I briefly flirted with the idea of joining the Charismatic Episcopal Church, but quite a few things stood in the way of me joining. One major reason I didn’t join was what was happening in the CEC cathedral a friend of mine attended. The bishop suspended the liturgy when the “Spirit moved” and the behavior seemed more charismatic than Catholic. There are other incidents, not to mention that the CEC suffers from many of the same issues as Anglicanism, but I won’t go into all of this here. I have a few friends who are active in the church, and I think the CEC does many good things. Thus, I still take an interest in the Charismatic Episcopal Church. It is not my intention to slander the Charismatic Episcopal church, nor do I want to get a comment war going about their weaknesses.
However, it seems that quite a few dioceses have either pulled out or been kicked out of the CEC. One of these is the archdiocese in which I live, the Great Lakes Archdiocese. Apparently Bishop Fick has pulled our whole region out. Bishop Philip Zampino has done the same thing, a man widely respected in the CEC (His son David Zampino recently became Catholic; I know him through the amazon.com friends and favorites pages, where we both have written many book reviews).
Does anybody know what is exactly going on in the CEC?
[Note: This resulting discussion has been moved to What's Up in the Charismatic Episcopal Church in our forum]
[Note: Roaring Oasis currently hosts A List of Allegations relating to the Current Charismatic Episcopal Church Crisis, compiled mostly by Ken Follis.]
June 16, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Sounds a lot like behavior typical in the world of vagantes churches.
I invested a lot of time and energy learning about all the continuing and independent Anglicans, and with very few exceptions (namely, ACA, ACC, APA, and REC) I saw very little stability.
June 16, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Mr Bennett–
The visions ascribed to Archbishop Adler are simply false. That is not at all–or anywhere near–the experience he described upon visiting St. Clement’s Church in Rome. It was instead a vision of Christ, kneeling on the dirty floor of a garden, eternally praying that men–to whom he’d granted free will–would turn their wills to His Father’s.
There was nothing said about keys, nothing that would suggest some granting of authority or specialness. I’ve heard the story several times. This account is simply ludicrous.
There have been some recent turmoil among the churches bishops. Yesterday, in a special meeting of clergy from the Great Lakes Diocese, with other bishops of the CEC, Bishop Fick withdrew their collective resignations and many of the clergy, including Bishop Fick, returned to the CEC, while some are taking a period to reevaluate their recent decisions to leave. In other words, reconciliation has begun and while that may not warm the hearts of some of our brothers in Christ, I ask you to please pray with us that God restore our communion’s unity and peace.
Bishop Zampino and his community appear to have left the CEC, but not his diocesan churches, but, again, efforts are underway to restore our fellowship in humility and grace. Please pray for these efforts.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Tanner+
A priest of the Great Lakes Diocese
CEC
Rector, Holy Redeemer Church, Rochester Hills, MI
June 17, 2006 at 11:49 am
I have heard similar rumors about Bp. Fick personally. I do know that Bp. Miles is NOT involved, nor is much of Bp. Fick’s former diocese.
And I know for a fact that there are NOT talks going on between the CEC and Bp. Zampino; that the Life in Jesus Community is standing with Bp. Zampino 100%; that Bp. Zampino’s cathedral staff is standing with him 100% and that at least a chunk of his diocese is as well.
I have personally known Bp. Zampino for many years. I have also personally known many of the Priests and Bishops in the CEC. I have personal knowledge of the current situation regarding Bp. Zampino and the Community resigning from the CEC. And I must say that what is happening here is a result of Priests and Bishops acting in a decidedly unchristian manner.
Bp. Zampino is known to many. He is often viewed as somewhat of an extremist. His views can be seen as being “far right”. Even I have not always agreed with every decision he has made. However, the one thing that I know without doubt is that Bp. Zampino is a true Son of God and the holiest man I have even known. He seeks God in every decision that he makes and, when he believes that he has heard God, he stands firm in his convictions. His integrity is unimpeachable and even those who have been past dissenters have come back to acknowledge that Bp. Zampino has always stood by what he believes God has led him to do or to say.
On the other hand, other leaders in the CEC have acted in ways that draw great question about their morals, values, ethics, theology and belief systems. Those who have taken vows have broken those vows in a variety of ways with alcohol abuse, sexual improprieties, financial illegalities and other ungodly behaviors. In addition, there is an order and a structure given to Priests within the CEC and this order was violated. The Archbishop should have reprimanded those who violated their protocol instead of disparaging the moral and spiritual character of the finest man I know. Others in positions of authority were too weak to stand up for what was holy, what was Godly, what was right. As a result, the CEC has lost a vital part of its leadership. While I have desire to witness the demise of any of part of Christ’s Church, I do pray daily that the dragon will be painted red and that the truth will be seen and will prevail…”know the truth and the truth shall set you free”.
June 17, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Relations between real-world people who wish to maintain unity in the bond of peace cannot be conducted on the Internet or on blog sites or chat rooms. Face-to-face, painstaking encounter, confrontation, and confession (mutual repentance) are required to achieve genuine understanding and restoration of fellowship.
The last poster assassinates the character of our leaders with rumor, innuendo and accusation (one cannot call it false because it lacks specificity: who, when, where, how). Pardon my judgment, but this behavior seems incompatible with Matthew 18:15-17. We had one bishop who has been investigated and disciplined (he chose to leave rather than face this discipline) for financial improprieties. I know of no present leader of our communion who engages in any of the behaviors that anonymous accusers to this site mention. Does he honestly believe if such behaviors were known as publicly as he claim to know them—or even privately by tens of people–that these leaders would be followed and loved?
Bishop Phil Zampino is a man of unimpeachable character and, I quite agree, one of the holiest men I’ve ever met. I know that whatever injuries he’s sustained in this process will not prevent him from walking in truth and love with everyone involved. Please pray for our bishop’s attempts to reconcile with him.
Peace,
Kenneth Tanner+
June 17, 2006 at 6:44 pm
I didn’t know this post was going to cause so much controversy.
To respond to Fr. Tanner:
This was the way the story of Adler’s vision was related to me by a person sympathetic to the CEC (at that time). I trust what she has said. Perhaps she received some bad information from someone a little overexcited about Adler’s vision, or someone unfamiliar with the details of the vision. To me, the claim that Archbishop Adler had been spiritually given the keys in the basement of St. Peter’s, and that an icon of St. Clement’s eyes were bugging out as a sign seemed pretty crazy, but I have heard crazier. I will remove the details of the vision as told to me in the above post in the interest of charity.
Nonetheless, my friend’s bishop’s suspension of the liturgy whenever “the Spirit led,” among other things, has caused her to since become Orthodox.
June 17, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Incidentally, I went to a servce with a friend at Holy Redeemer. My friend is ordained in the CEC in the Great Lakes diocese, and I have nothing but respect for him.
I highly enjoyed the service at the Cathedral. That experience was very positive, and led me to consider joining the CEC to begin back in late 2003. At the time, I was doing field experience in a liberal, declining Episcopal church, and the service at Holy Redeemer was a breath of fresh air. I believe Archbishop Adler was speaking that Sunday. I can’t recall why I was up there. I think there was a convocation or something and my ordained friend wanted to show me around.
June 18, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Well, David B. imagine meeting you here…and yes, much has changed within the CEC since our drive from Bexley House to Michigan. As with most young communions much is built and fueled by idealism. Somewhere along the line this idealism is confronted with the reminder of our fallen nature….that we are all subject to the 7 deadly sins…sometimes in spite of our best intentions. We forgot to take that into account and failed to install self-correcting measures or a proper set of check and balances allowing us to realign without major upheavals. Thus is the arrogance of youth…we thought we would live forever and that the laws of nature would have no affect on us. What does the future hold for this young communion? Much depends on whether it can see its faults clearly and learn to humbly repent of the arrogance of youth.
June 19, 2006 at 2:50 am
I do know that Bp Fick has rejoined the CEC, but am not sure that all of the churches that were removed with him will be making the same decision. The circumstances behind the abrupt removal of some of our beloved churches Godly and Holy leaders seems a bit more than suprising to me, and makes me wonder exactly what is going on higher up… but that is not for me to know or speculate about at this time. I do continue to pray for all of my brothers and sisters in the CEC church, continue to pray for the unity of the church, and for the holy men of God who have removed themselves from the situation.
I do know for a fact that the Most Reverend Phillip C. Zampino has resigned, however, the members of his diocese that are sticking by him have not been asked to do so. They are doing so out of the conviction of their own heart, standing by their spiritual leader because we all know his heart is a heart for God, and his mind and actions follow our Lord and Savior. I was a member of the CEC church until this recent occurance, and i will be standing by my Bishop 100% - - not because he asked me too, but because from what i have gathered from the facts, and from the deep, deep prayer I have done on the situation I know in my heart that this is what My Lord desires of me. I just wanted to clarify that Bishop Zampino has not PULLED ANYONE out - - any other facts i fear would be a waste of time to state - the only thing to do now is pray…. and pray hard for the church, and for its leaders and members. Thank you
June 20, 2006 at 4:01 am
CEC Bishops-Bp. Malcolm Smith, Bp. Moats, Bp. Howard resigned or were defrocked. Fr. Tanner, I know Adler is your step-Father so you would know personally what was stated in regards to the vision but you may also be biased. Here is what is also being stated online: “A SPLIT HAS OCCURRED in the Charismatic Episcopal Church. The Great Lakes Province (under the leadership of Archbishop Frederick Fick) has disassociated itself from the Charismatic Episcopal Church — he and his Auxiliary Bishop (Donald Miles) and the 20 or so churches under his headship. The word is that he has taken all his churches out of the CEC — all except for Church of the Redeemer (formerly the Cathedral parish now pastored by Father Kenneth Tanner, son of Archbishop Austin Randolph Adler and founder of the Charismatic Episcopal Church). Archbishop Fick’s Pro-Cathedral site does not have any mention of CEC on his website: VOL spoke with Bishop Miles and confirmed the split, but could not get Archbishop Fick to return a call. Archbishop Fick and Bishop Miles will be the 4th and 5th bishops respectively to have left or asked to leave the CEC. Sources still in the CEC say that there is a meeting of the Patriarch’s Council (selected bishops and archbishops) in Atlanta happening this week for some serious decision-making. VOL will keep you informed.”
