere in the world and, when you begin talking to Christians, you find that you share basic assumptions about the Christian faith? You worship a Trinitarian God, you know that Jesus is God incarnate, you see the Cross as the pivotal point in history, you share a hope in the resurrection of the Body. How has all of this been preserved, across the centuries and throughout the world? In times like ours, when basic doctrines are being questioned and even contemptuously dismissed, how do we even know what is Christian truth? We have scripture as God’s revelation. But how do we interpret scripture with integrity?

One of my mentors in these matters is the theologian and patristics scholar, Thomas Oden. After convention, I reread some sections of his recent new book, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy. Dr. Oden introduced me to the rule of Vincent of Lerins.

Authentic Christian doctrine and teaching is that which has been believed everywhere, always, by everyone.
Vincent was an obscure, but well-informed and well-traveled monk who lived in the fifth century. Shortly after the third ecumenical council, held in 431 in Ephesus, Vincent withdrew from his travels to a monastery in southern France. There he began to summarize what he had learned about the classic ecumenical method for discerning Christian truth. The rule he discovered and identified is a method of consensual recollection – that which has been believed everywhere, always, by everyone.

The question Vincent asked in his travels was this: How does the whole church come to distinguish the truth of Christian faith from falsehood amid conflicting opinions? He was astonished to find everywhere the same answer: scripture, and the central tradition that guards scripture. But why do we need the tradition, if we have Scripture, he asked. The answer was that all agree that the scriptural canon is authoritative. But what if there are disagreements about what scripture teaches? So, Oden writes, “Vincent concludes that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic texts must be understood in accordance with some general rule – a rule plausible cross-culturally to the church universal as to what constitutes the mind of the believing church.” Everywhere, always, by everyone.

“Everywhere” means worldwide. Authentic Christianity is universal; it inhabits cross-cultural space. Everywhere means we listen to our fellow Anglicans around the world.

“Always” means from the beginning – faithful to the teaching of the apostles. This apostolic message is recorded in Scripture. Our bishops have a particular duty to preserve the apostolic teaching of the church.

“By everyone” means the consent of the whole body of Christ. That’s us – the laity, the people of God. This doesn’t mean 100 percent agreement. In fact, it really doesn’t mean a majority vote. Because this isn’t a legislative process – it is a Spirit-driven process. In fact, the heart of consent is within the act of worship. When we gather at the altar, we give assent to the apostolic faith.

When innovations are proposed, when the Church is confronted in history with particular challenges and questions, it is substantially role of the laity to determine whether or not a particular teaching will be received.

Will the actions of the 2003 General Convention be understood as a part of the general consensus of the Christian faith? The laity have a responsibility to say NO. We will not receive this innovation. NO. We will not receive this innovation.

Let me quote Tom Oden,

Those in the office of elder…or pastor…voluntarily offer themselves to obedience to the teaching of general lay consent, ordinarily under the guardianship of the episcopos….Yet regrettably, in recent times, the offices of overseer, elder, and pastor have too frequently been used as a weapon for demeaning and rebuking orthodox teaching. Little will change in this regard until the larger body of laity insists that its highest leaders guard ecumenical teaching.

NO. We will not receive this innovation.

Some cynics have said that the history of orthodoxy is a history of winners in a game of power politics. Oden soundly refutes this:

The fourth-century Arians lived by collusion with political oppressors. They had plenty of intellectuals and power manipulators on their side, while orthodoxy had to be defended largely by nonscholars and laypeople, by modest men and women of no means, by lowly persons who had no training or special expertise but understood their lives in Christ. The power of numbers and votes in those days was clearly on the side of the Arians, who insisted on reinterpreting scriptural texts on the Son of God in a new and diluted sense. In response God put in his A-team: not scholars, but saints; not elite agents of power, but poor, uneducated, ordinary men – and a great many women – willing to die for their faith.

So, what is God’s A-team doing today?

How are we, the laity, saying “NO. We will not receive this innovation”?

We are engaging in acts of disassociation. We are signing statements, we are showing up at diocesan meetings, we are holding prayer vigils, we are writing articles and letters to the editor, we are writing our bishops and the Presiding Bishop. Some have painted out the word Episcopal on their church signs. Some are resigning diocesan and national commissions. One man and his wife posted seven theses on the door of their bishop’s cathedral. “Here I Stand.” An earlier panel dealt with this, but thousands of us are saying, firmly and strongly, that we will not support ungodly teaching with our time and talents and treasure.

Others are engaging in acts of new association. A professional singer, a tenor in the Army chorus, held a benefit concert last Sunday to aid the work in the Anglican Communion. Local parishes are considering new classes on marriage and human sexuality. Mission teams are being organized and ministries strengthened. One woman I know is mortgaging her home to join the Compass Rose Society. Hundreds of us have come to Plano.

I’m also hearing from laypeople who are beginning to realize what is at stake in terms of church property. They are willing to fight for it, but not sacrifice their faith for it. We do not want valuable resources to be at the disposal of those who have abandoned the faith. But we are willing to sing,

Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

Now I want to turn to our panel, and after we have heard from these legal experts, I will say a few words in conclusion. Our panelists consist of four attorneys, Hugo Blankingship, Michael Woodruff, Tad Brenner, and Wicks Stephens.
* * * * *
As we close our time together for this session, I want to share with you more personally. Many of you know that since April, I have been struggling with cancer. Quite naturally, the parallels between my own battle with disease and the church’s struggle with an affliction of unfaithfulness have been quite obvious to me. Let me share three of those lessons with you.

Lesson one. In its early stages, the treatment is far more difficult than the disease appears. I didn’t even know I had cancer. I felt fine. Minor problems could be easily overlooked. But the treatments are not fun. They are inconvenient, discouraging, humiliating, exhausting, and painful. It’s tempting to say, “The disease isn’t that bad. Let’s abandon the treatment.” But without intervention, the disease will kill the body.

Lesson two. We are sustained by prayer. Affliction is a school for Christians. Like a crash course in another language, it is a crash course in spiritual growth. We focus on what really matters. What really matters is Jesus – to love Him, to cherish Him, to be ready to face Him – and to spend eternity with Him.

Lesson three. It’s a day-by-day journey. Some days the news is good and encouraging and some days it is not. I’ve had days when I’ve realized that I’ve been miraculously touched and days when I’ve planned my funeral. I don’t know what the future looks like. I have to take it a day at a time. I have to be patient – to do the next thing I know to do in prayer and treatments, without knowing how it will all end. I don’t know what God has for me – healing here or in heaven. But I know that He is my sovereign Lord and He holds my future in His hands.
Brothers and sisters, we know that He is our sovereign Lord – and He holds our future in His hand.

Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

-- Diane Knippers is the President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy

2003-11-09T13:59:00.000-08:00

What are the factors, in the culture and the church, that have led us to this crisis in the Episcopal Church?
by Diane Knippers, President, Institute on Religion and Democracy
Source: AAC News
October 9, 2003
Presentation given by Diane Knippers at the AAC's "A Place to Stand: Declaring, Preparing" conference.

That’s a large question, much larger than I could answer in just a few minutes. Does one start with the Enlightment? Point to the 1960s? Blame it on Bishops Spong or Pike? Blame it on reality television or “Sex in the City”?
Because I have sociological training, I naturally look to cultural factors. So, I want to talk about the cultural captivity of the Episcopal Church. Of course, it’s not a captivity to all of American culture. Television sit-coms, rap music, conservative talk radio are not the relevant cultural components!

The Episcopal Church leadership is captive to a particular type of culture. Our church is governed by upper-middle class
American elites, who came of age in the 60s and 70s. Episcopal leaders go to elite universities, not community colleges. They listen to NPR rather than watching Fox News.

