(from yesterday) Letter from the Bishop of Maryland
A Letter from the Episcopal Bishop of Maryland to the Anglican Archbishop of Ghana in response to the Latter’s Actions in Tanzania
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17870
A Letter from the Episcopal Bishop of Maryland to the Anglican Archbishop of Ghana in response to the Latter’s Actions in Tanzania
The Most Reverend Justice O. Akrofi
Archbishop of West Africa and Bishop of Accra
Bishopscourt, P.O. Box GP 8
Accra, Ghana
February 17, 2007
Dear +Justice,
It is with sadness that I need to rescind my invitation to you to be with us in late March into early April, 2007. Yesterday I learned you were one of seven primates who have boycotted the Eucharist at the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam, and +Peter Akinola’s statement on behalf of the seven of you is in all the newspapers. I have received a number of emails from clergy in this Diocese expressing their disapproval of your action. The Diocesan Council met today and agrees that you cannot be welcomed in Maryland under the circumstances. For my own part, I am disappointed you would use the Holy Sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood as a political tool—I had assumed you sacramental theology was more thoroughly Anglican. Mostly I am sorry after so many years to end our personal relationship on this note.
It is obvious to everyone here that it would now be completely inappropriate for you to celebrate the Eucharist at our Cathedral on Palm Sunday. Surely, many parishioners would protest you visit by not receiving Communion from you. Since I do not allow such behavior in this Diocese, I cannot encourage it by your presence. Clearly it would be inappropriate for you to preach Tuesday in Holy Week to a combined group of Lutheran and Episcopal clergy, since you do not even share Communion with other Anglicans. Finally, it is sadly clear to Nancy and me that your presence at my retirement celebration is out of order as well. I give thanks for the eight years we have been in relationship; we have many friends in Accra and in Ghana, and I am aware that there are a number of them who will be shocked and grieved by your behavior. I have always shared honestly with you (even though I have not felt in the past two years you have been so honest in your sharing) and want to say we have great affection for the +Justice we knew in those earlier years. Since becoming Archbishop, you have changed and I do not feel I know you anymore.
I am not at this time calling for an end of the Companion Diocese relationship, although this development puts that relationship at risk. I am content to let the Holy Spirit guide our Dioceses into appropriate discernment (a discernment which will take place after my retirement and without my input). As a Diocese, Maryland is committed, as am I, to the continuation of projects already begun in Accra and relationships in Accra which I and many others here cherish. Our special Lenten offerings will go to assist children in your Diocese, I continue to be very supportive of Ghanaian Mothers’ Hope spearheaded by Debbi Frock, and we celebrate our ongoing Cursillo commitments.
Let me assure you I am not angry as I write this but deeply disappointed. The Diocese of Accra and its parishes remain on our Diocesan Prayer list from week-to-week, and you will remain in my prayers and those of our Diocesan family. Please continue to pray for us. There was much I had hoped to show you and tell you in your upcoming visit, much we had hoped to plan together, especially as it relates to youth ministry, a high priority for both of our Dioceses. Perhaps some of that can continue in some different form; personally, I am sad that I will not be a part of it.
Your faithful brother in Christ,
–(The Right Reverend) Robert W. Ihloff is Bishop of Maryland
=========80 Responses to “A Letter from the Episcopal Bishop of Maryland to the Anglican Archbishop of Ghana in response to the Latter’s Actions in Tanzania”
posted by t19elves at 8:42 AM
February 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm e
‘And you can’t come to my retirment party either!’
I could somewhat understand the dissinevntations and the worship issues but this… what a child.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pm e
Blimey - the recriminations have begun before the Primates meeting is even over.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pm e
And perhaps the Bishop of Maryland might not be invited to Lambeth. What goes around…
February 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm e
Some thoughts…
1. At risk of telling too much about myself, the Cathedral is very close by. I do not attend services there, as the liturgy is insufferable. I am not the only person I know with that opinion; there are many in my parish. It is also very liberal, moreso than a number of our local parishes, and I must say that the Archbishop would certainly not be welcome there.
2. Since I am actively Episcopalian I can’t say that I agree with the Tanzania 7, but I am unsure of what he means by “not allowing” persons to not recieve Communion. I have chosen not to recieve on any number of occasions for a variety of reasons.
3. +Rabb has been increasingly “taking over” so far as I can tell based on recent actions (talks with conservatives, meetings regarding the closing of a parish); although +Ihloff has not retired I am surprised to see his name on this.
4. +Ihloff has done nothing about the problem of Communion of the un-Baptized, at least to my knowledge. Am I to assume Communion is now compulsory?
Randall
February 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm e
The reappraisers are having their usual screaming tantrums at the idea of anyone believing differenty than they do, or following their own consciences.
