The recent statement by the Anglican Primates is slightly more than I hoped for, and if the statements by Episcopal dignitaries and the comments on Episcopal blogs are worse than I feared, more fool me, I suppose. The Primates confirmed that ‘the traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture’ (is it my imagination or there a faint tinge of regret discernible in the wording there?) ‘upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union.’ Since that is the teaching of Scripture, albeit not in those words, Evangelicals will be pleased that these leading churchmen are willing to say so, and would apologise on behalf of the Episcopal Church for all the vitriolic comments being directed their way.
The statement also asks the Episcopal Church to limit its participation in some aspects of the Anglican Communion, and hopes for the appointment of a Task Group ‘to maintain conversation among ourselves [the Primates, presumably] with the intention of restoration of relationship’ etc. Restoration of relationships with the rest of the Communion presumably depends on a return to the Biblical view of marriage, and unlikely as that it is to happen, Evangelicals in the Episcopal Church must assume that God expects us to lift up our voices in support of that return.
Perhaps this is the place to begin discussing how we might do that, and how to be faithful in a church that seems less tolerant of us than ever. Perhaps there will be some time at the Evangelion II conference scheduled for May 28–30 in Ambridge, PA for further discussion.
I could certainly use a little encouragement…
January 18, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Your comments seem to take a view of the purpose of the primates’ meeting which differs from the responses by our Presiding Bishop and our diocesan bishop, both of whom I think of as evangelical.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/posts/publicaffairs/episcopal-church-presiding-bishop-and-primate-michael-curry-actions-anglican
http://www.episcopalpgh.org/reflection-anglican-primates-meeting/
I personally thought that the meeting was held at Canterbury rather than Lambeth because its purpose was not to take a vote on the sexual issues, but to find ways to do ministry together where there is agreement on what the church should be doing, despite those differences.
January 18, 2016 at 8:02 pm
I don’t think I ever had a clear idea of its purpose. I’m just thinking about what it said, and where that leaves us in terms of our relationship to the churches that read Scripture the way that Evangelicals do.
January 20, 2016 at 9:49 am
I thought the purpose was fairly clear: to find ways to minister together despite differences on the sexual issues. –About how Evangelicals read scripture: I very much enjoyed the Evangelical conference at VTS a few yeas ago that I think you organized. But I don’t see that “the way Evangelicals read scripture” refers only to the homosexuality issue–at least it didn’t seem that way at the conference.
January 18, 2016 at 5:27 pm
There’s also this from ACNS. http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/archbishops-reflect-on-primates-meeting.asp
January 18, 2016 at 5:31 pm
There should be an “x” on the end of the above link. I wish I could edit it–??
Anyway, this should work:
http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/archbishops-reflect-on-primates-meeting.aspx
January 18, 2016 at 5:50 pm
I had a very interesting conversation with an evangelical priest in TEC Sunday morning. He mentioned that we may have been remiss in focusing all our efforts and attention on churches and not considering monastic orders as an instrument of mission. Monastic orders operate more independently of episcopal oversight, and might be a place where we can plant a flag, as it were.
This came up as I mentioned that again we are cast as “the church of the apostates,” and how many of us bear the shame of that without being guilty of the sin that caused it.
I thought his mention of a monastic order was highly intriguing, especially if it were offered to men and women alike, as Abp. Justin’s Community of St. Amselm has been.
January 18, 2016 at 8:00 pm
I suppose that organisations like EFAC, Reform, Church Society and so on have functioned somewhat as a community of that kind. Not living in community day by day, which isn’t practical for most of us, but providing the other benefits of community: a common purpose, praying for and encouraging one another, and gatherings of the like-minded from time to time. But I think it’s correct that there’s more focus on evangelical parishes than evangelical organisations. I’m probably not the only priest to have secretly believed that if only he was a better preacher everyone in the parish would become an Evangelical. Parishes by their very nature will be a mixed body as long as the church is a mixed body (ie until the second coming). Much better to focus on the ‘order’, as your friend says.
