In January of this year, the College of Bishops released a statement on human sexuality and identity which reiterated the biblical position that the Province was founded upon in 2009, a position fully aligned with the Jerusalem Declaration and Lambeth 1.10. While the culture in North America has moved further away from the biblical understanding of sexuality and human identity, the Anglican Church in North America has not moved.
This week, a lay person dissented from the College of Bishop’s statement in a public letter and instigated the very confusion that the College of Bishops warned would happen if its members did not heed this pastoral advice. The confusion was made worse by a misleading claim that Provincial approval had been given for the letter; it had not.
We encourage those who have concerns to again read the Statement itself, “Sexuality and Identity: A Pastoral Statement from the College of Bishops,” rather than be distracted by inaccurate commentary and misleading open letters. For additional context we also commend the letter, “Identity Matters,” from the bishop who chaired the taskforce. If you continue to have questions or concerns, please contact your local bishop. If you are an international partner, you can contact the Provincial Office at communications@anglicanchurch.net
The Anglican Church in North America remains committed to being a place where Christians who experience same-sex attraction can come alongside other brothers and sisters in Christ seeking to be more closely conformed to the character of Jesus, and grow in biblical holiness, righteousness, and godliness. Together, we will continue to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.
It wasn’t a lay person who launched the revolt. It was Bishop Todd Hunter.
Do you think Bp. Hunter is looking to push events to the point where he can take C4SO independent? Would Christ Church, Plano go along? I’m just throwing out a scenario that is just as probable as other conjecture. I thought at one time Bp. Shannon Johnston and Rev. Tory Baucum had something up their sleeve with the large Truro church. Might be time to nip things in the bud with outlaw bishops.
I imagine Bp Todd could take the church for everything independent today if he wanted to. One wonders why he worked so hard to become a Bp in ACNA in the first place? A convenient platform?
Exactly, so what discipline shall be applied to that Bishop? They had no problem shoving Bp. Jim Hobby out the door pretty quickly for far less public issues.
This is especially critical since in this latest press release they include the advice of “If you continue to have questions or concerns, please contact your local bishop.” I can think a few bishops who might not be so helpful, Todd Hunter for example.
Bp. Hobby’s Standing Committee was involved. Seems like there was an out of control priest that was on the verge of an ugly public issue.
Are you implying that investigating actual abuse is less important than a pastoral matter of language? I for one am glad that the actions taken by the ACNA regarding both +Hobby and +Jackson in the Great Lakes diocese have been no-nonsense while considerate to all affected, or seemingly so. In answer to my own question to you, I apologize for the snappish tone that may be implied. Please imagine reading it through in a very calm and quiet voice.
Bishop Hunter is not doing anything that was not allowed by the statement. Let me quote Bp Hunter quoting the relevant passage at the end of the House of Bishop’s statement
“The College of Bishops does not speak with the authority of a magisterium. The statement, Sexuality and Identity, says: We request that Provincial publications, teaching events, and seminars employ the recommended language and the biblical arguments that support this recommendation. Upholding our commitment to subsidiarity, we defer to diocesan bishops to discern these matters within their own diocesan communities and ministries.”
I don’t know how anyone could read the HoB statement as anything but a strong recommendation to use the language they recommend, with the option for Bishops who disagree to not follow the guidelines as long as they remain committed to the ACNA’s founding documents–which Bp Hunter is.
I’m not so sure about that. Every bishop needs to have clear conversations with each of his clergy and lay leaders about the CoB guidelines. +Hunter’s letter was released to the public, but it was aimed at his clergy. The open letter, on the other hand, was really over the line, in my opinion, and was the subject of ++Beach’s subsequent letter. Not that I have any sort of high opinion of +Todd Hunter, or the name of his diocese. The Church exists for the sake of Jesus, Her Bridegroom. Sorry, that’s a digression.
I understood the College of Bishops’ statement to be a clear rejection of the ‘Revoice’ and ‘Spiritual Friendship’ position on sexual identity. It was a much needed statement for ACNA and excellent. I understand Bishop Todd Hunter’s response to be a rejection of the position of the College of Bishops, rejection of their pastoral authority, and a rejection of thinking Biblically about sexual ethics. What is needed further is a clear statement on the power of the cross of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to transform sinners not only in their acts but also in their desires of the flesh.
That just sounds so good. But until they discipline Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Aspirants, and Seminary professors and show the AMEN group the door, this issue is not going away. The activists will not be deterred by blustery words.
Pastoral directives given by bishops are more than “blustery words.” I do not envy the bishops their job in this. What’s more, the issues of sexual brokenness will never completely go away, until the enemy is bound up and cast into the lake of fire. He prowls around our youth, seeking whom he may devour. We are all subject to temptations to not be fully alive in Christ and reflect the new self which he has put in us. The current zeitgeist of sexual confusion is not solely due to sinful influences and voices outside of the Church, but rather, it is direct spiritual oppression. It isn’t “activists” that are the problem, easily chased off and then ignored. Sin and spiritual warfare are what confront us, and there’s no future in which we can think, ah there, now we can sit back and relax. We must take up the armor of God, and exercise the spiritual disciplines of reading, studying, and contemplating the Scriptures, prayer, and worship/adoration. I’m one mother trying to do this. Will you join us?