3 of 3

Episcopal leaders say that the Anglican way has always been tolerant of a wide range of beliefs. What are the limits?

We have been traditionally been called "the Church of the Middle Way." While we profess allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the Creeds, we are not a confessional church. You will find in TEC those who stand in a wide variety of places on issues [such as] morality, politics, even worship style (from high to low, traditional to charismatic, etc.). You will also find us now struggling with how to reach out to the gay community without an endorsement of a lifestyle inconsistent with Holy Scripture. That said, we have not done a very good job of upholding even basic principles [of] human sexuality — a gift to be lived out within the context of heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

The vast majority of sexual indiscretion and sin with which I deal in my pastoral work is not connected to homosexual misconduct, but heterosexual (infidelity, serial monogamy, promiscuity). We spend a lot of time wagging the finger (perhaps too much time) on one expression of human sexuality, when in reality, everyone's sexuality is tainted with original sin — all are in need of redemption, conversion, and sanctification.

As to limits, those who would deny the basic creedal elements (the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection) would then be stepping outside not only historic Episcopal faith, but Christian faith as well.

Do you regard the current TEC presiding bishop as a leader faithful to historic orthodoxy? If not, what should be done?

I have met with the presiding bishop on a few occasions. At least in my experience, she [Presiding Bishop Schori] has spent more time actively listening to those who disagree with her or the current direction of TEC than [did] either of her two predecessors. I have heard her say things with which I completely disagree, and some things with which I agree. On those points of disagreement, I have — both in personal meetings and in correspondence — stated my disagreement and even challenged her on those points. I do not find her to be defensive. As to whether or not she is a leader faithful to historic orthodoxy, I cannot speak to her personal theology; that really is her story to tell. I do believe her position on these divisive issues around human sexuality to be inconsistent with the history and tradition of the church and the teaching of Scripture.

I sincerely hope she will not allow the revisionist agenda to take another step forward. I think she can begin next summer's convention by stifling any resolution, canonical shift, [or] liturgical revision that could be perceived as a step further to the Left on the divisive issues around human sexuality.

Do any conservative evangelicals support your decision to stay (for the time being) within TEC?

I had the opportunity to visit with John Stott in late November. We talked and prayed about many things, including the ongoing challenges in the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church. As I asked him which path he thought it best for me to take, he said, clearly, "If I were you, I would stay … you have the truth on your side … and I think you are called to stay and faithfully preach the gospel. Remember what Max Warren said, 'the church is evidence of God's patience.' And we just don't know what fruit or reform will be born as a result of a long period of faithful preaching and witness to the evangelical faith we share."

Christianity Today has a special section on the Anglican division.

first page |  3 of 3

share this page

January (Web-only) 2009, Vol. 53