Brett Favre on schism (not in the Anglican Communion) in the Vikings' Locker Room

Brett says he doesn't know what schism means...must not be reading his Anglican blogs...

lol

~The Rev. Peter M. Carey

Read more HERE, from ESPN



HERE's the Merriam Webster definition...of schism

Richmond Times-Dispatch on the Diocese of Virginia Trial

hat tip to the Episcopal Cafe

The Richmond Times-Dispatch on the constitutionality of the Virginia law of division:

The situation in Northern Virginia focuses on property and denominational governance. After leaving the Diocese of Virginia, the breakaway churches affiliated with African branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. They continue to occupy their buildings. Therein lies the legal irritation. The Episcopal Church is hierarchical. Individual parishes are neither truly independent nor fully autonomous but emanate from the diocese. The bishop serves as the foundation's head. Rectors and priests represent him or her at the parish level. We will not delve further, as in this instance church structure flows from denominational belief and thus falls under the purview of theologians.
...
Neither camp has made any of its decisions lightly. The decision to leave a church, or a diocese, is not an idle act; the decision to defend institutional interests is not idle, either -- especially when the interests embody reliance on Scripture, tradition, and reason.

Virginia prides itself as being the birthplace of religious liberty -- America's first freedom. The Virginia law under review interferes with an intradenominational debate and violates the spirit of church-state separation even as it resurrects the dubious legacy of interposition. If the commonwealth acted wisely when it disestablished the Anglican Church, then it errs when it implicitly tells the Diocese of Virginia how to run itself.

Read it all. The trial on the constitutional question opens today.

Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese Votes to Leave the Church

Gene J. Puskar/Associated Press

Representatives from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted Friday on a first step toward leaving the national church.

By SEAN D. HAMILL

Published: November 3, 2007

JOHNSTOWN, Pa., Nov. 2 — By more than a two-to-one vote, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted Friday in favor of separating from the national church because of a theological rift that began with the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

The vote sets the stage for what could become a protracted legal battle between the diocese and the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which had warned Pittsburgh’s bishop not to go forward with the vote.

After passionate appeals from both sides of the debate, clergy members and lay people voted 227 to 82 to “realign” the conservative diocese.

If Friday’s vote is approved again in a year, the diocese will begin steps to remove itself from the American church and join with another province in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

After the vote, Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh, who is also moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, an alliance of conservative dioceses and parishes, defended the decision.

“What we’re trying to do is state clearly in the United States for the authority of Scripture,” Bishop Duncan said after the vote, taken during the diocese’s annual convention in this city about 50 miles east of Pittsburgh.

The vote was necessary, he said, because the more liberal bishops now in the majority in the national church “have hijacked my church, and that’s how most of the people here feel.”

Some who opposed separation said it would create nothing but chaos for the diocese.

“I think it was tragic,” said Joan Gunderson, president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh and a lay deputy who voted against the resolution. “I’m concerned what will follow.”

A day earlier, the head of the Episcopal Church U.S.A., Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, sent Bishop Duncan a letter, warning him that he could face discipline and civil suits if he “committed canonical offenses” including overseeing approval of the resolution.

Read the rest HERE.

Exporting Schism??

One of the (probably too) many blogs that I read on the Anglican Communion is Father Jake Stops the World, his blog is edgy, provocative, and never without a lot of pithy Truth. He calls them as he sees them, and while I don't always agree with everything he writes, he gets me thinking, and gets me seeing things in new and nuanced ways. His entry today on "Exporting Schism" is provocative and very interesting:

"Since the schism in North America is being heralded as a great success, having gained the allegiance of 5 diocesan bishops (out of 110) and 60 congregations (out of 7,600), it appears that the same tactics will now be exported to England.

From the Telegraph:

...Reform also says it will bring in foreign archbishops to ordain priests in dioceses where incumbent bishops refuse to disassociate themselves from the American church, which appointed the openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003...

...The Rev Rod Thomas, the chairman elect of Reform, said: "The situation in the Anglican communion is so serious now that we have to plan for an inevitable split in the Church of England from top to bottom"...

Reform is a group that describes itself as "a network of churches and individuals within the Church of England, committed to the reform of ourselves, our congregation and our world by the gospel." Their "reform" seems to be primarily about getting rid of the gays.:




Read the rest of it HERE.

Father Jake Stops the World: Exporting Schism

Agreement to Disagree, a proposal by Paul Stanley

In light of all that is going on in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, this post by Paul Stanley (not the KISS performer, at least I think not) on "Fr. Jake Stops the World" blog has some very interesting proposals...and there have already been nearly 300 comments on the post ... it is worth a read if you have the time!

Peace, Peter

Here's a portion of the proposal:

In the comments of the previous post, Paul Stanley proposed "An Agreement to Disagree." I think it is worth further consideration. Here it is:

(Note that the ordering of the specific points has been amended from the original, with Paul's permission. The original order, to which the early comments refer, can be found here - J.)
__________________________

1) We agree to disagree. We accept that some Christians conscientiously believe that same sex relationships are legitimate and holy. We accept that some Christians consider them to be sinful. We do not regard the expression of either of these views as incompatible with full membership of the Church, and we specifically resolve that we remain in communion with those of both views.

(2) We agree, however, that where people choose to live in a same sex relationship, that relationship must be lived on the same principles as marriage between people of different sexes--with faithful and loving stability. We provide accordingly for the marriage of persons of the same sex.

(3) No minister will be compelled to marry people of the same sex. But if asked to do so, a minister whose conscience does not permit him or her to perform such a marriage must ensure that the couple are referred to a minister who is willing to do so, and must treat the request with pastoral sensitivity. Pastoral sensitivity is not necessarily inconsistent with making it clear that the minister's own view is that same sex marriage is wrong, but due restraint must be exercised, and the minister must always make it clear that this view is his own and one on which others disagree.

(4) No church will be required to have as its priest in charge or as an ordained minister a person who is married to a person of the same sex.

(5) No church will be required to have as its priest in charge or any ordained minister a person who is conscientiously unable to perform marriages for persons of the same sex.

(6) Where a diocese has a bishop who is married to a person of the same sex, arrangements will be made to delegate episcopal functions to a bishop who is not so married in relation to any parish that requests it.

(7) Where a diocese has a bishop who is conscientiously unable to perform marriages for persons of the same sex: (i) the bishop may not refuse to permit clergy in his or her diocese to perform such marriages and (ii) arrangements will be made to delegate episcopal functions to a bishop who does not have such conscientious objections in relation to any parish that requests it.

(8) But nobody may (i) refuse communion to a person on the grounds that he or she is married to a person of the same sex or (ii) deny the validity of the orders of any member of the clergy on the ground that he or she is married to a person of the same sex.

I don't think either side would or ought to be altogether happy with this. But I don't see why it couldn't be a modus vivendi.

For the entire text, check HERE.