Leaders of the Episcopal Church are captive to a culture. One mark of the cultural captivity is the need to put social location about theology.

I had an “aha” moment in which I recognized this tendency when I visited a meeting of the ecumenical commission of my own diocese several months ago. I was there because I serve on the national Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations. I wanted to report on what the national commission was doing and explore ways my diocese could interact with some new ecumenical initiatives.

At the very beginning of the meeting, the chairman reported on one interfaith development in his own parish. It seemed he had invited a Buddhist monk to lead a quiet day service. Please understand, the monk wasn’t to lecture on Buddhism, but to lead prayers in a Christian church. I’ll admit, I nearly fell off my chair.

Later, I gave my presentation. I told them that on the national church level, I was working to encourage Episcopal dialogue with evangelicals. One way that we might help in the Diocese of Virginia was to establish some grassroots model dialogues with Southern Baptists. My suggestion was met with a very awkward silence. One woman finally blurted out, “But we don’t have much in common with them.”

If I had had my wits about me, I might have suggested that we ought to have Jesus in common.

You see, Episcopalians find it easier to indulge multi-cultural and multi-faith prayer led by a Buddhist than talk to “them” – the Southern Baptists.

As I said, the Episcopal Church is led by upper-middle class elites that came of age in the 60s and 70s. Let me make a couple of brief comments about the generational and the class distinctives.

First, what happens when a church is led by baby boomers? My staff did some research for me. As best we can discern, nearly 90 percent of the diocesan bishops who voted on Gene Robinson’s consecration were in seminary in the 60s and 70s. I can tell you right now, that’s not a good sign.

This generation of church leaders claims the moral authority of the civil rights movement, although most were too young to have been leaders in that moral battle. No, the movements that shaped their formative years were the anti-war movement, women’s liberation and the sexual revolution. Regardless of what you thought of the Vietnam War or the Equal Rights Amendment, these are not the pressing issues of today.

Let’s focus on marriage. Too many boomers think that the problem with marriage is that women are stuck in abusive oppressive relationships. Let me quickly grant that some women are. But if you think that alleged 1950s repression is the big cultural problem we face, I want to know what planet you are living on. The big problem related to marriage is that many young people have no clue how to establish and maintain long-term commitments.

The fact is that upper-middle class elites are largely protected at least from the economic ravages of the sexual revolution. Over half of the children growing up in America today will spend a significant period of their childhood living without the presence of their biological father. That’s a cultural disaster. Episcopal kids face the emotional and spiritual costs of this, but, by and large, they don’t face the poverty that so many children in single parent homes do.

It’s not that the innovative moral teaching regarding sexuality that the Episcopal Church now peddles is cutting edge. It’s that it is depressingly dated. It’s a straight-line development from the 60’s “free love” mentality.

What is cutting edge is the new social science data on marriage, family, and our children. What we aging boomers need to recognize is that love isn’t free.

In early August, the Episcopal Church cut its ties from the doctrine of marriage, from basic Christian teaching about sexuality, from our core sources of authority. It was a stunning display of the prevalent social values of American campuses 40 years ago.

One month later a prestigious groups of behavioral research scientists, pediatric physicians, and mental health professionals released a new paper (see www.americanvalues.org). They outline a genuine social problem in our society – the crisis facing our young people. Here are some excerpts from this new report:

Despite a decade of unprecedented economic growth that resulted in fewer children living in poverty, large and growing numbers of American children and adolescents are suffering from mental health problems. Scholars at the National Research Council in 2002 estimated that at least one of every four adolescents in the U.S. is currently at serious risk of not achieving productive adulthood. Twenty-one percent of U.S. children ages 9 to 17 have a diagnosable mental disorder or addiction, 8 percent of high school students suffer from clinical depression, and 20 percent of students report seriously having considered suicide in the past year. By the 1980s, U.S. children as a group were reporting more anxiety than did children who were psychiatric patients in the 1950s, according to one study.

The Commission is calling upon all U.S. citizens to help strengthen what it calls “authoritative communities” as likely to be the best strategy for improving children's lives, in its report, Hardwired to Connect: The Case for Authoritative Communities. Authoritative communities are groups of people who are committed to one another over time and who exhibit and are able to pass on what it means to be a good person. These groups provide the types of connectedness our children increasingly lack.

Authoritative communities can be families with children and all civic, educational, recreational, community service, business, culture, and religious groups that serve or include persons under the age of 18 that exhibit certain characteristics. These characteristics are: 1) it is a social institution that includes children and youth; 2) it treats children as ends in themselves; 3) it is warm and nurturing; 4) it establishes clear boundaries and limits; 5) it is defined and guided at least partly by non-specialists; 6) it is multi-generational; 7) it has a long-term focus; 8) it encourages spiritual and religious development; 9) it reflects and transmits a shared understanding of what it means to be a good person; 10) it is philosophically oriented to the equal dignity of all persons and to the principle of love of neighbor.

Cutting edge researchers tell us that our children desperately need what the church is supposed to offer! The action of our General Convention is a betrayal on many levels – a betrayal of Christian orthodoxy, of the Anglican Communion, of scriptural authority, of the sexually confused. But it’s a betrayal that’s also very close to home – a betrayal of our own children.

2003-11-09T13:46:00.000-08:00

Sermon delivered by the Rev. Lynette Schaefer
Grace Church, Moloka`i, Hawai`i on Oct. 12, 2003 (Psalm 90)

God is doing some amazing things! He has been so faithful generation to generation as we have just said together, but you know what? He’s not done! I am a witness to a mighty move of God. The meeting in Plano, Texas was planned seven weeks ago for about 50 people. Within two weeks it had to be moved to Dallas for more than 2,700 people. We came to pray and seek God together. Every speaker repeated that we weren’t gathered to be “against” anything but to be “for” biblical faithfulness to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and to give glory to Him. I never thought I’d be surrounded by so many Episcopalians who had that as their focus. By the second song in our opening worship, which was “Shout to the Lord,” I felt this is what heaven must be like! And it’s not like we were all like-minded folks in other areas of our common life. What brought all these diverse people together? It was Jesus Christ. There were so many things that could have divided us. There were some there who are opposed to the ordination of women. Others who prefer the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. But we were reminded “In essentials, unity, in small things liberty and in all things charity.” When we got together for the Eucharist that first night there were 807 male and female priests all gathered into one, some in birettas and capes with lacy surplus of the Anglo-Catholics, some, like me, in white albs with red stoles, and the Canadians representing New Westminster in black cassocks with white surpluses. There were 48 deacons (they were the only ones who listened to the instructions to walk four abreast in procession!), 46 bishops and 105 seminarians. 5,000 people came that night to share the Eucharist.

When we registered every participant was asked to sign “A Place to Stand” (the call to action we finished with is at americananglican.org). It’s based on the faith statement of the American Anglican Council, adopted in 1996. I signed it when I registered for the Plano Conference after John Kikukawa urged me to pray about whether or not to go. It makes it clear that each person there wanted to put first things first. Or as one of the conference speakers said “We want to make the main thing…” (And the participants answered “the main thing.”) One of the missionaries who addressed us asked, “Do you REALLY mean that you have put Jesus’ Great Commission as the first priority of your life and work? Do you know what it says?” And with no prompting almost three thousand people shouted together, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20). It was impressive. Uncle Scotty would have had quite a time providing rewards for all of us who knew our memory verse!

