Episcopalians in Maine took part in the consecration of their new bishop this past weekend, the first openly partnered gay man to be installed as a diocesan bishop in the U.S.-based Episcopal Church since Gene Robinson in 2003.
The Rt. Rev. Thomas James Brown was consecrated Saturday as the 10th bishop of the Diocese of Maine at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke in Portland. The service was led by the Most Rev. Michael Curry, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.
A video posted on the diocese’s YouTube channel showed participants, including Brown, calling the Holy Spirit a “she” during the recitation of the Nicene Creed. It is unclear if Curry said “she.”
An order of service provided by the diocese lists an unaltered version of the creed, but video of the service, in which only Brown and Curry are shown with microphones, captures the creed being recited as, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who with the Father and the Son, She is worshiped and glorified. She has spoken through the Prophets.”
The original language for the Holy Spirit was adopted by the First Council of Constantinople in the year 381.
Brown’s consecration came ahead of next year’s global gathering of Anglican bishops — known as the Lambeth Conference — that is being overshadowed by the participation of gay and lesbian bishops and their spouses from the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada. It also occurred as the Diocese of Albany awaits news of a formal charge against their bishop for his refusal to permit clergy to perform same-sex marriage rites, which conflict with Albany’s diocesan canon law.
The Diocese of Maine reports 11,322 members and 3,694 attendees spread across 59 congregations. Membership declined 15.1 percent between 2007 and 2017, while attendance for the same period declined 25.8 percent.
Brown has served at multiple churches in the Northeast, including St. Michael’s Church in Brattleboro, Vermont. It was there where he met the Rev. Thomas Mousin, a then-United Methodist pastor. The couple received a blessing of their same-sex union in 2003 from the Episcopal bishop of Vermont. Mousin has since been ordained an Episcopal priest.
Mousin was involved in several aspects of the ceremony, including composing the text for the hymn “As Once You Took Upon Yourself” that was sung during communion.
The Rt. Rev. Mary Glasspool, assisting bishop of New York, also participated as a co-consecrator during the ceremony. Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, was elected in 2009 as bishop suffragan for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.
Brown previously worked as Director of Education for Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan, a local affiliate of the largest provider of abortions in the United States. He has held prominent roles in the national church. From 2003-2006, Brown served as Secretary of the Joint Nominating Committee for the Election of the Presiding Bishop, which resulted in the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Same-sex marriage continues to be a source of controversy within the Episcopal Church and worldwide Anglican Communion with which it is affiliated. Episcopal Church officials object that Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has declined to invite same-sex spouses to the Lambeth Conference.
Welby has also been criticized by Anglican traditionalists, including bishops affiliated with the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) for inviting those bishops in same-sex marriages or civil unions in contravention of the precedent established at the last Lambeth Conference by then-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
Bishops at 1998 Lambeth Conference rejected “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and voted that they “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”
Churches that are members of GAFCON number about 50 million Anglican Christians, most of which are located in the Global South.
Dioceses in Ontario and Michigan have also elected openly partnered gay and lesbian candidates for bishop.
He unilaterally changes the Nicene Creed, and he was previously a Director of Education for the nation’s largest killer of babies. This is what ECUSA has come to.
Sad. Good reporting by Jeff Walton of a sad consecration service. This is more worrisome than the new bishop being a partnered gay man.
You all must be aware that this has been commonplace in TEC for at least 10 years, and in use here and there in “feminine” and “feminist” liturgies well before that. Liturgies were published years ago and have been in use since in some places. No action has ever been taken against any clergy or bishops that have used the form, as far as I know. Isn’t it in one of the “alternate-alternate” service bools- the one with the trial liturgies that are so far out that they only get used regularly on the West Coast?
The current bishop of Northern Michigan was one of the signatories to Thew Forrester’s renunciation of the Nicene Creed (part of the NM diocese “response” to the Primate’s meeting of 2007). They made him a bishop anyway (he was the “consolation prize” to the TEC heresy crowd when Thew-Forrester was rejected). I wonder if my old computer still has a copy of that….