The 7 primates were of course following the scriptural command not to receive communion until they are reconciled with their opponents… but to understand this, you’d need a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible. Which is not a reappraiser priority.
Nothing new to see here folks, move along…
February 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm e
Tit. Tat. More to come.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm e
Robert,
I regret to inform you that in light of your terribly rude letter to the kind Archbishop of West Africa, my invitation for afternoon tea and riparian delights is rescinded. I must commend you on excellent command of the british style of insult but it is very unbecoming of the clergy. I shriek in horror thinking what your dear mother and father would have thought of such public display of rudeness. Please note that the agenda for the afternoon tea has be altered to include changes to the ladies’ endowment plans for the Cathedral and Diocese of Maryland. Sad. I dare say, you should use discretion with your discretionary funds as we can no longer assist you in this area.
hyacinth
February 18th, 2007 at 2:23 pm e
Actually, I am impressed that the Bishop of Maryland understands what broken communion means, and how serious it is. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to understand the cause of it - a deep difference in doctrine. He just see it as a political statement, and politics is all TEC understand these days.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:29 pm e
Wow…. there’s an arrogance in this letter that I can only ascribe to genuine shock, i.e. “We never thought it would come to this…it isn’t a big deal, how can you act like it’s a big deal!?!”
There is so much in this letter that is laughable, but perhaps the most humerous parts are those that purport to be the most serious:
I’m at a loss to see how taking the Eucharist seriously is not “thorougly Anglican.” Seems to me listening to the invitation ““Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours,” that they have recognized a division in the body, the fact that at this moment they are in fact not in love and charity with their neighbor KJS+++ and her ilk. to have taken communion with her would not have been a recognition that, as some have said “this is the Lord’s table and all are welcome here,” but would rather have been the celebration of a lie. Anyone who takes the sacrament seriously should understand their decision, even if they don’t agree. But I suppose when one makes the Eucharist into a magic cookie to be had by all regardless of whether or not they are Christian and can possibly “do this in remembrance,” one has made it into nothing more than a tea party–and I suppose it is rude to skip out on the tea party.
Now here I can agree with Maryland+ and say that Archbishop Akrofi would be better served by not participating in any services in the Diocese of Maryland, if that Bishop and Diocese has taken the 815 party-line and refuses to repent or acknowledge wrong-doing. But of course the jibe about not being able to preach to a combined group of Lutherans and Episcopalians since he could “not even share communion with other Anglicans,” is completely childish and nothing more than a willful misrepresentation. No doubt the Archbishop would be pleased to take communion among Anglican and Lutheran clergy, as long as their hearts hadn’t been hardened and they weren’t continuing in unrepentant sin. With great minds putting forth sterling theology like this, no wonder the House of Bishops has been so effective in dealing with disagreements over the past half-century.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:32 pm e
I posted this comment over at StandFirm.
Re: “Surely, many parishioners would protest you visit by not receiving Communion from you. Since I do not allow such behavior in this Diocese, I cannot encourage it by your presence. “
Yes. If only Rowan Williams had done the same thing to not “encourage” it by the “presence” of Jefferts-Schori. ; > )
This is merely the natural consequence of the divided Communion. It will continue to play out along these lines as the divisions become much harder, broader, deeper, and in every way set more in concrete.
It’s the natural progression of what began back in 2003.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pm e
“Now here I can agree with Maryland+ and say that Archbishop Akrofi would be better served by not participating in any services in the Diocese of Maryland…” Jody
I agree fully…amen
February 18th, 2007 at 2:37 pm e
“Surely, many parishioners would protest you visit by not receiving Communion from you. ”
And he knows this how, exactly?
February 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm e
#7 Hyacinth, you made my day. My ab muscles thank you too for the good workout that hearty laughter provides.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:39 pm e
What a whiney, childish, unChristian bunch you secessionist wannabes are!
February 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pm e
That letter was a political statement if I ever read one!!!!!! An angry, political statement. A loving letter of reconciliation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the archbishop comes to the US will State Police stop him from enetring Maryland?
February 18th, 2007 at 2:44 pm e
Never commented here before, but I just can’t resist now. Forgive me for speaking so forcefully (no doubt some will find my language too strong); and if I am in error, please rebuke me. (One caveat: I am not Anglican and so do not necessarily have a dog in this fight. That said, it is also possible that I do not fully understand the intricacies of this issue.)
“I am disappointed you would use the Holy Sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood as a political tool—I had assumed you sacramental theology was more thoroughly Anglican.”
