Sunday, November 11, 2018

+Love's Last Stand

As readers may have noted, I have stopped posting regularly about the Episcopal "Church" in the USA ("ECUSA", for short) -- mainly for the reasons (as explained in so many prior posts on this site) that it is losing its identity as a Christian church, and that I am no longer a member. Now and then, however, there arises from ECUSA's decay an item which is of broader interest to Christians at large, as it points up what happens when a religious denomination  surrenders itself to the zeitgeist (and no longer follows the Heiligen Geist).

The current situation in the Episcopal Diocese of Albany, led by the Rt. Rev. William H. Love, is just such an item. On the surface, it presents a diocesan bishop who is doing his utmost to carry out his ordination vows to "guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church" (BCP 517), and to "[f]eed the flock of Christ committed to your charge, guard and defend them in His truth, and be a faithful steward of his holy Word and Sacraments."

His vows are being put to the test because of the passage, by the ECUSA General Convention last summer, of Resolution B012. That legislation purports to make available, in each and every diocese in the USA, "trial" rites of same-sex marriage and blessings to those couples desiring them. As Bishop Love explains, in a pastoral letter addressed "To the People of God in the Diocese of Albany and throughout the World":
With the passage of B012, the 79th General Convention of The Episcopal Church in effect is attempting to order me as a Bishop in God’s holy Church, to compromise “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3 ESV), and to turn my back on the vows I have made to God and His People, in order to accommodate The Episcopal Church’s “new” understanding of Christian marriage as no longer being “a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God” as proclaimed in the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP 422), but now allowing for the marriage of same-sex couples.
The 8th Resolve of B012 states: “Resolved, That in dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) SHALL invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couples, the Member of the Clergy involved and the congregation or worshipping community in order to fulfill the intention of this resolution that all couples have convenient and reasonable local congregational access to these rites."
In his letter, Bishop Love details seven grounds for his opposition to the directive in that 8th Resolve. For purposes of this post, I summarize them in point-form here, but be sure to read the whole thing:
  • First: B012 contradicts God’s intent for the sacrament of marriage as revealed through Holy Scripture;
  • Second: B012 is contrary to the 2000-year-old understanding of Christian marriage as still reflected in the rubrics of the BCP, and in the Canons of the Diocese of Albany;
  • Third: B012 "is doing a great disservice and injustice to our gay and lesbian Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by leading them to believe that God gives his blessing to the sharing of sexual intimacy within a same-sex relationship, when in fact He has reserved the gift of sexual intimacy for men and women within the confines of marriage between a man and woman";
  • Fourth: B012 encourages Episcopalians to engage in sexual behavior which is expressly forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments;
  • Fifth: By its false teaching and encouragement to sinful behavior, B012 is leading same-sex couples, as well as ECUSA itself, to come under God's judgment (resulting in the precipitous decline in membership throughout the Church);
  • Sixth: B012 attempts to force Bishop Love to violate his ordination vows, as stated above, and would lead to schism and departures in his Diocese; and
  • Seventh: Succumbing to B012's directive would render it impossible for Bishop Love to represent his diocese before the wider Anglican Communion and the whole world.
There is much more in the letter, including assurances to same-sex couples that scripture does not forbid close friendships or living together, only sexual intimacy (citing this article; see also the other resources linked on this page). As a consequence of the seven factors he identifies, Bishop Love closes his letter with this Pastoral Directive:
Until further notice, the trial rites authorized by Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention of the Episcopal Church shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy (canonically resident or licensed), and Diocesan Canon 16 shall be fully complied with by all diocesan clergy and parishes.
Thus the lines are drawn, and the conflict caused by the actions of General Convention now invades the hitherto peaceful diocese of Albany. For instance, could Presiding Bishop Michael Curry now try to exercise his supposed authority to issue a "Pastoral Directive" to Bishop Love, requiring that he make the trial rites available to any in his diocese that request them? (Note that Resolution B012's mandate does not take effect Churchwide until December 1.) 

As I pointed out in this earlier post, it is extremely doubtful that the enactment of the provision in Title IV that purports to confer upon the Presiding Bishop metropolitan authority over his episcopal colleagues can be squared with the grant of all ecclesiastical authority, by Article II.3 of ECUSA's Constitution, to a bishop within his own diocese. In other words, individual diocesan bishops are, by Section 3 of Article II of the Church's Constitution, limited to exercising jurisdiction within their own dioceses -- they may not exercise any authority within another diocese unless invited to do so by the ecclesiastical authority of that other diocese.  

The Presiding Bishop is not even a diocesan bishop, and has no diocese of the United States within which he or she can act as the ecclesiastical authority. Nor does the Constitution vest the Presiding Bishop with authority over other bishops. Consequently no canon (bylaw) of the Church can confer any greater authority on the Presiding Bishop than he or she has under the Constitution.

Without Bishop Love's consent, therefore, how could the Presiding Bishop issue him a "Pastoral Directive", let alone one that requires him to violate his ordination vows and the rubrics of the BCP, as well as his own diocese's canons? (Even Canon IV.7.2, authorizing the issuance of Pastoral Directives, specifies that a Directive must "be neither capricious nor arbitrary in nature nor in any way contrary to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention or the Diocese" [emphasis added].)

