A diocese, its vote at General Convention and defense of that vote

As posted on VirtueOnline by David Virtue,

“Resolutions D025 and C056 sparked three roll call votes during the House of Bishops' sessions of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif.

The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio, told the house on July 15 that the official tallies from the votes on D025 that rescinded the moratorium on gay bishops, on a motion offered by the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania to discharge C056, and the final vote on C056 which authorized the collection and development of rites for the blessing of same-sex liturgies, would not be complete until the end of convention. “

The three bishops from the diocese of Texas voted as follows on D025, the Rowe amendment and C056:

Rayford High, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n n y)
Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n y n)
Andrew Doyle, Bishop of Texas (n y n).

The recently retired bishop of Texas, Don Wimberly voted as follows:

Don Wimberly, Retired Bishop of Texas (_ _ n)

It seems as though Bishop Wimberly did not believe the first two issues important enough for his vote. One should note, however, Bishop Wimberly is well known for his abstinence in voting on these issues.

At first glance, one might guess that the new bishop of Texas, Andrew Doyle, voted the right way, no, on the resolutions pertaining to full inclusion of all sexual proclivities into the ordination process and the creation of rites for the blessings of homosexual unions. Yet, one must remember Bishop Doyle’s answer, when he was candidate Doyle, when asked about his position on allowing blessing of homosexual unions. He said that since the canons do not allow for it, he would not allow for it. Not a resounding prohibition of the blessing of homosexual unions. One presumes that when TEC dos allow for it in the canons of the church, he will certainly allow for it. One can also say, with some certainty, that Bishop Doyle will not object to the use of homosexual union rites within the diocese of Texas since now the resolution so firmly permits it. It is one thing to stand firmly against such heretical acts and quite another to take a legalistic position that places all weight on whether or not the canons of TEC say yes or no to the blessing of homosexual unions. So much for standing firm on the historical position of Scripture and the teaching of the Church as a defender of the faith.

Again, while his vote may look like he stands on the side of truth in voting against the two resolutions, one need simply look at his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and see through the thinly veiled defense of his vote.

“As posted on VirtueOnline by David Virtue,

“Resolutions D025 and C056 sparked three roll call votes during the House of Bishops' sessions of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif.

The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio, told the house on July 15 that the official tallies from the votes on D025 that rescinded the moratorium on gay bishops, on a motion offered by the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania to discharge C056, and the final vote on C056 which authorized the collection and development of rites for the blessing of same-sex liturgies, would not be complete until the end of convention. “

The three bishops from the diocese of Texas voted as follows on D025, the Rowe amendment and C056
:
Rayford High, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n n y)
Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n y n)
Andrew Doyle, Bishop of Texas (n y n).

The recently retired bishop of Texas, Don Wimberly voted as follows:

Don Wimberly, Retired Bishop of Texas (_ _ n)

It seems as though Bishop Wimberly did not believe the first two issues important enough for his vote. One should note, however, Bishop Wimberly is well known for his abstenance in voting on these issues.

At first glance, one might guess that the new bishop of Texas, Andrew Doyle voted the right way, no, on the resolutions pertaining to full inclusion of all sexual proclivities into the ordination process and the creation of rites for the blessings of homosexual unions. Yet, one must remember bishop Doyle’s answer, when he was candidate Doyle, when asked about his position on allowing blessing of homosexual unions. He said that since the canons do not allow for it, he would not allow for it. Not a resounding prohibition of the blessing of homosexual unions. One presumes that when TEC dos allow for it in the canons of the church, he will certainly allow for it. One can also say with some certainty, that bishop Doyle will not object to the use of homosexual union rites within the diocese of Texas since now the resolution so firmly permits it. It is one thing to stand firmly against such heretical acts and another to take a legalistic position that places all weight on whether or not the canons of TEC say yes or no to the blessing of homosexual unions. So much for standing firm on the historical position as a defender of the faith.

Again, while his vote may look like he stands on the side of truth in voting against the two resolutions, one need simply look at his letter to the Archbishop pf Canterbury and see through the thinly veiled defense of his vote.

“As the Bishop of the Diocese of Texas, I want to confirm to you my commitment and the commitment of this diocese to continue the process begun with the Windsor Report. I also want to assure you of our continued support of the Covenant Process.

We as a Diocese have affirmed our desire to continue as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, even though the Diocese of Texas is a diverse one, and some are in favor of the recent actions of General Convention. I am committed to listening and shepherding the entire Diocese of Texas.”

Please read it this way, “Although TEC just broke all ties to the balance of the Anglican Communion and gave you the raspberry, please know I still support you and so does my diocese. Well, at least some do. Others are very happy with what transpired at GC and are at the same time mad I voted the way I did. That said, I have to represent all views in my diocese so please know I am behind you, for the most part.”

Also note the bishop’s desire to stay within the Communion while the majority of TEC wants out. The good bishop and his diocese are still in until they get kicked out or at least marginalized by the rest of the Communion. Then the bishop may well find himself without a home. His position, like that of his predecessors, is that unless one is in full communion with the ABC, then one is not recognizable as being an Anglican.If TEC is out and he is still part of TEC, what is a bishop to do? We’ll see.