Is it heretical? Obviously. Is the ABoC in full communion with all the people who do it? Yes, indeed. Any Communion Partner bishop ever say anything about it? Actually, yes, but not publicly in a long time. Is it allowable in the majority of dioceses of TEC? One can only surmise the answer is yes, since none of the clergy who use such liturgies have ever been disciplined (well, not for the past 10 years, anyway).
However, given that this is an episcopal consecration, there is a very good argument to be made that the bishop elect has not been consecrated, since he is not in the apostolic lineage flowing through Nicaea, but has instead adopted the god of the Gnostics.
AlphaTomega, I think I know what other website you are referring to, by your reference to Calvinism, but can’t say for sure. If so, I haven’t posted there for years and don’t read it regularly. Indeed the Calvinist approach to “apostolic succession” (I am not sure that is even the terminology for a strict Calvinist, so beg some latitude from those of that tradition). From what I have read, I have some difficulty in understanding why a strict Calvinist would choose to be Anglican, given the “Romish” interpretation of apostolic succession, other than as a missionary intent on converting us to Presbyterianism.
Anglicans are clear that whether viewed as “apostolic succession” or the “historic episcopate”, the episcopacy is a central element of the church. And indeed, if you search around a bit, most churches of the Anglican Communion will provide a listing of all the bishops in the lineage of the current holder of a given see (rather like the “begats” of the Old Testament), going back to Peter in Rome, or another apostolic see. Such and so laid hands on such and so who laid hands on such and so…..for 100 iterations.
Given the current state of things in the Church generally, and the Anglican Communion specifically, I think it not unreasonable to hypothesize that the apostolic succession has indeed been broken. Not universally (there are good bishops in many places), but it is difficult in my mind to rationalize that the new TEC bishop of Maine who clearly is worshiping a different god (small g) than the Christian Trinity, or that the apparent majority of TEC bishops who recognize a god that is named and gendered according to the preference of the worshiper, or the bishops of the CoE who have found it appropriate to induct 6 year old children into the cult of transsexuality, are in any way, shape or form carrying on the work of the apostles- no matter who laid hands on who.
iTo, it was one of your favorite Episcopal authors, +Frank E Wilson, who wrote a defense of the validity of the orders of the REC.
http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/orders7.html
Just to be completely candid, I only know this from having looked up Frank Wilson’s works at Project Canterbury during our discussion a while back- but give it a read if you aren’t familiar with it.
Also, in the intervening 80 years since Wilson’s paper, the REC has been rather more scrupulous in its adherence to the “apostolic succession” standard, and I would argue that while there might be some question concerning some early bishops, the current bishops have adequate “lineage” and arguably superior to that of some modern TEC bishops, given the propensity of TEC bishops to invent their own religions.
With respect to apostolic succession, I do wonder how we decide when the line has been crossed between being overly picky and unforgiving Donatists and recognizing that the Holy Spirit has departed from a line of clergy who deny Him. I think, myself, that the Holy Spirit has departed from ECUSA, and it can no longer be regarded as a valid Christian church. There are, indeed, a few holdouts among the clergy, but very few.
Katherine,
As to the Holy Spirit having departed TEC, I suppose my feeling at the moment is that He is still there, but very few people are paying attention. +Bill Love makes me thing the Holy Spirit still has some small foothold in TEC.
Do remember the historical definition of “Donatist”- which is, those who refuse to reconcile with those who have repented of their errant ways and heresies, and have returned to the church catholic, and “jumped through the hoops” of the ancient councils (7 years with the initiates, followed by 7 years with the catechumens, followed by the testing of their understanding of the orthodox faith and an examination of their lives in the 14 years since their recantation of the various errors and heresies).
