The Anglican Church in North America

December 3, 2008

I heard a report about this on NPR today (no link, sorry) that managed to get nearly every detail wrong. Here’s what happened today: No one broke away from the Episcopal Church today. North American churches that had already broken away from the Episcopal Church (or its Canadian analogue) had switched their allegiance to Anglican provinces in South America and Africa. It was an awkward arrangement to have North American churches belong to faraway provinces, so today those churches agreed to join together to form a new North American province.

The reason those churches had left the Episcopal Church had essentially nothing to do with sexuality. It had to do with the Episcopal Church’s abandonment of key Christian doctrines such as sin, redemption, and the authority of scripture. (As an indication of how bad things had gotten, read this and this.) It also had to do with the Episcopal Church’s contempt for its orthodox minority, most notably displayed by deposing the Bishop of Pittsburgh in violation of the procedures given in church canons. Issues of sexuality are one symptom of the problem, but by themselves would probably (there’s no way to know now) have never led to a major exodus from the Episcopal Church.

It’s true that the Episcopal Church will probably initiate a court battle to try to confiscate the property of breakaway churches, but this was already an inevitability when those churches left the Episcopal Church. Today’s action changed nothing. Also, any churches that join the new province from elsewhere do not have their property at risk. The same is true for the churches that have already won their legal battles with the Episcopal Church.

The one thing that NPR got right was it is unclear whether the Archbishop of Canterbury will recognize the new province, but the more important question is whether the Anglican primates recognize it. Under the Anglican Church’s unusual structure, the voting power of provinces is entirely uncorrelated with their size. Thus, the global south (which is overwhelmingly orthodox) has the vast majority of the people, but a minority of voting power. It will be very interesting to see whether the progressive primates (who control the Anglican Church despite representing a small minority of its members) press their advantage. If they do, there may well be schism, which would leave a rump Anglican Church and a new orthodox denomination with nearly all its people.

No Comments » | Media Failure, Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

New Anglican province to launch December 3

November 18, 2008

So reports Virtue Online:

The new American province will launch on December 2-3 in Wheaton, IL, when the Council of the Common Cause Partnership will receive and likely commend a draft constitution and canons for the new province. If this is done, the formal announcement of the new province will take place at a service on the evening of 3rd December.

Recognition of the new province by the majority of the Anglican primates is a forgone conclusion, but it’s not entirely clear what Rowan Williams will do.  I think he will probably recognize the new province to avoid a larger rift in the Anglican communion, but he might try to strike some compromise position.  (It’s hard to compromise on a binary decision, but one shouldn’t underestimate human creativity.)

Barring a change of heart on the part of the Episcopal Church, the two American provinces will be in litigation for years.

No Comments » | Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

The presiding heretic speaks

November 3, 2008

In a Q&A session with Katharine Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, she takes her universalism to the next level:

A few said their fellow parishioners wonder whether the presiding bishop sees Jesus Christ as the sole way to salvation.

Jefferts Schori replied that like most Christians, she believes Jesus died for “the whole world.” But his life and resurrection did not sever the promise God made to Jews and to Muslims, she added, and those groups still have access to salvation.

Now, universalism from Schori is nothing new, but this is the first time I’m aware of her speaking of God making a promise to Muslims.

Christianity does not recognize any promise made to Muslims (per se).  (Jews are another matter altogether.)  To the contrary, Galatians 1:6-9 specifically condemns any future revelation (e.g., the Koran) that opposes the gospel.  So the only way this could possibly make sense is if Schori was referring to everyone, which is hard to reconcile with her specific listing of Jews and Muslims, much less her reference to “those groups.”

But more than that, Schori’s statement is bizarrely anachronistic.  Jesus’s (earthly) life and resurrection predated Islam by centuries, so it makes no sense at all to refer to him severing any promise made to Muslims, even if we suppose that such a promise later existed.

No Comments » | Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh votes to realign

October 5, 2008

The Anglican Church is a peculiar one. It is the official church of England and headquartered in London, but most of its adherents are outside the English-speaking world (especially Africa). It is a worldwide denomination without any centralized authority. Its nominal leader, Rowan Williams, was appointed by a British politician, Tony Blair, who happens to be Catholic. Overall, it is strongly orthodox, but it has a powerful non-orthodox minority.

All these factors contribute to the crisis that now exists in the Episcopal Church (an American branch of the Anglican church). Within the Episcopal Church, orthodox Christians (who hold traditional Christian positions on the person of Jesus and the authority of the Bible) find themselves in the minority; the majority “progressives” wish to make the faith more compatible with modern views.

Non-Anglicans are most familiar with the conflict over sexuality, but that conflict is merely a sideshow, next to central disagreements over the divinity of Christ, his unique redemptive purpose, the Resurrection, and the authority of the Bible. The conflict has simmered for a long time, and although the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire (Robinson divorced his family to live openly with a gay partner) worsened existing divisions, it wasn’t until the election of Katharine Schori as Presiding Bishop that the conflict exploded.

Schori was seen as a compromise candidate, progressive but moderately so. She has proven to be anything but moderate, as she showed in an NPR interview before she even took office:

Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience… through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.