This, I must say, seems nothing but a farce. What is this Anglican sacramental theology to which Ihloff refers? Or, on second thought, I withdraw the question; I don’t care what it is if it is not the same sacramental theology of St. Paul, particularly as expressed in 1 Corinthians. The sacrament is the communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), and when we partake of it we are of one body with all of those who commune (1 Cor. 10:17). It is precisely because of this that we are not to partake of communion with heretics (if I may speak plainly and openly; and please forgive me, I sincerely do not intend to throw this word around lightly), because in so doing we would be acting so as to make the one body of Christ itself partake of heresy. We dare not do such a thing. Hear Paul’s words, *immediately* after 1 Cor. 10:16-17 (cited above): “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? . . . but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:18-21). Shortly thereafter, he notes that “‘everything is permissible’ — but not everything is beneficial” (1 Cor. 10:23). This is important because he makes exactly the same point earlier in this epistle (1 Cor. 6:12), and then says in that very context: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit” (1 Cor. 6:15-17). So Paul’s sacramentology is clear. Whomever we commune with, if we commune with them and then commune with Christ, we thereby attempt to unite those others to Christ. We dare not do this with those in heresy. Avoiding communion with heretics is simply following an obvious implication of the sacramentology of St. Paul, and so is quite orthodox and Biblical, whether Ilhoff considers it thoroughly Anglican or not. (Again, I don’t know if this is the specific reasoning of Akrofi and others–perhaps they do not play the “heresy” card–but it seems to me a reasonable position to take.)
One other consideration. Ilhoff chastises Akrofi for his withdrawing from fellowship with Jefferts Schori (at least here, in refusing to commune with her), but Ilhoff’s own actions here seem not that different. Certainly Ilhoff is not withdrawing from communion with Akrofi here (at least not explicitly), but he is at least withdrawing from certain specific relations with him. Why is it proper for Ilhoff to withdraw from relationships with those with whom he disagrees, but it is not likewise proper for Akrofi to do the same with respect to Jefferts Schori?
Forgive me a sinner,
Jason
February 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pm e
Truth,
Might I suggest a cup of ginger and mango tea? It aids in soothing muscle strain. Fretfully, I dare say the kind Archbishop will not be nearly as amused as you were.
Cheers
hyacinth
February 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pm e
Elves: #14, while in the minority, is hardly helpful.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm e
I’m sorry, where’s the part about “listening?” It seems to me that this bishop has read press reports and the adult thing to do is then write to the archbishop and ask for clarification and to help understand whether what he read in the press is true and if so, why the archbishop made his choices. What the bishop conveys in this hastily written letter is that he’s throwing a reactionary tantrum. Doesn’t bode well for the Bishop of Maryland.
bb
February 18th, 2007 at 2:57 pm e
Kendall,
What is the source of this letter? Is it real?
POLD
February 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm e
Where is evidence of the fruit of the Holy Spirit in ANY of this mess? Is it not blasphemy in the extreme for ANY side to claim the Holy Spirit in this devolving mess?
I feel as if we’re all — reappraisers and reasserters alike — betrayed by our leaders. We’re suffering under self-seeking, power-hungry, angry, crusading men. Where is patience? Gentleness? Self-Control? Love? Joy? Peace? Kindness? Goodness? FAITHFULNESS!?
The retaliation, recriminations, revenge will never end. How can any of us credibly proclaim a gospel of peace and reconciliation?
February 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm e
Now that I’ve left my comment (#16), I worry that perhaps I’ve spoken too hastily on an issue that I don’t know enough about (see my caveats). After reading over Akinola’s statement on this issue again, I am perhaps wrong (though I’m not entirely sure) to think that anyone has outright declared Jefferts Schori to be in heresy, and if that is the case then my own reasoning is somewhat irrelevant, as it will not reflect the reasoning of Akrofi and others. If I am mistaken, I hereby submit my comment for removal by the administrators of this blog, should they wish to remove it (not that they need my permission). In any case, I am sorry if I have rushed in hastily in order to say my piece; I leave it up to the rest of you to decide.
Jason
February 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pm e
Well, that’ll free up the slot for Spong to make an appearance.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pm e
RE: “Elves: #14, while in the minority, is hardly helpful.”
Oh horrors, Anglicanum. Don’t call in the elves!!! My favorite comments are by revisionists. ; > ) They serve as evidence for their Deep Intellect and Inclusive Love.
Surely we can all respond in kind.
RE: “What a whiney, childish, unChristian bunch you secessionist wannabes are!”
Dear Lapinbizarre, thank you for your thoughtful reflections on the news and comments on this thread. We shall certainly take your thoughts into consideration as the thread progresses.
Sincerely yours,
Sarah
; > )
February 18th, 2007 at 3:03 pm e
What is the source of this letter? Where is it posted? Most important: why is such a personal letter made public?