To date, I have not seen anyone turned away by any orthodox Anglican congregation if they repent of their sins and errors in the faith. It might be a while before a repenting priest or bishop was given a new congregation, but I would think by now that there have been a few TEC clergy who did not join ACNA early on, but upon examination of their own hearts, have recognized that TEC is headed down the wrong road and have crossed, hmmmm…. whichever river it is that you cross to join ACNA.
That said, as the TEC ordinal and requirements for ordination move farther and farther from Christian norms, there will come some point where the ordinations themselves are not recognized.
You’re right, TJ, to point out that Donatists would recognize repentance. Wrong analogy on my part. The question I have grappled with is how radical an organized clergyman has to be before not even his ordination makes him capable of administering the sacraments.
Katherine, I think I understand what you are saying, and please forgive the previous “lecture”- sort of a habit after the first time I was accused of Donatism (I was still in TEC at the time, so I must have been doing a pretty good job in those parish and diocesan meetings to warrant someone dragging that up from their church history text and/or google).
Communion without baptism, transgender priests, rainbow vestments (especially during Lent, for crying out loud), goddesses- whether in one or 3 persons, eucharists in the name of PRIDE…. It is all just so wrong, it becomes an impediment to worship of God the Father, and His only begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, even for those who still believe.
The Archbishop of Sydney is a fully-fledged, 5-point Calvinist, as many of us Anglicans are. Mind you, many of us regard apostolic succession in the usual sense of the term as a take it or leave it issue, of no great importance. Apostolic succession in the sense of continuing the teaching of the Apostles is of course very important to us.
Thanks alpha. I don’t intend to search Anglican formularies but I can see nothing in Scripture that even hints at the need of apostolic succession for a church to be a true church. It’s nice to know whether or not we can trace things back to the apostles in a literal historical sense, but as others have pointed out it seems hardly worth much if those who can trace things back have departed so far from the truth, as so many have, including Rome and much of the Anglican world. As Article XIX says, “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men. in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same”. I don’t believe that apostolic succession is one of those “requisite” things for preaching the word or enjoying the sacraments. Otherwise I couldn’t worship in a Presbyterian or Independent or other church consisting of godly leaders and people, which I obviously can do without hesitation.
If a church sets out bread and wine and reverently invites me to eat and drink in remembrance that Christ died for me, and to show forth his death until he returns, I will gladly partake. I have done so in Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian and Anglican churches and any suggestion that there is something irregular or not valid in those celebrations of the sacrament would not be entertained by me for a moment.
David Morrison. All of the Christian denominations do not share the same view as to what happens in the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, or Holy Eucharist.
On page 31 of the ACNA Catechism you find the Anglican doctrine:
111. What is the outward and visible sign in Holy Communion?
The visible sign is bread and wine, which Christ commands us to receive. (1 Corinthians11:23)
112. What is the inward and spiritual thing signified?
The spiritual thing signified is the body and blood of Christ, which are truly taken and received in the Lord’s Supper by faith. (1 Corinthians 10:16-18; 11:27; John 6:52-56)
Rev. Nelson R. Boss, M.A., states on page 80 of The Prayer Book Reason Why:
“Do you mean by this that the Lord’s Supper is nothing more than a memorial? No; St. Paul says that it is the communion (i.e. communication) of the Body and Blood of Christ. (I Cor. 10:16). If these words are true, it must be something more than a mere memorial.”
Bishop Frank E. Wilson, D.D., S.T.D., states on page 175 of Faith and Practice:
“Something like this is meant by the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The bread and wine still remain bread and wine, but by combination with the spiritual act of Consecration they are invested with a peculiar spiritual virtue which is identified with the Body and Blood of Christ. ‘This,’ said our Lord, ‘is My Body . . . and this is My Blood.’ Christ is spiritually present under the forms of bread and wine. The virtue of His Presence produces its results when the Sacrament is received by the communicant, but the Presence is still there whether received or not.”