A tolerant and multicultural statement this may be, but a Christian one it is not. Unfortunately, this is just one of Bishop Schori’s many statements denying basic tenets of the Christian faith, and she is far from alone. As just one other example, the Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles recently apologized to Hindus for Christianity’s efforts to evangelize them.

Anglicanism has a long tradition of “comprehensiveness,” which refers to orthodoxy in central matters but tolerance in secondary ones. Unfortunately, the progressives have moved from secondary issues on to central ones, and their church soon will no longer be recognizable as a Christian one. (Schori’s NPR interviewer insightfully asked “What are you, a Unitarian?” Schori did not answer.)

It was in this context that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh last year began the process of leaving the Episcopal Church. Several provinces of the Anglican Church offered to accept Pittsburgh into their fold, including the Southern Cone (in South America).

Many were loath to leave the Episcopal Church, feeling that it would be better to remain and try to change it from within. Those voices were undermined, however, by Katharine Schori’s decision to depose Robert Duncan, the bishop of Pittsburgh. Ordinarily, deposition of a bishop requires a trial, but that would have required an actual charge, and would have taken a considerable amount of time. Instead, Schori used a provision called “abandonment of communion,” intended to deal officially with the departure of bishops who had left for the Roman Catholic church. Safeguards exist to prevent a charge of abandonment of communion in controversial cases (such as a bishop who had not yet left), but Schori ruled that those safeguards were inoperable.

In the end, the vote to realign and join the Southern Cone was not close. Clergy voted 121-38, and laity voted 119-72 (including abstentions and spoiled ballots). Vote counters indicated that nearly every swing vote sided with realignment in the end. Archbishop Venables of the Southern Cone immediately moved to welcome the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and appointed Duncan its caretaker bishop until Duncan can officially be re-elected next month.

After the vote, Katharine Schori issued a statement, saying:

“There is room in this Church for all who desire to be members of it.” She also said schism is not an “honored tradition within Anglicanism” and is “frequently been seen as a more egregious error than charges of heresy.”

In other words, unity is more important than truth.

The struggle does not end with the decision to realign. All observers now expect that the Episcopal Church will quickly file suit in secular court to confiscate the property of the Diocese. Historically, church property belonged to individual dioceses, but in 1979 the Episcopal Church passed the Dennis Canon, which asserts that all church property actually belongs to the national church. In 2006, after a lengthy court battle, the Episcopal Church took control of the Church of St. James the Less and shuttered it, and it remains empty today. However, differences in legal circumstances suggest that the Diocese is more likely to prevail in this case.

The media is beginning to understand the nature of the conflict. Although generally still biased against orthodox Christians, they are beginning to understand that the conflict is not about homosexuality, but much more fundamental issues. For example, the New York Times wrote yesterday:

The movement is driven by theologically conservative leaders who believe the church has turned away from traditional biblical teachings on issues like whether Jesus is the son of God and the only way to salvation.

No Comments » | Legal, Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

Hamas scion converts to Christianity

August 13, 2008

Fox News has an interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader and now a Christian seeking asylum in America.

No Comments » | Geopolitical, Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

Zondervan sued for publishing the Bible

July 12, 2008

A man who doesn’t like the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality (1Co 6:9 in particular) is suing Zondervan, a major Bible publisher:

Christian publisher Zondervan is facing a $60 million federal lawsuit filed by a man who claims he and other homosexuals have suffered based on what the suit claims is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

But a company spokeswoman says Zondervan doesn’t translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations. Instead, she said in a statement, the company relies on the “scholarly judgment of credible translation committees.”

That is to say, setting aside whether the federal civil rights lawsuit is credible, the company says Bradley Fowler sued the wrong group.

His suit centers on one passage in scripture — 1 Corinthians 6:9 — and how it reads in Bibles published by Zondervan.

Fowler says Zondervan Bibles published in 1982 and 1987 use the word homosexuals among a list of those who are “wicked” or “unrighteous” and won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Fowler says his family’s pastor used that Zondervan Bible, and because of it his family considered him a sinner and he suffered.

Now he is asking for an apology and $60 million.

Opponents of Christianity have been suing Christians in Canada for years (and winning), so it was only a matter of time until it was tried here. This suit is flawed in so many ways that it should quickly be thrown out, but that will only make them try harder.

(Via the Master’s Table.)

1 Comment | Legal, Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

I don’t get it

July 9, 2008

The London Times has a strange article on a (disputed) archaeological discovery:

The death and resurrection of Christ has been called into question by a radical new interpretation of a tablet found on the eastern bank of the Dead Sea.

The three-foot stone tablet appears to refer to a Messiah who rises from the grave three days after his death - even though it was written decades before the birth of Jesus.

The ink is badly faded on much of the tablet, known as Gabriel’s Vision of Revelation, which was written rather than engraved in the 1st century BC. This has led some experts to claim that the inscription has been overinterpreted.

A previous paper published by the scholars Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elitzur concluded that the most controversial lines were indecipherable.