To be honest, I am rather embarrassed at reading it, both for the attempt a humiliating a primate of the Anglican Communion using a personal relationship and ad hominem attacks, and also at the manifestly juvenile behavior of the bishop of Maryland (wrt the retirement party). There was a time when Anglican clergy, for all their absurdities, could be counted on for public decorum.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:05 pm e
You’re right, Sarah, as always. :+)
Gentle Lapinbizarre: blessings on you. Thanks for coming by today.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm e
Maybe you should read your Bible instead of heeding the words of false teachers. The Anglican church is following the teachings of men and women. Not of God.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pm e
Ah, yes, the Pope of the all inclusive diocesis of Maryland, who has no conservative, unretired clergy on his roles, deigns to let the AB of Ghana know what the truth is. This is kind of like a soap opera isn’t it?
February 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm e
Thank you #21.
Please think of how our words appear to those outside of this church, that we are so filled with hatred and judgement for those we currently - or recently - shared a pew with. The faults of others are seen in such sharp relief, while our own faults are barely considered. Some Christianity.
We would each do well to consider our own shortcomings rather than another’s before we approach the communion rail. That one action, if taken by many of us, would change the world, as well as our little Episcopal piece of it.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pm e
#25, so much for “being tacky” as the last recognized sin in Anglicanism.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm e
Bill Channon,
He’d best not buy his ticket into BWI, Ihloff’s Homeland Security would get him at the jeyway.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm e
#16 - Jason
Yes, you speak well in your first post about the lack of substance in the Bishop’s own “sacramentality,” having reduced the Eucharist to a kind of “chip-and-dip-with-Jesus” through the Communion of the Unbaptized. Ihloff’s letter sounds (to this reader) petulant rather than theologically profound or spoken from a place of spiritual maturity (speaking quickly or reacting, rather than giving it time to mature, often does this). There is a kind of weakness in its arguments and its sense of self. However, I can see there is real pain and frustration here – and it is very sad to read. Also, it is a Bishop who is writing, so who am I to presume too far? It’s just not the kind of thing one expects from a seasoned and presumably thoughtful person.
I have myself abstained from the Eucharist in situations where taking it would have made a mockery of the Pauline and Johannine notions of mutuality and love that are to be the basis of sharing in the Holy Mysteries. I accept that those situations are as much about my own lack of love as they are about anything else in the situation, but I believe my actions are motivated by a sincere valuing of the Sacrament, not an “un-Anglican” (whatever that means in our supposedly pluralistic church!) sacramentality. On one of those few occasions when I refrained from receiving, a self-described “inclusivist” chided me for not receiving. I told her that it seemed to me a dangerous thing to receive the symbol of unity when I felt deep pain, anger, and hurt in my heart. She seemed stunned that I took it all that seriously. There, I would submit, is the real sacramental problem. I suggest we all read classic Anglican formularies on the Sacrament (starting with the Communion office in Rite I) rather than just conform the Eucharist to contemporary notions of “inclusion” and therapy.
While I don’t necessarily agree with a number of the things going on at the Primates’ Conference, I think that glossing over the deep divisions in the Church by all “playing along” is wrong, as well. Things have come to a very serious pass; some are unilaterally ordaining persons not understood in the Tradition to be able to be ordained; others are not receiving the Holy Mysteries with fellow Anglicans. Both “groups” feel justified in doing what they are doing. Each sees the flaw in the other; each fails to see where its own arrogance is helping destroy Christ’s work of redemption. This letter suggests a kind of “soft excommunication.” It shows that “inclusivity,” just like its opposite mentality, is simply unable to grasp the fullness of what is at issue and the fullness of the Gospel’s claim on us in repentance and humility.
In Christ,
Hursley
Non clamor sed amor psallit in aure Dei
February 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pm e
“Since becoming Archbishop, you have changed and I do not feel I know you anymore.”
It used to be so easy living here with you
You were light and breezy and I knew just what to do
Now you look so unhappy, and I feel like a fool
And it’s too late, baby, now it’s too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can’t hide
And I just can’t fake it …
Oooooo …
February 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pm e
But wait–T19 has already established in other threads that to share communion with a reappraiser is tantamout to condoning heresy:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17852#comments
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17833#comments
So isn’t Bishop Ihloff saving Bishop Akrofi from the new mortal sin of participating in the Eucharist with the insufficiently orthodox?
February 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pm e
Way to turn the other cheek Bishop Bob ! What a golden opportunity to preach the Gospel in action (accepting those who spurn you) you’ve thrown away so casually . . . glad I don’t have ‘friends’ who throw me overboard after reading something about me in the paper . . .
February 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pm e
Let us all now get out our hankies and shed one little itsy bitsy tear from the left(ist) eye and wipe it off with a sniff here, a sniff here, and a sniff everywhere ..old MacDonald had a tantrum…. At least it saves the Archbishop some time in having to write a letter of his own telling his “old” friend he thinks he has sadly become a heretic.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pm e
BabyBlue in #19 - you beat me to it!