According to the Presbyterian Church (USA) Holy Communion is “The Lord’s Supper is the sign and seal of eating and drinking in communion with the crucified and risen Lord. During his earthly ministry Jesus shared meals with his followers as a sign of community and acceptance and as an occasion for his own ministry” (Book of Order, W-2.4001a).
The Southern Baptist Convention in the U.S. defines the Lord’s Supper as “a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”
The Reformed Churches of Australia state the following:
Q. How does the Lord’s Supper remind you and assure you that you share in Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and in all his gifts?
A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat this broken bread and to drink this cup. With this command he gave this promise:^1 First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely his body was offered and broken for me and his blood poured out for me on the cross. Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of the one who serves, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, given me as sure signs of Christ’s body and blood, so surely he nourishes and refreshes my soul for eternal life with his crucified body and poured-out blood.
^1 Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25
One thing Episcopal church seems to have forgotten is that no matter how perverse to the word of God they seems to be, they cannot stop the mandate of God in Anglican Communion. So they can go ahead and marry and ordain who and whatever they want for the word of God cannot be broken and God cannot change His standard to please any man. As for GAFCON, hold onto the original faith of the Church and never stop praying for the souls of the lost. The Spirit of the Lord abide with the Christian faithful.
As for the Archbishop of the Canterbury, the whole world is watching you come next year conference, you are the traditional see of the Communion and thus we look up to you to uphold the faith which you declared before Christ and his Church. May the Spirit of the Good Shepherd abide and work in you that which is pleasing unto him to the Glory and honor of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen
Well done, Jeff! NO surprise that Diocese of Maine has elected a homosexual man as their bishop nor that they have changed the creed! That diocese has been very liberal for a long time. Thank you for getting “GAFCON” correct! I hate it when I see it as “Gafcon”- grates on my last nerve. Excellent factual reporting that I have come to expect from you, Jeff! THANK YOU!
Dang. Only one nerve left? I still have lots of nerve left. Gets me in trouble all of the time but folks don’t have to guess what I’m thinking.
I don’t waste much time worrying about TEC which for most of my life was PECUSA. My late father was a priest from 1961 through the end of his life in 2004. After his retirement, he became very upset with the direction of the Episcopal Church. As my me and mine, we have found a spiritual home on the Anglican Province of America where nothing like the above story takes place.
Indeed, this has been going on in the Diocese of Maine for a number of years among some clergy and congregations. Some clergy have also been, with the former bishop’s knowledge, inviting the unbaptized to receive Communion. During the election process Thomas Brown made it clear that he would not only continue on this path but that he would speed up the pace. I resigned from the parish I was serving before Thomas’ consecration.
Holy Spirit as she. Ho, hum. Where have you been for the last 50 years? Now as to unilateral changes to the creed, who authorized Anglicans of any stripe to include “And the Son”? Not in the 381 text. Not trivial. The bishop in the Diocese of Olympia has to order his clergy to say the creed at the main service on Sundays because otherwise they won’t, and a lot of them don’t anyway. It’s hard to keep track, isn’t it?
The Apostles Creed says Jesus “was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,” and the Nicene Creed says Jesus “was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” It is not that God has a body or genitalia; nevertheless, a masculine Holy Spirit comes upon a feminine Mary and enables her to conceive. Going on the refer to the Holy Spirit as “she” in that same Creed, makes the whole thing gibberish, and merely demonstrates that the contemporary Episcopal Church has no regard for orthodoxy or theological integrity.
Is the bishop suggesting that the spirit in him is someone different from the Holy Spirit of the Bible?
The Holy Spirit is referred to using neuter pronouns in Koine Greek. The Holy Spirit is not specified as having a ‘gender’ in the “male” or “female” sense of the word. Since the Holy Spirit was not called “he” in the original Nicene Creed’s language, I do not think this should be a major issue.
The neuter pronouns are used because the word translated “spirit” is neuter in Greek. If the Trinity consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, using a feminine pronoun in English is rather strange to say the least.