June 22, 2006 at 12:18 am
This issue of the anglican communion splitting is yet another excellent proof in real life of why the church needs to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Without any final authority over issues of faith and morals and how to interpret the Bible, history will repeat itself again and again as the churches have been doing since 1517. It’s Deja Vu all Over again
June 23, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Our family has been attending a CEC church for 6 months and have been blessed by the service. We are praying about whether to join the denomination. The majority of the comments seem negative. Is there anyone out there to share why we should or should not join. It would be helpful to hear some of your opinions.
June 24, 2006 at 12:38 am
My family and I have been active members of a CEC church since January 1995. Our whole church joined after our Senior Rector was received into the communion and we left ECUSA. We have a total of 20 years with our rector and the church has an approximately 80 year history total. Our rector became a Bishop in the CEC about 2 years after we joined and he is a godly, humble man of great integrity. We have a vital congregation and our participation in the CEC has been a blessing to all. Our liturgy is rich and rooted in the ancient tradition of the Church, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are in operation and the Word of God is taught without compromise. Our experience as a CEC church has been positive and has given us a real home as a church. I know every church/denomination has its issues but I have seen our denomination handle everything with love and grace and a spirit of “dwelling together in unity”. I can’t say whether or not you should join the CEC church you’ve been attending, I can only testify to my own experience. God is good and is at work in the CEC. Non nobis Domine, sed nomine tuo da gloriam.
June 24, 2006 at 12:42 am
OOops. Vocabulary faux pas. With regard to the above post, I said we have a “vital” congregation.
“vibrant” was the word I meant. Blessings.
June 24, 2006 at 1:48 am
I was a member of the CEC from 1997 until 2 weeks ago. The original vision of the CEC was so “right on”…the convergence of the 3 streams. How wonderful to be able to worship in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, have true Bible reading and sermons that teach biblical principles, all within the framework of Liturgy. However, over the past several years, the top leaders within the Communion have altered the vision. The CEC, in many diocese, has reverted back to a pentecostal church and the leaders are actually begining to remove those things which made the church liturgical, such as vestments, the Creed, the Confession, dialog with other denominations and many other things that the ICCEC.Org website still maintains as the doctrine of the church. Part of the problem is that the doctrine is uncertain. No one, from the Archbishops down, truly know what the CEC believes. That’s not too uncommon for a new communion, but the CEC has been around since 1992…long enough for there to be concensus about theology and doctrine. There is also great concern that the leaders have become involved in the Jesus as Lover teachings that originated out of Kansas City. And that seems to be all that has been preached for the past 3 years. That is problematic. The CEC seems to be imploading. Several bishops were deposed. Several more have recently resigned. Many parishes have left the communion…and more will soon follow. The shaking in the church is tremendous right now. And depending which diocese you are worshiping in, you may not be seeing any of this. Another part of the problem…there is no consistency in teaching or theology from diocese to diocese. I believe that many clergy (priest/deacons) in the CEC are Men of God and may not be aware of all that is transpiring. However, those at the top are very well aware of the problems going on. I would encourage you to wait to join. Things may settle down and changes may take place. However, I doubt it seriously. Most of the good men in leadership have left and those still remaining are taking this communion down a very strange and rocky path. Just pray for the church and wait to see how things turn out. I know that, unless the leadership currently in place steps down, I will never be a member of the CEC again.
Blessings!
Bridgette
June 24, 2006 at 4:12 am
To anonymous from anonymous -
Tread carefully. Don’t get involved in leadership, should be ok.
Leaders having trouble. Waiting to see if have courage.
bishops may find courage yet.
June 24, 2006 at 4:43 am
What is bothering me is all the lack of truth going around. There was a “unity” meeting on 6/22 to get Bp. Zampino’s Diocese back in line. In that meeting Adler was asked a direct question about whether or not a letter had been sent to him asking for his resignation. He denied it, yet I have a copy. Why do I, a laymen, have a copy, but he does not? Sounds fishy… Sly, my question to you is this, what made you turn 180 degress from where you stated you were three weeks ago?
June 24, 2006 at 4:52 am
Mr. Tanner,
As a person who has been in the publishing business, you should know the importance oif checking on facts before writing. Unfortunately, in your post about the bishops making contact for restoration with Bishop Zampino, you have been sorely misinformed. The only contact was a curt call by your father trying to strong-arm him into submission to attent yesterday’s meeting. Bishop Phil DID NOT BACK DOWN TO VERBAL ABUSE OR THREATS as his resignation was already submitted. There have been NO ATTEMPTS for reconciliation.
June 24, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Greetings all,
My concern with the CEC is the amount of divorce represented at all levels of leadership. As I read Matthew 19 and Luke 16:18, it is very clear that divorce is not God’s plan and that to remarry later is to commit adultery. Also, 1 Timothy chapter 3 makes it clear that if a man does not have control of his own family, how can he lead God’s family?
As I see it, the issues in the CEC seem to be syptomatic of this greater error; that there are issues that need to be resolved is clear, but that willful disregard of these Scriptural admonitions is an even deeper issue still. If one reads 1 Peter 4:17 and Amos 3:2, God certainly will judge sin in His body and at that severely. His mercy certainly precedes His judgment, but His judgment cannot be stopped. Is this God “shaking up” His body? Are these trials that are affecting the CEC simply His way of beginning to clean His house? Jesus had no problem cleansing His temple when He walked the earth and He certainly has no problem now.
I have been told that leadership from a divorced background had to commit to a type of penance whereas they experienced a type of “spiritual re-education/transformation” regarding this problem. I am just having a hard time seeing this in Scripture. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding Scripture or am just plain missing something. God is at work in me as in all believers and I only want to be closer to Him.
I write these words as my heart is heavy and I long to see all aspects of any part of the body in line with God’s Word. When there is a straying from it, and that in leadership, it seems impossible for it to continue to expect God’s blessing on it until the error is corrected.
June 24, 2006 at 2:16 pm
the above should have read “symptomatic”….
June 24, 2006 at 3:17 pm
The difficulty with spin is that it only works when the actual facts of the matter are not known. Too many people in and around the CEC DO know the actual facts of the matter — and thus, the spin being offered by the leadership is rapidly failing.
Item: The rift in the Great Lakes diocese is huge. 26 out of 36 priests submitted resignations. 11 out of 13 churches disassociated themselves with the CEC. After the meeting which prompted the “Statement to the Communion” exactly two members of the clergy returned (one of whom was Bp. Fick). The notion that the rift is being healed is nothing more than spin.
Item: The rift in the Eastern Province is also huge. When Bp. Zampino left, the entire Life in Jesus Community left. As did the entire cathedral staff. As did two other churches. And there were only six churches in the Diocese of Maryland to begin with. So let’s not pretend that this is no big deal either.
Item: At the Thursday, June 22nd meeting, the question was asked directly if anyone in leadership had written a letter calling for the Patriarch to step down. The answer “no” was given. This is not spin — this is fundamental dishonesty, as such a letter has been written — and the Patriarch’s Council knows this (as does much of the leadership in the CEC).
What needs to happen? The leadership — beginning with the Patriarch — needs to exhibit absolute clarity and thoroughly clean house. Otherwise, this problem will continue to fester until the denomination is utterly destroyed.
June 24, 2006 at 3:18 pm
as someone who had been a part of this denomination for over 8 years I became very troubled when I attended the convocation in manila. I witnessed drunken clergy a complete disregard for the liturgy and the altar and other things that made me ashamed at our leadership. I have heard over the last couple of years of Bishop’s that don’t believe the seven sacrement’s, others that have become very anticatholic etc. I have since left the denomination. Be carefull.
June 24, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I heard Mike Davidson discuss Adler’s vision with my own ears. The description Davidson gave was not as Tanner describes — not in the least. Davidson’s description DID speak of a “transfer of authority” and seemed to indicate that somehow San Clemente was the “New Rome”. Davidson’s description was triumphalistic and anti-Catholic in the extreme.
Maybe Davidson misunderstood what Adler said or meant — but in many places, the misunderstanding is what is being held up as accurate.
June 25, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Hi.
Thanks David, for, unwittingly I’m sure, provide a place for those of us in or near the CEC to process what’s going on.
I have to first concur with Father Tanner about Archbishop Adler’s trip to Rome. I just re-listened to his description of that event, and he said nothing about Peter’s keys. That story is untrue, as far as I know.
I’m just frustrated because there does seem to be a lot of secrecy about what the heck is going on. For example, at my CEC church this morning, not a word was mentioned about anything that’s been happening.
There is a statement on the CEC website, but you’d have to know to go looking for it to find it. No announcements have come from anywhere that there are things afoot. I feel like leadership is trying, on their own, to hold everything together so they don’t lose anyone else.
I guess I’m going to have to make a decision, Roman Catholic or Orthodox…two churches that have stood the true test of time.
June 26, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Sorry — I still don’t believe Tanner’s spin — unless, of course, Adler told the story in radically different ways to different people and congregations. I was talking to a CEC priest just this morning who has Adler’s words on tape — and those words on tape describe a “vision” that was pretty doggone weird.
June 26, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Part of the CEC problem is that the bishops have minimal accountability in all areas. There are no vestries or any way to buffer their power. As someone who has been a part of the CEC from the beginning I have seen the abuse of this power. Clergy are being ordained at the whim of a bishop with no theological training. Family members are placed in prominent positions without regard to qualifications. The list goes on and on. The CEC needs to clean up its act. The bishops need to become humble and accountable and then maybe this movement can remain a witness to the Gospel.
June 26, 2006 at 3:28 pm
I can relate. In my diocese I have have been in the seminary for years with no mention of ordination and watched the bishops favorites ordained while bypasing the seminary requirement.