January 20, 2016 at 6:06 pm
The recent discussion of the “Benedict Option” in Evangelical circles certainly moves in this direction.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/benedict-option-faq/
January 29, 2016 at 11:07 pm
I met people from the lay order of Benedictines in France at churches I visited. They were very interesting to talk to, had a deep understanding of things. –I think of Cursillo, DOK, and AFP as ways to change society in the way the Benedictine article mentions. For DOK, it’s prayer, service, and evangelism. For Cursillo, as you know, it’s “make a friend and bring a friend to Christ.” –I thought and still think of those groups as being evangelical. Within those groups, as far as I know, people who think monogamous homosexual relationship (for them monogamy does not make the activity any less sinful) is contrary to Biblical teaching are welcome to express their conviction, and so are people who don’t think so. But neither group says the other is apostate, and they are able to work together on their Christianizing mission.
January 18, 2016 at 6:21 pm
Vivian–what did you think of the Presiding Bishop’s response (see link above)?
January 24, 2017 at 12:32 pm
Celinda, I am sorry that I only just now saw your question here. To which link above are you referring? Thanks.
January 18, 2016 at 8:47 pm
It sounds as though the main definer for being an evangelical for some is where one stands on the issue of homosexuality. That seems like a very narrow definer, one that lacks the vitality of what Jesus and the disciples were doing and what the term “evangelize” means. I understand and appreciate the need to keep standing up for a definition of marriage which does not allow for same sex marriage, and am opposed to attempts not to allow that voice to be heard. But I am not ashamed of our church right now as we allow leeway in TEC for bishops and priests and dioceses to allow people of various convictions to work alongside each other on ministries that unite us. –I guess the purpose of the meeting in Ambridge is to provide an opportunity for those opposed to same sex marriage to encourage each other in ways to present that opposition?
January 20, 2016 at 6:02 pm
Celinda, in this context I believe the critical “definer for being an evangelical” is the belief that Holy Scripture is the inspired Word of God and the ultimate authority in Christian faith and life. The purpose of the Evangelion II Conference as I understand it is to provide mutual encouragement and support for Evangelicals in the Episcopal Church. I didn’t attend the first Evangelion conference, but I have watched all the videos of the presentations, and I don’t recall the question of same-sex marriage as a major topic. It may not have been mentioned at all . . . .
January 21, 2016 at 10:48 am
Sadly, there are many who say that “liberals” on the homosexuality issue simply do not believe that “Holy Scripture is the inspired Word of God and the ultimate authority in Christian faith and life,” So no matter how “conservative” people in a homosexual relationship are on other issues, no matter how much their lives reflect the teachings and discipline of Christ, they are thought to be “in sin,” acting contrary to the Word of God, and not really believing in the Bible; and a church and church members who support them-even if their Christology (who they believe Christ is, according to the Creeds) is deeply conservative–is in error all the way around and what they say about the Creeds doesn’t count. –I’m afraid that although the Evangelion conference I attended and enjoyed (I think that’s what it was) didn’t mention the issue, that is to be the focus of the next one. (Note: I was on the “Fulcrum” blog a couple of years ago, and the Brits at that time referred to two types of Evangelicals: “Open Evo” and “Closed Evo”–I thought that was helpful). –I do understand, however, the need of those who feel so strongly that the re-defition of marriage (I agree that was going too far) by TEC was wrong to get together and I think those who disagree with that position to the extent they constantly criticize them and deny them a voice are wrong. So I hope Evangelion II takes place and is a success.
January 27, 2016 at 10:14 am
A late comment here: I don’t think conservative evangelicals obsess over the gay issue, but TEC has finally gone on record definitively giving the green light to gay “marriage” and this causes us to do some reflection on where to go from here. Regardless of one’s pastoral views on the issue, the Biblical view on marriage, and the Biblical view on homosexuality, are – as to basics – very clear. So a person who is “conservative” on all issues except the gay issue is clearly not thinking in a very coherent manner, or so it appears to me. Charity for all, but adherence to Biblical teaching cannot be surrendered.