The Maryland bishop should have personally contacted (i.e., call or write)the AB of Ghana to seek clarification and discussion before he wrote this letter. This letter has been written and published without that Christian charity, knowing that the AB of Ghana is still unavailable while in Tanzania.
Doesn’t put the MD bish is a good light at all. Is this how he would like to be treated?
February 18th, 2007 at 5:20 pm e
My Dear Honoroble Lapinbizzare,
I read with great joy your most charitable missive to orthodox bloggers on this post. It is surely the very dulcet tones of sweet birds which I hear in mine ear upon reading your text. Such generosity of opinion given in good and helpful friendship and faith can but serve to correct our errant ways. I was a at once struck by the mature and reverent tone you gave to this most ornerous but necessary admonishment.
It made me feel dreadfully like a small boy who’s favorite Aunt had caught him with his hand in the jelly jar. The sad yet stern look of reproach and dissapointment. How it does cleave a small heart. Why it is this very moment that so oft brings a straying youth back to the fold of righteouness and good counsel. How many who now languish in the company of thugs and miscreants would have benefited from a small correction done with love. How many who’s very soul’s are in jeapordy from their base and profane behavior, would have welcomed such charity and kindness from such a wise mentor as yourself.
Your consideration for the shortcomings of others is to be commended. I do pray your continued good health. The world is much in need of those who bear no mote. Thank you.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm e
From The Latin Mass:
Priest: Judica me, Deus, et discerne Priest: Do me justice, O God, and
causam meam de gente non fight my fight against an
sancta: ab homine iniquo et unholy people, rescue me
doloso erue me. from the wicked and
deceitful man.
Regarding this letter and the whole Tanzanian mess, choose which group you feel are the unoly people.
I know whom I feel are and if you have read my recent posts you will also know.
n
February 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm e
While I really don’t share most poster’s Eucharistic purity code, I do understand its Pauline roots. We can just disagree, since you all share my Anglo-Catholic veneration of the sacraments. However you choose to read it, however, +Ihloff’s letter just acknowledges +Akrofi’s decision to make political statements by personal actions(or lack therof). On the level of the laity and clergy a parallel dynamic exists: your incessant labelling of all Episcopalians as “apostate” or “heretic” or “un-Christian” leaves me no choice to imagine you would be loathe to accept my love and hospitality. It is very sad, but I’ll let you pick a hurtful label for my concerns.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pm e
Sorry the formatting messed up. I’ll redo it
February 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pm e
I guess this is an exception to the revisionists’ mantra that it is the Lord’s table, not that of any individual or group. Turns out in Maryland, it’s Ihloff’s table.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pm e
So isn’t Bishop Ihloff saving Bishop Akrofi from the new mortal sin of participating in the Eucharist with the insufficiently orthodox?
My thoughts exactly, #34. If Ihloff is of the same kidney as KJS, this visit was likely doomed from the start. +++Akrofi shouldn’t go regardless.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pm e
Priest: Judica me, Deus, et discerne
causam meam de gente non
sancta: ab homine iniquo et
doloso erue me.
Priest: Do me justice, O God, and
fight my fight against an
unholy people, rescue me
from the wicked and
deceitful man.›
February 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pm e
Raspberry Rabbit is spot on when s/he responds to +MD’s letter of dis-invitation:
“When an African Primate has declared himself ‘out of communion’ with the Presiding Bishop of a Province does he have any place making a friendly visit to a diocese of that Province? Probably not. The disjunct between his act of fellowship with a diocese he has been partnered with for some time and the public snubbing he has recently dished out to his Sister in Christ is clear enough. The gap ought to be brought to the good man’s attention at some point - sharply even. But a letter making this plain at this moment is probably ill-advised. One’s immediate reaction is ‘for Chrissakes not this week, you eedjit”!
February 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pm e
The Bishop of Maryland doesn’t allow “this kind of behaviour” in his diocese–he FORCES people to take communion when they can’t do so conscientiously. This is incredible. I am “shocked” by the tone that he is taking towards someone he considers a brother in Christ.
Edith
February 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pm e
I just have to say something, much though I know I’ll be, pardon the phraseology, “crucified”.
I’m as conservative/orthodox as they come - in fact, many of those who now claim to be reasserters are “leftists/revisionists” in my opinion. But I agree completely with Bishop Ihloff in what he has written. It was necessary - absolutely!!! - for some primates at Dar es Salaam to decline to participate in any form of communion with those whom they deemed heretical. (I choose not to name names; that’s secondary to the topic at hand.) And yet, having made that decision, it is certainly fair for those of a reappraiser mind to determine that it would be detrimental to have people who have declined to be in communion with THEM to visit. If anyone thinks that it’s unreasonable for someone who has been snubbed (which is, in all honesty, what has happened here, regardless of the reasons) to not respond I’d like to hear a reasonable explanation of WHY they should simply accept what comes at them, and not react.
