Episcopalians vs. Anglicans

Lutheran journalist Mollie Hemingway has a fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal about how the Episcopal Church in the USA is trying to thwart the new conservative Anglican denomination:

When the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church over disagreements about what the Bible says about sexuality, the congregation offered to pay for the building in which it worshiped. In return the Episcopal Church sued to seize the building, then sold it for a fraction of the price to someone who turned it into a mosque.

The congregation is one of hundreds that split or altogether left the Episcopal Church—a member of the Anglican Communion found mostly in the United States—after a decades-long dispute over adherence to scripture erupted with the consecration of a partnered gay bishop in 2003. But negotiating who gets church buildings hasn’t been easy. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said she’d rather have these properties become Baptist churches or even saloons than continue as sanctuaries for fellow Anglicans.

The Episcopalian congregations that want to break away are part of a larger movement of Anglicans world-wide who are concerned by the liberalism of the official New York-based Episcopal Church on sexuality and certain basic tenets such as Jesus’ resurrection. Of the 38 provinces in the global Anglican Communion, 22 have declared themselves in “broken” or “impaired” fellowship with the more liberal American church.

In 2009, breakaway Episcopalians in the U.S. and Canada formed the Anglican Church in North America, which now reports 100,000 members in nearly 1,000 congregations. This group has been formally recognized by some Anglican primates outside of the United States.

Bishop Jefferts Schori says this new Anglican group is encroaching on her church’s jurisdiction, and she has authorized dozens of lawsuits “to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church.” The Episcopal Church has dedicated $22 million to legal actions against departing clergy, congregations and dioceses, according to Allan Haley, a canon lawyer who has represented a diocese in one such case.

Now the Episcopal Church has upped the ante: It has declared that if congregations break away and buy their sanctuaries, they must disaffiliate from any group that professes to be Anglican. . . .

“We can’t sell to an organization that wants to put us out of business,” said Bishop Jefferts Schori, who added that her job is to ensure that “no competing branch of the Anglican Communion impose on the mission strategy” of the Episcopal Church. Indeed she has no complaint with Muslims, Baptists or barkeepers buying Episcopal properties—only fellow Anglicans.

via Mollie Ziegler Hemingway: Twenty-First Century Excommunication – WSJ.com.

Federal Vision vs. Lutheranism

The Reformed world is all in an uproar about what they call “the Federal Vision,” with many prominent Reformed folks embracing this new way of being Reformed  with great excitement while others are denouncing it as an out-and-out heresy.  (For example, Peter Leithhart, who has written some fine things about literature, was actually tried for heresy by the Presbyterian Church in America, though he was just acquitted last week.)

We Lutherans approach all of these issues in a completely different way, so  I have to admit that I don’t understand this movement one way or the other.  It sounds like the Federal Vision people have a much higher view of baptism than is normal in Reformed circles, though they deny baptismal regeneration.  And yet they seem to have some problematic views about justification (flirting with N. T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul) and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

Here is what seems to be an authoritative account of the teachings from a website on the subject:  FV for the Average Joe « The Federal Vision.

I would be glad to hear some Reformed explanations on either side of the issue.  I would especially be grateful for a Lutheran appraisal of what is going on.

HT:  Anthony Sacramone

Should ministers have any legal protections?

A reader of this blog with quite a bit of expertise on employment law and who is also sensitive to the religious issues involved  has sent me what I think is the best analysis I have seen of the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case currently before the Supreme Court, having to do with a Lutheran school that fired a called teacher because of her disability, then claimed a “ministerial exemption” from having to follow the disability laws because the employee was a “minister.”   Here is part of what he said, which I post with his permission (honoring also his request for anonymity):

The argument of Hosanna-Tabor that their action was based on religious reasons seems to be cooked up post-facto, and so I imagine that Ms. Perich would be able to successfully prove them pretextual–which then puts the burden of proof back upon the school to show that they are not in fact pretextual. Since their case as represented in the court documents doesn’t seem strong in this area, I think they ought to lose the case, if it is argued on those lines.

This also raises the question: Can a church or religious institution justify any action on the basis of religious motive? It seems to me Hosanna-Tabor already stepped outside the recognized limits of LCMS ecclesiology by purporting to treat a woman teacher at a Christian school as a “minister,” when, quite properly according to their theology, the priestly office is limited to men in the LCMS. The application of this category to religious school teachers only, it seems, to circumvent labor laws, strikes me as both cynical and irreligious. Can any employment action can be dragged into the category of religious conviction when the stated institutional convictions of the supervising denomination are clearly at odds with it? This is the elephant in the room which the EEOC has been mighty delicate not to take a shot at.

