VirtueOnline’s Hepworth News Post
October 12, 2012 27 Comments
UPDATE: Virtue appears to have retracted and amended his comments (and thus I remove them from this post too) (HT – with thanks: Fr Christopher Phillips).
After having read the following news report, I have every reason to believe that the quote which is supposedly attributed to Bishop Michael Gill, is one that must have been taken well out of context:
Former Australian TAC Archbishop John Hepworth seems to have forgotten that he is no longer the leader of the TAC, nor is he even a member of the TAC. He keeps telling the press he is and acts like he has never been kicked out.
Peter Slipper, a leading member of his church, says he would be welcomed back as a priest into TAC according to Hepworth. Slipper was ordained as a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion in 2008. Hepworth said his friend was facing his darkest days in the wake of “grotty” sexual harassment allegations. “It’s always more difficult to fall from a big height than a lesser height.” Well Hepworth should know.
Despite the nature of the text messages, revealed in court documents in the harassment case against Slipper, and the nature of other allegations, Archbishop Hepworth said his friend could still pursue a life as a fully functional priest. “The church has always believed in forgiveness,” he said.
But when VOL inquired of South African TAC Bishop Michael Gill… [retracted].
To my mind, a constituted Church Tribunal was to be held on 06 October 2012, which would be followed by an official TAC Press Release. That official TAC Press Release is yet to be released. I for one would be very interested to know who has been whispering into David Virtue’s ear (we have, of course, the normal suspects). But knowing (my) Bishop Gill as I do, I can say that he would never communicate (on behalf of the TAC) unless duly authorised so to do and that in an official way (i.e. not by spreading hearsay or gossiping over the blogs). He is (and has always been) dead against unsanctioned press releases, and, in any case, he’s simply too professional to do it any other way.
Now you see, good people, this is exactly why blogs get such a bad name!
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Mr. Virtue must have read this blog, Fr., and he has “corrected” himself. The article now says, “But a source told VOL that Hepworth has absolutely no authority. He has been expelled from the College of Bishops and his licenses have been revoked. The man has no ability to perform any such function whatsoever.”
Thank you for pointing this out Father. I’m glad he has. Still, I find it dishonest and unChristian, especially here since Virtue has seen it fit to (possibly) pre-empt the public outcome of a closed and sensitive Tribunal. Actually, this is quite unacceptable, very poor and shoddy journalism to say the least. And who is this source? It is clearly not my Bishop (who he first named)! Who else is privy to this information? The falsehood and gossiping under the appellation: ‘source’, is damnable. Cowards that they are.
Mr. Virtue has his place in the blogosphere, but I think he and actual journalism have only a nodding acquaintance.
Personally, I appreciate the idea/desire of Mr. Virtue and VirtueOnLine, and certainly nobody gets all the facts right ever, especially on the blogosphere. Sadly often it comes back to our presuppositions, and we all have them, but are they true and biblical is always the challenge. Though again sadly, “Biblicism” always seems to lag in all forms of Anglicanism! WE need “Bible” and biblical theology, much more than the many forms of so-called “theology” today. My two cents at least!
Fr. Phillips–
Ouch!
Blogs operate to different standards, just like newspapers. They tend to reflect both their readerships and the prejudices of their editors. Remember Jim Hacker in “Yes Minister” on the readerships of different UK titled: Who reads the Papers?.
Mr Virtue’s little effort seems to me to be a bit like the “News of the of the World” – one certainly gets all the scandal from a perusal (whether accurate or not) – but one comes away feeling a bit dirty.
Wow Mourad, you sound more political almost everytime, we all know blogs, newpapers, etc., come from somewhere. And we certainly know where your coming from, but in our positions we simply must try to be open and honest, at least towards those with whom we disagree, especially other Christians. And the real “dirt” here is sin and doctrinal error and as has been said, Satan is alive and well in the church!
@ IriishAnglican
Well I certainly disagree with you How could I not, since you have deserted the teachings of the one true Church?
Actually, a wise old teacher of mine once said that the biggest temptation for those who would be theologians is the sin of pride: they fall into error and in their pride they reject orthodoxy and the authority of the magisterium.
