my Bishop had the following to say on Schism in 2003. I take some optimism from this, in that it would be best for right-minded dioceses to leave ECUSA en masse.
----------
SCHISM
Reflections by The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton (Aug 9, 2003)
In the days before us, you will hear a lot about ÒschismÓ in the Church and how dreadful it would be. But I believe schism has already been committed. It is not the so-called conservatives who are supposed to be threatening to Òleave the ChurchÓ who have committed schism, however. It is the 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church which has done so.
Schism is an ugly word. It comes from Greek: schisma. It means tearing something apart, like rending a garment. In ecclesiastical terms, it refers to tearing the Church apart.
St. Augustine drew a distinction between heresy and schism in the following way: ÒFor both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe.Ó (On Faith and the Creed, Chapter 10) [1]
The Church has known schism all too often over her life. The most prominent New Testament example demonstrates precisely AugustineÕs notion of Òbreaking off from brotherly charityÓ: one side or faction thinks it knows better than the rest and goes its own way.
St. Paul writes to his congregation at Corinth: ÒI appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions (schismata) among you and that you may be knit together in mind and thought.Ó (1 Cor 1.10) He proclaims, ÒGod, who has called you into fellowship (koinonia - communion) with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.Ó (v. 9) Despite this, we know that the Church in Corinth came very close to separating themselves from their founding apostle. And we know the reason why. A certain faction thought they possessed a special knowledge, a superior spirituality, and that they had outgrown Paul and his apostolic teaching. (1 Cor 3) This faction looked down not only at Paul, but their fellow Christians. And their attitude affected the unity of the Church at Corinth, and Paul frankly criticized them for it.
This example of schism amply illustrates AugustineÕs point. The breakdown in the unity of the Church came when one segment of it thought it knew better than the rest and ran ahead with its own agenda, violating Òbrotherly charity.Ó
I believe the General Convention of the Episcopal Church at Minneapolis is guilty of schism. The majority of diocesan deputations and diocesan bishops took actions which their brothers and sisters throughout the Anglican Communion pleaded with them not to take, and which previous Conventions had said they should not take on their own. They did this while claiming that the Episcopal Church still held the same faith Ð that Òwe all have more in common than what divides usÓ Ð with the rest of the Communion. In doing so, the Convention demonstrated exactly what Augustine was talking about.
Let me give you a few examples that provide the warrant for claiming the Episcopal ChurchÕs General Convention is responsible for schism.
In 1991, the General Convention admitted in a resolution that there was Òno strong consensus in this Church on the human sexuality issues.Ó It went on to make the following mandate: ÒResolved, That the Office of the Presiding Bishop now be directed to propose to all provinces of the Anglican Communion and all churches with whom we are in ecumenical dialogue that a broad process of consultation be initiated on an official pan-Anglican and ecumenical level as a bold step forward in the consideration of these potentially divisive issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own.Ó (1991, Resolution B020) That mandate was never fulfilled. Professor J. Robert Wright of the General Seminary in New York drew attention to this resolution just prior to the Convention of 2003 noting that it was still operative. But despite the fact that the Convention had said that the Episcopal Church should not go forward Òon its own,Ó the Convention of 2003 did precisely that.
The Convention of 1991 also directed the House of Bishops to prepare a pastoral teaching on the subject of human sexuality. The House worked to produce such a teaching, but at the Convention of 1994 finally issued a ÒStudy Document,Ó[3] because there was no consensus on what would constitute a Òteaching.Ó Although handed to the Church as a whole in the hopes of promoting more dialogue, the Study Document went largely ignored. Contained in its ÒGuidelines While We Continue in DialogueÓ are these words: ÒCommunity life in our Anglican Communion includes the need to respect both the unity and the diversity of our communion. Respect means that the Episcopal Church will maintain recognizable, faithful Anglican norms in our teaching regarding sexuality.Ó (p. 92) But again, the General Convention of 2003 went its own way.
The Lambeth Conference of 1998 passed by a wide margin the now famous Resolution I.10 dealing with matters of human sexuality. Less well known is the actual report on which the Resolution is based, and which it commends. That report states, ÒThe challenge to our Church is to maintain its unity while we seek, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to discern the way of Christ for the world today with respect to human sexuality. To do so will require sacrifice, trust, and charity towards one another.Ó[4] But in 2003, there was no Òsacrifice, trust and charityÓ: the General Convention went its own way.
Lambeth called for an international ÒconversationÓ among Anglican leaders, under the chairmanship of Presiding Bishop Griswold (and including Rowan Williams, then Archbishop of Wales), to continue to explore issues of human sexuality. This body issued its report in June 2002. It said that it had not reached firm conclusions, and asserted, ÒRecognizing our Anglican Communion as a gift, we do not want to see it fragmented. For it to be further divided by the issue of homosexual behavior wouId be the ultimate sexualization of the Church, making sexuality more powerful, or more claiming of our attention, than God.Ó But the General Convention of 2003 went its own way.
