Dear Stephen,
Greetings in Christ. We know one another as old timers in the academic world of Episcopal/Anglican North America. And as a friend of East African Anglicanism, I have appreciated your fruitful ministry in Uganda. I read your recent piece on Contending Anglican, which is critical of me and others (also run on Anglican Ink and linked at the American Anglican Council’s weekly newsletter). I have no complaint with theological debate, but in the spirit of Paul’s exhortation to “speak the truth in love,” I offer this response, to correct several inaccuracies, and to clarify a point.
- I was indeed a member, on the traditional side, on the Episcopal Church’s theological taskforce on marriage 2009-11. The position on the theological and ethical issues regarding same-sex marriage laid out by us traditionalists then is the same one I hold now. You can see this from the pastoral letter sent to my diocese just before General Convention.
- With respect to resolution B012, I voted against it, as I had said I would, because I could not vote to reauthorize rites of same-sex marriage. Since it was a voice vote, you will have to take my word on this. As to the resolution, I have cited its flaws. But I have also noted, in a spirit of charity, that it was a sincere effort to preserve a space for traditionalists in the Episcopal Church, since we are a relatively powerless minority voice. (And, in fairness, the simultaneous decision by General Convention not to change the prayer book is worthy of note.)
- As to the visit of Bishop Gene Robinson to parishes in Dallas, obviously these are two of the three congregations no longer under my spiritual oversight.
- It is hard for a leader in a Church with an errant teaching to know what to do. Your contention then that impaired communion is hard to figure out is true: both the communion and the impaired sides are real.
- In this regard I should clarify a quotation of mine about full communion that you cite. My point was simply this: amid disagreements, I remain in full eucharistic fellowship with my colleagues in the Episcopal Church, as have my fellow Communion Partner bishops.
- Because of these complexities, I have never disparaged those who felt conscience-bound to join the Anglican Church of North America. But such was not my decision, for I believe there is a calling to continue to witness within the Church in which I was ordained. At the Great Assize, I in my fallibility will plead not my judgment on this ecclesial question, but rather the atoning blood of Jesus. (I also believe that the day may come when an ecumenical conversation between Communion Partners and ACNA will be in order, so lines of communication are worth preserving.)
- As to the picture of Neville Chamberlain used with your piece, I would advise avoiding the over the top comparison to the rise of the Nazis, especially in the overheated political climate of America today.
- In accord with the thinking of my old friend Ephraim Radner, I would prefer to point out how the prophet Jeremiah remained in solidarity with his countrymen and women against whom he witnessed, even to the point of deportation. (But I am no prophet, nor have I so suffered, to be sure.)
- The welfare of Bill Love, our fellow Communion Partner bishop and our brother in Christ, engages our prayer and effort.
Peace,
Bishop George Sumner
Reprinted with permission from Covenant
I would be genuinely interested in hearing how Dr Sumner understands koinonia in respect to these things. These are not mere disagreements we are talking about. The eucharistic and financial fellowship he shares with bishops who hold to a different gospel, and arguably perhaps a different religion, surely must be considered of a substantially different order than disagreements amongst brothers and sisters. The differences here are more significant than other koinoia breaking instances from Christian history. They make the Reformation, for example, a totally ludicrous event, not to mention poor old Pelagius.
Exactly, a different religion. We are talking about a church that rejected Jesus own words in the definition of marriage as the sacred union between a man and a woman. They now support a genderless definition of marriage. A church who can sink so low as to reject Jesus own words isn`t Christian anymore.
I have changed the cover photo. I was not using a “reductio ad Hitlerum” analogy but “reduction ad Nevilllium.” The title of my essay was about “flawed compromise” which is exactly what the Munich Agreement and B012 were.
Bishop Sumner is apparently using a new definition of “impaired communion”. Under the definition in use prior to B012, one could not be in “impaired communion” and the euphemistically phrased “full eucharistic fellowship” (ie: full communion) at the same time. It is one or the other. The term “impaired communion” was coined to describe the circumstance in which bishops could not share the Eucharist with one another because one group had adopted theology and practices outside of orthodox practice. In the 1970s, impaired communion was the outcome of women’s ordination and later consecration as bishops. Anglo Catholics and some Evangelical clergy and congregations could not be in full communion with (that is, could not receive holy communion from) the clergy of some parishes, or in some cases, their own bishops as a result.
So if eucharistic communion is not impaired, what communion is impaired? Is there an “outward and visible sign” of this impairment that most of us cannot see, or some formal definition of the term “impaired communion” that academics have determined in the past 5 years such that it has a radically different meaning than it used to have?
The other issue, of course, are the various “DEPO” arrangements. These are more or less consistent with B012 as it was originally proposed. However, as I am sure Bishop Sumner is aware, all references to DEPO were removed from the final draft of B012, and there are a substantial number of folks in TEC who aren’t at all happy about what they see as ostracizing of progressive clergy and roadblocks to “intention of this resolution that all couples have convenient and reasonable local congregational access to these rites;”
I believe the revision of B012 that will come before GC in 2021 will remove the bishop from the process altogether. Even as B012 now stands, there is now a “procedure” for introducing any new innovation into an otherwise orthodox diocese. So, expect future liturgical and theological innovations to follow the same pattern of “compromise” legislation that limits the bishop’s authority and imposes GC resolutions.. There will likely be a “trans re-naming ceremony including Baptismal reaffirmation” ala the CoE (whether they revise theirs or not notwithstanding), and there are the beginnings of rumblings for “pastoral guidance” on marriage for the “B” of LGBT, and how they can “live out” their sexuality in a “Christian context.” And another move to “open communion” (using the new definition, ie- optional baptism).
TJM
As an evangelical Christian I have always understood impaired communion to mean broken eucharistic fellowship. As a GC deputy in TEC in 2006 I very publicly announced (and invited others to join me) on T-19 to only attend the daily morning Holy Communion Service hosted by FiF-NA. Since leaving TEC in 2008 for the Southern Cone and now ACNA I have not and will not take communion in an Episcopal Church.
Thank you for posting Bp. Sumner’s response here.
Given the trajectory of ECUSA for the last 25+ years, together with the trail of destruction they have left behind, I find it incredibly naive to think there is anything sincere about their efforts to make space for traditionalists.