Thus one gets such people spouting their own interpretations of scripture thinking they know better that the fathers of the Church.
I regret to say that many of your posts put me in mind of that proposition. Pity, but there you are.
@Mourad: That’s funny, I am without doubt much more conservative than many of my Catholic theological friends, as they even tell me most of the time. And when I was thinking about going with the Antiochian Orthodox, I was considered a very conservative Anglican. The point here, is that Roman Catholic theology is lagging these days, and as has been said liberalism is running pretty central these days therein. Yes, there are some conservative orders and groups, but they are getting less and less. So your attack on me is classic, since I am Luther friendly. And btw, I have been reading the patristics for years myself, but I am always foremost an Evangelical reformational & reformed Christian, and will never apologize for that truth!
And I too have had a few wise old teachers in my time, who have always said, don’t be afraid of truth and your conscience therein, and “press” for it! “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matt. 11: 12) The metaphors here are connected to the “kingdom”, but oh how lazy we have become in the west and even church, to look for “spirit and truth”! Instead we are overly concerned with a visible ecclesiasticism, sad! The Church is always a Body from the inside out, first, as our Lord told the Pharisees, (Matt. 23: 25-29). A hard lesson!
Again, my challenge to you would be, the Pauline Scripture texts like Phil. 3: 7-14, etc. Forget seeking to “judge” me, but read and seek the truth in God’s Word! The Christian life is always CHRIST!
@irishanglican Sorry, I’m older that you and rather stuck in my ways.
You have chosen to leave the Church and now you use this blog, and, doubtless others, to criticise the Church, and avocate your personal interpretations of Holy Scripture.
As a former Catholic, you will know your St Augustine: “Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas”
So you will understand that when you proclaim your adherence to the views of Calvin, or Luther, or the dispensationalists for that matter, I simply cannot accept the validity of what you say.
So there is no point in your throwing out challenges or inviting me to debate with you.
@Mourad: I had both aunts and uncles, great and otherwise, who you remind me of, they are all before the Lord now. But sadly, I am not so sure about their eternal rest? At least a few of them. Thankfully however I am confident some are at rest in the arms of the Lord’s mercy & grace! Btw, you what 4 to 5 years older than me? I will be (Lord willing, 63 on the 24th of this month). And I am not really seeking a so-called debate with you, though I had debate in High School, and loved it! I am just really always the perpetual student and theolog type.
I find it rather sad really, that you don’t know much about the Bible, or it appears enjoy the joy and presence of Jesus as Savior, by this I mean of course the assurance of your salvation…something of course Roman Catholics are not supposed to “presume”. But which, the Bible does most certainly give to those who “know” and “believe” the Word of God! As in both St. Paul (Rom. 8:15-17), and too in St. John (John 10: 28). And again thankfully this is NOT based upon us in ourselves per se, but in the Lord’s power…sovereign grace & mercy! But indeed we as Christians must persevere therein!
Finally, my “Biblical” positions are not in some place of my own independence, but again in the Holy Bible and Scripture itself, with indeed the reformational & reformed place of the Church Catholic, and to quote the Latin (which you appear to like)… ‘Ecclesia semper reformada’!
Before I close, just think if you would have had to endure me as an officer in the Corps of Her Majesty’s Royal Marines, (RM). I retired a Captain (Reserves when I retired) btw, now with a back disability. Yeah, I had some older enlisted (near your age) who had to take my orders! But then you were Army, aren’t you glad!
Keep truck’in mate!
Would be interesting to hear/see you two discuss the 1990s RC-LWF Joint Declaration on Justification. (That would likely be more productive than any personal comments about each other?) Since it is both in-depth subject specific and post-RC Catechism, this document is the gold standard for their respective official positions on justification and their unified joint positions. It is a most interesting and fascinating read, one it seems too few RCs and Lutherans read, and most sadly one that even fewer Orthodox, Anglicans, and Reformed seem to study and comment on.