As the conference progressed, we were invited to edit the statement we had signed by putting our changes in a suggestion box. No one went to the microphone. There were no debates. No huki-huki. This was not politics as usual. We were invited to terminals to input our responses to 8 questions and more than 60% of the participants did. 55% of those are cradle Episcopalians. As I did my devotions on vacation, from “The Purpose Driven Life” I was reminded that our first two purposes are to love God and to love each other. The Holy Spirit must have been speaking the same thought to other conferees because the final draft included my suggestion to call us to focus on the Great Commandment (Matthew 22: 37-40) before we focus on the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). Let’s read them together now.

He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40) That is the passage known as the Great Commandment. It is one of your memory verses for next week. The next one is the Great Commission:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 19-20)

Part of why this is important to me is because of the old saying “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much care.” So much of what we do will be misinterpreted unless we are leading with genuine love. Many people remember 1 Corinthians 13 as the love chapter. Paul has just been addressing the spiritual gifts and he says let me show you a better way, “If I speak the tongues of men and angels…” Unless we love the Lord and love His people, all of our good intentions and actions will seem like our own selfish agendas.

One of the things that will stay in my mind is the sight of one of the African pastors with a bellman off to the side of the hotel entrance as we were all leaving the hotel at the end of the conference. He was earnestly gesturing with a smile on his face, holding a bible in one hand and pointing with one finger extended to heaven with the other. The bellman looked engaged, not harassed. The tip that pastor wanted to give that day had eternal significance.

One African bishop said that most Americans think in terms of money when they think of missions. But he said, “If you send us money to build churches, the Muslims will just burn them down.” They asked for people to come and spread the gospel, seminarians to come and learn from those dying for their faith every day.

Some news media reported that we were spreading inflammatory rhetoric. I have no idea who wrote those things. Everyone there had to sign A Place To Stand. If they disagreed, they lied when they signed. I can’t imagine anyone who was really there writing such things. There were no hidden agendas, no angry voices. References to General Convention were in passing, but met with heartfelt cheers as we covenanted to be faithful to God alone. We looked forward to the meeting of the primates this week in London, asking God to intervene in the Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Church in Canada. There were appeals to biblically faithful bishops to lead us and keep us accountable as we stay and pray. We were reminded again and again that God has always used a faithful remnant to bring His people back. We were not told to revolt, protest, demonstrate, or picket. We were told to stay and pray. We were admonished to admit, submit, and commit. Admit our sinfulness, submit to the authority of Christ and His Word, and commit to sharing the Gospel.

There was no gay-bashing despite articles to the contrary. One man there has served the Lord in holy celibacy for over 43 years. He asked how his church could dismiss the offering of his life to the Lord so easily. Our second night we had a concert and testimony by Dennis Jernigan. You can check it out on his website Dennis Jernigan.com. His wife also has her testimony there. DJ wrote the song we’re going to sing in a couple of minutes, although he says he’s a song receiver, not a song writer. His grandmother had a piano in her trailer home and there he played his heart out. She was a member of Assemblies of God and she told him it was a gift from God. His classmates said he was a sissy. There was a photo of him at 5 years of age which is when his first sexual encounter with another man occurred. It left him asking why the man chose him. What was there about him that caused it? Many life experiences convinced him of his identity so he lived a homosexual lifestyle for two years following his grandmother’s death. And then miraculously he was healed of homosexuality 22 years ago. He is now married and they have nine children. People ask if they know what causes that, and he said “Yes we do, and we like it very much.” He said “Thank you, thank you, thank you for standing for biblical witness as you struggle. Do not give up. Do not give in. There are so many caught up in sin. Stand. We are standing with you.” We heard from an Episcopal priest who has a ministry of reaching out to the sexually troubled, and he also has been transformed by God. He was a man caught in the lie of homosexuality, living an unhappy life, when he met the Lord. He is now married with children but confessed that he can still be tempted, to the extent that he does not trust himself on the internet. His wife and his secretary have his password. Otherwise he may go to bad places.com and give in to temptation. He said he must set boundaries and keep them, but that is also a part of the Christian walk if we want to be used of God. That message is for young and old, married and single, male and female, Jew and gentile, and yes, straight and gay. Real worship costs. We have been called to “offer our bodies as living sacrifices.” One thing real worship costs us is our self-centeredness. We cannot exalt God and ourselves at the same time. We must shift the focus off ourselves and towards Jesus. Loving the Lord with all our mind, all our soul and all our strength takes energy and effort. I haven’t read the verse that says love the Lord with, some of your mind, a little bit of your soul, and with part of your strength.

That brings me to today. What does all this mean for us on Moloka’i? Is God’s work at Grace Church finished? Should we give up and go to other fellowships? Or maybe leave the church entirely because of this mess? I need to tell you that I plan to stay and pray. I plan to continue to encourage others and impart the truth. I plan to continue to network with the folks I met in Dallas and I pray we may build an infrastructure of faithful believers who continue to work with the basic nuts and bolts of our Christian faith. I plan to stay the course that the Lord will point out. I don’t know what that course is yet, but I am going to listen with you as God guides and provides.

Here is a short list of where I discern God is leading us. We need to have focus on Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith. We ALL need to be Biblically literate. Each of us needs to be involved in a Bible study or small group for accountability and prayer. And we need to go out and share the good news that Jesus Christ can give each of us new life, no matter what you’ve done, no matter what you’ve been through. It’s never too late to turn to Jesus.

At Grace Church we have seen people from Crossroads come to do Freedom Fest and we’ve worked alongside them in evangelistic events. We’ve joined in Hallow Him, the Living Nativity, and other community outreaches with the gospel. We’ve supported others who have gone to Haiti, Poland, Tahiti, and Israel, and even some who have built Habitat homes here. It is time to move beyond that.

One of the things that astounded me as I shared meals with people from other churches was their connection to the Lord, and how they couldn’t keep it to themselves. They are on fire! One day at lunch I sat with five lay people from a parish in Ohio and all of them have been on mission trips to the Ukraine, some two or three times. These were common working people with children and grandchildren. One was a housewife with a husband in the postal service. They are not rich people. They prayed as a church to do missions, but they told the Lord they didn’t know how. One day a couple joined the church. After two years they asked the congregation if a worship leader they knew from the Ukraine could be sponsored to come to the US for medical treatment. They met him when the Berlin Wall came down. (BTW there are two giant pieces of the Berlin Wall in the hotel where we met). He came, was healed and the binding of their two fellowships began. A team of men from their parish went to offer a men’s conference because they had been told that the men there were so defeated – with no work, no hope, and no future. Then they sent a women’s team to do prayer and life skills workshops. They now support an orphanage there staffed by folks from the Ukrainian congregation. Business men and women went over and helped them to start micro businesses. Since then others have gone to South America and Africa. Their stated goal is for every person in their parish to go on at least one mission trip because it changes you. They believe that you can go to lots of Bible studies or conferences, soaking it all up, but what’s the point unless you squeeze all that grace and mercy out?!

You’ll be happy to know I haven’t signed all of us up for a trip to the Ukraine! We can’t all pack up and go to places far away. But we can begin to seek the Lord for His assignment. God can lead some of us to serve if we ask Him and trust Him to guide and provide. And we can be Christ’s emissaries to far off places like Oahu, Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii. Where ever the Lord leads us, even in your hospital room or your workplace, we do need to begin to be outwardly focused on the mission God has for us. One of the things that struck me was that we weren’t called just to send our monies to churches in countries far away. They wanted us, our bodies and minds, to come teach and work alongside of those already in place.

And living out the Great Commandment and Great Commission is not just going other places to serve while neglecting our mission on Moloka’i. Here at home each and every one of us needs to be focused on Jesus as the Lord of our lives and be Biblically grounded. Our faith in God gives us a strong foundation and framework. But God uses other people as the electrical and plumbing support systems that carry us through life. Look at the people next to you. God wants to use them as agents of growth and maturity in your life. Look at each other and say “God wants to use you in my life.” And the Lord wants to use you in their lives as people who help bring them joy and true success. Proverbs 11:14 says Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory. Look around. Look at all the counselors God has given us. That is victory!