Reasserters - you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You’re getting awfully fast with criticism of EVERYTHING that anyone else does. If it’s now wrong for reappraisers to respond to the actions of reasserters, I presume that henceforth reasserters will stop responding to the actions of reappraisers.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:37 pm e
#40. I take your criticism, if it was directed at my post however “On the level of the laity and clergy a parallel dynamic exists: your incessant labelling of all Episcopalians as‚apostate‚ or heretic‚or ‚un-Christian‚ leaves me no choice to imagine you would be loathe to accept my love and hospitality. It is very sad, but I’ll let you pick a hurtful label for my concerns.”
Certainly shouldn’t have been directed at me for I haven’t used those terms. My posts try to reflect my interest in civility and not in invective. If I have, on some isolated occasion, been too froth and invective as you indicate, I admit I was not only wrong, but stupid and I ask my Lord’s and your forgiveness.
u
February 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pm e
This is a comment I’ve been thinking about for awhile now. Anyone noticed how in almost all of the bishop to bishop correspondence floating around out there (whether it be this one, or the Lee-Minns (sp) letters, or others), the bishop is always either “saddened” or “disappointed” by the other’s actions. It’s really starting to get funny at this point.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:53 pm e
RE: “When an African Primate has declared himself ‘out of communion’ with the Presiding Bishop of a Province does he have any place making a friendly visit to a diocese of that Province?”
Well — probably only to reasserting dioceses of that province — that is, those dioceses who do not have the same theology as the Presiding Bishop.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pm e
I find myself in the surprising position of agreeing with much of what the reappraisers have written (and Uh Clint.) While the letter in and of itself may be “mean-spirited”, it was an appropriate letter. It’s time, it’s past time to split the sheets and like it or not it is time for various bishops to start excommunicating each other.
Let us be done with this false unity once and for all. It has become an idol and for whatever reason(s) Rowan Williams has become its chief idol worshipper. Some have attributed “charitable” intentions to his actions re the sub-group report, but bottomline he delivered a report to the Primates which he knew to be false. And regardless of how noble his motives might have been, it was an act of duplicity.
Here it is: For the sake of this “unity” the head of the third largest body of Christians has committed an act of duplicity, of falsehood. If that does not set off alarm bells of 80 decibels, you are not paying attention.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm e
Pardon, definitely not directed to you. DH, but to the general tone of the thread. I fear the invective has become almost too much to ever overcome, but, you know, with G-d, all things…
February 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pm e
[#47] Uh Clint writes: “It was necessary - absolutely!!! - for some primates at Dar es Salaam to decline to participate in any form of communion with those whom they deemed heretical. (I choose not to name names; that’s secondary to the topic at hand.) And yet, having made that decision, it is certainly fair for those of a reappraiser mind to determine that it would be detrimental to have people who have declined to be in communion with THEM to visit. If anyone thinks that it’s unreasonable for someone who has been snubbed (which is, in all honesty, what has happened here, regardless of the reasons) to not respond I’d like to hear a reasonable explanation of WHY they should simply accept what comes at them, and not react.”
Clint, here’s an explanation that I hope you find reasonable. Some primates have discerned that there other primates who are heretics. Hence, their absence from communion. You said so yourself in your own words.
But did Bishop Ihloff in his hasty letter claim that ArchBishop Akrofi was heretical? No, he did not.
Therein lies the obvious distinction between the two refusals to have communion with one another.
As Dr. William Witt wrote in another thread regarding PB KJS: “She is a heretic who blithely ignores the admonitions of the Church, and a persecutor of Christians. Until she repents, should be treated as such.”
Is this reasonable and helpful Clint?
February 18th, 2007 at 6:15 pm e
This letter does not suprise me in the least. In my experience with this man; when you challenge him, you get this kind of response. Lord have mercy!
February 18th, 2007 at 6:19 pm e
#52. Thanks I agree that both sides of the debate here on Titus can be froth. I know, because some things said to me have been a bit over the top. However, I have lived in three Muslim countries and was attacked pretty badly when the attackers assumed I was a Christian. I turned the other cheek, I am afraid not for the right reasons, but mostly for fear of getting physically beat up. At least on Titus that fear is not present.
What’s that old saying about walking a mile in another’s shoes? I take to heart when posting the old Southern saying, “Diffrences of opinion are what sell bad land and stubborn mules.”