June 26, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I can certainly relate to the previous two posters! I’ll take it a step further: the seminary process is varies dramatically between dioceses as to render the degree virtually meaningless. There is also, in some dioceses an enormous “anti-education” bias in which persons who actually have formal degrees in the field are considered suspect at best. (I suspect that this is due to the fact that many of the bishops themselves don’t have proper educational formation). This is dangerous.
June 26, 2006 at 4:39 pm
I have known Fr. Tanner for over twenty years. He is one of the most honest and forthright men I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing.
June 26, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I am part of the CEC as well in the Eastern Province and I have some frustrations as well over the past year or so but I am still here but I am praying for my Bishop and our little group. I must admit this is disturbing on these two Bishops leaving and yes I have had that feeling of Secrecy and not being part of the inner circle…. I was raised ECUSA and left in 96 and have been with the CEC since 2000 and I have some very dear relationships with my church family…..I hope the leadership can iron things out and figure this mess out…. I needs to be taken care for our Communion to truly be a Viable Communion. I will be praying for Restoration, Healing, peace and wisdom….God Speed to us all on this journey
June 26, 2006 at 5:03 pm
The bishops are responsible for protection of the flock. They are cheifly responsible for spiritual fatherhood over their clergy.
This has broken down in the CEC.
The bishops have made it a point to surround themselves only with those that have something to offer them, be it wealth, or a large church, an established ministry or some other specific benefit that would give that bishop more power.
They have obviously offered something to the men who are thier clergy in reward for their fealty, and those men, due to their need to find identity through their ordination, have indeed remained in “obedience” regardless of the abuse that then ensues.
The currrent crisis is evidence of that “closed” circle mentality that was so much a part of ECUSA and many other denominations. It is called “the struggle for power”
plain and simple. All the while the men serving under them - not in the inner circle - continue to suffer.
I personally know of several clergy who have been or are near bankruptcy due to various predicaments mainly outside their control, that have been largely ignored by their bishop, so that the bishop does not have to invest any of his funds in something that carries no guarentee of return to the bishop. This happens while men in lower orders scramble to dig into their funds (some of which are meager at best) to help out a brother whom the bishop has - by his inaction - relegated to unimportance. This is not only wrong, it is un-Christian.
Why some of the clergy stay is unfathomable since they receive nothing other than recognition from their bishop (if the above criteria is met), or to strive toward recognition.
This is also why the CEC in North America is not growing, but losing congregations and people. The head of the CEC is the cheif instigator of these policies and has set his men up for this crisis to occur. When you and you bishops live in million dollar houses with expensive automobiles and furnishings; with the fine cigars and scotch and your men are struggling to build churches and work for the kingdom with little or no help from the diocesan, it is bound to start to crumble. The demons have a field day with this type of abuse of power - going right to the top. It is an example of the church simply acting like corporate America.
May God have mercy.
June 26, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I’ve known Abp. Adler for almost twenty years, and he has been the kindest and most loving pastor I’ve known. He has been a man of his word, and has completely laid down his life for the Gospel.
June 26, 2006 at 5:37 pm
In answer to Mr Johnson re: Abp Adler,
I knew my father for 40 years and to this day - even though he has passed on several years ago - will not reveal his darker side and would defend him regardless.
Everyone thinks they really know a person. But unless you have walked with him daily for those years, you really don’t “know the man. Their wives know them better than you do.
So I thank you for sharing with us the positive experience you have had. REgardless though, there are many others who have had experiences that were not so pleasant with him.
I would say that since the death of his daughter and grandkids, some things have changed - understandably - and he needs to step down and let go for the sake of the communion at this point.
June 26, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Mr Johnson said:
I have known Fr. Tanner for over twenty years. He is one of the most honest and forthright men I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing.
I again thank you for your defence of Abp. Adlers son, Ken tanner, however in my one and only experience around him, I found him and his cronies to be arrogant and pushy. My observation, but rtrue in my experience. If that is the only experience I ahve with him that will be unfortunate for my opinion was set with the first impression.
Again, did you walk as closely with them as their wives have?
Thanks for your observation.
I can defend my friends as well - as far as my experience with them will allow me. But when push comes to shove, only God and they know how they are in reality. Thier wives would be next in line as to real character and like the situation with my father, they will defend their husbands no matter what.
There are too many things that have been brought up to think that someone is “out to get the Abp.”. SInce he is head of the communion, he stands alone in responsibility either by commission or ommission.
Pax.
June 26, 2006 at 8:43 pm
To all who are commenting on this thread:
Let’s be sure to keep this discussion Christlike and based on the facts. I understand that many folks have complaints about the CEC, but let’s make sure we don’t resort to personal attacks or hearsay. It seems right now that this blog is, for better or worse, one of the few places all of this is even being discussed. So let’s keep it fair and christlike for all who stop by.
I would ask that anyone commenting in the future provide your name (at least the first name). You can do this by selecting “other” when choosing an idenity. This makes it a little less anonymous and also makes it easier to distinguish comments.
June 26, 2006 at 9:19 pm
The current crisis with the CEC raises some important issues where the CEC is concerned:
1. The world does not need the CEC–yet another “denomination” or “young communion.” The reality is that the CEC is simply charismatic churches who have added some trappings of Catholicism.
2. The CEC is not a part of the Magisterium and has none of its own.
3. There is no chance that Rome would ever see it as a “uniate” body–it is too tiny and divisive and had no idea what it believes.
4. The CEC lacks apostolic succession. Its line of orders is from a excommunicated Brazillian who ordained an amazing wide variety of churches.
5. Free and loose with titles, ordinations, and ecclesiastical rank, the CEC smacks of sophomoric presumption. It seems as though 80% of the CEC are ordained.
6. Clergy have a severe lack of seminary education. In the Roman Church, even deacons require a 4-year seminary course, with direct oversight by the diocesan bishop!
With all that is going on, perhaps it is best that the CEC dissolve. There simply is no need for another denomination to exist–except to promote the egos and “dreams-of-priesthood” of its clergy.
June 27, 2006 at 1:33 am
David has asked us to use a first name so I hope you don’t mind David, that I chose a pseudonym. It will at least identify my comments from others.
I agree with the earlier poster that there is alot of secrecy about what is going on and as a long-time member of the CEC, I am frustrated by this. I am also frustrated by the comments on this blog because there is no specific mention(only allegations) of the reasons various Bishops are leaving, and what specifically is the beef against Archbishop Adler. Without being obnoxious, can someone be more specific? I’m not looking for the nitty gritty details nor to mar anyone’s character, so, if you can answer the question honestly, without hostility, that would be appreciated. (For instance, why did Bishop Zampino resign?)
This dilemma is very heart-wrenching to me and maybe this is not the best way to find out the truth, but it seems like the only route-although I will be at least speaking to my Bishop to get some straight answers, hopefully.
I too, have experienced frustration over the last year or so as I have looked at different websites of the CEC and see teachings that support purgatory and the Ever-Blessed Virgin Mary(which I, after reading those teachings and studying various other texts, have come to accept)to sites from churches that are very “Protestant” in nature. I know that each parish will have a different emphasis but it does not seem that there is consistent teaching or agreement from the Bishops on these issues, and it is frustrating to me and my family. Some of my concerns also surround the issue of birth control and how that is viewed by the Bishops. That again, seems to vary from church to church. Now, I have come to a very conservative Catholic view of this issue from my own study, but I would like to know that my church has an agreed upon position on this issue as well as those mentioned above and other issues of doctrine. The thing that is most attractive to me about Rome is that the answers are clear. One might not agree with those answers, but they are there in the canons and the cathechism. The CEC has made a claim to be “Catholic” but seems to be reluctant to embrace some very essential Catholic doctrine.
I hope I haven’t gotten away from the true thread of this blog, but these are just some of the questions I have. This has been my church for years and I have deep relationships within my church.
The thing I am asking from the CEC is absolute clarity regarding doctrine and issues that affect families. I remain praying for the CEC and praying to God for wisdom for all.
Thank you David, for providing this spot to air some frustrations. May God have mercy on us all.
June 27, 2006 at 1:41 am
I would like to respond to the most recent poster.
I agree with much, but not all, of what you have said.
Point 1 — I tend to agree, though I feel that you have possibly been harsher than is warrented.
Point 2 — I sadly agree with, having first hand experience in this matter.
Point 3 — While I agree that the CEC as a whole has no idea as to what it believes, I hope and pray that Rome will have mercy on those of us who have been legitimately ordained and have the requisite educational background. Rome does not HAVE to do this . . . it would be an act of mercy.
Point 4 — The previous poster is utterly incorrect. Historians in and out of the CEC know the difficulties with Brazil; we know that most of those “claiming” succession are NOT valid — but that a minority are. If the previous poster was not at the consecration in Maryland in 1997, he/she cannot make this statement with accuracy.
Point 5 — While the comment is unnecessarily sarcastic, in many of its essentials, it is correct. In order to correct the supposed “clericalism” of Rome, it has responded by ordaining all kinds of persons!
Point 6 — This is an EXTREMELY valid point. I’ll go a step further: clergy who HAVE had a legitimate academic background have, in many cases, been isolated, mocked, and blackballed.
Overall, a good post — with a few inconsistencies. Many blessings.
June 27, 2006 at 1:55 am
Just to clarify some of my comments above. I said “Now, I have come to a very conservative Catholic view of this issue from my own study” but I did not mean to define the teaching on family planning as “conservative” as that detracts from the fact that the teaching of the church regarding family is both beautiful and respectful of the dignity of humanity. I hope I did not offend anyone.
June 27, 2006 at 2:20 am
HI David, Long time no talk to. it is sad to have to say hello under these circumstances. Here are my comments that I hope will shed light on how we got here and also foster some generosity of spirit by those who are detractors:
First of all to all those who don’t have the nuts to post your names - get some! if you can’t say it with your name attatched don’t say it at all!
Secondly, regarding the issue of the CEC and teaching/theological consitency: I have been in the CEC since 1993 so I can speak with some authority on it. the CEC was a coming together of diverse men from diverse theological positions. Considering the divergence of opinnion the CEC favored a more “generous orthodoxy” emphasizing essentials rather than forcing unity. We did not want to become a “confessional” church. the unintended consequence was that it fostered divergent theologies. It is hindsight now, but theere needed to be intentional work to reconcile divergent positions.