It’s time to take up the challenge to join a small group, or a Bible study and then to take what we’ve learned and apply it. We cannot go until we know. How else can we know what it means to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength? We need to focus on how to love our neighbors as ourselves. We need to build up our families: it’s time to get with it in our family devotions and prayer. Even if you didn’t do devos with your kids, start with your grandchildren. Borrow some! While you’re at it... pray and see if it is time that you get that broken relationship in your family healed. We don’t have the energy or the time for any extra baggage. And also pray about expanding your family. Add someone to your Thanksgiving plans. Find someone who is alone to share Christmas with. Look around for kids to take Trick or Treating. By the way….you may get some free candy if you play your cards right.

It’s time to have a heart for the lost and the lonely. And not just those far away. We all know people here on our island that are hard to love but who need desperately the healing power of Jesus in their lives. Who do you think God sent to them? YOU. He is calling you to love them, and help begin to disciple them. How do we make disciples? Let’s get intentional about answering that question. It is time, dear brothers and sisters for each of us to be able to share our faith clearly. Each of us at the conference were challenged to begin at least one mentoring relationship when we get home. What is a mentor? In the words of Dennis Jernigan, a mentor is a friend...

One who sticks with you no matter what. One who shares the burden of your heart and life. One who shares the burdens of their own heart and life with you. One who tells you the truth - even when you don’t want to hear it...because a real friend only desires your best. One who laughs with you. One who cries with you. One who cheers you on in the race of life. One who covers your backside in battle...while you cover theirs... One who walks side by side through life, facing all the hurdles with you... holding your hand when you die. One who is not ashamed of your past...and not ashamed to glorify God with you…one who is ‘there’ like a warm fire on a cold winter’s night.
That’s who Jesus is with us. He wants us to be like that with someone else.

When I saw the papers, I read that this conference was set on tearing the Episcopal Church apart. But what I heard was not about tearing down the church. It was about building up the Kingdom of God. And that is what we are called to do my brothers and sisters. Our Lord has called us to follow Him. And He has called us to help build His Kingdom. One of the primary ways Jesus uses to build His Kingdom is through His church. And Jesus said that the very gates of hell will not be able to conquer it(Matthew 16:18). Let’s get busy… Amen

Together let’s sing “You Are My Strength” (My All in All) by Dennis Jernigan

2003-11-09T13:43:00.000-08:00

Sermon delivered by The Rev. Lynette Schaefer
Grace Episcopal Church, Moloka’i, Hawai'i on 10 Aug. 2003 (Ephesians 4:25-5:2)

Earlier this week someone was using the church computers to make a DVD video of the mission trip to Haiti. They inputted all the pictures and sounds but had to leave before the DVD was copied. So they told their helper to wait for the files to get transferred from the computer onto the DVD disk. The process had already started and the helper was instructed to wait. They were told that when the DVD was finished it would just “pop out.” So they waited. Now if any of you are familiar with Macintosh computers you know that when the computer is on a task a little ball spins on the screen. The helper saw the little ball spinning and waited. And waited. And waited. Three hours later they came and got Scotty who was next door here for a meeting. He saw that the computer was frozen…locked up and had to shut it down. They had waited for three hours, not knowing what to do except wait and watch the spinning ball.

There are many people who believe that when Jesus left, He gave the same type of vague instructions to His Disciples and all Believers. They act as if He said, “Just hang out and wait ‘till I get back. I will pop out of heaven. Meanwhile, just watch the spinning ball.” Nothing could be further from the truth. We were told to watch and wait for Him to come again. As we wait we take Jesus’ teaching to know that we also must feed the hungry, visit the sick and those in prison, free the captives, give sight to the blind, release those who are oppressed, as we proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. We were also given some very specific last instructions. At the end of Matthew (in chapter 28) Jesus said this, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

That isn’t too vague is it? But how do we make disciples, and what do we teach them to obey? Jesus left us a map and a manual….we call it the Word of God. It is also called the Bible. God breathed into the quills of men like Paul, James and John to give us what we know as our Holy Scriptures today. When Paul wrote the second letter to his young helper, Timothy he said “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16)

Today, the Episcopal Church is at a crossroads. This week, in a break from historic Christianity and in direct contradiction to some very clear teaching in the Bible, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church formally consented to the election of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Why is this crossroads? Gene Robinson is divorced from his wife and living in a relationship with another man. This is the church’s first openly gay bishop. I say openly gay, because it has come to light that we have had gay bishops in the Episcopal Church in the past. They haven’t spoken of their orientation openly. Some even married and had children while living a dual life.

Let me say this right off. From what I read Gene Robinson is a very nice and a very smart man. But this isn’t about nice and it isn’t about intelligence. We could debate for hours about whether the Convention would have voted in favor if he was living with a woman outside of wedlock. But there is a deeper issue. In fact, this isn’t really about sexuality or homosexuality. It is about the authority for our faith. Is the Bible really the Word of God which He has written for our education and correction so that we could be proficient in every good work for Him?

There is another issue just as deep. Why did Jesus come to earth? And why did He have to die? Did Jesus come so that we could all be universally included and accepted into the household of God or did Jesus come to die on the cross to take away our sins so that we might have a relationship with God as adopted children? If we take the Bible as God’s word, we read this, “This is a true saying, and everyone should believe it: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—and I was the worst of them all” (1Tim 1:15). We also find this, in Galatians, “ But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.” Those are the issues that this vote brought out. It also brought out some rhetoric and some angry words from both sides. Let me say that the Bible is very clear in many places including today’s lesson from the letter to the church in Ephesus that the Lord does not like bitterness, and anger and gossip. They are included in the list of sins too. And is there no room for doubt in the scripture from this morning, “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear.”

So as we speak and teach about this, all self-righteousness and anger and evil talk needs to be left at the door: or more correctly, at the altar.

By the way, how many sinners do we have here today? Show of hands? If you are not a sinner you are at the wrong church! As I have stated in the past, I have been confronted many times by people who have told me that we don’t have a very respectable group here at Grace Church. I have heard that we have thieves, drunks, drug addicts, adulterers, fornicators, gossips, murders, liars, people with terrible tempers, bad drivers and (gasp) we have even had homosexuals in our church. And what are the 2 words we say to all those people here at Grace? The first word we say is …..it starts with a W…..welcome. God loves you so much that He sent Jesus to die just for you so that your sin could be forgiven. The second word we say is…starts with an R….repent. God loves you so much He doesn’t want you to stay the way you are: He wants you to be more like Jesus in every way.

One of the foundations of our faith is found in one of the letters that John wrote; letters we include in our prayer book; Holy words God wrote to correct us and build us up. Hard to listen to if we think we don’t need correction, or if we’re already puffed up. John writes this “When we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” John goes on further to say that if we say we have no sin we make God out to be a liar. Now here is the problem. Homosexuality and fornication, meaning having sex with someone outside of marriage, are both clearly prohibited in the Bible. Some say it is vague. I don’t mean to be harsh, but here is a verse that is in context and is clearly not fuzzy from Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth: “Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers—none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.”
Now if a man who wants to be a Bishop was an open drunkard, would we say it is a good thing to be a leader and teacher of the church, as in a bishop? If a bishop elect was known to be robbing the church offering every week, but did it openly, would that be a good thing? What if they were a spouse abuser or were so greedy that they went bankrupt four times because they couldn’t control their spending? See, those are sins that need to be repented of so that those persons can be forgiven and begin to live new and holy lives, set apart for God. But in the case of Canon Robinson, other things on the list were left out. By the way, the rest of that passage says this, “And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” The Bible says that it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance.