@Michael: Sadly, Mr. Mourad does not like to really dialogue at all, save over Roman Catholic ecclesiasticism! And he really “hates” Luther and Calvin and Protestantism, as is obvious.. and he likes to call me an “apostate”, since I was raised but left Irish Roman Catholicism, in my late 20s. I have both biblically and theologically pressed him on the idea of the text in Hebrews 6: 3-9, etc. But he does not appear to be biblically concerned, and certainly NOT theologically open to Lutheran dialogue!
Btw, I have a copy of that Lutheran Joint Justification study, etc., and yes 90′s as I remember? I also have a copy of the book: Rereading Paul Together, Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification, David Aune, editor (2006, Baker Academic). Sadly, I think the “Lutherans” don’t all agree with that 90′s work on Justification! Since I have been in the US (last several years), I have some Lutheran friends, and that work is not high on the conservative list or minds, I have seen. And sadly general Anglicanism today appears just ignorant here, i.e. this “Lutheran” so-called Joint Declaration on Justification. What do “you” think?
Let me share this nice link and old message by E.W. Bullinger (yes he is a descendant of the Reformational Bullinger) … On the New Creation (A New Creation, i.e. in man by grace & glory!)
WE are all challenged, as Christians, to read & study… 2 Tim. 2:15! And I will always press this as a pastor-teacher ‘In Christ’! This is my calling, and not the propriety or standards of blogdom!
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxld2J1bGxpbmdlcnxneDpjMGM2Y2IxOWM2MGVkOGI
@irishanglican: I don’t suppose for one moment that I would have had any problem wih you as a Captain. At some point in your training, you probably had a sergeant say something along these lines: “Gentlemen, I will address you as ‘Sir’ and you will address me as ‘Colour Sergeant’ – the difference is that you will mean it.”. In other words, there is great similarity between the Royal Marines and the Army – Sergeants run both.
We housetrain you “chinless wonders” (aka lieutenants and captains). We make sure you only see what we wish you to see and only sign what we wish you to sign. We cover up your mistakes, do our best to ensure your survival in combat and generally nanny you for the good of the service.
Nice Mourad!
But, I was a mustang (to use an American term)…enlisted to officer! Myself an NCO once! And the NCO’s and Sergeant’s will always be the backbone of the RMC’s and Army (Brit) infantry!
Always a ‘Bootneck’!
Sadly for pretty much every communion, members tend to seriously neglect the various ecumenical discussions, declarations, and joint works. Being Orthodox, I think we need to refocus a lot of effort and emphasis on our Coptic brothers, with whom we did a lot of ground breaking work in 1960s and 70s, but then it seemed to wane. And we need to press the Anglicans on their (reneged?) commitments made during the Moscow & Dublin conferences, esp. what they said they’d do about the filioque. And seems like in USA both EO and Lutherans stopped doing much after some important discussions in late 1980s and early 1990s about justification, sanctification and deification. I really wish we’d pursue our discussions with them.
I agree, that we must have “ecumenical” dialogue, and I am rather a Reformed Anglican, at least on soteriology. But too, Historic Pre-Mill as to Eschatology, and even a PD (Progressive Dispensationalist), with Modern Israel. But, I am also one that sees and holds to the monarchy of the Father in the Godhead, and I would agree generally with the EO on the “filioque”! But, I also cannot follow the Orthodox on their lack or loss of the Pauline Imputation (Federal Headship/Adam…to the Last Adam) and Adoption! I am close as an Anglican to the so-called ‘Federal Vision’. So there really are main differences between the EO and the older or classic Anglicanism (The Thirty-Nine Articles, etc.) But, we still must respect these different theological places in each other! Something old-school Catholicism and Catholics don’t do, at least generally (as we can see in Mourad, etc.)
Yeah, I am a very “eclectic” Anglican!
As for me, I’m just plain old EO (Antiochian, in the Western Rite). I submit myself to my Church, esp. my bishops. Here I stand. There is no other place for me to stand. (I suspect this may be an area of divergence with us. You seem to emphasize yourself. Taken that too far and you eventually set yourself up over and above the Church.) But I’m certainly a very ecumenically minded EO. I find much of interest in Wesley, Melanchthon, Spiner, Archbishop Laud, Molina, and many others.