Finally, in his blog comments to those who followed the goings on at GC, Bishop Doyle wrote, “The truth is that ministry and mission in our congregations will be pretty much the same on Monday as it was on Monday several weeks ago.” It seems that the good bishop has missed the point and is blinded by how own desire not to see what really happened at GC. While mission and ministry may continue within TEC and the diocese of Texas, one can rest assured that it will be with far fewer people. Rather than seeing growth in the diocese of Texas or the TEC, numbers will continue to fall, offering plates will have less money in them and the Episcopal Church will continue her drift into irrelevance.

What a shame. The once great bastion of orthodox Christianity in America, the Episcopal Church, has now broken ties with mother Church and the majority of the Anglican Communion. No longer is she a place where one can hear the gospel preached on a regular basis and have one’s children taught the tenants of the ancient faith. Rather, she has become a place where if it feels good, it’s okay with the laiy and clergy to do it, regardless of what the Bible or thousands of years of Church teaching says.

Clarity was conveyed at General Convention. TEC wants nothing to do with the ancient and received faith of the apostles. So be it.

The Episcopal Church has sailed inrto oblivion

For those who still held out hope that The Episcopal Church might hold on to some thread of Christian identity and relevance in today's world, that ship sailed today when the House of Bishops approved resolution D025 which now allows any person with any type of sexual proclivity to be ordained into its ministry. Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, transgendered - name it and it is no longer an obstacle to becoming an ordained minister in the once great Episcopal Church in the U.S.

Gone are all the biblical qualities of those who enter the ordained ministry. Gone are St. Paul's admonitions that a bishop would be the husband of one wife. Now I suppose a bishop could have a wife, a gay lover and be himself or herself a transgendered cross dresser.

Gone are the admonitions that the leaders of the Church are to set a high moral example for the people of God they lead. Now they can simply mirror the basest of society and claim to be in touch with the people. Soon altars and tables around the Episcopal will be rife with any manner of sexual expressions with liturgies to follow soon thereafter. Soon the altars and churches of the Episcopal Church will look more like the altars of the goddess Diana or Baal or other pagan deities who serve at the altar of self-pleasure than the high altar of the risen Lord Christ.

Gone, it seems, are any hints of any sort of self-control, modesty or even humility. Taking their place at the high altar are lasciviousness, fornication, wickedness and adultery just to name a few.

The Episcopal Church, before General Convention 2009, was loosing members at a very rapid pace. With the actions of this General Convention, there can be no doubt that defections will rapidly increase. What makes all this even worse is that many of those who will leave TEC will be so demoralized and dejected with the church that they will simply stop going to church. The words of Jesus should echo in the ears of every person, clergy and laity alike, at General Convention who have perpetrated this evil:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

The Episcopal Church - Is she Christian?

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (if one can truly call her a bishop) exclaimed that the idea of personal salvation through Jesus Christ is the "great western heresy." Such an idea, she said, is "caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus.' Hmmm. What might St. Paul have to say about this?

Romans 10:9 , ".. if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

"You will be saved." I am not quite sure how Ms. Schori missed the point St. Paul is making about salvation in this passage. I am sure, however, that she is convinced that St. Paul did not really mean what he wrote.

Does St. Paul say anything else about a confession of Jesus as Lord and its impact on one's eternal condition?

In the very next verse, Romans 10:10, St. Paul writes, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." St. Paul once again seems to be quite clear about the power of confessing Jesus as Lord. That Ms. Schori could miss this is extraordinary but I am sure she has what she considers a rotational reasoning that far surpasses the weight of Scripture and over 2000 years of Church teachings.

Let us see if St. Paul or any other New Testament writer might have had something else to say about confessing the name of Jesus and its effect on the eternal condition of one's soul.

St. John in his first epistle writes, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." St. John seems to be saying that if one confesses Jesus is Lord God dwells in him or her. Thus, if God dwells in them, the act of salvation has taken place in that person's life. John wrote in this same epistle that if one does not confess Jesus as Lord and the Son of God, God does not dwell in him. Rather, the spirit of the Antichrist resides in that person. So, for St. John, the power of confessing the name of Jesus carries with it the power of salvation.

Once again, I am sure Ms. Schori believes that St. John simply got it wrong and that since she is far more evolved and enlightened that St. John, who was Jesus' disciple and rested on his at the Last Supper, she better understands what God really intends when it comes to salvation and confessing the name of Jesus.

Another, you ask?

In the Book of Acts, St. Luke quotes St. Peter who quotes the prophet Joel who said, " And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." A three-fold witness to the power of confessing the name of the Lord. The prophet Joel spoke prophetically about Jesus and Peter spoke with first-hand knowledge of Jesus and the power of salvation that comes with confessing with one's mouth the name of the Lord.

One could go on and on throughout the Scriptures to show the blatant disregard for the teaching of scripture as it relates to confessing the name of Jesus that Ms. Schori has exercised. Such an exercise, while helpful, would only get the likely response from Ms. Schori and the majority of the Episcopal House of Bishops that proof texting is not the answer and that they, as enlightened and more highly evolved humans, better understand what God wants today than did these men in their time.

Given Ms. Schori's claim to hold title to what truth is, one must then conclude that if she makes no effort to retract her above cited statement and if the Episcopal Church's General Convention makes no effort to correct her then they no longer can lay claim to be a Christian church. TEC may as well simply acknowledge the fact that they have rejected Christ and join the likes of the Unity church where all beliefs are possible.

Please, Ms. Schori, like Ray Johnson from the 1970's Natural Light beer commercial who told people they could call him Ray or Jay or anything but they did not have to call him Johnson, please call yourself anything but Christian if you choose to continue to deny Christ.