One of the arguments to confirm Fr. Robinson is that God has changed His mind and that God is doing “a new thing.” The statement was made that the Episcopal Church will now lead the way, perhaps in some prophetic mode, and that other Christian churches will in time see the wisdom of this decision. There is a new revelation of God on the move and these are the new leaders of that revelation. This week many Bishops said that instead of a church spilt over this issue, the church would actually grow as all people would now feel included. We’ve moved from Good Friday to Easter.
Is this a new thing? After all, when the Bible was written they didn’t really understand human sexuality. But now we do. We know more than God. How many times Israel said the same thing! And it’s amazing how quickly the New Testament church did too. It was full of corruption, both in life and in doctrine. Paul reminded the first Christian congregations again and again that sexual immorality is particularly unacceptable – he wrote it to the Ephesians, the Romans, the Corinthians, and to the Thessalonians. Peter also makes the same point and the Revelation to John says the same to the church at Thyatira.

All of us who are shepherds and teachers will be held strictly accountable to God. We will stand or lay prostrate before Him on the Day of Judgment. I have not seen anything that authenticates this teaching in scripture, in history, or in church tradition.

And you know, it may initially sound so good. But where is the verification? It doesn’t say so in the Bible. So where do we get confirmation that this is a new move of God? Who verifies the veracity of that truth? Is it society? Is it psychology and medicine? Is it education? Who sets the standards for the Body of Christ, the Church? As we have seen in the past few weeks, it is the Lord Jesus Christ who reigns as the head of His church. And by the way, a vote by a few hundred church people in Minneapolis doesn’t negate our job descriptions given to us by Jesus. It doesn’t say to sit and watch the spinning ball until the vote goes the other way. We have been told to go and make disciples. I am irritated that we have wasted so much time and energy on this one subject and neglected the important issues. It is time for the church to be the Body of the living Christ in the world, right now! The only reason I address them now is because they expose the foundational issues of who we are in Christ and how and whom we follow.

This is not new. Jesus warned us about following false teachers, the early church had many false teachers and prophets. In Revelation 2, the last book in the Bible, the angel of the Lord speaks about testing and discerning false apostles. They will increase in number and intensity until the Lord comes again. For those of us who accept scripture as our final authority in matters of faith, our denomination has just turned away from the clear explicit teaching of scripture regarding same-sex intercourse, principles of sexual holiness, two millennia of church tradition, the wider Anglican Communion and most of Christendom. Come Lord Jesus!

By speaking clearly, I am putting myself in the camp labeled as fundamentalist, homophobic, intolerant, and “thinking I have Jesus all to myself.” What is extremely ironic is that my seminary was a magnet for gay men. Almost every male seminarian was gay when I was there in the early 70’s. We lived in the same dormitory. Most of you hold dearly your close friendships when you were in your college days or in your early 20s. Most of my friends in Berkeley were openly gay. None of them were celibate. This homophobic woman used to hang out, go to dinner and play croquet with her best friends who were openly gay. And this intolerant lady standing before you lost many good friends to AIDS before the disease was even named. Few of them lived to see their 40th birthday. The label can be placed, but it won’t stick. I have listened for hundreds of hours as people struggled to be accepted. I know that gay men and women need God’s redeeming love, just as you and I do. I also know that the admonition for thieves to stop stealing applies to all the sins that separate us from God. Murders stop murdering. Liars quit lying. Sinners, all sinners, repent and turn to Jesus.
In the letter to the Ephesians Paul was speaking to believers about conduct within the church, within the body of Christ. We have been called to be different, set apart from the world to live holy lives for God.

So what we’re going through is not uncharted territory. We have guidance from God’s word how to handle what we are facing. The next couple of weeks’ readings from Ephesians 5:3-20 makes it quite clear that sexual immorality was among the problems that Paul had warned the Ephesian Christians to deal with. A few years later, Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus because they still hadn’t solved the problems, and they needed further reminders. Timothy didn’t have much success and got very discouraged. Paul’s second letter to him is mostly about Timothy’s discouragement over the Ephesian church’s failure to reform. Paul encourages Timothy not to be ashamed of the truth he is standing for, but he is to continue to resist evil himself. He is to patiently endure and correct his opponents with gentleness, hoping they will repent. He is to avoid those who won’t listen, but the word used (apotrepomai) suggests leaving them alone and concentrating on those who will listen.

That brings me to today. I have been concerned about how these particular votes would go for a very long time. I’ve been seeking the Lord earnestly on how I should respond if or when the Episcopal Church commended a practice that is condemned by God’s Word. When the initial votes were cast last Sunday afternoon, it was the saddest day of my life. All through this week the going has gotten tough. This was harder for me than the death of my father, my mother, and my daughter. I have cried bitter and sad tears. I have felt betrayed and ashamed of the church. I have wrestled with questions and unease: Do I get going or do I stand my ground, my feet firmly planted on the Rock of Ages? How am I to lead?

Our Bible study this past week was on the life of Deborah. She lived in the dark days recorded in the book of Judges when “there was no king in Israel and every man did what is right in his own eyes.” God used her as a prophet, a judge and to call the whole nation of Israel back to Himself. I do not believe that I’m another Deborah, but I was encouraged that this was the life we were called to examine as I also seriously considered my own role in the church. As each day unfolded I prayed and fasted and read and listened. I had no answers, only tears. But you know, as long as we think we can figure our way out of our problems, we don’t look to God. He is the One who brings us to brokenness and to eventual repentance. In the process as I have been broken, I have been comforted and strengthened by God. His strength was perfected in me in my weakness

For one of my quiet times I read the book of Titus. Paul had left him with the church in Crete. He told him to “appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: 6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; 8 but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. 9 He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:5-9) So Titus was charged with “refuting,” arguing against, those who are leading people astray. He was to do this once or twice, and then if they don’t listen to have nothing more to do with them. Titus is to concentrate only on those who will listen. A good word for me: concentrate only on those who will listen. Another good word is in the Ephesians reading,“Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil.”

I had prayed earlier in the year, met with the Bishop and other island clergy for more prayer, and pretty much decided I would walk away from the Episcopal Church if something like this happened. Kind of like a chess game: if they do this, I’ll move there. But the Christian life is not getting “a word from God” one time and then going out and acting on it. The Christian life is continually seeking God and being obedient to His call. His Word illuminates the area immediately in front of us. The Psalmist says “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet.” I just need to know where He wants me to step TODAY. One step. He will show me. That daily provision is just like the daily gift of manna in the desert. If I get greedy and try to store up the next few days’ provision it rots.

I am staying. More on that in a moment.

After the votes came down, I was at times sad and at times very angry.

There is an anger that is righteous and there is anger that is not. Jesus was angry at times. We should be indignant over injustice, sin, and blasphemous statements or actions. But we’re not supposed to let anger get control of us. Paul puts it in the context of Psalm 4 “4 When you are disturbed, do not sin; ponder it on your beds, and be silent.” Because we’re human, we tend to let personal vindictiveness permeate our anger, so there’s a suggestion to put definite limitations of time on our anger. Resentments aren’t to be held on to beyond the day they start. Actually it’s really good if we can immediately repent and take it to the Lord. That was Tuesday’s hard lesson for me. I sure couldn’t straighten out my problems with our Bishop or diocesan representatives before nightfall, but at the very least I could settle the matter in my own heart long before I slept. Anger which isn’t curbed lays a person open to irrational and evil ideas and Satan is quick to grasp the opportunity. Since the devil is always on the prowl to capture us, Christians shouldn’t make it any easier for him. Did you know that anger, worry, sleepless nights, fretting, anxiety, and an upset stomach all tell me that I think I am in charge and that things should go my way? That is not a sign of the Holy Spirit. And when we have those feelings we need to repent and take them to the Lord.

On Wednesday, since I disagree with the unbiblical, unconstitutional actions of General Convention, I resigned my seat on our Diocesan Council. I repudiate these decisions and disassociate myself from them, so I cannot be in a position of leadership in our diocese right now. I will patiently endure and correct with gentleness, praying they will repent. But I will avoid those who won’t listen and concentrate on those who will listen: on you, the flock God has given me. This was confirmed on Thursday by two men thousands of miles apart who quoted the same message from God to me. Here is the message God sent to me within 15 minutes - one from California and one from Ho’olehua. After His resurrection Jesus appeared to Peter who had denied Jesus three times, “15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

My greatest struggle was what would happen to all of you if I leave. I love the Lord and I love you all. I love the Lord more than a denomination and I love you more than a building. But you are the church of Jesus Christ. I was ordained as a Priest only because God called me to minister here at Grace Church. I love the Lord and you more than I love my own grand ideas of protest. Even though I am at odds with Episcopal leadership, I am not at odds with the flock that Jesus asked me to feed. I am going to show my love for Jesus by feeding His lambs. And not just the snacks we will have after church. I believe God has placed me here, for such a time as this. If anyone would like to discuss this further, stay after the refreshment time. We need to talk and pray together. As we continue to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ, my hope is that each of you will join a Bible study when we restart in September so that you may be grounded in His word and so that your joy will be abundant.

Yesterday afternoon I spent time remembering one of our lambs, Jenna Shea Makalapua Cameros. Makalapua, who used to skip into the back of the church on Sunday and dance before the Lord with us was murdered a year ago in Las Vegas. We celebrated her life with us, and thanked the Lord for her eternal life with Him. We used to teach her - Don’t believe it because Auntie Lynette says it’s true. Believe it because you have read it, with eyes opened by the Holy Spirit. Let me read again what she wrote in her journal a year and one week before her death “You can never understand the hand of the Lord by just reading. Always pray before opening the Bible. Ask the Lord to reveal to you what He wants you to know. He will reveal only what He has planned for you. Always ask the Lord to help you understand His word while doing Bible worshiping. Never underestimate the power of His word. Everything that the Lord leads you to in the Bible read, know and understand …ALWAYS. Don’t overlook what the Lord leads you to. Faith is in knowing the word of the Lord. To know Him you must know His word, fully and wholeheartedly. When you worship, let the Holy Spirit overcome your body. Give yourself to the Lord, and He will reveal to you always what you need to know. Have faith, love and know Jesus.” August 2, 2001

Amen. Let’s sing “Take My Life.” (Holiness, holiness is what I long for…)

2003-11-09T13:19:00.000-08:00

Ordination of Women and Ordination of Gays Not Analogous
The Rev. Alice C. Linsley

The question of the ordination of women is not analogous to the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. Posing the two as analogous results from confusion about the Church’s mission. The two can be posed as analogous only when the Church is understood as simply another human organization.

As a woman priest I am asked how I can uphold women’s rights and oppose gay rights. First, I do not believe the Church’s mission is to defend rights or enforce justice. Many organizations exist with this mission: the NAACP, Right to Life, and the Supreme Court, to mention a few. On the other hand, the Church is unique and this uniqueness makes preservation of the Church expedient. The Church defends those who are defenseless or oppressed as an act of obedience to Jesus Christ and because in doing so, we proclaim God’s power to set people free.

Opposition to the ordination of women never seemed reasonable to me because my grandmother, Alice Williams Linsley, was ordained in 1925 and I witnessed the effectiveness of her ministry. The council of eleven Baptists churches that examined her did not consider her ordination contrary to Scripture. Her ordination certificate hangs next to mine. Across the top of her certificate are these words from Philippians: “Set for the Defense of the Gospel.” As an Evangelical speaking against the actions of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis, these words have become a great comfort and encouragement.

Only as people selectively use Scripture to suit their views can they oppose women as leaders in the church. They point to where Paul says; “I do not permit a woman to speak in the church,” ignoring the evidence of Priscilla, Lydia, Phoebe and of Paul himself, where he says: “When a woman speaks in the assembly, let her wear a head covering.”

Similarly, it is by ignoring the full weight of Scripture that a case can be made for non-celibate homosexual clergy. Many who support V. Gene Robinson’s approval as bishop believe that Bible references to homosexuality are directed against misbehavior, such as same-sex gang rape or the enslavement of boys for the sexual pleasure of aristocrats. Scripture, when examined in its entirety, suggests instead that homosexual behavior posed a societal problem and a threat to Christian values. It is expressly stated to be sin in both the Old and the New Testaments.

The Rev. Alice C. Linsley
Aproeditor@aol.com
Diocese of Lexington

2003-11-09T13:18:00.000-08:00

Women, Homosexuality, and the Bible
The Rev. Canon Alison L. Barfoot, D.Min.

A common argument in favor of the ordination and blessing of sexually active gay men and lesbians goes something like this: Over the past several centuries the church has realized that it was wrong in its biblical interpretation about slavery, racial discrimination, and women’s equality. Accordingly, the church changed its teaching. Now it is time to realize that the church was wrong in its teaching about the blessing of committed same-sex relationships and the ordination of gay men and lesbians who are in committed same-sex relationships.

This argument has been presented as recently as September 28, 2003, in an article in the British newspaper The Telegraph. Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford is quoted as saying, “The Church has got it wrong in the past - there's no doubt about it….I think you can take the view that, just as the Church eventually abolished slavery, so they ended up in favor of votes for women, so they voted for the ordination of women, and this is just one more issue where the Church has got it wrong.”

I call this the “logical extension” argument. The “logical extension” of the abolition of slavery was the ordination of women. And, the “logical extension” of the ordination of women is the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of individuals in same-sex relationships.

Often this “logical extension” argument is rooted in a social justice approach to moral reasoning. The ordination and blessing of people in sexually active same-sex relationships is regarded as a matter of liberating gays and lesbians from oppressive social and ecclesiastical structures, just as the civil rights movement and the women’s ordination movement were focused on liberating those oppressed by ethnically and gender prejudiced structures.

As a woman who has been ordained to the priesthood since 1986, I have heard this argument for many years and now feel compelled to present an opposing view to this “logical extension” claim.

As for my understanding of the difference between the two issues, the bottom line is this: The Bible has a diversity of passages on the role of women in society, at home, and in the church – many affirming, and some seemingly not affirming. As one who upholds the authority of Scripture, the challenge is to reconcile the passages, for I do not believe that Scripture will ultimately contradict itself. So, if it appears contradictory, I am not at liberty to dismiss a passage simply because I don’t like it. Rather, it is incumbent upon me to dig deeper to understand how they can be reconciled. Having done this difficult exegetical work for myself and written about it elsewhere (Men and Women in Relationship at Home and in the Church, Alison L. Barfoot, 1995, and Letter to the Editor, Christianity Today, March 1991) I have come to support women’s ordination not as a matter of social justice, but as a matter of biblical conviction.

Homosexual behavior, however, is uniformly condemned in the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture is it spoken of in a positive way. There are no apparent contradictions in the Bible about this topic. Although our culture presents the approval of homosexual behavior as a social justice issue, Scripture and the more than 4,000-year-old community of faith have regarded it as a moral issue, i.e., as sin, and thus a matter of faith. In Scripture, social justice is understood to be counteracting injustices and their consequences that flow from the sin of disobedience to God’s Word, especially immorality and idolatry. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that reversing what the Bible considers immoral, e.g., homosexual behavior, is an act of social justice.