God Bless you and may both of us look to the Eucharist to calm our souls as we seek Christ’s presence in everything we do.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pm e
Truth Unites (#53) has a point.
Abp. Akrofi’s actions, if we take it for what those refusing to share communion claim it is, is a theological stance.
Bp. Ihloff’s is clearly the political stance (a case of projection, perhaps in his accusation?)
I hope Akrofi has already bought his plane ticket and still plans on coming. I’m sure there will be plenty of churches happy to welcome him. And what a PR black eye this would be for Ihloff. I can see the headlines now: “Banned Archbishop Speaks at Local Church” with the text of the story pointing out that it is the inclusive Episcopalians who are doing the banning.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:27 pm e
What a privelige, to be told *not* to come to an Episcopal cathedral. More people should be envious of this honor. Around 25 years ago, I was leaving ECUSA for the Orthodox Church, and wondered to myself if there was anything weird enough that could get someone excommunicated from ECUSA rather than make a quiet exit. At last I have an answer. One of the first people I becam acquainted with in my new parish was Katherine Schori’s mother. She figured it out before I did, but then she was alot smarter. Will others, or is it as I suspect, that around 4 decades of loose teaching has left most of the inmates anesthetized?
February 18th, 2007 at 6:58 pm e
As a Liberal, I’m disappointed. If using the blessed sacrament as a political weapon is wrong for the 7 Primates that refused communion the other day, then it must be wrong for liberals.
Although I do not agree with my bishop, Robert Duncan, I have not and will not use the blessed sacrament as a weapon.
I would think if you need to rescind an invitation you do it privately (at least all the personal stuff) and if you feel the need for openess publish a simple statement “I can’t invite you because we have impaired communion!” end.
One does have to wonder why, considering Maryland’s liberal stance, Acrofi would be coming to Maryland (I would think most of those primates would avoid liberals like the plague).
God’s Peace, Bob
February 18th, 2007 at 7:06 pm e
Shocked and stunned at the judgmentalism of the Bishop of
Maryland. No, let me change that to “disappointed” at the judgmentalism
of the Bishop of Maryland. I stopped being “shocked and stunned” at anything that Episcopal bishops say or do long ago. The bishop’s logical error is that he assumes that anybody in their right mind would care what he thinks anymore. He just doesn’t “get” what is happening now, and,
of course, it’s all about him.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pm e
Amen to not using the sacrament as a weapon.
If the Lord’s table was forbidden to sinners it would be a pretty lonely meal. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, who are we, any of us, to judge the persons we eat with?
The first error was in shunning the Primates’ Eucharist and then issuing a press release in contravention of the agreed upon protocol.
This was compounded by the “disinvitation”. Better would have been for Bp. Ihloff to have shown a better example, kept to the schedule and encouraged all his flock to show as an example of Xian love and unity.
This from one who could not disagree more with the Akinola/Minns axis of logic.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm e
What utter condescending nonsense. Doesn’t this guy have a staff that can save him from himself?
But, here’s the real question: Why was Akrofi going to hang out with this scold in Maryland in the first place? If you’re in “impaired” or “broken” communion, why are you hanging out in ECUSA Cathedrals?
February 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pm e
Come one guys/ladies. Did anyone expect anything different from a number 1 supporter of VGR and the LGBT?
February 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pm e
Jason, #16, thank you for your well expressed thoughts.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pm e
“What is the source of this letter?”
This letter was sent by Bishop Ihloff to all clergy of the Diocese of Maryland and to all Diocesan staff as an email attachment. The email said the following:
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
Yesterday it came to my attention that our Companion Diocese bishop, +Justice Akrofi, who is also the Primate of West Africa has joined with six other Primates in boycotting Eucharists at the Primates Meeting. Thirty-one of the Primates are receiving Communion together, including our own +Katharine Jefferts-Schori. The action by +Justice (quite a disappointment and surprise to me) prompted conversation at toady’s Diocesan Council meeting and the attached letter to +Justice.
While this means that Bishop Akrofi is not welcome to make a planned visit to participate in celebrations around the time of my retirement, it does not mean the end of our Companion Diocese relationship, the need to keep each other in prayer, nor should it endanger any of our ongoing projects in Ghana and Accra. I was going to encapsulate the letter here, but I think the letter speaks more completely.
+John Rabb, Dean Van+ Gardner, Canon Mary+ Glaspool and other of you have all concurred this was a necessary step. I am very sorry to be the bearer of this sad news.
Faithfully yours,
+Bob
February 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pm e
“I continue to be very supportive of Ghanaian Mothers’ Hope spearheaded by Debbi Frock, and we celebrate our ongoing Cursillo commitments.”