Third: the CEC ordained too many men too quickly. Having roots in pentecostalism and charismatic(renewal)Epsicopalianism the emphasis was placed on “calling” and gifting rather than mere seminary education. this is not totally unjustified. Seminary educaation does not make a priest, calling, gifting and faithfulness does. Education just makes the man better quipped. (and btw, the CEC has its very good share of very well educated and very smart men) Rome has many educated men who are lousy priests. But the unintended consequences were that many of these men were also very insecure and the discernment process was not attuned to recognizing this. This created a lot of “ass kissers” who could not stand up to their bishops. Bishops too, are flawed men, and these were no exception. I have met many good men and bishops in the CEC. Unfortunately the CEC, because of an ethos that sought to challenge men for a failure to take responsibility often shut down men who were “complainers” or “excuse makers” (and there are a lot). The unintended consequences of this created a closed culture that inhibited healthy dissent.
Fourth: the economy of the CEC was conflicted. There was a genuine effort and vision to adopt the “catholic” stream as a corrective to the charismatic. This is hard to do as they often seem to be in conflict with one another. Rome, for example, relegates the charismatic to the basement, while the CEC wanted to make it fully realized within the life and government of the Church. Some were more able than others to synthesize these two economies. Others, because of their spiritual formation, were less able to do so and would too easily revert back to a pentecostal economy. This created a church that was catholic and charismatic in some diocese and pentecostal/three streams in others. To any informed observer this conflict in economy is clearly not catholic in itself.
Fifth: The discontent many clergy in the CEC have developed over time because of a lack of infrastructure and support have given rise to bitterness. Many clergy have struggled to plant churches with little or no support (not financial necessarily, but teaching and equipping). This falls at the feet of the Bishops. Many have harbored hidden resentment in their hearts and it has turned to bitterness. this gives the devil the present opportunity. There needs to be repentance all the way around.
Crisis is the means of change. Pray that the current crisis will give rise to repentance and meanigful change so that the CEC can become a viable and authentic expression of post-protestant catholicicsm - which in fact it is.
ps. fr Kenneth Tanner is a good friend of mine and a man of integrity and exemplifies generosity of spirit. He is not one to “spin”.
June 27, 2006 at 4:37 am
Another reason the CEC is suffering is the unbridled power of its bishops. The bishop can ordain whoever he wants with virtually no theological standard. In the diocese of the northeast for example you have a dean of the cathedral who was not required to complete the CEC seminary program while other working men worked hard to complete the program and are not even considered for ordination to the priesthood because they are not one of the bishops favorites. This summer Bishop Bates will ordain another one of his insiders who also has absolutely no seminary training. There are no historic churches that function and have lasted with this type of corruption. The lack of objective standards and the failure of accountability to these standards has rendered the CEC to be in many cases a political clubhouse run by power hungry bishops who call all the shots and are accountable to no one.
June 27, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Thank you, “Been There,” for your helpful clarification. It is a breath of fresh air to hear someone actually say what is going on. I wonder if you could clarify for me, however, why exactly Bishop Zampino was accused of failing to maintain church unity? Given the shoddy way in which he was treated, I don’t really blame him for resigning. However, I don’t understand the nature of the accusations and I don’t want to make any assumptions. Could anyone explain to me why he was accused of this?
On another note, in researching the history of the CEC in recent weeks I learned that Malcolm Smith had also resigned. I have admired him for years, even back when I was in ECUSA, and was so comforted to know that he was in the CEC when I joined. Now I am disappointed to hear that he left, apparently some time ago. I don’t mean to dredge up the past, nor to detract from the current issues at hand, but I’m beginning to see a pattern here and wondered if anyone could give me this piece of the puzzle.
God bless this hurting church.
June 27, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Someone on this thread suggested that we use our names if we are going to post, i agree.
One of my early Pastors had some good advice for situations like this.
“If you cannot be part of the solution, do not become part of the problem”
Pretty good advice.
I do think a lot of what has been said is good, it helps for people to know that they are seeing the same things and that there are others who desire change.
However,Normally, one does not give out the names of people who may have been very personally abused.
It usually only makes things worse and can cause further hurt and pain.
Usually victims names are not reported in connection with the issues without thier permission.
This was,in my opinion,
inconsiderate.
Lastly, there has been a large listing of our problems in the C.E.C., now, perhaps, there should be posts about how to resolve these issues.
Things suggesting how to bring unity of doctrine, theology, Liturgy, how to have better accountability, so forth and so on.
in Him,
Fr.Rusty Matheny
June 27, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Here Here to Fr. Rusty. My Prayer is that healing, restoration and reconciliation can begin and have a better accountability for the future. I for one am praying for my Bishop Sly and the rest of the Bishop and clergy in the CEC. That is what I can do and intercede on their behalf. Again Blessing on all and May the Lord Jesus have mercy on us all. Come Lord Jesus and Hear us as we cry out to you Amen….. Tony from CCOTT
June 27, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Malcom Smith left the CEC some several years ago over the issue of divorce and remarriage.
June 27, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I am rather dissapointed that the discourse always seems to “lead to Rome”, when in fact Rome CAUSED the great schism and divorced herself from the very Church she claims to be head of.
Was the schism over heresy? Apostasy? Of course not. It was due to pride of office within the catholic church. It assumed a role that The Church would not grant her and because of her geographical locale and lack of attack by the Moor’s and Turk’s, was allowed time to breathe and perpetuate the assumption (now here is the REAL assumption!)
Was it over the Filiogue? Well, if so, then it was over a practice that developed in the Western Church around Toledo and was then copied and used in several other places in the West, but not accepted in the East by any Council. Therefore it was not catholic and not doctrine.
So where does this place the ICCEC?
It is no better and certainly no worse than the Roman Church, but not in union with the Eastern church either. So in effect, all churches except the East are protestants in the truest sense in that Rome started it in 1054 by protesting that she should be “caput et mater ecclesiarum” instead of first among equals. Then to add insult to injury, the Crusades “sealed the deal”.
No. I say that when Rome repents and reunites with the East, there will be no cause or excuse for the Protestant to be “outside The Church”, and then claim can be made once again to be “The Catholic Church.”
The drawback is that the pride of Rome will not allow her to lay anything down for reconciliation. Too much time may have elapsed and too much ecclesiology may have been usurped by Lateran councils to go back and discuss the legitimacy of the doctrine Rome has established without the council of The Church.
So in effect it really doesn’t matter who claims apostolic succession or catholicity, we are all in rebellion against The Church that Jesus instituted and therefore we are all in a holding pattern until the West reconciles to the East.
Lord have mercy.
June 27, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Anonymous said,
“Another reason the CEC is suffering is the unbridled power of its bishops. The bishop can ordain whoever he wants with virtually no theological standard.”
In defense of Bp Bates; Adn Joe Barlin is a better man some of those who have been “passed over” imho. He is faithful, diligent and godly. Dn Brett, who I know well and wroked beside for a time, while a poor student in seminary, has ventured in faith more than others. I have had it with guys who complain about others while thier own lives and spirituality is often substandard. Paul said, “appoint faithful men”, not classically trained seminarians. Being a seminary graduate does not qualify anoyone for holy orders, character, faithfulness and giftedness does. While I agree that the ordination process has to be revisited (and it was beign revisited untill all this happened) these anonymous shots are cowardly. If you have a problem with your bishop tell him to his face! In the mean time, are you faithfully praying the daily office? do you spend time in Vigil? Are you praying for the church? Do you give sacrificially to your church?
finally, i agree with the two posts above this. Offer solutions and pray, don’t gripe.
June 27, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I have hope for the CEC and pray for this part Christ’s body, the Church. As for what is called for: in some ways it seems obvious, but perhaps I am being simplistic: That is what I believe is Biblically normative and has always been true where the Church of Jesus Christ has been true to its calling: 1)Genuine accountability of the leaders–especially Bishops, Priests and Deacons taking into account that we are all vulnerable to deception and “falling” and it is genuine accountability, among other things, that keeps this in check. This includes openness, honesty, transparency, integrity.
2)Along with the above, an open-ness to the feedback of prebyters and laity–particularly in a very heirarchical structure such as the CEC uses. Every human structure and form of organization has its vulnerabilities and weaknesses that need to be taken into account and compensated for. A heirachical structure is vulnerable to the misuse of power by persons who consider themselves, “above accountability.”
Having said that, when I first heard of Bishop Zampino resigning, (having known Bishop Zampino,) my first thought was, “You do not remove a Bishop without VERY good reason–usually a severe moral and ethical breach. Otherwise you have got a real authority problem on your hands. You do not remove a Bishop simply because of clergy complaints, any more than you remove a priest who is getting parishioner complaints. This is not to say you don’t take “complaints” seriously, but this can too easily become a political thing–a Bishop removing a priest for example, (without good cause,) because he doesn’t want to upset the lay leadership and its financial support. With Bishop Zampino, admittedly not knowing specifics but knowing the man, my concern was that his genuine Episcopal authority was being under-cut, even if there where communication problems that needed to be addressed.
More can be said, but I start with this. As I said this is not “new” stuff, but we have to recollect it periodically. In Christ,
Don Moore+
June 27, 2006 at 3:48 pm
To Fr. Matt and Fr. Rusty,
Thank you so much for the honesty and good sense in your posts. I greatly appreciate it.
I do want to touch on a couple of things.
Yes, it is true that the us of “anonymous” can be a cowardly way of taking “cheap shots” — and as such, it is wrong.
By the same token, sadly, it is also, for some, a protection against retailation from their superiors. Part of this relates to the third point that Fr. Matt made — many of the bishops have surrounded themselves with “yes men” — and don’t seem to be able to differentiate between complaining on the one hand, and the honest criticism that a friend sometimes has to give.
I am personally aware of numerous situations in which there has been terrible retaliation by priests against deacons and seminarians — and by bishops against their own priests. And, touching upon point five that Fr. Matt made (and that the Singing Claymore has also made) is that many church-planting priests are literally bankrupting themselves to plant their churches, take responsibility for their congregations, etc., and vengeful bishops have in some cases, by their actions, literally taken food from the mouths of priests and their families.