Despite these actions and reports, two dioceses in the U. S. (Delaware and Kansas) and one in Canada (New Westminster) pressed the limits of communion by approving same-sex blessings. In October 2002, the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey gave his final address to the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Hong Kong. In his address, he warned that controversy over human sexuality was Òsteadily driving us towards serious fragmentation and the real possibility of two - or more likely more - distinct Anglican bodies.Ó He proposed a resolution which Òcalled for individual dioceses in the Anglican Communion not to take unilateral action or adopt policies that would strain 'our communion with one another',Ó according to the Anglican News Service. It was Òstrongly affirmed.Ó Ignoring this warning, the General Convention of 2003 went its own way.
Various Primates from around the Communion responded to these developments with clear warnings as to the strain such unilateral actions were placing on the Communion. The Primates of the Church, meeting in Brazil in May, 2003, issued a strongly worded message, saying there was no consensus on human sexuality. The Archbishop of Canterbury, addressing the situation in New Westminster just two days after the conclusion of the meeting, said ÒIn taking this action and ignoring the considerable reservations of the Church, repeatedly expressed and most recently by the Primates, the diocese has gone significantly further than the teaching of the Church or pastoral concern can justify and I very much regret the inevitable tension and division that will result from this development.Ó
Just days before the General Convention of 2003 convened, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote a letter to the Primates drawing attention to the decisions that some provinces would make in the coming days. A favorite theme of the Archbishop is that the Anglican Communion is growing in its understanding of communion. He called for decisions to be made in the light pf the fact that some actions may draw us closer, and some push us farther away from the communion we seek.
I cite all this Ð much more could be added Ð to demonstrate that the actions of the General Convention were quite simply taken without regard to what the rest of the Communion was saying to us, and what over and over again our own Church has declared: the lack of consensus on matters of human sexuality is threatening Church unity. But the General Convention 2003 went its own way.
I think the General Convention actions to consent to the consecration of a man living in an active sexual relationship outside marriage, and to ÒrecognizeÓ same-sex blessings are indeed actions that offend against Òbrotherly charity.Ó As such, they fit the definition of schism offered by St. Augustine.
Listen to how one bishop, The Rt. Rev. Mouneer Anis of Egypt, responded:
ÒWe had not expected this to be done to us by brothers and sisters who are in communion with us. We had expected that they would think of us before taking such a grave step. It showed great disrespect to the majority of the members of the Anglican Communion and the church worldwide. In fact, the decision shows disregard for the value of being in communion and part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It also places in doubt the future of the Lambeth Conference. When its resolutions are no longer respected by members of the conference what purpose does it have?
ÒThe Communion now faces a crisis over what holds us together and indeed whether we can remain together if we hold not merely diverse but contradictory views of the Scripture and what it teaches.Ó
He noted that the actions of the General Convention now made ecumenical relations with the Orthodox and Catholic Christians in his area more difficult, and threatened their relationships with the majority Muslim community.
We have heard for years, under the rubric of the Òhermeneutics of suspicion,Ó that we must not simply hear the interpretations of Scripture offered by those in power, but that we must listen as well and carefully to those who are oppressed in our communities. We have done a fairly good job of listening to sexual minorities in recent years. But now I think we must listen to those in the two-thirds world who are also feeling oppressed by our Western attitudes and arrogance. Acting without due regard for the concerns and dangers faced by our brothers and sisters in other, sometimes very hostile places, is the very definition of a lack of charity!
Furthermore, we have also heard for years that we in the West have many different approaches and interpretations of Scripture, especially in regard to human sexuality. But surely we must know that because different scholars interpret the same passages in differing, even contradictory ways, this does not entitle us to act with license. It is in situations like this we most NEED the Communion of which we are a part. Nothing in Scripture justifies one part of the Body of Christ moving ahead on its own. Paul, in the Corinthian situation, exhorted his readers, ÒBe careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling-blockÓ to others. (1 Cor 8.9) Or again, ÒEverything is permissible--but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible--but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.Ó (1 Cor 10.23-24) To do otherwise is to reveal that we do not understand charity at all.
What is perhaps most distressing is to read or hear members of our own Church claim that declarations of ÒbrokenÓ or ÒimpairedÓ communion by our brothers and sisters abroad mean nothing. We do not know what these declarations may lead to. But it is surely clear that this attitude of indifference reveals a total lack of sensitivity and understanding in those who speak this way.
The Presiding Bishop has said, Òcommunion is not a human construction but a gift from God.Ó That is undoubtedly true. But we have not accepted the gift, judging but our recent actions. Instead, the General Convention has acted unilaterally and schismatically, tearing the gift apart.
[1] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol III, p. 331.
[2] Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England: from Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1534-1690. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996) p. 17.
[3] Continuing the Dialogue: A Pastoral Study Document of the House of Bishops. (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1995)
[4] The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998. (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 1999)