I worry that the outcome of this case, whether Hosanna-Tabor wins or loses, will be to confuse 1st Amendment jurisprudence and set bad precedents in one direction or another.

Exactly.  However the course rules, harmful precedents are going to be set.   This raises another question:  Do ministers have any legal protections?  If the ruling goes in favor of the school, that would seem to mean that churches and other religious organizations could mistreat their pastors and probably other employees with impunity, claiming a “ministerial exception” that makes them exempt from honoring the legal rights that other citizens have.

I know the New Testament prohibitions about going to court to solve church disputes–it’s much better to be defrauded–but it’s possible for a church to obey the law in regards to its ministers without anyone going to court.  The Reformation battled the notion that the church needs only follow canon law and not the laws of the state, addressing the situation  that priests and nuns were subject only to canon law, even when they committed overt crimes.  The doctrine of vocation taught that the laws of the state also were instruments of God’s social order, and that the church didn’t have the right to impose a competing legal system of its own.

We have the rights of the church vs. the rights of the pastors.  (Since the plaintiff here is a teacher, perhaps many pastors haven’t been seeing  how the case would also apply to them.)  Or should pastors claim no legal rights other than those of the church?

How Christians are identified in Egypt

The Arab Spring in Egypt is resulting in riots and persecution targeting Coptic Christians, who make up some 10% of the population. This weekend some 17 were killed.  See  this.

So how can Egyptians tell if one of their countrymen is a Christian?  Well, in an act of defiance and self-identity and so everyone will know their religion, the Copts wear their faith on their sleeve, as it were.  They tattoo a Coptic Cross on their wrists.  (We blogged about this before, but I found a picture.)

Coptic tattoo

 

 

The Black Rubric

I’ve been studying Anglicanism lately.  But then I’ve run up against the Black Rubric, so-called because it was printed in bold type in the Book of Common Prayer.  It enjoins kneeling while receiving the Sacrament, but goes on to deny explicitly any kind of real, bodily presence of Christ in the elements:

“Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.”

via Black Rubric – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Now I know that many Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence, with some sounding almost Lutheran in their affirmations.  Indeed, some are Anglo-Catholics with a very high view of the sacraments.  I’m curious how those folks handle the Black Rubric.

According to the article, this has come in and out of various editions of the Book of Common Prayer.  (Puritans insisted on it and would go up in arms when it was omitted.)  It isn’t in the 2000 edition used in America today, though it remains in the British prayer book.  It is apparently in the 1926 Book of Common Prayer, the one favored by many conservatives and Anglo-Catholics today.

I realize that this is what I read in a Reformed Episcopal service I once attended, with my hosts seemingly a little hurt that I, as a Lutheran, would not commune with them.  But the liturgy explicitly repudiated my beliefs about the Sacrament as idolatry!  This may also explain to Anglicans who are hurt by the confessional Lutheran practice of closed communion why Lutheran pastors can not assume that Anglicans have the same view of the Christ’s presence in His Supper that they do. And why Lutheran theologians tend to categorize Anglicans as another variety of Calvinists.  Indeed, the Black Rubric seems to be a textbook definition of Calvinist sacramental theology (what with the statement that Christ’s body is in Heaven, “and not here”), which is why the Puritans made such a point of it.

And yet I’m sure this isn’t the whole story.  Someone help me out with this.

HT:  Adam

Different takes on the LCMS school case

Here are two different framings of the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC case that was just heard before the Supreme Court.  The first shows why so many religious groups are backing the LCMS school:
Washington Wants a Say Over Your Minister–Wall Street Journal

The second is slanted towards the rights of the disabled:

Supreme Court Weighs Rights Of Parochial-School Teachers : NPR.

Then there are many confessional Lutherans who disapprove of teachers being conflated with pastors and so oppose the congregation’s claim for a “ministerial exception.”

I suspect there are also LCMS teachers and others who support the notion of the teacher’s “call” and yet sympathize with her for being discriminated against because of her disability.

How do you think the court should rule, and how do you think it will rule?  What measures should the church body take to address these issues?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X