Finally, and this is perhaps the saddest part of the story (for me, at least) is the “anonoymous” role that the bishops of the CEC have taken. The clarity needs to begin there. The openness needs to begin there. The truth — even if it painful truth — needs to begin there. If this can truly happen, there will be much less need for anonymous posters — and honest healing can truly begin.
Blessings to you both.
June 27, 2006 at 4:32 pm
On June 11th, Bishop Myers was at my parish celebrating our 10th anniversary and conferring the sacrament of confirmation upon nine new members. Our attendance was an all-time high of 127. The presence and power of the Holy Spirit was sensed by all. The enthusiastic support of the Founding Vision of the CEC continues to be upheld and lived out here, not only in our parish (Oklahoma City) but in our diocese as well.
Therefore, it is very grievious indeed to witness what is taking place elsewhere in our communion. I implore everyone to join with me in praying the following collect from the Book of Common Prayer (pg.816) - with a little “poetic license” to focus our intent…
Gracious Father, we pray for the [Charismatic Episcopal] Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.
June 27, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Fr. Matt,
It was good to hear your perspective and I read your letter of two years ago(from your blog)and it helped me to clarify some of the questions I have had. Your work was eloquent and scholarly and I recommend it to the posters here who are struggling for answers with the CEC about their Catholic/Orthodox identity.
Regarding your response to the poster that spoke of the “unbridled power of the bishops” and mentioned the dean of the Cathedral in the Northeast diocese, who is Fr. Joe Ciccarello, not Father Barlin, it is to my knowledge true that he(Father Ciccarello) was not required to finish seminary, though he is a diligent, faithful worker in the Kingdom of God and a man of great integrity(and quite well educated)-the kind you spoke of in your earlier post:
< "Seminary educaation does not make a priest, calling, gifting and faithfulness does. Education just makes the man better equipped."> This is true of so many of the priests that were “grandfathered” into the CEC early on. Their lack of formal seminary training is in many respects overshadowed by their calling, gifting, and faithfulness. My two cents worth is that it would be helpful for our Bishops to be able to place men in ordained ministry as they discern from the Lord, but the ordained should still have to finish the seminary requirements, much like a teacher in New York who, I believe have 5 years to complete their Masters Degree once they’ve received their permanent certification. This approach might provide a correction to the current situation and would be more “equitable”, if that is an applicable term in this situation.
Regarding posting anonymously or pseudononymously, I quote one of the more recent posters who said:
< "By the same token, sadly, it is also, for some, a protection against retailation from their superiors. Part of this relates to the third point that Fr. Matt made -- many of the bishops have surrounded themselves with "yes men" -- and don't seem to be able to differentiate between complaining on the one hand, and the honest criticism that a friend sometimes has to give.">
I don’t know about retaliation, but you even said yourself in an earlier post;
< "Bishops too, are flawed men, and these were no exception. I have met many good men and bishops in the CEC. Unfortunately the CEC, because of an ethos that sought to challenge men for a failure to take responsibility often shut down men who were "complainers" or "excuse makers" (and there are a lot). The unintended consequences of this created a closed culture that inhibited healthy dissent.">
I am not a priest or even in seminary. From my perspective, I am here to discover more deeply the ancient roots of my faith and my walk in the CEC and, as I said in the beginning, your posts have been so helpful and your writing so eloquent. My Bishop has always been available to answer my questions, but it helps to have the necessary framework to put the questions in, so as to get to the answers more concisely, and you have contributed to my ability to frame my questions. As for the various happenings regarding deposed Bishops and resigning Bishops, I will continue to pray that God will mend and heal all involved. Blessings.
June 27, 2006 at 7:17 pm
The bottom line is that in the CEC the bishops have too much power. Regrdless of the quality of one’s spiritual life the dean of a cathedral most especially in addition to being a man of faith ought to have the same responsibility to demomstrate the theological competency of any ordained priest. In the Anglican tradition where the concept of the dean comes from the dean is expected to be extermemly theologically competent with many deans possesing doctoral degrees. While I agree that the faithfulness of the man is of primary importance the dean of a cathedral needs to be required to display a high level of theological competence as well. The situation at the Cathedral of the Intercessor involving the dean not having to complete seminary training is but one example of the type of situation that exists when you have bishops with “unbridled power” who can make up the rules as they go along.
June 27, 2006 at 7:23 pm
I agree. This type of situation in additon to being unfair to those who have completed seminary education tends to breed resentment which seems to be at the heart of many of the CEC problems. In addition, it gives liscense to the bishop to show favoritism to friends, relatives or whoever. The abuse of power and politcal shananigans are the inevitable result of such a structure
June 28, 2006 at 1:48 am
Singing Claymore’s post made me literally laugh out loud. I hate to be uncharitable, yet the scattershot summary of Church history seems to prove the point of previous posts about how critical a thorough seminary education really is!
(I love it when “The East” is invoked–as if they have a central office somewhere.)
June 28, 2006 at 3:47 am
I am glad to provide Fr. Onesimus with some humor in his world, however nothing was said in his post! I, of course, had to laugh out loud at his posting as well. Perhaps hsi own posting proves his own point.
I beleive that the Great Schism is indeed a most serious issue and one that started the process of many rebellious splits. There are indeed Eastern Metropolitans that are in discussion with Rome. It is no laughing matter.
Might you at least offer a counter? Or perhaps your training is simply from a closed Rome-centric vantage?
Methinks you miss my point entirely.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us with YOUR “education”?
I am anxiously listening….
June 28, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Former Bishop Malcolm Smith, popularly known for his early Charismatic Renewal ministry, introduced me to the CEC 12 years ago. It was a glorious moment to me for which I will forever be grateful. However he was removed from the episcopacy when he stated he wanted to remarry a third time after his second divorce. The CEC House of Bishops discerned he could remarry in the CEC, remain a communicant, perform sarcedotal ministry as a priest in the CEC but would have to stop functioning as an Auxilliary Bishop (whatever that meant, he was likely unsure himself). In the end, he left the CEC and has a small following here in Texas where he holds retreats featuring pop psychological pep talks while wearing vestments. It seems this is the route the CEC, as a whole, took. Malcolm Smith should rejoin the CEC. He’d be right at home for what it has become. The CEC leadership has been at the the year 1054 since its conception. Peter Gilguist, representing submission to the Orthodox Church, was even at Adler’s ordination. They have known they must choose to join one of the two lungs to truly honor our Lord Jesus. Many came into the CEC making great sacrifices and the majority enter the ICCEC out of deep conviction. Bishop Ken Myers of Texas, my former bishop, is one example of giving up much to join. However Jesus is asking for more as we have learned more. I made a hard decison seven years ago to give up my years of theological training and expectation to follow what I knew of the one reason the Apostolic Father’s taught as to why Peter’s See alone had the Keys to the Kingdom. St. Cyprian states it was “for the sake of unity”. What is happenening to the CEC is heart breaking but inevitable since so many within her truly love Jesus and desire to worship Him with their tripartheid being. Every denomination old and new will continue to split and splinter until they find their way back to Rome. One group to illustrate this is the Chaldaen Catholic Church of Iraq whom I was recently acquainted with after serving in the US Army in 2004 for a year. They returned to the Roman See centuries ago. They could practically be considered the first “Protestants”. Anyone familiar with Nestorius knows the story. The groups that refused to return has continued to splinter until all that is left is a sliver of each group. I am certain that is what will come of the CEC if it wishes to remain an autocephalous group. (www.ind-movement.org)I “swam the Tiber” and came “home to Rome” and I can assure you it wasn’t easy. I am still seeking to remove my Protestant rebellion and familiarities. But what I asked the CEC seven years ago still begs to be answered. If we no longer soundingly doctrinally disagree with Rome or Constantinople then isn’t our argument or protest really one of rebellion? Are we not just another Restoration movement of the likes of the Assemblies of God, Church of Christ or worse, the Mormon LDS. Every true student of history finds himself at the year 1054 with three choices: go East, go West or choose your own path. The word “heresy” comes from the Greek αιρεσις, hairesis (from αιρεομαι, haireomai, “choose”), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of dissident believers. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- “straight” + doxa “thinking”) and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church. The only reason I could graciously assess as to why the CEC Bishops would not go East or West as they undoubtedly would have found themselves out of a job since neither allow for married Bishops. Again, it is a submission issue. With much love I state this: rebellion is at the heart of the CEC. Rebellion, as we know, is as the sin of witchcraft and may explain why we are seeing these flakey things taking place in the CEC. I asked the CEC seven years ago when I resigned from my pastorate, “What good is Apostolic Sucession if we we do not have Apostolic Success? Apostolic Succession is only good is there is Apostolic Submission which guarantees Apostolic Success. (Acts 2:42) I believe most of the CEC founders had right intentions but choices along the paleo-orthodox path has lead them to astray. I close with a kind request to look at Psalms 133. Unity of the Body, annointing and blessing starts from the head down. When the Christians outside Rome repent and reunite we will see such a powerful move of God that the Charismatic/ Pentecostal Movement will be pale in comparison to it’s vibrancy! My brothers and sisters, come home…the Father is running to meet you now, the fatted calf is ready to be eaten and the servants are ready to robe you and place the signet ring on your finger.
June 28, 2006 at 6:21 pm
MR.Follis-
Wow! An erudite and incisive post that is also gently said!
I know many in the CEC to be wonderful, deeply spiritual and dedicated Christians. Yet, this question haunted me during my entire stay in the CEC–WHY DOES THE CEC EXIST? I have heard two primary answers.
1. A “special charism?”
I have heard this idea presented, which seems to amount to an appeal to combining “charismatic” worship styles with liturgy.
The Catholic Church has a tremendous variety of rites and styles–and even has a plethora of Catholic “charismatic” communities.
It seems that the CEC in fact rides along only ONE stream: The Charismatic. (If you can somehow separate the term “Evanglical” into its own tradition)
The fact is, it has merely “discovered” some liturgical forms. These forms sit as a veneer over good, old-fashioned (circa 1960s) guitar music. It uses the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer, has some vague notions of Catholicity with almost no specifics.