If Bishop Love cannot be directed by any other bishop to violate his vows or his diocese's canons, then neither may General Convention do so. The problem is with that capitalized word "SHALL" in the 8th Directive of Resolution B012, quoted above. The mandatory language of the Resolution is directed improperly at diocesan bishops, and so violates their constitutional authority within their own diocese as specified in Article II.

A qualification: at the session of the House of Bishops which adopted B012 last summer, there was this exchange between Bishop Dabney Smith, of SW Florida, and the chair of the committee that reported the Resolution for passage:
Bishop Smith: . . . a question: . . . I'm wondering about the definition of the word "shall" in a resolution compared with the use of "shall" in a canon.   
Committee chair: I would just say: there is a difference, number one. And also, this word "shall" is modified by the next phrase, "as necessary". . . . The committee . . . I believe I can say . . . we intended that it was a matter of pastoral discretion for the bishop.
(You can see this exchange beginning at 45:28 of the video of the session, at this link. Also on the video, beginning at the 28:00 mark, are Bishop Love's observations in opposition to B012.)

Will ECUSA, therefore, in light of the committee's insertion of the qualifier "as necessary", grant to Bishop Love the full extent of his pastoral discretion in refusing to implement B012 in his diocese?  It remains to be seen -- especially in view of ECUSA's previous shameful treatment of Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina. If the House of Bishops begins disciplinary proceedings against Bishop Love, then history will repeat itself in Albany.

It should go without saying that no Canon or Resolution of General Convention may by its terms be contrary to the provisions of ECUSA's Constitution. But the LGBT movement within ECUSA, by pushing and pushing to force same-sex rites on all dioceses in the Church, has now brought matters to such a pass. If ECUSA attempts to rein in or discipline Bishop Love for refusing to violate his own vows or canons, then it will demonstrate once again its contempt for church order as established by its Constitution, and the surrender of its integrity to the spirit of the times. And that is why this Curmudgeon has such difficulty in perceiving ECUSA any longer as a church which recognizes Christ as its head.

On this Armistice Day, on which we honor all those who gave their lives to keep our country free, it might be well to consider the connection to its equivalent in the church calendar, All Saints Day. On that festival day, Christians honor all the saints whose sacrifices have ensured to us the transmission of the "faith once delivered" to the very first of them. Both saints and brave warriors are necessary to preserve our freedoms and our faith. By rejecting (or abandoning) what they have kept secure for us, we place ourselves and our country at risk of God's judgment.

May God preserve Bishop Love strong in his faith, and may He so preserve us all. 



Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Why I Am Fed Up With the Media

I have not been blogging, because I have no wish to add to the cacophony that assaults us every day, without letup. That said, the video below explains why in pictures that are far better than any words could express:

Sunday, September 16, 2018

A Modest Proposal to Deal with Politics at Sports Events

Despite the obvious effect of their injecting unwanted politics into their football games, most NFL players and their team owners are ignoring their declining audiences and insisting on their "right" to show in public their collective disrespect for the country that has made them wealthy beyond childhood dreams.

I have no problem with their saying or doing anything they wish in private. But when they force a (temporarily) captive audience, who just came to see a game, to witness how dissatisfied these football elite are with some unarticulated aspect of America while everyone else stands for the national anthem, then enough. If they don't respect the anthem, they don't respect the flag, or the country for which both stand. So why subject them to an unwanted performance at the start of each of their games?

Let's see how they would like some politics injected into their livelihood.

The national anthem, whose words by Francis Scott Key were set so long ago to a tune most people cannot sing well (or sing at all), but which is glorious when properly performed, is by now the property of the people of the United States. Congress, acting on their behalf, ought to license its performance at sporting events. The license would be automatic and free of charge to any event put on by teams and players who have no trouble standing during its performance.

But the license should be denied to those who cannot show the minimal respect which every average citizen has no trouble giving: standing silently while it is performed, and then cheering afterward. Each NFL team should be informed that it no longer has the right to perform the anthem at any of its games until its members are ready to grant it the minimum degree of respect which Americans accord to it.

Should any such team go ahead with the anthem's performance, just so they can continue to display their disrespect, then an automatic licensing fee should be imposed without further ado, equal (for the first offense) to $10 per person attending, and accelerating for each subsequent license violation to $100 per person. Indeed -- let the fee keep going up until the price for showing disrespect becomes too high for the team and its owners to pay.

Further, any team that does not have a license to have the anthem performed at its events, but aspires to qualify for such a license eventually, will have to show that it gave a public announcement before the start of each of its unlicensed events to this effect: "The [name of team having the home stadium] announce that they do not yet care to show respect for the national anthem, and so by law are not licensed to perform the anthem at any of their games. Accordingly, there will be no performance of the anthem at this event. Anyone who wishes a refund of the price for their ticket should leave now and collect their money at the box office."

The team should also be prepared to show that it gave a similar notice to every person purchasing a ticket for the event, and promptly refunded the ticket price to any holder who asked for it before the game started.

Finally, Congress should pass a law making the price of any ticket to a licensed sporting event (up to a maximum of 24 such events per year) tax-deductible, but denying any such deduction for tickets to unlicensed events. Later on, if more pressure is needed, Congress could impose a tax, say, of 20% on the price of a ticket to an unlicensed event.

And that is how you play politics with sports events.