The ordination and consecration of a man in a sexually active homosexual relationship is a moral issue. The ordination of women, however, is not a moral issue; it is a matter of church order. To equate the two or to put them on the same continuum of logic is to engage in a category mistake. Succinctly put, it is not a sin to be a woman, but the Bible (which knows nothing of sexual orientation) does consider homosexual behavior (regardless of orientation) to be sinful.

For these and other reasons, this is why I and many others in the church can approve of the ordination of women, but be opposed to the ordination and blessing of people involved in sexually active same-sex relationships

The Rev. Canon Alison L. Barfoot, D.Min.
Co-Rector, Christ Church
Overland Park, KS

2003-11-09T13:16:00.000-08:00

The Ordination of Women and the American Anglican Council
“The best predictor of future behavior is past performance”

AAC past and current behaviors, actions, and practices:

1. Ordained women have served on the Board of Directors since the beginning
2. 40% of the people who have gone through or are in the Ministry Development Process (AAC’s ordination track) are women, and the first person to go through the process was a woman!
3. Ordained women have been involved in the core leadership group of the General Convention legislative strategy teams, the main work of the AAC prior to GC2003.
4. Ordained women have preached at AAC conferences, presided at the Eucharist at AAC conferences and events, and con-celebrated.
5. An ordained woman is on the planning committee for the "Plano" conference.
6. An ordained woman will be the preacher at the opening, festival Eucharist for the "Plano" conference, and other ordained women will participate in up-front visible roles.
7. Ordained women serve at AAC-affiliated churches.

What’s the difference between the ordination of women and the ordination and blessing of sexually active gays and lesbians?

1. The ordination of women is a matter of church order, and the ordination and blessing of sexually active gays and lesbians is a moral issue. To equate them, or to put them on the same continuum is a category mistake. It is comparing apples and oranges. They are totally different issues.
2. Scripture has a variety of passages on the role of women in the community of faith; most very affirming, some seemingly not affirming. Yet, the overall tenor of Scripture seems to accord leadership and teaching roles to women. But, the entire message of the Bible on homosexual behavior is negative. There is not one contradictory passage. There is not one affirming passage. Even if they could all be explained away with some other meaning, as some biblical scholars try to posit, the overall message of the Bible regarding sexuality is that of the complementarity of male and female, together made in the image of God and further united in monogamous marriage. The union of male and female is the basis for the analogy of the covenant relationship between God and his people, such that when the covenant is broken, the community of faith is said to have committed adultery. The analogy is later applied in the New Testament to the church as the bride of Christ.
3. In respect to the ordination of women, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops has never said that this practice is contrary to scripture. Rather, they have argued that a process of reception be allowed and not closed prematurely. Yet, the 1998 Lambeth Conference declared that homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture.
4. Prior to ECUSA’s decision to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate, we consulted the Lambeth conference of bishops, who consented and determined that such a matter of church order could be left up to each individual province. ECUSA did not act unilaterally on the issue of the ordination of women. But, with regard to the ordination and blessing of sexually active gays and lesbians, all four Anglican “instruments of unity” – the ACC, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury – urged ECUSA not to proceed. Yet, we disregarded the wisdom of the wider Anglican Communion and acted unilaterally.

2003-11-09T13:15:00.000-08:00

Two Historical Documents of Significance to the
American Anglican Council and the Ordination of Women

June 1996, Briarwood II conference that birthed the AAC: “While we held divergent views on many subjects, we found ourselves quickly converging on the creedal doctrines that are essential to salvation. Perhaps the defining moment in which we recognized that the Holy Spirit had come among us to bring healing and reconciliation was on the last morning, when the four women priests who were present came together to the microphone and pledged solidarity with the three bishops of the Episcopal Synod of America (those who reject the notion that women can be priests) who were also present.
“In the closing moments of the consultation, one long time contributor to many ministry and mission organizations proclaimed that this is a moment for radical cooperation among all those organizations and their supporters and their boards. We believe that God is bringing us into a unity that we could not have forged for ourselves, and we can do no less than commit to working together, sharing mailing lists and pooling resources to pursue the Great Commission as Episcopalians in America.”

June 1997 – An Open Letter to the Church:

We, the undersigned, are clergywomen ?? priests and deacons ?? in the Episcopal Church who feel that it is now time to speak out against the proposed canonical change in Canon III.8.1 which mandates the ordination of women.

It goes without saying that we obviously believe that the ordination of women is not contrary to orthodox, biblical faith. Thus, we disagree on biblical and theological grounds with those who do not approve of or permit the ordination of women. Each of us has had painful experiences of prejudice, discrimination, condescension, and even outright hostility because we are women in the ordained ministry of the church. None of us would be where we are today if it were not for other leaders in the church who affirmed God's call in our lives and opened the door of ordained ministry through which we walked. Accordingly, we share the pain of those who are in parishes or dioceses which will not affirm the ministry of ordained women.

Nevertheless, we believe the proposed change in Canon III.8.1 making such ordinations mandatory is not the right action to take at this time.

1. We believe the process of "reception" of such a sweeping change as the admission of women into the presbyterate and episcopate will take at least two generations. We have the privilege today of living between the time when the ordination of women has already been passed, but it has not yet been fully received by the universal church. This "already, but not yet" aspect of the reception of the ordination of women is part of the greater eschatological reality of the life of the church today.

2. Patience is described by St. Paul in I Cor 13.4 as one of the characteristics of love. To adopt the proposed Canon III.8.1 would be to indulge in the sin of impatience toward those who clearly differ from us. We are called to love one another...and, even to love those who disagree with us theologically on the ordination of women. For us, this means that we are willing to be patient for full reception of our orders to take place.

3. We believe that the integrity of General Convention's leadership is at stake in this vote, and that it is important to be faithful to the promises made at the time the ordination of women was passed, namely that during the process of reception the ordination of women would be permissive, not mandatory.

We firmly believe that the approval of the ordination of women was the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of our church and the General Convention. Furthermore, we believe that in the fullness of time, God will move the universal Church to wholeheartedly embrace the ordination of women. We see no need to act in a precipitous, coercive, or un?Anglican manner. Rather, we urge the defeat of the proposed changes to Canon III.8.1 and the adoption of mutual respect across our differences while the Holy Spirit brings to completion the work begun in passing the ordination of women.