It seems shy to address many areas with even an attempt at understanding. The reason is that if they appear to be “too much like Rome,” they won’t be able to attract the Non-denomination/Free Church/Independent churches and ministers which it hopes to recruit.
2. “Three Streams”
2000 years of faith cannot be compressed into a mere 3 streams. The Tradition has been safeguarded by the Holy Spirit through His protection and guidance of the Chair of St. Peter and his successors. That Tradition is so lush and vibrant, that it holds a hundred streams. The “Liturgical/sacramental” is not a style or a stream to be added or subtracted from the faith–it IS the embodiment of the faith itself. “Evangelical” and “Charismatic” are likewise far more than streams. How bout the “Contemplative” or “Ascetic” or the “Aesthetic” or even “Scholastic” streams?
I don’t wish to insult anyone, yet it seems that, in the end, the CEC is just another of the thousands of denominations on the earth.
What compelling reason is there for the CEC to exist as it attempts to somehow survive APART from the Holy See–or even the Patriarchs of the East?
I fear the answer lies in Mr. Follis’ post: rebellion. That, mixed with hubris seems to fuel this desire to remain separate.
Prospects for CEC clergy must ask themselves–what is my motivation? Does it have anything to do with the prospect of wearing that irresistible Roman collar, or in having the flock call you “father?”
Having spouted all this criticism, I will say that I am sure that the Holy Spirit has done great,tremendous things through the ministries of the CEC.
Therefore…WHY BE SEPARATE?
Why choose to remain separate? The ONE Church needs your witness, your gifts, your sensitivity to Charismatic spirituality. Bring these gifts HOME.
June 28, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Having visited this blog quite a few times I have often thought should I comment or not. Some of the thoughts here are indeed factual, some are ludicrous, and some indeed are spin. I have decided now to post my thoughts and I agree with the poster who stated that those who feel compelled to post their thoughts here ought not to hide behind the “anonymous” moniker but at least sign their first name. I think I speak with some degree of knowledge and understanding. I received Holy Orders in the CEC and not only was a Priest but installed as a Canon to the Ordinary. I resigned my position(s) with the CEC in June of 2005. By then it was obvious things were spiraling out of control and I personally, although loving and respecting many of the Clergy and communicants did not feel I could continue with the movement. My orders are now with another “Three Streams” movement. Kenneth Tanner speaks in I believe his 2nd posting of “one Bishop” who chose to resign rather than face discipline. I appreciate his defense of the CEC which is understandable since his father is the Patriarch of the movement but I honestly believe that if he chose to he could share more light than he has in his postings. What Tanner mentioned in that posting I referred to earlier I believe was a pivotal time and the subsequent handling of the situation began a spiral downward and left many CEC members in a state of quandary and confusion. The truth is this “situation” existed for almost 4 years while the Bishops did not address publicly this situation and in reality did not seem to address it really among themselves and it lead to much dissent among them. That “one Bishop” (now resigned) and another “one Bishop” (now deceased”) and their subsequent discord did a great deal to bring all this about. Instead of handling the situation among themselves and making a decision as they should have, the House of Bishops which meets at least twice yearly never did anything about it and let the situation fester until it reached epidemic proportions. It was during this time that the oft mentioned trip to Rome of Archbishop Adler took place. I never heard from his lips what he witnessed or what transpired from his perspective on that trip but I did hear numerous accounts from reputable sources within the CEC of what he was sharing and to be honest at times the accounts were indeed strange. It is important for people to realize that Archbishop Adler was personally undergoing a time of extreme trial during all this with the recent tragic deaths of his stepdaughter, grandson, and unborn granddaughter in an automobile accident. However Archbishop Adler did not step down or take a sabbatical during this time of trial and continued to lead the movement so he does indeed bear responsibility for what has taken and is currently taking place as the man in charge. Anyway that “one Bishop” who resigned (Archbishop Howard) and the one Bishop now deceased, Bishop Constantino, both from Florida are really now no longer issues. The issues though in my opinion stem from this feud and how it was handled, or rather not handled. For too long the CEC Bishops have not made public statements to their faithful members about what is going on in the Communion. Indeed, many of them have fallen into the history long Church snare that “being a Bishop literally makes you unaccountable to those underneath you.” This must be corrected with great haste and now it is most important that they make the proper public statements and probably make the difficult moves that need to be made to steady the ship and allow the CEC to prosper as it once did. For too long the Communicants of the CEC in faithful obedience to their Bishops have had to filter through TRUTH, HALF-TRUTH, LIE, INNUENDO, and SPIN rather than just have the true facts presented to them as they should as the faithful of the Communion. The Bishops themselves need to understand that they all need more degrees of accountability in their personal financial dealings, theological views, and even what the true doctrine and direction of the CEC is. It is time for the CEC Bishops to truthfully say what is troubling Bishops Fick, Moats, Zampino, Painter, and Sly as well as many Priests, Deacons, and congregations. They demand that type of obedience and loyalty from the people; therefore they must themselves provide it as well. My biggest fear when I joined the CEC was that it would be yet another “one generation” movement. If great pains are not taken at this time in its history it will become that, if it is not that already.
June 28, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Father Vincent, thank you for your recent post. However, I find that you, too, are speaking in veiled terms, perhaps because you assume those reading already have the details of these issues. I don’t, though, and I’d really appreciate your CLARIFYING the following statement:
“The truth is this “situation” existed for almost 4 years while the Bishops did not address publicly this situation and in reality did not seem to address it really among themselves and it lead to much dissent among them…. Instead of handling the situation among themselves and making a decision as they should have, the House of Bishops which meets at least twice yearly never did anything about it and let the situation fester until it reached epidemic proportions.”
What “situation” exactly are you describing? Please be specific. I am so frustrated at being kept in the dark on all these issues.
Also, can anyone, please, tell me once and for all WHY EXACTLY WAS PHIL ZAMPINO ACCUSED OF FAILING TO MAINTAIN UNITY? What did he do or not do to earn this accusation? Was he speaking out against Archbishop Adler in some way? Or was this charge against Zampino entirely fabricated — and if so, why??
On the same note, WHY DID BISHOP FICK LEAVE in the first place? Was it because of the charges of sexual impropriety against Archbishop Adler? If so, why did he return??
And finally, there have been many charges on this blog of “FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY” among the leadership of the church, and yet no one is actually saying what happened. This is important stuff! As a member of the CEC for nearly five years, I am really concerned about this and would appreciate concrete facts, if there are any. HAS THERE ACTUALLY BEEN ANY FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY THAT ANYONE IS AWARE OF?? (If not, we need to stop insinuating it).
Please, anyone, answer my questions. Perhaps this blog, the only place people are discussing anything of substance in the CEC, will finally break the code of silence that seems to reign amidst the leadership.
Thank you!
June 29, 2006 at 12:56 am
Kate,
I understand your position completely. It is easy to assume that people are more aware of things that are vague to them and for that assumption I apologize. The situation I spoke of between the two Bishops no longer there had to do with accusations of financial impropriety. Nothing was ever disclosed publically in those first 4 years about this and due to my position in the CEC and the fact that I personally attended the House of Bishops were the situation exploded and came to bear did I knew something was afoot. And bascially for the next few years it continued along those lines until about this time last year when then Bishop Howard was pressed and ultimately left. It was from what I know firsthand a situation that turned ugly and hostile and make no mistake about it, it plays a big part in the dissension going on now. The big dissent seems to be what Bishops knew what, and why they did or did not do certain things. Bishop Constantino would not let it rest. Rumor has it that there was some concern that if Howard has participated in improper financial dealings that Adler would certainly have know about it. I repeat what I said in my previous post, these things were never openly shared or discussed and the people of the CEC were left and are still left to sort it all out. I do not mean to be vague, I have shared what I now to be true as best I can. I will not speculate but will continue to honestly post as questions are put to me. I sincerely hope this helps.
June 29, 2006 at 1:18 am
Kate,
I also apologize for my poor spelling in my previous post….
Also please understand it is not my desire to be ugly and discredit or harm anyone, but having read through this blog I feel compelled to share some truth and bring some clarity as I know it to be true
June 29, 2006 at 2:29 am
I am signing my name — and with great respect to Fr. Vincent — I support those who have chosen not to do so, knowing first-hand the retribution that can — and that has — resulted.
As an individual who spent 11+ years in the CEC, including 9+ years in ordained ministry (and two years as one out of only four Canon Theologians in the entire denomination) — AND who was functionally “chased out” — I, too, would like a public airing of what is actually going on.
If someone has a charge, by all means — make it known!!!
If it is against Adler — MAKE IT KNOWN!!!
If it is against SLy — MAKE IT KNOWN!!!
If it is against Zampino — MAKE IT KNOWN!!!
If it is against Fick — MAKE IT KNOWN!!!
If there REALLY are serious charges which NEED to be addressed — PLEASE — MAKE IT KNOWN!!!
The scandal which would ensue when we learn our leaders are not perfect (surprise, surprise!!!) are NOTHING compared to the scandals which WILL ensue when the laity realize how many bishops, priests, and deacons have been — at best — “fudging” the truth.
If Adler is guilty of moral scandal — DEAL WITH IT!!! The truth will come out anyway!!!
If other bishops are covering up — PLEASE deal with it!!! Let’s not cause more scandal than already exists!!!
HOWEVER, the WORST possible thing that ANY of us can do, is to pretend that there is no problem; that the leaders are perfect; that everyone is above reproach; etc.
May God provide clarity, truth and honesty.