And, of course, the English Non-jurors! As well as historic, traditional Scandanavian Lutheranism. Hope you’ve read the 16th Century Lutheran-Orthodox dialog. Thinking it is often titled something the Tubingen Conferences? Takes place as the Lutherans are doing their scholastic best to create their Book of Concord.
It seems that both some Catholics, as too the EO, just don’t understand the aspect of the Biblical, especially the NT and Pauline doctrine of the liberty & freedom we have ‘In Christ’! Yeah, this will always be a “Protestant” thing! (Note, I am a real fan of Luther here, and his grand doctrine of the “theologia crucis”, verses the “theologia gloriae”!) Sadly, it seems only a few of my Catholic friends get this difference, and they tend to be of course the “theolog’s”.
Note, sadly too, even in the RCC, some of these Catholic theolog’s, are always considered rather free-thinkers, by the traditionalists! As both De Lubac and Von Balthasar have been labeled here! And btw, Barth was friends with both Von B. and Georges Florovsky!
Note too, I have some Antiochian (EO) friends, myself! And a few other different EO friends in both Ireland and England!
I have liked a few of the Swiss Lutherans: Yngve Brilioth, Nathan Soderblom, and Gustaf Aulen. Aulen’s book: Reformation and Catholicity is still on my shelve, as too Brilioth’s: Eucharistic Faith And Practice, Evangelical and Catholic.
The Wesley brothers will always be classic Anglicans, evangelical and those Thirty-Nine Articles! Just history here! And yeah, I read them both! I have several older English (The Epworth Press) books on Charles Hymns and theology. Now John, there was an “eclectic” Anglican!
And they both knew, read and loved Luther!
Just a note but I did one of my graduate degrees on Luther! So yeah, Luther is never going away in my theological understanding!
After this is will quit for now, but sadly also many, especially American Reformed, don’t get our Christian liberty and freedom as ‘in Christ’! The Law/Gospel affair is very important, we don’t want to fall into antinomianism, but we also don’t want to fall into Judaization, either! The latter has been a real Roman Catholic problem, historically. And too as can be seen again with some American Reformed. The Law/Gospel is always a Judeo-Christian dance!
@ Michael Frost. As you probably well know, Anglican – Orthodox discussions have rather stalled of late – see Orthodox Prelate Warns Anglican Leader: Liberal Trajectory Harms Ecumenism and those same concerns have had the same impact on ARCIC. Orthodox-Catholic discussions seem to me to hold out far more promise.
You observed: “As for me, I’m just plain old EO (Antiochian, in the Western Rite). I submit myself to my Church, esp. my bishops. Here I stand.”
Common Apostolic sucession and the teaching authority of bishops, means that it is possible to negotiate to heal a schism.
The major problem one encounters with some anglicans in particular is that there is no authority with whom to negotiate. At perhaps its most extreme – the doctrine of the Church of England is ultimately what Parliament says it is.
In 2005 there was talk of the CofE reintroducing church trials for heresy. The proposal was inevitably dropped when surveys revealed just how many CofE clergy dssented on matters such as, The Virgin Birth – 27% denial; The Bodily Resurrection – 33% denial.
Ultimately one discovers that wht the CofE has is a “pick and mix” approach to doctrine.
“The abyss that exists today divides not so much the Orthodox from the Catholics or the Catholics from the Protestants as it does the ‘traditionalists’ from the ‘liberals’,” (EO)
One group I find most fascinating in the USA is the Polish National Catholic Church. It seems to me that in many areas where they have diverged from the RC Church, they appear to move towards Orthodoxy; however, they have their own unique theological interpretations that diverge from both. Seems like their talks with Rome have stalled out, too? My guess is that their recent origin, limited size, and mostly regional status within just USA likely would preclude any Ordinariate-type mechanism for corporate reunion with Rome. I wish Orthodoxy would be working really closely with PNCC to bring them in as the nucleus of a greatly expanded Western Rite in USA that has its own WR bishops.