May I point out that this would not be a problem if we still used the ’28 BCP?
I dunno- if you have decided to start a new religion by changing the words of the creed, you could still manage to do so with the 28. And in any case, you still have the problem with having ordained a partnered gay bishop.
I did not mean to imply that the 1928 BCP would cure all ills, but I now see that I clearly did so. My singular intention was to point out that the Hold Ghost has no gender in the ’28 Creed.
I apologize, T_Ford, I did not mean to sound critical of you. I enjoyed your comment. I should have said “if the bishop-elect…” or “if one…” rather than “if you….” I suspect it is a Midwestern thing to occasionally use second person pronouns in this way-it some feels more informal than the proper 3rd person wording, but I did not mean “you=T_Ford.”
I assumed that you (in this case meaning T_Ford) were observing that the word “he” is not in the phrasing of the creed in the 28, as it is in the 79.
My intent was merely to point out that if the bishop-elect was intent on making the Holy Spirit “female”, he could have added the word “she” somewhere in the 28 wording to achieve that goal.
I would argue, though, that the Holy Ghost does have a gender specified in the creed, as in the 28 He is identified as “the Lord, and the Giver of life”-
“Lord” to the modern Episcopalian, is not only masculine to a toxic degree, but an outright statement of patriarchy.
Bishop Pike operated start to finish under the 1928 book. He declared that the Creed is “Poetry, not theology” and instructed his clergy to sing it, not say it in services for that reason (if you don’t believe it, sing it, I was told is an old Episcopalian remark). He famously called the Trinity “excess baggage”. It doesn’t matter particularly whether it’s Elizabethan English or a Zwinglian eucharist if the Creed is simply not believed at all. Old disbelief doesn’t have to be tolerated unless you want to.
That reminds me of a quote attributed to Alec Wyton, well-known composer and chief architect/coordinator of the Hymnal 1982; “Episcopalians will sing any heresy to a good tune!”
There were plenty of episcopal heretics around at that time.
Both episcopal and Episcopal.
Not at all! Merely pointing out that having a book that expresses faith is no use if people quite openly deny every word of it. And certainly the creed isn’t poetry, that was his statement. He could just as easily been the heretic he was referring to the Orthodox liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Disbelief works as disbelief whatever order of service is in use.
Tjmcmahon & alphaTomega, while TEC can call Brown’s appointment whatever they like, it is not an episcopal ordinatIon with valid orders imparted. Just a big fat farce!
Revd Fr Dr RB. I agree. To quote my own conclusion down below:
My guess is that the majority of regular readers/commenters on Anglican Ink also agree.
The next step in the apostasy. Where this insanity will eventually lead can be seen by looking at the Netherlands.
A prominent figure of the mainstream Protestant Church of the Netherlands (PKN) is ‘reverend’ Klaas Hendrikse, author of the infamous book Believing in a God that does not exist: the manifesto of an atheist pastor. In his sermons Mr. Hendrikse paints a dark and hopeless picture of human existence and the meaning of life:
“Make the most of life on earth, because it will probably be the only one you get.”
“Personally I have no talent for believing in life after death,” … “No, for me our life, our task, is before death.”
Regarding the nature and presence of God:
“The Christian code for me is too narrow. … My understanding of the word God is that is one word of saying things or expressing experiences for which you also can use other words. Like, for instance, Allah.”
“For me the word God is important. The only thing is that it is not a being, not an existent being. … God is not a being at all… it’s a word for experience, for human experience.”
http://orthodoxnet.com/blog/2011/08/the-non-christian-christians-of-the-netherlands/
In this case, the feminine form is not another trendy innovation, but rather an ancient tradition of the Aramaic church, ie Syria, Israel. St. Efrem of Edessa used the feminine form among others. http://www.womenpriests.org/the-holy-spirit-as-feminine-in-early-syriac-literature/