June 29, 2006 at 3:23 am
There seems to be an overlying tone to most of these “testimonies” and so called truths to attributed to this denomination. That is a taste of gossip, slander, and yes that good old fashioned church splitter, rumor. Father Vincent mentioned that “rumor has it.” This is the underlying tone of all of these accusations. Let us remember that there is no perfect church! This may come as a shock to some of you but, yes it’s true. I’m afraid that the CEC, Baptist, Roman Catholic, and even Mormon churches do not have a perfect church. I have known it to be true that the tongue is the most deceitful part of the body. It will force pastors to leave and will destroy the body of Christ, regardless of denomination. I was involved in a church in which the rector was a local celebrity and media hog. When he left, some left with him but could not say why. They were not even sure as to where they were being led. They were just following a man. A priest friend of mine was leading prayer and offered up a prayed for the Episcopal Church(USA.) This appalled me! I was sure that their whole communion was going to hell in a handbag! I had forgotten to pray for them. This is what all of us must do for this communion. We are not helping each other or the reputation of any communion by spreading around things that are simply “rumor.” Hearing it on the grapevine does not produce good fruit for the body of Christ as a whole. Let us rely on the Author of Truth to prevail in these matters. “There is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” -Romans 13:1
Let us continue to pray for this communion and those suffering from the pain of gossip and rumor!- Chaim
June 29, 2006 at 10:19 am
I actually agree with both of you, David Z. and Chaim. The best way to squelch rumors is with truth. That was the heart of my appeal in my previous post. And I do believe that this church will suffer (and has suffered) far more than it would have if only the truth had been told at the beginning. The cover-ups are what lead to the paranoia, rumors, distrust, and secrecy that is on display on this blog and in the pews.
To that effect, David, I understand your father has left the CEC along with the Life in Jesus community. Surely you know why??? The report on this blog has been that he failed to maintain unity. What does this mean? How would/could/did he do so? Or is this a trumped-up charge designed to distract people from the truth?
Where is your father — and Life in Jesus — going? There is no mention of this on the LIJ website.
There are reports on this blog and elsewhere that you have become Catholic, David. Is this true? Recognizing, of course, that what Chaim has written is also correct — that there is no perfect church — could you explain your decision and whether you are happy there? Is this a viable choice for those of us caught between anger and heartbreak in the CEC?
June 29, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Today, Thursday, June 29, I, a CEC member, attended the mass at the local Roman Catholic Church. Coincidentally (or not), today is the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Here was the gospel (Matthew 16:13-19)
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
I don’t think God could have been any clearer to me, as I sat there seeking clarity.
This was the scripture I heard. I’ve never been to this Roman Catholic church before.
The CEC is a “new jurisdiction” of the catholic church? What???
The scandals don’t essentially matter. There are scandals everywhere. The question is, “Is the CEC walking in obedience to Christ by continuing down a path that is NOT in communion with the church that Christ himself started?”
I didn’t realize as I sat there afterwards that they were going to pray the rosary. I stayed and joined them. I prayed the whole thing on my knees on the kneeler.
It REALLY started to get uncomfortable. But I started to see what all that suffering is for. It was VERY humbling to remain on my knees far longer than I was comfortable doing it. I thought of Peter, who in humility would not allow himself to be crucified the same way his Master was, but asked to be crucified upside down.
With all the feel-good, happy words in the CEC, it seems to me it’s becoming like “name it and claim it” light. Everything that happens has to be explained with “a word.” Come on people. God is God, and we are not.
That is what I got out of my visit to the Roman Catholic church today.
There was even a “healthy” dose of Adler’s famous “dark but lovely” sermon. Peter didn’t want to follow Christ because he knew he was unworthy, YET he DID follow him in faith. But Peter’s “dark but lovely” story doesn’t stop there.
HE SUFFERED for his Lord, and that ROCK (that is Peter) ROCKS!
For him who has ears, let him hear!
- Theology Nerd
June 29, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Wow … That was a very powerful post. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
Thank you for writing.
June 29, 2006 at 4:57 pm
The CEC was originally supposed to be a ‘bridge’ community. The journey, not the destination.
I feel betrayed. I am still trying to journey to the truth of the early church, where ever that leads. The local parish I am connected to is still trying to understand where they go next…
Frankly that is the question we would like answered by House of Bishops. At what point did they decide that money and power was more important than the journey toward God in the original vision?
They have taken all I have to give and left me with nothing!
June 29, 2006 at 5:08 pm
to Theology Nerd
Feel free to go to Rome, if that’s what makes you feel safe (for now)
But in relationship to Rome, you’ll also find heretical bishops and priests, liberal universities be overtaken by non-Catholics, Zen-Christianity, Mary, Peter, and Roman Church worshipers, lovers of Latin instead of lovers of men, effeminate men and women as spiritual heads of homes, and a church that is unable to effect a resurrected change in American Society, or in the world.
And if there comes along next, a liberal Pope, the Roman Catholic Church is headed for divisional disaster similar to the Episcopal Church. And faithful Roman Catholics will say, “what happened?”
Visible, Organizational , and Theological unity would be great, but there is alos the conscious of every man.
A father is primarily responsible for a broken family, and if Rome would do what is needs to do to heal the brokeness of God’s family, for which it bears great responsibility, then perhaps the rest of the family would be brought into unity.
But until then, men of character, intergity and courage, will do what they need to do, and contend for the faith that was once for all passed down.
June 29, 2006 at 5:48 pm
“there is alos the conscious of every man.”
I am not familiar with that part of my anatomy. Or, are we switching to Norwegian on this blog?
June 29, 2006 at 7:14 pm
fr. jim,
Was that supposed to be funny? Perhaps I was not conscious (is that correct?) of my hasteful writing error, but then again, since when do you begin an English sentence with, “Or,….” Check your grammar and please forgive me.
correction - “there is also the conscience of every man”
June 29, 2006 at 7:45 pm
It is more than theology, I agree. I was trying to come up with a name, and every other one that came to mind is a something I’d use as a password at some website :-). So I chose Theology Nerd.
I’m sorry that now people are getting really mean. I guess it goes to show we’re all screwed up. The list of the kinds of people found in the Roman Catholic church can also be found in any other body, including the CEC. That’s not the point.
The scripture, read at every mass, still is living, breathing and can cut to the heart of every man. The Eucharist is central, and unequivocably and truly a sacrifice and truly real.
I wasn’t thinking about the priest at all when I was there. My focus was on Jesus Christ.
The Mass…mess…meal. That’s why we gather. It’s the name of the event.
Theology is not enough, I know you’re hurting. We all are. But God, our Father, WILL lead us through this. I’m not trying to convince anyone. I don’t know exactly what to do myself. What I asked God at mass today was, “Is this a coincidence? Is this you?”
I don’t think you meant to be mean. And neither does the person (a CEC priest, I think…who’s also not perfect) who posted after you. You’re both just understandably frustrated.
As Bishop Adler says, “We are desperately dark,” and we live in a world where Christians don’t seem to get along, and for this, I’m very sad.
Maybe we should just be quiet and pray now. No, we don’t know exactly why Bishop Zampino left, but there are obviously problems behind the scenes.
May God have mercy on His church.
Love,
TN
June 29, 2006 at 10:02 pm
It is time someone, especially the members both contented and disgruntled within the CEC ask why no official statement has been issued by the Office of Communications of The Charismatic Episcopal Church which is under the direction of Archbishop Randolph Sly of Virginia. For crying out loud they have a website with nothing about all of this on it at http://www.iccec.org and even their guestbook there has a question from someone from the Southeast province I believe it is asking why the Patriarch has not responded to their letter. What in God’s name is Sly doing he is a Member of the Patriarch’s Council, knows firsthand what happened with Bishop Zampino, and Heads the Office of Communication for the entire movement. It is his job to communicate with the CEC denomination what is going on. I suggest contacting him directly via telephone, email, or direct correspondence. You can get all of this information at the website I listed above under “church lists” and then look up the state of Virginia. Prepare yourself, Sly’s website is saturated with his grinning face and list of degrees and honors. However knowing the cowardice he has shown in the past he will probably not respond. Your CEC’ers should be doing this, in fact I think it is your duty……
June 29, 2006 at 10:18 pm
In my diocese it was recently announced that our bishop is going to ordain a relative bypassing the seminary process.While several highly qualified and faithful men who completed the process remain on hold. The previous post discussing the situation in the northeast diocese which has a dean with no theological training is further evidence of a church which has bishops with “unbridled power”. Bishops like the same one in the northeast who has his wife and son in law in prominent staff positions only serves to demonstrate the nepotism and abuse that charicterizes the CEC. For those who question the issue of annonymity in these posts, one needs to understand the consequenes that can ensue when dealing with an episocpate with potentially abusive power. Yet the truth needs to be told for the truth alone produces freedom.
June 29, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Regarding the comments about Bishop Sly and the website/office of communications: I can tell you definitively that there was no mention whatsoever of this situation on Sunday at Bishop Sly’s parish in Sterling, VA, despite many questions and concerns expressed by members of his congregation the week prior.
Indeed, silence continues to reign … and, sadly, no one in authority seems to want that to change.
June 29, 2006 at 10:35 pm
I would like to retract my posting concerning the poster “fr onesimus”. In my usual hotheaded way, I counterattacked his arrogance rather than understanding his bias.
I have been told I am much like Peter in that regard - speak first then engage brain.
I apologize to the worthy posters on this blog who are engaging in dialog and debate.
+++++++++++++++++++++
That said, the ICCEC is on breath away from complete collapse as the leadership has “loved thier place in the synagogue” more than truth and protecting the flock. These are men who began well and may have simply been sucked into the delusion. But let’s not kid ourselves here, the ICCEC is in fact playing with catholicity at this point in time. No real serious effort has been made to conform doctrine across the communion. Men are priested in Africa with limited “fast track” methods to get them going. Early on (and I would say unitl the last 2 maybe 3 years) men were ordained that simply suited the leaderships needs without having them go through any real process. Because of this, many were quickly ordained who were ready to break faith at the slightest disagreement; some were simply seeking a position of power; and some (maybe more than some would admit) were simply ex-anglicans (or ECUSA) who simply wnated the black shir to go back to the former church and “show them” how wrong they were to not allow them into Holy Orders. There really was no examination process.
Many deacons do not know their bishops heart simply because in themselves, they present no intrinsic value to the bishop and therefore have never been invited to come to the bishops home for a meal or meeting or to “hang” (as so many say). Yet the deacon is supposed ot be the bishops man.