Faithfully yours,

The Rev. Charlene Alling
The Rev. Karen L. Anthony
The Rev. Helen Appelberg
The Rev. Sara A. Balcomb
The Rev. Alison L. Barfoot
The. Rev. Erilynne Barnum
The Rev. Susan D. Bear
The Rev. Patricia Bergie
The Rev. Myrna Bevens
The Rev. Eleanor Biscoe
The Rev. Norma L. Blackwell
The Rev. Blair Both
The Rev. Catherine Brall
The Rev. Grace Louise Cangialosi
The Rev. Carol Chamberlain
The Rev. Sara J. Chandler
The Rev. Mary Chilton
The Rev. Kate Chipps
The Rev. Dr. Angela Russell Christman
The Rev. Kris Nyberg Coppinger
The Rev. Nan M. Cushing
The Rev. Nancy De Forest
The Rev. Ellen A. Donnelly
The Rev. Susan Eastman
The Rev. Janet Roberts Echols
The Rev. Kathleen R. Eickwort
The Rev. Marilyn J. Engstrom
The Rev. Lana Farley
The Rev. Joan Fleming
The Rev. Sarah H. Gaede
The Rev. Deborah E. Gamble
The Rev. Judith Gentle?Hardy
The Rev. April T. Greenwood
The Rev. Barbara Handelsman
The Rev. Carol Harlacher
The Rev. Christina Cainas-Harrell
The Rev. Constance D. Harris
The Rev. Mary M. Hays
The Rev. Victoria Heard
The Rev. Ann E. Heinemann
The Rev. Joanne B. Hetrick
The Rev. Dr. Mary Hileman
The Rev. Ellendale Hoffman
The Rev. Martha Anne Honaker
The Rev. Terry Hunt
The Rev. Dorothy Jessup
The Rev. Kathy King
The Rev. Barbara A. Knotts
The Rev. Janet Broderick Kraft
The Rev. Carolyn Keil-Kuhr
The Rev. Marion Kush
The Rev. Sharon Lewis
The Rev. Donna B. Lobs
The Rev. Ruth Manson
The Rev. Linda Manuel
The Rev. Mary Page Markham
The Rev. Keith Elizabeth Mathews
The Rev. Joan Plubell Mattia
The Rev. Jane McDermott
The Rev. Kathryn S. Moore
The Rev. Melana Nelson?Amaker
The Rev. Canon Jennie C. Olbrych
The Rev. Ann Paton
The Rev. Margaret E. Phillips
The Rev. Linda Poindexter
The Rev. Jennifer L. C. Pridmore
The Ven. Elizabeth H. Rodewald
The Rev. Fleming Rutledge
The Rev. Elizabeth J. Sausele
The Rev. Patricia A. Smith
The Rev. Rebecca Conrad Spanos
The Rev. Sarah M. Stanton
The Rev. Jeane T. Steel
The Rev. Karen Stevenson
The Rev. Mary Sulerud
The Rev. Joell Szachara
The Rev. Laura Y. Theis
The Rev. Elizabeth Z. Turner
The Rev. Susan Tyree?Cuevas
The Rev. Ruth Urban
The Rev. Valarie A.Whitcomb
The Rev. Dolores F. Wiens
The Rev. Marcia Wilkinson
The Rev. Barbara Wulsin

2003-11-09T13:12:00.000-08:00

Alison Barfoot’s Remarks to the Clergywomen Networking Meeting at the American Anglican Council’s conference, A Place to Stand: Declaring. Preparing. October 7-9, 2003, Dallas, Texas.

(Note: There were more than 100 clergywomen at the AAC’s conference in October! Who knew there were so many of us?! Thanks to all my sisters for showing up, for caring about the church, and for those who stayed at home and prayed.)

I was the only woman in my seminary class at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry from 1983-1986. I always seemed to carry an extra non-credit class that was my own reading called “Defending my call: the Biblical basis for the ordination of women and women in leadership.” The summer between my middler and senior year of seminary I did a parish internship in Virginia. One of the things I was asked to do was lead a women’s Bible study on Wednesday mornings. I thought that they would like to study the biblical basis of women in ministry. How wrong I was. I realized that I was trying to impose on them my agenda, rather than seeking God’s agenda. What the women wanted was to study prayer. I learned a valuable lesson that summer – sometimes it’s more important how we present ourselves than what we say about our ministries.

We all have war stories to tell about ministry and there will be opportunities to share them with one another at other times. And, we’ve all wondered if the AAC is really supportive of the ordination of women. I want to share with you what the Lord showed me several weeks ago. This conference is not about us, even though there are some who are once again raising the question of the ordination of women. This conference is not about us – it’s about God. Rather than focusing on all the hard times and difficult experiences, the Lord helped me to see that the AAC is supportive of the ordination of women, and our presence and participation here is partial proof of that, and will ensure that it continues and grows in its support.

The posture and attitude we take here could result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we fear that we will once again be victims of those opposed to the ordination of women, then we may set ourselves up for a defensive position. But, if we go into this conference secure in God’s love for us in Christ and secure in his call on our lives, then we can impute to this body their support for women’s ordination, and then help them become what they’ve been declared to be – namely, supportive!

Now, having said that, we must also remember that the AAC is supportive of the right of those whose conscience will not permit them to support the ordination of women to hold that position. In fact, many of you signed an Open Letter (reprinted below) in 1997 for the Philadelphia General Convention on behalf of the right of conscience when it comes to matters of church order. At the Briarwood II conference in June 1996, which gave birth to the AAC, the story is told of the four clergywomen present at that meeting standing together at a microphone and pledging their solidarity with the three Forward in Faith bishops who were present – “we have more in common with one another than we do that separates us.” In that same spirit, more than 100 clergywomen in 1997 stepped up to the plate again and exercised significant leadership in the church by signing that Open Letter, appealing for grace and standing against coercion when it comes to the process of reception about the ordination of women. We have the opportunity at this conference to be those same kinds of leaders again!

Let’s look at the AAC’s behaviors and actions, rather than at statements and things that have been said to us. I looked at how the AAC has related to ordained women since its formation, and I realized that the AAC has been supportive. Let's look at the actions and practices of the AAC more than what they say, because “The best predictor of future behavior is past performance.”

1. Ordained women have served on the Board of Directors since the beginning
2. 40% of the people who have gone through or are in the Ministry Development Process (AAC’s ordination track) are women, and the first person to go through the process was a woman!
3. Ordained women have been involved in the core leadership group of the General Convention legislative strategy teams, the main work of the AAC prior to GC2003.
4. Ordained women have preached at AAC conferences, presided at the Eucharist at AAC conferences and events, and con-celebrated.
5. An ordained woman is on the planning committee for the "Plano" conference.
6. An ordained woman will be the preacher at the opening, festival Eucharist for the "Plano" conference, and other ordained women will participate in up-front visible roles.
7. Ordained women serve at AAC-affiliated churches.

Finally, we need to also be able to talk about the difference between the ordination of women and the ordination and blessing of sexually active gays and lesbians.

1. The ordination of women is a matter of church order, and the ordination and blessing of sexually active gays and lesbians is a moral issue. To equate them, or to put them on the same continuum is a category mistake. It is comparing apples and oranges. They are totally different issues.

2. Scripture has a variety of passages on the role of women in the community of faith; most very affirming, some seemingly not affirming. Yet, the overall tenor of Scripture seems to accord leadership and teaching roles to women. But, the entire message of the Bible on homosexual behavior is negative. There is not one contradictory passage. There is not one affirming passage. Even if they could all be explained away with some other meaning, as some biblical scholars try to posit, the overall message of the Bible regarding sexuality is that of the complementarity of male and female, together made in the image of God and further united in monogamous marriage. The union of male and female is the basis for the analogy of the covenant relationship between God and his people, such that when the covenant is broken, the community of faith is said to have committed adultery. The analogy is later applied in the New Testament to the church as the bride of Christ.

3. In respect to the ordination of women, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops has never said that this practice is contrary to scripture. Rather, they have argued that a process of reception be allowed and not closed prematurely. Yet, the 1998 Lambeth Conference declared that homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture.

4. Prior to ECUSA’s decision to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate, we consulted the Lambeth conference of bishops, who consented and determined that such a matter of church order could be left up to each individual province. ECUSA did not act unilaterally on the issue of the ordination of women. But, with regard to the ordination and blessing of sexually active gays and lesbians, all four Anglican “instruments of unity” – the ACC, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury – urged ECUSA not to proceed. Yet, we disregarded the wisdom of the wider Anglican Communion and acted unilaterally.

We may be few, but we are mighty. In addition to the views and positions we represent and the churches and ministries we represent, we have a unique gift to offer this conference. The AAC is a group of mainstream Anglicans, and our presence here will help reinforce that identity. Our presence here will help ensure that whatever realignment takes place will be biblical in its faith and mainstream in its Anglicanism.