Debbi Frock belongs to a conservative Episcopal Church in Maryland which has asked Ilhoff not to come for confirmation the last 3 years.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pm e
My only stupid observation and question du jour is this: was the Maryland Diocesan Council meeting called or scheduled for Saturday? Therein lies the tael.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:12 pm e
I am a lifelong and fairly active in the Diocese Marylander/Baltimorean. I know +Ihloff more than passably; I have corresponded numerous times with him over all of the issues in TEC. I know +Raab well and +Gardner officiated at my wedding. +Van Gardner is a true Christian and I have deep affection for him but sadly we have drifted apart over the years and I suspect much of the drift is due to the leftward tilt of the Diocese of Maryland and TEC. He knows that I do not share his POV.
Guys, the simple truth is that this surprises me not one whit. Wecome to being orthodox in this laughably Leftist Diocese. I guess I am just numb after being beaten to a pulp all these years by this claptrap. I give thanks that I am led by a wonderful, faithful and deeply orthodox Rector (may he never retire!!!).
# 66: I guarantee +Ihloff called the meeting specially!
February 18th, 2007 at 9:22 pm e
Bravo, Bishop Ihloff!
I only wish my own bishop [NY] had the spine to stand up to the bully bishops of bigotry.
As I always say ‘Love the bigot. Hate the bigotry.’
February 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm e
Finally, a TEC Bishop is willing to stand up to the Southern Cone and say call a spade a spade. Hurray for +Ilhoff!!!
February 18th, 2007 at 10:29 pm e
It’s great to see a Godly Bishop standing up to the bullies of the Anglican right!
February 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pm e
Are we sure this is from the Bishop? One would assume someone would have proofed such an important letter, words misspelled, used incorrectlyand even use of you instead of “your”. If he was “real southern” we might accept it.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:47 pm e
Hyacinth, Why on earth would a bishop of the Episcopal Church want a visit by a foreign or domestic bishop who
1) Does not accept the legitimacy of the PB’s ordination as a priest and
2) Does not accept the legitimacy of Katherine election head of this AUTONOMOUS Province.
I find the “7″ to be out of sync with the bible and the historic practice of the Anglican Communion. Praise be the father of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Episcopal Church has bishops who will stand up to the tyranny of thugs who embarrass our Lord by claiming HIS name and using it for selfish means and bigotry.
PS, Hyacinth, your “dos’ are a terrible bore.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:49 pm e
Ihloff has no spine or he would have never allowed himself to be pressured by the bullying tactics of jefforts and her followers. jefforts needs a major deliverance, she has been deceived, the work of Satanic influences– this is not just about gays..nor the Eucharist…..
she has forced us to accept her way– leaving the faithful no choice. erasing and rewriting Scripture to fit an agenda?…I would say it is her agenda and her followers but I know now it is the work of someone much more devious and very clever
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:29 pm e
Hyacinth, re # 72…… You are FABULOUS…..And you are invited to my next candlelight supper.
I believe the commenter above (and some others) must be blinded by their admiration of Bishop I’s flawless interpretation of Lady Catherine DeBurgh’s gracious condescension (with apologies to Jane Austen)!
Blessings,
Liz
February 18th, 2007 at 11:41 pm e
Ignorance.
The Province of West Africa accepts the ordination of women. So point #1 is inaccurate and false.
Point #2 is also inaccurate and false. Even *I* accept the legitimacy of her election. ; > )
In response to your question — “Why on earth would a bishop of the Episcopal Church want a visit by a foreign or domestic bishop” — only a bishop who believes the same gospel as the Archbishop of West Africa would seek a visit from him.
That would be all of the Network dioceses, I presume, as well as most of the Windsor bishops.
Hope that helps!
; > )
February 19th, 2007 at 12:16 am e
James, how pathetic!
February 19th, 2007 at 1:19 am e
The most scandalous aspect of this to me is that +++Akrofi planned to conduct sacramental ministry in Ilhoff’s people’s republic in the first place.
-Jim+
February 19th, 2007 at 1:42 am e
#57 = So please say more about what you learned from Schori’s mother.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:28 am e
72 James:
The editors should have quashed your ad hominem and inaccurate (see 75) attack on hyacinth and Global south bishops. From the positive responses “delightful, etc.” to hyacinth’s post, your use of the term “bore” seems to 180 degrees off. This is a common cheap shot legal maneuver.
As for calling the global south primates thugs, maybe you need to read more about the deeply prayerful/careful group. From what I have read, these men are on their knees more in a day than I am in a week.
I have just returned from a mission trip to Kenya, and I would charge that you, James, are clueless about the struggles that these primates face.
How about we send KJS over there to see how she would do? Given her track record (the diocese of Nevada, with NV being the fastest growing state in the union, had their average sunday attendance shrink by 8.47% in her tenure 2001-4). I imagine the continent would be muslim in short order.