Theology is important, but a true heart of fatherhood is critical for bishops to have. They need to exihibit discipline (sometimes extreme, say, by not having a scotch?) so as to set the Godly example to both their clergy as well as to their flock adn the public. How else will anyone in the prevailing culture take them seriuously? And hence the ICCEC?
I cna’t help it - right now I am thinking of the Wizard of Oz and how the tin man, lion and scarecrow were searching for a brain, courage, and a heart respectively. Perhaps the ICCEC is in OZ and Adler is the old man behind the curtain, only he can’t do for them what they want. Instead they need to lay down the fantasy of “Oz” (We Are The Church) and submit themselves before the Lord - on their faces - as was told of them in the beginning. Or perhaps that report was false as well and all is mere illusion…
As an ordained clergyman in the ICCEC, I really wish all I had to do was click my heels together…how simple it seemed to be in the beginning.
Claymore
June 29, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Truly historic main line churches have learned the meaning and sin of nepotism as well as bishops ordaining who they want without accountability. Situations
like the one just mentioned in the northeast and elsewhere would not be possible. No wonder there is so much anger and resentment in the CEC.
June 29, 2006 at 10:55 pm
I will have to say that I am somewhat appalled at some of the things I am reading here. Hats off to Fr Rusty’s comments.
If this is a CEC blog then why all the talk about the East and West Church? IMHO to truly be Catholic is to be connected to the Body of Christ as a whole, be it Rome, Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God, ETC, ETC. The “Church on the whole” is both timeless and universal. I believe there is great need to humble ourselves before God and pray for the healing and restoration of divided brethren (and sisters), not only in this communion, but throughout the world. The answer is NOT Rome, and it is not “protesting” Rome. Elitism has plagued the Church in the past, and the devil would so love to keep the “Kingdom divided against itself”, because he knows if he can keep it up it will Not stand. That is not to say we will always agree on every jot and tittle of doctrine. I don’t know of any married couple who agree on everything, but does that mean they should divorce? The answer is obvious. (By the way I do think the fact that the divorce rate is higher in the Church than in secular society should tell us something!)
I truly believe the only answer is the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 17 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
This is the heart of Jesus.
I am not privy to much of the goings on in the CEC. With my (secular?) job I am on the road quite a bit and have only recently discovered some of the issues at hand. I believe, and this is something I am striving to flesh out in my own Christian experience, we simply MUST aspire to the 1st and 2nd commandments of Jesus. To Love the Lord God with all of our hearts, souls, minds and strength, and LIKEN UNTO IT, love our neighbors as ourselves. This is Christianity 101. Jesus clarifies this a bit in John 15 “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. If we don’t make this our #1 priority in life everything else we pursue is fruitless and probably will, to quote Fr Rusty, make us part of the problem and not the solution.
This blog has kind of run helter skelter. I don’t have all of the answers. Heck, I don’t have any answers. But I will say that the answer will not come until our hearts become the heart of Jesus. And His heart is love.
Just an observation. And maybe a sermon…
Dcn. Joe
June 30, 2006 at 12:25 am
In response to Dcn. Joe…Thank you for mentioning Jesus’ desire for the oneness of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. (John 17)King David spoke prophetically of the beauty and annointing which comes from the unity of the visible Christian family (Psalms 133) but he knew Samuel’s words, “To obey is better than sacrifice. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubborn as idolatry” Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha (Peter) and gave him the keys representing authority and the order “Feed My sheep!”. Certainly I am preaching to the choir, you are all an educated bunch. I firmly came to the conviction that there was nothing doctrinally or practically in the last 2,000 years to warrant a break from unity. (”To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant” , St. John Cardinal Newman) With that said, in 1992 the CEC only joined the 22,000 denominations that already existed. I must confess, it was a fabulous fulfillment of the Chicago Call and a premier Convergence Movement denomination. Certainly we were unique in the way we took Edward Irving’s thoughts and added “apostolic succession” to it. It appeared we were a real answer to Charles Hummels’s call for fire being in the fireplace. However after half a decade I realized there were many other groups out there who were outdoing us, certainly you are all aware of these “competitors”. If not, contact me and I will introduce you to the plethora of autocephalous groups or just read Peter Anson’s “Bishops at Large”. I realized, in disgust, that we had merely reinvented the wheel- a futile feat. We had not kept the fire in the right fireplace. We had just simply built our very own fireplace. Charisma magazine’s coverage of Adler’s ordination should have been called “Replica Altars, Charismaniac Chaos” instead of “Ancient Altars, Pentecostal Fire”. I began to see that my work was uncannily similar to Nadad and Abihu’s “strange fire”. Here they thought they could just reinvent Divine Liturgy because they had a better idea of what God wanted and so did we in the CEC. In trying to blend worship we made a mess. It was fun until it got ridiculous. Perhaps you have seen it.
In the end, most of you dear folks will answer Christ’s prayer for unity in John 17 and experience Ps. 133 where God COMMANDS the blessing. O’ God is good…all the time.
June 30, 2006 at 12:40 am
To the writer of “End the Rebellion”, thank you for the comments and I, too, once adhered and preached the two points you illustrated in your comment. I came to a similar conclusion. The book of Amos really spoke to me about the CEC. Has Amos had any ancient advice for any of you dealing with the current state of Christians today?
June 30, 2006 at 3:05 pm
This is my first and last post.
There were 3 things you could always count on when the Israelites were in the desert… grumbling, complaining, and rebellion…
Re: Anonymous comments below:
“The previous post discussing the situation in the northeast diocese which has a dean with no theological training is further evidence of a church which has bishops with “unbridled power”. Bishops like the same one in the northeast who has his wife and son in law in prominent staff positions only serves to demonstrate the nepotism and abuse that characterizes the CEC.”
This kind of talk, while seemingly rational and reasonable, lacks knowledge and also sounds somewhat like jealousy and self-interest to me…maybe a little bit of Absalom spirit. It is disrespectful, ignorant and rebellious. Since I am a bi-vocational priest in the CEC Northeast AT THE CATHEDRAL, and am not on staff (nor is that my motive for serving), despite having finished seminary years ago and served 11 years under the Bishop and know the Bishop personally, the Dean, and the Archdeacon and the son-in-law youth pastor…. I can tell you that you are wrong in your judgment and writing.
Firstly, “prominence” is not what we are about. Neither is the search for respectability and validation from others do what God has called us to do, locally in our dicocese or as a communion.
I could go on with defending the Bishop of the Northeast, the Dean, the Youth pastor, in great detail, and the CEC as a whole, but I will not nor do I need to, nor will I waste my time. I’m already not doing things I should be because I’m writing this. If you really knew the Bishop of the Northeast and the reasons for his decisions, you would likely not have posted what you did.
Since you lack personal knowledge and are struggling with you own issues and the entire matter at hand, you should probably wisely refrain from making such comments, and certainly about the Bishop of the Northeast. Or perhaps you think you should be a bishop yourself, which would have prevented all the problems and which would fix everything now. Check you heart, humble yourself and pray for those in authority above you.
Those inside and outside the CEC could better spend their time on other things, unless they have nothing else to do with their lives and the Lord has specifically called them to this ministry of accusing and denouncing and dividing others, and those inside the CEC should not be unwisely discussing with outsiders inside “family” CEC business, filled with destructive half-truths, innuendos, opinions, feelings and gossip which have served no positive purpose. Most posts are only serving to divide and confuse and exacerbate important internal issues, and add to the loss of respect so many supposedly and questionably search for.
In addition, 99% of the people who will read these posts are NOT the people the Lord has called us to minister to. However, perhaps you think it beneficial as well as authoritative to have the Internet community and online discussions forums (a Protestant form of government) decide the future of the ICCEC as well as your own parish communities and individual callings to serve the Lord.
If there is any real “plague” affecting the CEC right now, it is … grumbling, complaining, and rebellion.
My advise is to shut-up and serve.
In His mercy,
Fr. Stephen Maloney
June 30, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Ken Follis,
Thanks for your detailed post. Man, I will have to say that on a theological level you and I must part ways on your view of Matthew 16. The purpose, or rather the result of Jesus giving away the “keys of the kingdom” of the kingdom was, to quote Jesus “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. He uses that very same statement when speaking to His disciples in Matthew 18:17-20 and I quote “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Church being a key word here) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. Continuing on with that same thought Jesus goes on to say in verse 19 “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven”. Verse 20 “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”.
The authority to bind and loose was given to the Church, not to Peter only. To develop a doctrine based upon one scripture, ESPECIALLY something as major as Church Leadership is not good exegesis. I don’t say this in a condemning way at all. Again in my former post I spoke of exclusionism being one of the causes of division, disunity and the tearing down of the Body of Christ. If you felt in your heart you needed to “cross the Tiber” then I say “God Bless you”. God does indeed call and move people where He wants them to be. BUT God may call someone else to be a part of a Baptist Church as well. And that’s OK too. God is much bigger than any one denomination, fellowship, communion, or an Independent Charismatic Church. AND I have seen him move in them all!!! I have been blessed with some awesome Christian friends from varying backgrounds; some RCC, some Baptist, some AG, ETC, ETC. I am not trying to be over-simplistic here. My point is that unity is NOT all Christians somehow pouring back into the RCC and if they don’t they are, to quote you “rebellious”. It is this kind of thinking that disturbs me. The RCC has it’s share of problems as well as EVERY denomination and Communion throughout the World.
You speak of a “break from unity”. This actually began well before the Great Schism. The Church was a mess, East and West. And it didn’t get any better, as you well know.
The Chicago Call, I believe was of God; as is the Convergence Movement. However, that is not the only voice or movement of God in the Earth! I know I am speaking very plain here but to be honest I really don’t care for the term”autocephalous”. That denotes the idea that every liturgical group is some sort of pseudo-Roman Catholic wannabes, pretending to be Roman yet are somehow “not valid” and are only playing Church, and not connected with the “real thing”. Again, pardon my plain speech. St. Paul had this to say about the attitude behind the whole autocephalous concept. 1 Cor.3: 1-9 “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Verse 9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. It gets better! Verse20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man gl