Israel Knohl, a biblical studies professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argued yesterday that line 80 of the text revealed Gabriel telling an historic Jewish rebel named Simon, who was killed by the Romans four years before the birth of Christ: “In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”

Professor Knohl contends that the tablet proves that messianic followers possessed the paradigm of their leader rising from the grave before Jesus was born.

I just don’t get it. Let’s suppose than the inscription is correctly translated exactly as Knohl claims. (Apparently there is good reason to doubt this.) How exactly does this cast doubt on the resurrection? It has no bearing on whether or not it actually happened; all it does is suggest that the idea of resurrection was already out there. I think most people would agree that idea of resurrection is quite a bit easier than actually pulling it off.

Furthermore, there’s very little in the Gospels — the resurrection included — that isn’t already foreshadowed in the Old Testament. In fact, there is already a resurrection in the Old Testament. How would one more foreshadowing change anything? This result sounds greatly oversold.

UPDATE (7/17): One reader writes to tell me, none too kindly, that since Christianity is false anyway, all this discussion is vacuous. I disagree. There are at least two states of belief (Kripke worlds) we may consider here; in one Christianity is known to be false, and in the other it is seen as plausible. In either world, this discovery changes nothing. Clearly it is consistent with the atheist’s state, and, as I argue above, it is consistent with the believer/agnostic’s state as well. So, in what state of belief is this discovery germane? I still don’t get it.

No Comments » | Scientific, Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

Reuters misunderstands GAFCON

June 29, 2008

For the last week, orthodox Anglican leaders have been meeting at a conference in Jerusalem. Reuters reports on the results, managing to get nearly everything wrong:

Conservative Anglicans Reluctant to Break Away

Conservative Anglican leaders meeting at a rebel summit expressed frustration with the church’s leadership on Thursday but indicated that an outright schism might be avoided.

The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), a week-long convention of hundreds of conservative bishops and clergy, opened on Sunday amid talk that it was a first step towards a split between conservative and liberal wings in the 77-million-strong Anglican Communion.

The Communion is divided over issues such as homosexuality and biblical authority. [Scofflaw: The latter is the central issue, but the former is what interests the media.]

But mid-way through the conference, conservative leaders spoke only of making GAFCON a “movement,” without indicating how such a process would be handled and if there was enough support among the bishops to initiate a split.

As we’ll see, this is simply wrong.

When asked whether worshippers would be able to belong to both the new movement and the Anglican Communion, [Archbishop Nzimbi of Kenya] said: “This is something which should emerge clearly at the end of GAFCON.”

The very question indicates that they have no idea what is going on. The assumption seems to be that orthodox Christians (”conservatives,” the article calls them) would secede from the Anglican Communion. What Reuters does not understand is that the Anglican Communion is overwhelmingly orthodox. If anyone found themselves on the outside, it wouldn’t be the orthodox members.

What is happening is a small province of the Anglican Communion (the United States Episcopal Church) is aggressively challenging the core tenets of the Christian faith (such as the unique redemptive work of Jesus Christ), and is persecuting dissident congregations. Many of those dissident congregations are looking to leave the Episcopal Church and join another province within the Anglican Communion. That is the split being contemplated, one within the Episcopal Church, not the Anglican Communion as a whole.

Continuing:

The conservatives, who claim to represent 35 million Anglicans, mostly in developing countries, have been hinting at a split within the Communion since Anglicanism’s first openly gay bishop was consecrated in the United States.

However, it seems that they might now shy away from that step.

“They are trying to back down from the difficult position they put themselves in, as gracefully as possible,” said Jim Naughton, Canon for Communications with the diocese of Washington.

Notice that the only quote the article solicited was from an opponent of the conference, and it is presented uncritically (despite, we’ll see in a moment, being completely wrong). However, basic demographic facts are qualified by “claim”.

Anyway, the main thrust of the article is that participants are backing away from schism (and, according to Naughton, trying to back down gracefully). In fact, the official statement is out, and it doesn’t back away in the slightest:

We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread, and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons.

We thank God for the courageous actions of those Primates and provinces who have offered orthodox oversight to churches under false leadership, especially in North and South America. The actions of these Primates have been a positive response to pastoral necessities and mission opportunities. We believe that such actions will continue to be necessary and we support them in offering help around the world.

We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates’ Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church. In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council.

(Emphasis mine.) The statement explicitly endorses the formation of a new, orthodox province in North America. Far from backing off, this is actually a stronger position than what has recently been contemplated. (What is now being contemplated is to move orthodox parishes and dioceses to another existing province — probably the Southern Cone — rather than creation of a new province.)

This article completely misunderstands what happened in Jerusalem (or worse, deliberately misrepresents it). Truly a shabby piece of work.

No Comments » | Media Failure, Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary

Obama’s faith

June 3, 2008

Mark Hemingway points out a 2004 interview of Barack Obama by Cathleen Falsani, on the topic of his faith. Obama calls himself a Christian, and Falsani asks several questions to probe what that means to him. She leaves some important questions out, though.

Obama’s answers reveal him as a practitioner of the non-judgemental, “people are basically good” brand of pseudo-Christianity that is popular in America today. Certainly he is not an orthodox Christian.

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment | Political, Theological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary