Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000616
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Pete173 said (on the Opposition to Growing Churches thread):
quote:
But I suppose if you push me, I have no sense that ECUSA and the CofE have much in common, and I'm pessimistic that we can hold together in the Anglican Communion, because although there is diversity in both Churches, the governing assumptions about the Faith seem completely different. But that's probably something that ought to be debated (and probably has been in Dead Horses) on another thread.
So apologies for derailing this one!
So what's the deal here? We know that ECUSA have got a gay Bishop which is hardly universally popular, there's been a well publicised incident with raisin cakes and naff mother goddess liturgy.
I get the impression that ECUSA is rather more liberal than the Church of England. Probably more liberal than I am comfortable with. But - I realise this is all highly subjective - do ECUSAn's no longer subscribe to the Nicene Creed? Have Sacred Scripture been abandoned for readings from 'I'm OK, You're OK'? Is Spong representative? Is there honey still for tea? Or are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs stirring things up? I remember a while ago a thread about +Schori in which her heretical views on Christ's divinity were debated, despite the absence of any evidence that +Schori held such views. So is there a lazy C of E assumption that ECUSA is uber-liberal in the same way that there is a lazy secular assumption in some Brit. circles that the C of E doesn't really believe in God.
What's really going on? An ignorant Brit wants to know.
[ 08. May 2007, 01:45: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
Callan posted
quote:
We know that ECUSA have got a gay Bishop which is hardly universally popular, there's been a well publicised incident with raisin cakes and naff mother goddess liturgy.
How do we know the Church of England does not have a gay matey?
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
We still say the Nicene Creed. Some people may cross their fingers while saying it. We still read scripture. For the most part, we have coffee and not tea. Spong represents one group within ECUSA but not the majority. For the most part, I would say your assesment of ECUSA is correct. Of course, there are conservatives who emphasize left-wing extremists as being representative of the entire church and visa versa. The conservative reaction to Jefforts-Schori, who I don't particularly like, was outrageous. At the same time, I too worry TEC is slowly drifting towards Unitarianism. This bothers me. I can't really contrast it with the C of E because I don't know anything about the Church of England apart from what I read.
[ 09. January 2007, 18:21: Message edited by: Matins ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Pete173 said (on the Opposition to Growing Churches thread):
[QUOTE] I get the impression that ECUSA is rather more liberal than the Church of England. Probably more liberal than I am comfortable with. But - I realise this is all highly subjective - do ECUSAn's no longer subscribe to the Nicene Creed? Have Sacred Scripture been abandoned for readings from 'I'm OK, You're OK'? Is Spong representative? Is there honey still for tea? Or are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs stirring things up? I remember a while ago a thread about +Schori in which her heretical views on Christ's divinity were debated, despite the absence of any evidence that +Schori held such views. So is there a lazy C of E assumption that ECUSA is uber-liberal in the same way that there is a lazy secular assumption in some Brit. circles that the C of E doesn't really believe in God.
What's really going on? An ignorant Brit wants to know.
1. No. The Creeds are still ECUSA/TEC doctrine.
2. No. We read three or four selections from Scripture every time we celebrate the Eucharist (which does not consist of Pepsi and raisin cakes). Some parishes no longer read Psalms, though, which I think is a mistake. I should say that it's my impression that things are quite different depending on region, too; Rite I (the "old language" rite that imitates the 1928) is rarely to be found west of the Mississippi, from what I hear, but it's fairly commonplace (at least at early services) on the East Coast. California seems quite different to me in many ways; less Anglo-philic and more "experimental." But that's just an impression.
3. No. Although what do you mean by "representative"? Many people like Spong; I really don't see what the big deal is, although I agree with some things he says. He rarely gets asked to speak at Episcopal Churches, from what I hear; he's more popular in the UCC and elsewhere.
4. Coffee hours are still good, although cucumber sandwiches are becoming a rarity these days.
5. ECUSA/TEC is liberal, in general - but there's a wide, wide variety in levels of churchmanship and theology. To me, it appears that the younger generation of clergy is "socially liberal and theologically traditional" in a way the previous (60s?) general was not.
Don't know if that helps. Will think more about it, too....
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
I am interested in pete173's comment:
quote:
Originaly posted by pete173:
...the governing assumptions about the Faith seem completely different
Also wondering which Dead Horses he thinks this might touch upon. Homosexuality? Inerrancy (or authority) of the bible? Something else?
I think "governing assumptions about the Faith" is an interesting category for looking at any denomination. Not that I know how to do it very cleverly in words yet. But it might be a good category for me for some stuff that's puzzled me mightily and was part of why I started coming to the Ship boards.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Or are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs stirring things up?
Ding, ding, ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!!! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Callan---every parish I've been associated with (three and counting) has been headed by a woman and packed mostly with the sort of liberals you suggest you'd be uncomfortable with.
And yet, every Sunday, we've read the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Epistles, and the Gospel. Nary a self-help book in sight...
We also say the Nicene Creed every Sunday, and though I heretically change the third-person pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit to "She" and leave out the filoque (thanks to the Orthodoxen), I don't notice anyone skipping it or ostentatiously crossing their fingers.
We still preach that "Christ was crucified, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."
And we generally serve cookies at Coffee Hour---I've yet to see a raisin cake. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Qestia (# 717) on
:
Well, I attend ECUSA churches here in gay-loving Massachusetts and I can tell you we've pretty much abandoned the liturgy for free-wheeling homosexual orgies. In addition, not only do we ordain women, but we no longer ordain men, Instead of the Bible, we hear readings from Women Who run with the Wolves and sing hymns like "Jesus is a lady willow tree". What, is that different from what you folks do across the pond?
But seriously, even in my Bush-hating, swahili-hymn-loving People's Republic of Cambridge church, while we sometimes skipped reciting the creed (although not because we disagreed with it) we still followed the liturgy, read all the proscribed bits from the Bible, and used the BCP. As far as I can tell the main issue is that some sections of ECUSA are giving more weight to the Lord's dictum on removing the beam from your own eye than a few offhand lines in Paul's letters.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
...And we generally serve cookies at Coffee Hour---I've yet to see a raisin cake.
You can have raisin cakes at coffee hour. Just not during the liturgy.
***
We've had a few threads on the Anglican Communion and what it may or may not mean be, or do. One that still exists and may be relevant is Is 'true' Anglicanism Reformed?. The one I started in October about the AC has been deleted somehow, but one from June lingers in Oblivion as Purgatory: Rowan's letter on the future of the Anglican Communion - it was started by pete173.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I have to say I'm surprised to read the comments of +Pete. As far as I've been able to gather from the Ship, TEC and the CofE are very close on almost every issue. TEC seems to have taken the Parish Communion movement more to heart, whilst Eucharists incorporating a wider range of catholic ritual are somewhat more common and charismatic churches and FiF-types somewhat less so.
Beyond that, the theology on anything that matters looks identical. Bishops who are female/openly gay (and note that qualifier!) have been around in TEC slightly sooner than in the CofE, no doubt due that curious American attachment to democracy which so many have commented upon. But such things are adiaphora, at best.
Posted by Godwine (# 8686) on
:
One of the biggest differences, in my experience, is the parochial system. The lack of a parochial system in ECUSA/TEC results in a different outlook in terms of an individual church's ministry in many ways.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
You can have raisin cakes at coffee hour. Just not during the liturgy.
Oops...I realized that was what he meant after it was too late to edit.
Actually, that's one of our greatest corporate sins, I think. We use those vile little styrofoam wafers instead of real bread. To be honest, I'd rather have a raisin cake than those little bits of faux food...
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
I should add that I'm pretty traditional theologically, myself, so that might influence my opinions on all this. I naturally gravitate towards parishes that are traditional also.
And yes, much of what you hear is based on the desperate desire for a split on the part of the so-called "orthodox" schismtatics. They do not hesitate to misrepresent ECUSA if they think it will further their ambition to create their own province - or, hopefully, to replace ECUSA/TEC entirely.
Sometimes it seems these people have never been to an ECUSA parish outside the conservative south, so it really makes them appear foolish IMO. They quite obviously have no idea what's actually going on.
The Spong thing is really old-hat here by now, I must say. He's not a bishop any longer, and he's not really a focal point anymore - except for the schismatics. They love him.
One thing I'll say, though: I think this whole dust-up has been productive in a way. It's forced us to have some serious discussions about who we are as a church, and IMO this has been a very good thing. I would also advise you to read some of the liberal/moderate USA clergy bloggers: Fr. Jake, Tobias Haller, Fr. AKMA, Fr. Knisely. All very traditional theologically, all moderate-to-liberal socially.
I personally think we have a very good thing going here. Another interesting thing I've noticed is that my parish (and I know others) is getting a lot of ex-RCCs. This is another of the things influencing the "socially-liberal-theologically-tradition" direction we're taking, IMO.
Posted by Godwine (# 8686) on
:
As far as the liberal trends in ECUSA/TEC are concerned, lack of establishment has allowed dioceses to develop their own culture or "flavour" without pressure for greater latitude.
Liberal dioceses and conservative dioceses, in light of the autonomy they are given, may become easily entrenched in their respective positions. The fact that bishops are elected by diocesan conventions must have a certain effect, as well.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Godwine:
Liberal dioceses and conservative dioceses, in light of the autonomy they are given, may become easily entrenched in their respective positions. The fact that bishops are elected by diocesan conventions must have a certain effect, as well.
That does happen here - but this is reflective of a general trend in society and is not particular to the Church. Conservatives seem to cluster together physically, and liberals likewise - but hopefully in the longer run the internet and online media will help with this by forcing us to deal with one another in a virtual way, at least.
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Godwine:
Liberal dioceses and conservative dioceses, in light of the autonomy they are given, may become easily entrenched in their respective positions. The fact that bishops are elected by diocesan conventions must have a certain effect, as well.
There's the effect of the nominating process, as well. In California (i.e. the Bay Area), our nominating committee looked outside the diocese for its slate of nominees. I think that's a good thing to do. Some dioceses seem to look only inward for their bishops.
b.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I'm looking forward to pete173's arrival on this thread, and hope he will say how he came to his conclusion.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Callan posted
quote:
We know that ECUSA have got a gay Bishop which is hardly universally popular, there's been a well publicised incident with raisin cakes and naff mother goddess liturgy.
How do we know the Church of England does not have a gay matey?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
The problem isn't the gay bishop. It's the gay bishop being out of the closet. I'm sure the C of E has had an occasional gay priest or bishop.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Did +Pete173 really say that? I find myself stung. I'm a member of a very MOTR Episcopal parish. The service we say is almost word for word the same as what I've had in C of E services. We hear the lectionary. We observe the same feasts. We worship God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. We pray for our own needs and those of others. How can we not have anything in common? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on
:
My mother lost her voice over Christmas, and since we hadn't seen each other for six months, she still attempted to grill me regarding my life.
"What's going on with your church?" she croaked one afternoon over lunch.
"We're building low-income housing and a mental health drop-in center," I replied. "The meetings are sooo annoying, but it's also kinda exciting."
She shook her head, made a face, and then, bringing her hands together made a gesture as if she was breaking something in half. "Split," she whispered.
I was utterly confused. "No, we're just considering moving a service to another location 'cause a lot of our parishoners have moved out of the neighborhood."
Again with the face. "Newspaper!" she demanded of my father, who brought over a paper and she pointed to a big, splashy article regarding the Virginia secessionists.
"Oh, that!" I said. "Ma, you're the one who taught me that it isn't truly a free media if you have to pay for the newspaper!"
Posted by Liturgy Queen (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Callan posted
quote:
We know that ECUSA have got a gay Bishop which is hardly universally popular, there's been a well publicised incident with raisin cakes and naff mother goddess liturgy.
How do we know the Church of England does not have a gay matey?
The problem isn't the gay bishop. It's the gay bishop being out of the closet. I'm sure the C of E has had an occasional gay priest or bishop.
Quite.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
The loss of the parochial system in America is one difference. Episcopal churches, unlike Roman Catholic churches with territorial boundaries, are entirely 'gathered communities'.
Another, and this is to do with the liberal/conservative divide and the current row, is Episcopalians don't have a strong Evangelical minority like the English Church does.
The new arrangements in America of ex-Episcopalians under overseas Anglican bishops seem an importation of that religion, not of the old-school Prayer Book English Calvinist Evo variety but the modern kind (and I predict it may have some success, regardless of one's opinion on that, thanks to crossover with American evangelicalism in the free churches). My guess is Episcopalians with those leanings had no incentive to stay, like being in the state church was in England, so they left for the free churches/Non-conformists, many of whom had taken refuge in America from the state church's power at the time (the 1600s and 1700s) in the mother country.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
<tangent> The only way I can ever pronounce ECUSA is my head is as Yakuza which makes this whole discussion seem a bit surreal ... </tangent>
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
The loss of the parochial system in America is one difference. Episcopal churches, unlike Roman Catholic churches with territorial boundaries, are entirely 'gathered communities'.
Why should this be? It can't be anything to do with establishment, because the RC's aren't established either.
But I do believe that many American priests have a commitment to their 'parish' in the English sense of local area. Perhaps it's a localised or an anglo-catholic thing?
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
I'm a memeber of ECUSA in a conservative diocese, but in a liberal parish.
In fact, my liberal church is higher up the candle than most (if not all) of the conservative churches in this area, which makes my head spin.
We, as a church, know that IF the ECUSA has a split, we have hard choices to make. Right now, our attention is based on finding what we hold in common, not what disagree on.
Our conservative bishop wants us to have a conversation with the other churches in the area and find a way for all of us to work together.
In fact our very liberal woman priest was invited to teach at the Nigerian church in the area, and they are coming to our church to talk and teach.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
The loss of the parochial system in America is one difference. Episcopal churches, unlike Roman Catholic churches with territorial boundaries, are entirely 'gathered communities'.
Why should this be? It can't be anything to do with establishment, because the RC's aren't established either.
But I do believe that many American priests have a commitment to their 'parish' in the English sense of local area. Perhaps it's a localised or an anglo-catholic thing?
You're absolutely right that some priests have this commitment - and that probably it's more prevalent among Anglo-Catholics. But others probably don't think about it in the same way, although all Episcopal churches I'm familiar with do some sort of outreach work in their local communities.
Actually, in some states - Lousiana is one - the local political jurisidictions (elsewhere called "counties") are actually called "parishes." (I think maybe Virginia also, but am not sure.)
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
But seriously, even in my Bush-hating, swahili-hymn-loving People's Republic of Cambridge church, while we sometimes skipped reciting the creed (although not because we disagreed with it) we still followed the liturgy, read all the proscribed bits from the Bible, and used the BCP. As far as I can tell the main issue is that some sections of ECUSA are giving more weight to the Lord's dictum on removing the beam from your own eye than a few offhand lines in Paul's letters.
Well Qestia, I think it's gone beyond a difference beyond the Old Dart (C of E) and America (ECUSA) and could tear apart the whole Anglican Communion.
I think the only apt comment comes from Father Brown (in The Resurrection of Father Brown): "You silly, silly people. May God bless you and give you greater sense." (possibly not quite verbatim)
That, I feel, is the only worthwhile comment I'll ever make on the issue.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I am speaking here as URC member who has had contact with the Episcopalian Church of Scotland. I had a friend who doubted whether they could be a member of the C of E even though they were Episcopalian and I sometimes wonder if I would settle in the C of S even though I am Reformed with Presbyterian leanings.
What both of us experience is our faith culture as defining a significant part of who we are. By being the "national" church both the C of S and the C of E have a hegemonic culture that contains a very wide variety of Christian opinion. In both case the minority denomination is more liberal.
The question is about the pressure to maintain the hegenomic nature of the national church when a sister church is following a distinctly more liberal tradition than it can and maintain it. The C of S is not the "mother" denomination of PCUSA in the same way as the C of E is of ECUSA, this gives freedom but does Anglicanism wish to become the loose alliance* that Reformed Denominations hold? Or is it going to be more hierarchicial about belief? Can it sustain its walk on the present tight-rope and where if it doeesn't will the CofE end up?
Jengie
World Alliance of Reformed Churches(WARC) does exist and probably contains the more liberal 50% of Reformed Denominations. It has expelled members for heresy but it is up to Reformed denominations to join and I would guess around 50% choose not to, normally the more conservative.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Did +Pete173 really say that? I find myself stung. I'm a member of a very MOTR Episcopal parish. The service we say is almost word for word the same as what I've had in C of E services. We hear the lectionary. We observe the same feasts. We worship God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. We pray for our own needs and those of others. How can we not have anything in common?
At Evensong in my parish, we DO say the same service word for word -- we use 1662.
Otherwise, Laura, you've said it all. Thank you.
Ross
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Did +Pete173 really say that? I find myself stung. I'm a member of a very MOTR Episcopal parish. The service we say is almost word for word the same as what I've had in C of E services. We hear the lectionary. We observe the same feasts. We worship God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. We pray for our own needs and those of others. How can we not have anything in common?
You're stung; I'm astonished. We do all these things in my liberal parish. And we get very orthodox preaching. I have no idea what "governing assumptions about the Faith" pete173 has that my parish priest and my bishop don't.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Sorry, have been absent watching the Scousers get stuffed by the Gooners in the battle to play the Spurs.
Interesting response, and a lively thread. Pond differences clearly impinge upon the debate.
Fascinating assumption that because we pray similar liturgies we are on common ground - which doesn't work for many of you for Methodists or RCs! Ditto the formularies.
I guess that's what's at the heart of our mutual incomprehension of each other. For evangelical Anglicans (and Hooker and Jewel), it's scripture that is definitive. Creeds and formularies are only adjuncts to that. So I'm looking for scripture to be the governing principle - and I don't need to rehearse the primary areas of disagreement that have led to the Windsor Report and the defections from ECUSA by the conservatives.
That's why I spoke about governing assumptions. It's not about looking similar, it's about what makes the institution tick. How to explain it? Well, I suppose a sermon that quotes the millennium development goals rather than scripture, and a contentless shalom kind of encapsulates it for me. Very laudable, but what's distinctively Christian about it?
If, by the way, you try to reference evangelism on the ECUSA site, what you get is "church development".
The stuff about bishops suspending clergy and bullying congregations and constant litigation is continually reported this side of the pond, and not just by the evangelical extremists.
I suppose ECUSA feels like the CofE would if the liberals ever actually won. And if they did, I'd have left.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I must say that the OP impresses me, frankly, as a wind up. Anyone who knows anything about Northern Hemisphere/Anglo-Saxon Anglicanism knows that ECUSA and the CofE have a set of virtually identical liturgies. Indeed, I should think that the formal, prescribed liturgies are far more apt to be ignored among the Evos of the CofE than in TEC. Further, in TEC I haven't experienced any generalised liturgical differences between theologically and socially conservative parishes and liberal ones (if we must use these dreaded terms).
Overall, ECUSA's really a pretty normal, boring place most of the time.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
Rather a lot of uk C of E churches follow an (often evening) service of 30-mins modern choruses, prayers and notices 20 min preach and then a song/prayer at the end. Not that indistinguishable from a vineyard service really.
Many c of E churches arent robed up in the same way, many dont have robed choirs.
I dont think these really matter all that much in terms of Christianity - but from the ECUSA peeps I met (at a wonderful colorado meet) I dont think we could recognise each others traditions hardly at all! they were talking about pointing (singing from dots?) and arrangements of various sung bits (caticles?) and they could all follow a sung service that us 3 brits (and flausa maybe) couldnt follow at all...
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
...read all the proscribed bits from the Bible...
Why has ECUSA proscribed certain bits of the Bible?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I guess that's what's at the heart of our mutual incomprehension of each other. For evangelical Anglicans (and Hooker and Jewel), it's scripture that is definitive. Creeds and formularies are only adjuncts to that. So I'm looking for scripture to be the governing principle - and I don't need to rehearse the primary areas of disagreement that have led to the Windsor Report and the defections from ECUSA by the conservatives.
That's why I spoke about governing assumptions. It's not about looking similar, it's about what makes the institution tick. How to explain it? Well, I suppose a sermon that quotes the millennium development goals rather than scripture, and a contentless shalom kind of encapsulates it for me. Very laudable, but what's distinctively Christian about it?
If, by the way, you try to reference evangelism on the ECUSA site, what you get is "church development".
Well, we're not evangelicals and don't claim to be - at least, not in the sense you mean. Why would you want to force us to be - and how is that related to discussion?
If the PB were all there were to the Episcopal Church, perhaps the thing about "Shalom" would be a reasonable point. As it is, she's not, and I don't think it is.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The stuff about bishops suspending clergy and bullying congregations and constant litigation is continually reported this side of the pond, and not just by the evangelical extremists.
Too bad it's not true.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
...read all the proscribed bits from the Bible...
Why has ECUSA proscribed certain bits of the Bible?
I assume she meant 'prescribed', Smarty-boots.
Meanwhile, I am hoping to do some reflecting on my years as a member of various ECUSA parishes in the US as opposed to the time I've spent in ordained ministry in the Church of England and post a reasoned reply to pete173 tomorrow.
What I am sorry to read in his post is an assertion that lex orandi is not, as far as he is concerned, lex credendi.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Rather a lot of uk C of E churches follow an (often evening) service of 30-mins modern choruses, prayers and notices 20 min preach and then a song/prayer at the end. Not that indistinguishable from a vineyard service really.
Many c of E churches arent robed up in the same way, many dont have robed choirs.
I dont think these really matter all that much in terms of Christianity - but from the ECUSA peeps I met (at a wonderful colorado meet) I dont think we could recognise each others traditions hardly at all! they were talking about pointing (singing from dots?) and arrangements of various sung bits (caticles?) and they could all follow a sung service that us 3 brits (and flausa maybe) couldnt follow at all...
Dear, I think you'll find that Anglo-Catholic congregations in the UK are proficient at these skills, too.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(And I thought Evangelicals were a minority in the CofE, anyway? So why do you now seem to be claiming majority status and speaking for the Church of England and pitting it against ECUSA?
Also, I have to wonder what's so "distinctively Christian" about focusing on Scripture? Jews do this, and so do Muslims. I'd saying working to feed hungry people and trying to do something about desperate poverty is certainly as "distinctively Christian." Doing so is described as "true religion" in the book of James, in fact, correct?)
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
The point made by Jengie Jon is borne out by the experience of the English Presbyterians and Scottish Episcopalians who were invited to be observers in the talks between the established churches of England and Scotland which were held in the late 1950's. They apparently found that they had far more than they expected in common with one another, compared to what each shared with the larger co-denominational body.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
RE: Pete173. It seems ridiculous to have to point out that Anglicanism is not a sola scriptura expression of Christianity. Most, I think, would agree that it sits upon a proverbial three legged stool supported by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
ISTM that this is really an Evo-Con vs. Anglican Mainstream challenge, rather than the specious CofE vs. ECUSA that the OP claims.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
For evangelical Anglicans (and Hooker and Jewel), it's scripture that is definitive. Creeds and formularies are only adjuncts to that. So I'm looking for scripture to be the governing principle - and I don't need to rehearse the primary areas of disagreement that have led to the Windsor Report and the defections from ECUSA by the conservatives.
I don't understand this.
You and the Jehovah's Witnesses agree that scripture is definitive and the governing principle. Do you think we have a closer affinity to them than a church that believes the Nicene Creed, uses the same liturgy and is in communion with us?
Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
At Evensong in my parish, we DO say the same service word for word -- we use 1662.
Really? 'O Lord, save the Queen/And make thy chosen people joyful'?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
At Evensong in my parish, we DO say the same service word for word -- we use 1662.
Really? 'O Lord, save the Queen/And make thy chosen people joyful'?
Oh, please. As if you didn't know the answer to that. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I guess that's what's at the heart of our mutual incomprehension of each other. For evangelical Anglicans (and Hooker and Jewel), it's scripture that is definitive. Creeds and formularies are only adjuncts to that. So I'm looking for scripture to be the governing principle...
[SNIP]
Well, I suppose a sermon that quotes the millennium development goals rather than scripture, and a contentless shalom kind of encapsulates it for me. Very laudable, but what's distinctively Christian about it?
I can't believe that Pete is going to make me prooftext...
Matthew 25:34-40
To have someone bang on about scripture being definitive and then slag off on the PB for asking us to support the MDGs is just....mind-boggling. If the MDGs don't have anything to do with being Christian, then I just need to sleep in on Sunday mornings. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Pete--I was taught in my confirmation class that we value tradition and reason as well as scripture. We all laugh about the "3-legged stool," but the image works for me---if one leg of the stool is overemphasized (i.e., it's too long), the stool is unstable. You need to hold all things in balance. I've been in a church where scripture (not God) was worshipped, tradition was derided (unless, of course, it was *our* tradition), and reason pooh-poohed. I'm not interested, thanks very much.
And folks---a minor, but important point. ECUSA doesn't exist anymore. It is TEC (The Episcopal Church), because not all of our provinces are in the United States.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
It is TEC (The Episcopal Church), because not all of our provinces are in the United States.
And that's another story. If I was a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church, I'd be a bit annoyed at you for that, particularly since they were there first
I think we should rename the Church of England - after all, we have dioceses outside England. The Catholic Church has a nice ring to it.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
For evangelical Anglicans (and Hooker and Jewel), it's scripture that is definitive. Creeds and formularies are only adjuncts to that. So I'm looking for scripture to be the governing principle - and I don't need to rehearse the primary areas of disagreement that have led to the Windsor Report and the defections from ECUSA by the conservatives.
I don't understand this.
You and the Jehovah's Witnesses agree that scripture is definitive and the governing principle. Do you think we have a closer affinity to them than a church that believes the Nicene Creed, uses the same liturgy and is in communion with us?
You misread Hooker. He is quite clear that the so-called tripod has one leg longer than the others: “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever”
That's reformed catholicism, and it's what the CofE formularies say too - Articles 6 - 9, and Canons A2 - A5 (note the qualification "foreasmuch as" [the BCP and the Creeds] are "not repugnant to the word of God"/"agreeable to the said scriptures.")
This is the hierarchy of truth that everyone who swears canonical obedience assents to. It's not just an evangelical view, it's the official and legal position of the CofE.
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Rather a lot of uk C of E churches follow an (often evening) service of 30-mins modern choruses, prayers and notices 20 min preach and then a song/prayer at the end. Not that indistinguishable from a vineyard service really.
Many c of E churches arent robed up in the same way, many dont have robed choirs.
I dont think these really matter all that much in terms of Christianity - but from the ECUSA peeps I met (at a wonderful colorado meet) I dont think we could recognise each others traditions hardly at all! they were talking about pointing (singing from dots?) and arrangements of various sung bits (caticles?) and they could all follow a sung service that us 3 brits (and flausa maybe) couldnt follow at all...
Rather a lot of CofE churches don't have a full time priest and have to share her/him with 3 or 4 or 5 other parishes unless the parish is lucky enough to attract a part time or retired priest. Hence there can only be a Eucharistic celebration whenever the priest is on duty at that parish, maybe once a month. Regular Communion from the reserved sacrament is discouraged, even though a lay person can lead that sort of service. So it's no wonder that there are what Emma thinks as "rather a lot" of CofE churches having "hymn sandwich" services (which are perfectly OK and can be uplifting, but not as your major diet of regular worship IMHO.)I suspect, Emma, that you're in either a rural parish or not near a big city. Or your area is predominantly Evangelical parishes which might well have Communion only once a month. Just guessing.
Robing is largely a matter of either preference or finances. Rarely theological or doctrinal positions.
Whenever I visit ECUSA churches the worship I attend is just about identical in structure with what I'm used to in my parish church in the UK; and relatively minor differences in the language. Albeit with far less choice in ECUSA in the individual elements of the liturgy, since the advent of CW here. This can be either good or bad, depending on your POV! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
As for "pointing" that's one way of indicating in print how one sings Psalms or canticles in Anglican plainchant - when the voice goes up or down. Such as verse 1 from Ps 8 (the "pointing" is what looks like apostrophe markings):
1. O Lord our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in ` all the ` world: thou hast set thy ` glory a`bove the ` heavens!
Without pointing, plainchant sung Psalms would either be in a monotone (bo-ring!) or everyone deciding to do their own thing (chaos) unless you're in a community which has done everything the same way forever and everyone knows it off by heart.
"Canticles" are Scripturally based liturgical compositions which aren't the Psalms, such as the Magnificat or Nunc Dimittis and the Song of Miriam and others. They can be said or sung. And as for following a sung service, if Emma has problems following it then I'm really quite sorry that it appears she hasn't experienced the beauty and glory of Anglican liturgy enough to be familiar with it.
[ 09. January 2007, 22:19: Message edited by: jerusalemcross ]
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
Whenever I visit ECUSA churches the worship I attend is just about identical in structure with what I'm used to in my parish church in the UK; and relatively minor differences in the language.
That has been my experience in the opposite direction, jerusalemcross. My mother lives in the Diocese of Reading and I have attended services at her parish church. I didn't have any trouble following the service at all.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete173:
I suppose ECUSA feels like the CofE would if the liberals ever actually won. And if they did, I'd have left.
What exactly what you mean by liberal? I've not noticed anyone on this thread from the US sounding liberal, only orthodox.
Posted by Godwine (# 8686) on
:
quote:
Anglican plainchant
It's either Anglican chant (harmonised), or plainchant (not).
Sunday Evensong in my parish is from Briggs and Frere, not Anglican chant.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
What Pete has written on this thread seems to me to reflect either ignorance about what is happening in North America (and in some parts of the UK for that matter, including his own CofE) or prejudice -- of the type that says "The CofE as I know it -- Evangelical -- is the only valid way to be an Anglican and the rest of you are wishy-washy Liberals (ugh) who don't really deserve the name of christian."
Because I'm one of those wishy-washy Liberals who would, frankly run a mile over hot coals to avoid the kind of CofE evangelical he seems to support (and I number a couple of them among my friends so I know a little about what he's on about), I'm going to say that I regret his apparent desire to exclude me from the church in which I was born and in which I have lived and worshipped the Living God for 60 years. Even though I'd be willing to bet that my beliefs (except for his sola scriptura approach) are at least as orthodoxly Anglican as his. I regret as well his evidence inability to understand that a few loonies (for example, those who signed that Covenant the other week) don't necessarily reflect the whole of a church which numbers several millions.
John
[ 09. January 2007, 22:38: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete173:
This is the hierarchy of truth that everyone who swears canonical obedience assents to.
No, you misread canon C 15 1(1)
quote:
In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
That is not assenting to anyone's hierarchy of truth.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
I'm still confused....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is +Pete saying that creeds and tradition don't matter, but scripture is important?
The conservatives on this side seem to continually use tradition to back up their claims, not scripture. Maybe that's a pond difference? (And I'm not saying that the liberals are using scripture either BTW...)
And yes, evangelism here is considered "church development". My currect diocese is considered a leader in evangelism, and we focus on how many people have come to Christ and how many new churches have been founded.
However, here focusing on evangelism and wanting to have more and more people know Christ means that we have to focus on our commonalities and what draws us together.
If we don't put the Body of Christ first in our priorities, then why would anyone want to be a Christian?
If we spend our time and energy on finding who isn't "Christian" then why would anyone want to come and join us if we seem to be purging members?
And to be quite honest, that's how the TEC and C of E's current problems are seen. And that's something that we have to deal with in one way or another.
I would be happy if when we elect a new bishop, the paper doesn't focus on their stance on homosexuality, but how they will bring Christ's good news to others. And I can't see that happening if we constantly talk about what seperates us and not what unites us.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
At Evensong in my parish, we DO say the same service word for word -- we use 1662.
Really? 'O Lord, save the Queen/And make thy chosen people joyful'?
Oh, ya got me. The one word we change is "State," for "Queen."
Otherwise, it's all 1662 all the time, right down to the obsolete "as we forgive them that trespass against us."
And, incidentally, I consider myself an orthodox member of the Anglican Communion, and therefore of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Ross
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
It is TEC (The Episcopal Church), because not all of our provinces are in the United States.
And that's another story. If I was a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church, I'd be a bit annoyed at you for that, particularly since they were there first
Yeah, but they made us use their name! They wouldn't make Seabury a bishop if we didn't. And Americans being Americans even then, it naturally didn't occur to anyone at the time that they should have qualified the term "Episcopal" with anything other than "Protestant."
quote:
I think we should rename the Church of England - after all, we have dioceses outside England. The Catholic Church has a nice ring to it.
Go for it!
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Callan posted
quote:
We know that ECUSA have got a gay Bishop which is hardly universally popular, there's been a well publicised incident with raisin cakes and naff mother goddess liturgy.
How do we know the Church of England does not have a gay matey?
The problem isn't the gay bishop. It's the gay bishop being out of the closet. I'm sure the C of E has had an occasional gay priest or bishop.
"Occasional"....??!! Oh ye of much (apparently) naivete. I personally know at least 2 dozen gay clergy at all levels of hierarchy and all of them in "full" relationships. There must be an awful lot more just in the CofE as my experience is not unusual. The famous phrase "grey areas" (David Hope) is basically telling everyone that it's none of anyone's business unless the relationship is abusive, illegal, or manipulative and adversely affecting the life of the community. I would have no problem with being pastored by an openly gay priest either celibate by choice, or in an honest faithful, dedicated relationship and share that view with an awful lot of others. Considering the divorce rate amongst hetero clergy is astronomically high in comparison with other occupations, there must be something to be said for a faithful permanent relationship regardless of the gender of both parties.
And the fuss over Jeffrey John here was one of the worst pieces of ecclesiastical hypocrisy I've seen in ages. Especially as he was behaving according to the House of Bps own guidelines. The Bp of Oxford and Rowan should have told the objectors that it was none of their business and to b***er off. If they witheld their financial support, as threatened, then the CofE would refuse to pay for their clergy. Did the Evos of Birmingham object to a divorced and remarried (with still-living ex-spouse) Bishop when appointed, and get him removed? I think not.
Bp Robinson was elected in the full knowledge of who and what he was and his lifestyle. Bps here are not elected, they are appointed so there is little or no prior public knowledge if the candidate has chosen to cover up areas of his life. Only if one particular flavour of churchmanship decides to make an issue of it and goes digging for it will sexuality emerge.
The whole issue seems to be far more contentious in ECUSA,perhaps because of strong diocesan organisation and their relative independence with a weaker central government - the opposite of the CofE with its very centralised strong (well, they like to think they are!)General Synod. What's going to happen if a diocese decides to "secede" from ECUSA but parishes within that diocese don't want to do so?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalem cross:
... And the fuss over Jeffrey John here was one of the worst pieces of ecclesiastical hypocrisy I've seen in ages. Especially as he was behaving according to the House of Bps own guidelines. The Bp of Oxford and Rowan should have told the objectors that it was none of their business and to b***er off. If they witheld their financial support, as threatened, then the CofE would refuse to pay for their clergy. Did the Evos of Birmingham object to a divorced and remarried (with still-living ex-spouse) Bishop when appointed, and get him removed? I think not. ...
You know, I'd rather have some openly gay clergy, whether celibate or in committed relationships, than the Arians who are apparently running things in Sydney. Why doesn't anyone seem to worry about their heresies?
And as Laura noted recently in another thread, given that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality but did condemn -- in rather strong language -- divorce and remarriage, I think I'd like a bit of consistency, please. Thank you.
Ross
Posted by Siena (# 5574) on
:
Here's what I don't understand regarding the criticism that gets levelled at +Katharine - in all of +Katharine's sermons that I've read, like her investiture sermon here, she explicitly links the MDGs with Scripture, both the prophetic visions of the Old Testament and the life and words of Jesus Christ. Her sermon here also seems pretty unexceptional, and again she makes her case for social action from a Scriptural basis.
So why do her critics imply that she ignores Scripture in favor of the MDGs? What am I missing?
+Pete, you might try checking out the "Office for Ministry Development" section of TEC's website - that's where most of the materials on living out your ministry as one of the baptized can be found. On this side of the pond, I suspect that for reasons having to do with Falwell, Robertson and the like, the word 'evangelical' tends to be avoided, which is a shame, because I (and many others, like some in this article here, would like the word back.
This is such an strange/fortuitous thread for me to be reading at this particular moment - my husband was offered an opportunity yesterday to do a stint in London or Oxford for 3-5 years, and in the initial discussions/thinking it through, I had assumed that, should this come to pass, I'd be attending my local C of E, which would, apart from some minor differences, be a familiar home. And to hear from a C of E bishop that this isn't the case makes me very sad.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Please don't misunderstand me - of course we are still in communion, and of course you would find a welcome and a home in the CofE.
I was responding to a request to explore why it is that ECUSA doesn't feel like home to me, which isn't the same thing at all. I don't want the split, but it's beginning to feel more likely. And I'm trying to keep the evangelical head-bangers on this side of the pond from leaving the CofE...
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
It is TEC (The Episcopal Church), because not all of our provinces are in the United States.
And that's another story. If I was a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church, I'd be a bit annoyed at you for that, particularly since they were there first
I think we should rename the Church of England - after all, we have dioceses outside England. The Catholic Church has a nice ring to it.
I've often thought that the Anglican Church of Australia should be re-named, particularly since only one of its descriptors bears scrutiny by the Office of Fair Trading. So henceforth, when asked to which denomination I belong, I'll answer 'Australia'.
Posted by Qestia (# 717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
...read all the proscribed bits from the Bible...
Why has ECUSA proscribed certain bits of the Bible?
I assume she meant 'prescribed', Smarty-boots.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
exactly so.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I was responding to a request to explore why it is that ECUSA doesn't feel like home to me, which isn't the same thing at all. I don't want the split, but it's beginning to feel more likely. And I'm trying to keep the evangelical head-bangers on this side of the pond from leaving the CofE...
And I pray you have some success with that.
It seems based on what I've read on these two threads that you've got a very odd notion of what the Episcopal Church is like if you don't think scripture always comes first for us in the scripture-tradition-reason formula.
quote:
I'm looking for scripture to be the governing principle - and I don't need to rehearse the primary areas of disagreement that have led to the Windsor Report and the defections from ECUSA by the conservatives.
And I don't need to remind you that from a liberal perspective this is a difference of opinion over how to read certain passages of scripture, not over whether we ought to read scripture.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Rather a lot of uk C of E churches follow an (often evening) service of 30-mins modern choruses, prayers and notices 20 min preach and then a song/prayer at the end. Not that indistinguishable from a vineyard service really.
Many c of E churches arent robed up in the same way, many dont have robed choirs.
I dont think these really matter all that much in terms of Christianity - but from the ECUSA peeps I met (at a wonderful colorado meet) I dont think we could recognise each others traditions hardly at all! they were talking about pointing (singing from dots?) and arrangements of various sung bits (caticles?) and they could all follow a sung service that us 3 brits (and flausa maybe) couldnt follow at all...
Dear, I think you'll find that Anglo-Catholic congregations in the UK are proficient at these skills, too.
Well, there was an extremely high level of music geeking going on at that gathering (one cantor, two organists/choir directors, one semi-pro musician). I am grateful to tomb for explaining how "pointing" worked in a way that I could understand. At my church, the congregation is expected to sing Anglican chant (we are, I am told, unusual in this) but nobody had explained the rules to me .
There also might be more than a trace of the old "discussion" we keep having about how the English don't get "the notes" in their hymnals, and the Americans (not just Piskies) do. The service Emma refers to had a printed service sheet that "had the notes" (except for Tallis' Canon, which we sang through once in practice) and all the words.
Mind you, the service was straight out of our standard-issue 1979 BCP, which all TEC congregations use in one form or another (and layfolk often possess for their private devotions).
Re the OP, I'm gobstruck as well. Before I toodled off to Seattle, I was admiring Pete's words re: "what we say instead of inerrancy", because it's something that comes up a lot on my side of the pond.
Charlotte
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
+Pete--I really had no idea you were a bishop. I apologize for my less-than-respectful address to you earlier.
But you raise an issue that bothers me immensely. You state that you would leave the church if the liberals "won." Why?
What are we doing that is so awful you couldn't stay in the same church with us?
Everyone I know is a Trinitarian Christian. Everyone I know believes in a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. We read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest scripture. We hold to the Nicene Creed and the Book of Common Prayer.
How does our belief that God calls women to the priesthood, or that He desires the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the community of faith, put us so far outside the pale that you would leave a church where we were in the majority?
I honestly don't understand. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
It honestly seems that if one would leave the church over such things, one is saying those things are more important than scripture and tradition and etc.
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
I see that +Rowan has announced the members of the "Covenant Design" group.
The Most Revd Drexel Gomez, West Indies
The Revd Victor Atta-Baffoe, West Africa
The Most Revd Dr John Chew, South East Asia
Ms Sriyanganie Fernando, Ceylon
The Revd Dr Kathy Grieb, USA
The Rt Revd Santosh Marray, Indian Ocean
The Most Revd John Neill, Ireland
The Revd Canon Andrew Norman, Archbishop of Canterbury's Representative
Chancellor Rubie Nottage, West Indies, Consultant
The Revd Dr Ephraim Radner, USA
Ms Nomfundo Walaza, Southern Africa
The Revd Canon Gregory Cameron, Anglican Communion Office, Secretary
From the names, can anyone deduce the general "flavour" of the group's makeup?
Also, it would seem that according to somep preliminary announcements a while ago, the CofE and presumably ECUSA would be among those who would be unable to sign up to any sort of "Covenant" as reflecting a consensus among the member dioceses. Discussion - or does this belong on another thread?
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete173:
I suppose ECUSA feels like the CofE would if the liberals ever actually won. And if they did, I'd have left.
What exactly what you mean by liberal? I've not noticed anyone on this thread from the US sounding liberal, only orthodox.
Compared with you, darling, we're all Pope Benedict.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And I don't need to remind you that from a liberal perspective this is a difference of opinion over how to read certain passages of scripture, not over whether we ought to read scripture.
Absolutely Ruty. Pete+: I'll bite. I think scripture is more important than reason and tradition. I think, however, that people of good will can differ over what scripture means.
[ 10. January 2007, 01:04: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
Robing is largely a matter of either preference or finances. Rarely theological or doctrinal positions.
That's really not true in the Church of England. An emphasis on tat is a very very strong indicator of either Anglo-Catholicism or Liberalism or both.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Most, I think, would agree that it sits upon a proverbial three legged stool supported by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
Why?
Anglicanism has not traditionally seen scripture and tradition as co-equal legs. rather scripture is both foundational (as witnessing to Jesus christ) and correctional, in that it provides a limit to traditions. Thus far and no further. What is not provabel from scripture is not to be required.
Reason is a different case altogether. Reason, logic, is just another name for thinking done right. Or perhaps better thinking done reflectively. It can't be placed in opposition to scripture or tradition. Anyone studying scripture, or forming tradtion, inevitably has to be using reason. And the better they use reason the better they use scripture and tradition. Reason is not a different leg to the stool. Reason is more what the legs are made of. The stronger your reason the stronger your legs.
A more believable tripod would be scripture, tradition, and experience. A lot of people, especially in Methodist, or Holiness, or Pentecostal, or Charismatic traditions would require experience to be in there. And even then the Anglican (and other mainstram Protestant) tradition has been to give an authority to scripture over tradition and experience, because Scripture witnesses to tghe Incarnation and god's primary revelation to us,
But that doesn't exclude reason. We comprehend and absorb our experience by reason, by thinking and memory. Just as we read our Bibles with our reason, and listen to our teachers with out reason.
[ 10. January 2007, 01:51: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalem cross:
...Did the Evos of Birmingham object to a divorced and remarried (with still-living ex-spouse) Bishop when appointed, and get him removed? I think not. ...
... Jesus ... did condemn -- in rather strong language -- divorce and remarriage, I think I'd like a bit of consistency, please. Thank you.
...
I thought that the C of E still had a pretty hard line on remarriage of divorced persons. How did that Bishop of Birmingham manage it if the heir to the throne can't?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the particular Bishop of Birmingham in question (two bishops back) didn't remarry until after he was retired. (I presume he had to get a faculty first as one does).
I have to be away from my computer until this evening. This is not the reasoned reply I promised.
I do have some sympathy for pete173's predicament (and Paige, I shouldn't worry about speaking to him as if he were a normal human being: that's why he comes on here, and it's one of his virtues---all the rest of the time people are politely abasing themselves, and it's bad for the character) as an open Evangelical bishop in the CofE, concerned to keep the more extreme evangelical sheep in the fold. I do get the impression that his views of TEC are not based on experience of it, or at the most, from an extraordinarily limited experience: lunch in the EDS cafeteria, perhaps. I wish we had a different Bishop Pete on here to offer a different viewpoint: +Peter of Worcester, who went to EDS (or ETS as it probably then was) and did his formative placement at (IIRC) San Quentin Prison. Theologically, he's certainly as orthodox as the bishop of Willesden, politically he may be a bit more liberal. Liberal enough that the loony end of the evangelical movement still frightens their children with his name. And yet I'm sure +Peter and +pete pray together, receive the sacraments from one another and consider themselves to be brother bishops in the CofE.
[ 10. January 2007, 06:52: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Most, I think, would agree that it sits upon a proverbial three legged stool supported by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
Why?
Anglicanism has not traditionally seen scripture and tradition as co-equal legs. rather scripture is both foundational (as witnessing to Jesus christ) and correctional, in that it provides a limit to traditions. Thus far and no further. What is not provabel from scripture is not to be required.
Reason is a different case altogether. Reason, logic, is just another name for thinking done right. Or perhaps better thinking done reflectively. It can't be placed in opposition to scripture or tradition. Anyone studying scripture, or forming tradtion, inevitably has to be using reason. And the better they use reason the better they use scripture and tradition. Reason is not a different leg to the stool. Reason is more what the legs are made of. The stronger your reason the stronger your legs.
A more believable tripod would be scripture, tradition, and experience. A lot of people, especially in Methodist, or Holiness, or Pentecostal, or Charismatic traditions would require experience to be in there. And even then the Anglican (and other mainstram Protestant) tradition has been to give an authority to scripture over tradition and experience, because Scripture witnesses to the Incarnation and god's primary revelation to us,
But that doesn't exclude reason. We comprehend and absorb our experience by reason, by thinking and memory. Just as we read our Bibles with our reason, and listen to our teachers with our reason.
Ken, this is marvellous stuff, and bears repetition if for only that reason. Kudos to you! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I have some sympathy for +Pete's and Ken's position re Scripture being the longer leg; certainly I would read the 39 Arts as establishing the supremacy of Scripture as normative for Anglicanism. I've not seen an ECUSAn disagree with that on this thread; the disagreements are, as others have pointed out, how one interprets that supreme Scripture. It should also be said in +Pete;s defence that, as Amos has pointed out, he's far from the extreme Sydney-type end of the spectrum and seems, to me at least, much closer to the far more open evangelicalism of +Tom Wright.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
There also might be more than a trace of the old "discussion" we keep having about how the English don't get "the notes" in their hymnals, and the Americans (not just Piskies) do.
You have hymnals? Wow - I haven't used one of those in ages!
I think the key issue regarding Scriptural authority and culture is the authority and uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
You have to do some really badly stretched exposition to get anything else out of the Bible. It's about as clear as it could possibly be that after Jesus:
- people who are in Christ / have faith in Christ / obey Christ / whatever get to God
- those who aren't / don't don't get to God (leaving aside some debate over what comes next)
It's about as clear as it could possibly be on the importance for people of all other religions needing to become Christians. (Jews, pagans - there weren't many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc in the Roman Empire but it's obvious they'd be in too)
So when I hear KJS (for example) refusing to say that and strongly implicitly denying it, I worry about her. And when I hear bishops and ministers in the C of E denying it, I wonder which Bible they're reading or whether they're so enslaved to this culture that they miss or reject the abundantly clear teaching of the Bible.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
It's about as clear as it could possibly be on the importance for people of all other religions needing to become Christians. (Jews, pagans - there weren't many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc in the Roman Empire but it's obvious they'd be in too)
[SNIP]
So when I hear KJS (for example) refusing to say that and strongly implicitly denying it, I worry about her. And when I hear bishops and ministers in the C of E denying it, I wonder which Bible they're reading or whether they're so enslaved to this culture that they miss or reject the abundantly clear teaching of the Bible.
Custard---it is as clear as it can be to YOU. You've been on here long enough to know that a statement like "they miss or reject the abundantly clear teaching of the Bible" is inflammatory and insulting.
Go back to the earliest Church Fathers and you can find universalists. I read the same Bible you do, and I see that Jesus IS the way to the Father---no matter what faith you might be practicing before you get to meet Him. It's abundantly clear to ME that Jesus isn't going to cast all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., into Hell because they didn't convert.
So where does that leave us?
Apparently, it means that some people think I'm "so enslaved to the culture" that they can't even take Communion with me.
What does that say about their faith? That it can be tainted by the likes of me?
Amos--I take your point. I just felt a little sheepish about prooftexting to a bishop...
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The stuff about bishops suspending clergy and bullying congregations and constant litigation is continually reported this side of the pond, and not just by the evangelical extremists.
What? And Bishops in the CofE never take steps against clergy they don't like and congregations they find troublesome? Pur-lease... Not even the Nazi of Rochester? Or that interesting fellow my Lord of Carlisle? Or any liberal bishop facing an FiF-leaning church? Really? Never? Even our own wet blanket of a 'matey' has played some funny old games with parishes which he does not, for some reason, approve of.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
My thanks to all those who replied to my, admittedly somewhat facetiously worded, OP. I must say that the case for the heterodoxy of TEC is looking somewhat tenuous. This is probably what convinced me, Pete173 said:
quote:
Well, I suppose a sermon that quotes the millennium development goals rather than scripture, and a contentless shalom kind of encapsulates it for me. Very laudable, but what's distinctively Christian about it?
If nothing else, at least one TEC Bishop has read the City of God. Peace, Augustine teaches us, is the natural end of all created beings and the fulfilment that we only truly find in the Sabbath rest of the City of God. Hence all that stuff about lions lying down with the lamb in Isaiah, hence 'Peace I leave with you, my peace I give you', hence 'the Peace of God which passes all understanding' hence we share the peace of God in the Holy Eucharist and pray that the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world will grant us his peace. Peace, in this deep and fundamental sense, is one of the major themes of Christian theology and praxis. And yes, the Hebrew word Shalom is, I understand, a much better translation than the English word peace because you can use the English 'peace' to denote a temporary ceasefire whereas the Hebrew word and concept is rather stronger - the presence of justice rather than merely the absence of conflict. And what is wrong with mentioning the Millenium Development Goals? Is this not the same Pete173 who tells us that evangelicals have outgrown their suspicion of social justice. Doesn't scripture have quite a lot to tell us about the feeding of the hungry?
If this is the best we can do, I'm tending towards the 'lazy assumption' end of the spectrum.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Me.:
Rather a lot of uk C of E churches follow an (often evening) service of 30-mins modern choruses, prayers and notices 20 min preach and then a...............
Dear, I think you'll find that Anglo-Catholic congregations in the UK are proficient at these skills, too.
I was only wishing to talk from what Id experienced - not explainig differences within C of E. We were comparing ECUSA and C of E so that was something I thought was different - that was all !
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalem cross:
...Did the Evos of Birmingham object to a divorced and remarried (with still-living ex-spouse) Bishop when appointed, and get him removed? I think not. ...
... Jesus ... did condemn -- in rather strong language -- divorce and remarriage, I think I'd like a bit of consistency, please. Thank you.
...
I thought that the C of E still had a pretty hard line on remarriage of divorced persons. How did that Bishop of Birmingham manage it if the heir to the throne can't?
I was under the belief the C of E now allows divorced people to remarry in its churches at the discretion of the vicar.
That said, my ex (who was seeing the new girl while "married" to me) later married her in his church, became a Reader a year later and is still planning to pursue ordination I believe
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
Rather a lot of CofE churches don't have a full ... So it's no wonder that there are what Emma thinks as "rather a lot" of CofE churches having "hymn sandwich" services (which are perfectly OK and can be uplifting, but not as your major diet of regular worship IMHO.)I suspect, Emma, that you're in either a rural parish or not near a big city. Or your area is predominantly Evangelical parishes which might well have Communion only once a month. Just guessing.
in the individual elements of the liturgy, since the advent of CW here. This can be either good or bad, depending on your POV!
down. Such as verse 1 from Ps 8 (the "pointing" is what looks like apostrophe markings):
... if Emma has problems following it then I'm really quite sorry that it appears she hasn't experienced the beauty and glory of Anglican liturgy enough to be familiar with it.
I was not saying all of the C of E has not experienced things that are usual in the USA, I was saying there are proportions of the C of E that are quite different.
I lived for 3 years in a vicar-factory and have visited a lot of C of E churches - granted they are usually middle-of-the-road or New Wine- evangelical.
"rather a lot" of churches refers not to a "hymn sandwhich" out of necessity, but a contempory worship service out of choice. The New Wine Network churches and many (i guess evangelical?) C of E churches choose to have this style of worship (praise bands/whatever) which looks similar to other modern churches of other denominations.
I have never experienced pointing and although I do appreciate the wide range of experience in the C of E I think it rather rude for you to suggest yours is better than mine. I am now in a middle-of-the-road Greenbelt attending C of E and very happy too thankyou.
When I was in the USA, I thought there was a marked difference between TEC and the charismatic/evo churches. I was just pointing out how there are many churches in the C of E which are very similar.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I find it particularly ironic that it is the church which follows the Scriptural precedent of choosing their own leaders who are being accused of unBiblical practices and the one where bishops are appointed by the secular authority which is doing the accusing!
"Put not your trust in princes", anyone?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If this is the best we can do, I'm tending towards the 'lazy assumption' end of the spectrum.
Having been to two General Conventions, travelled extensively in the US and having many friends in TEC I have no doubt at all that American Anglicanism is a very different creature from the C of E kind.
1. Attitudes to Scripture. It's only from ECUSAns that I've ever heard a literalistic version of the 'three-legged stool' analogy attributed to Hooker. Most Anglicans elsewhere know that Scripture is the primary means of doing theology with the use of reason and tradition. The idea that reason and tradition are somehow on a par with Bible is a peculiarly liberal piece of nonsense - and since TEC is the most liberal church in the Anglican Communion it is more commonly found there.
As a result, it is my experience that the difficulties of scripture are more easily explained away, ignored or reinterpreted by special pleading in TEC than elsewhere in the Communion. In the hot button debates on women's ordination, and homosexuality pleas for justice and non-discrimination often trumped scriptural arguments, without engaging together.
2. Theology and Bishops. Having observed TEC's House of Bishops there is almost a complete lack of theological thinking in their discussions. This, I'm sure, is partly as a result of the polity of TEC. The House of Deputies and House of Bishops have virtually identical roles in the legislative process. The House of Bishops are not deemed to have a specific teaching authority, or a particular role in the process regarding matters of doctrine and worship. As a result the Bishops don't seem to talk and debate together theologically. The role of Bishops in preserving right teaching, banishing erroneous doctrines is not stressed at all in TEC. Bishops are also less likely to view themselves as foci of unity, and much more likely to assume the role of Chief Executive Officer of the diocese.
There are such tendencies in the CoE as well, but a successive of major reports on the episcopate have helped preserve the English episcopate from losing sight of their apostolic and collegial role.
3. We pray what we believe and a number of posters have remarked that our liturgies are virtually indistinguishable. Not quite, the baptismal liturgies are very different. It is only from the US that I hear the repeated references to the Baptismal covenant. Many people have remarked on TEC's emphasis on the ministry of all the baptised. In many ways this is a thoroughly good thing, but in my opinion the emphasis on the Baptismal covenant (with its relatively novel promises) tends to draw the focus away from personal discipleship, and transformation. It's enough to be baptised and say the baptismal covenant to have access to all the ministries of the Church. Lifetstyle and life choices are less likely to be challenged. Hence the large number of divorced and remarried priests and bishops (in the case of at least one bishop - married three times).
4. The Episcopal Church Welcomes All. A very reassuring phrase but allied with point 3. it's led to a completely indiscriminatory application of the politics of inclusion to the doctrine and teaching of the Episcopal Church. 'Inclusion' as an unalloyed and determining good has not penetrated the C of E to the same extent.
These will do for a starter, though I daresay I could have come up with more differences had I more time to think about it.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Sorry to doublepost, but I should have added that I think American exceptionalism plays some part in our differences as well. It is far more likely that the C of E General Synod (and the Canadian one for example) would consider very carefully (and even be swayed) by what the rest of the Anglican Communion says to it directly on matters of importance and controversy. Many people in ECUSA couldn't give a flying f***.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I find Spawn's posts above helpful.
However, if the difference is over scripture, surely it's not about the authority of scripture but how it is interpreted.
If there is a split, can somebody advise me as to how to get alternative episcopal oversight from ECUSA?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Ok, to interpretation then: I would maintain that in the 'stool hierarchy'( ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
), Tradition is or should be a longer leg than Reason/Experience.
What say others?
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
With scripture as the longest?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Yes, I think I said that a few posts ago here:
quote:
Originally posted by me:-
I have some sympathy for +Pete's and Ken's position re Scripture being the longer leg; certainly I would read the 39 Arts as establishing the supremacy of Scripture as normative for Anglicanism.
So, yes, I'd say Scripture-Tradition-Reason in the epistemological order of things.
[ 10. January 2007, 13:40: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I'll agree with Spawn only so far as that there is a sad failure in TEC from time to time to deal with important issues in a theologically rigorous way. For example, there is certainly a case to be made that homosexuality is not incompatible with Christian practice, but the adoption of rights talk to make that case is a mistake.
Additionally, the Episcopal church's teaching on homosexuality is still that it is not the pattern for Christian sexuality. In my mind, the way to go about things is to first cope with the human sexuality question. I don't see how we can still have a general statement that sexual behavior belongs within marriage between a man and a woman, but also confirm an openly gay bishop. It's putting the cart before the horse.
But in all of this, a little more theology and a little less political-sounding rights-talk would be nice.
But in any case, since the C of E allows remarriage after divorce, in opposition to Christ's clear teaching on the subject, they don't get to accuse any other church of setting aside scripture for political reasons, or undervaluing scripture because they take a broader view of a few passages.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
Actually, I'm beginning to think that the stool analogy should take scripture as the seat itself, and tradition, reason, and experience as the legs...
Spawn---what motto would you have us take? "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You--As Long as You Accept That You Aren't Really Christian Until You Become a ConEvo"?
Posted by Edward::Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
That's reformed catholicism, and it's what the CofE formularies say too - It's not just an evangelical view, it's the official and legal position of the CofE.
I certainly don't have any difficulty being a Reformed Catholic. Indeed I see myself very much in that Tradition, which is why I find it so hard to find huge amounts of common ground with Anglo-Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics. Having been a 'Real' Evangelical I find the Anglican version of Evangelicalism a rather mild conformist affair, and even more upper middle class than my non-conformist days. I guess I used to define as an Anglo-Catholic, but I also find the Anglican version of Catholicism a rather mild conformist affair. and just as middle class. Indeed a lot of Anglicanism and Christianity is Middle class. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am rather fond of Laud, but really Wesley is the Anglican who excites me most, as does Percy Dearmer. All were radical but flawed figures.
But at the end of the day I am Philosophically Liberal. I like Tillich. I even enjoy Cupitt at points. I even find much to agree with in Dawkins or Dennett. I am critical of the Christian faith because it is my faith and for me such self examination is part of my faith. My closest friends are Atheists.
Does Pete think there is a place for people like me in the Church? C'mon Pete you can tell me. You have known me on the net for 5 years at least I guess.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Bloody hell that's complicated!! My head's ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... I'd say Scripture-Tradition-Reason in the epistemological order of things.
But the "reason/experience" leg should never be so short as to complete foreclose the possibility of change. The other two never change. (Although our understanding of scripture changes.)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, I think I said that a few posts ago here:
quote:
Originally posted by me:-
I have some sympathy for +Pete's and Ken's position re Scripture being the longer leg; certainly I would read the 39 Arts as establishing the supremacy of Scripture as normative for Anglicanism.
So, yes, I'd say Scripture-Tradition-Reason in the epistemological order of things.
I'm visualizing such a stool. I believe I'd slide off. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Paige: quote:
Actually, I'm beginning to think that the stool analogy should take scripture as the seat itself, and tradition, reason, and experience as the legs...
Now, that's a stool I could sit on- as long as it is cushioned with love and compassion.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Spawn---what motto would you have us take? "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You--As Long as You Accept That You Aren't Really Christian Until You Become a ConEvo"?
Since I'm not a conservative evangelical myself then I hardly think that's likely.
But my point was about the determinative nature of the value of inclusion on the doctrine and theology of the Episcopal Church, rather than the motto itself. 'The Episcopal Church Welcomes You' is a great slogan, btw.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... I'd say Scripture-Tradition-Reason in the epistemological order of things.
But the "reason/experience" leg should never be so short as to complete foreclose the possibility of change. The other two never change. (Although our understanding of scripture changes.)
Can you unpack that a bit more please? I'm particularly interested in how a changed understanding of Scripture might or might not conflict with Tradition.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
But my point was about the determinative nature of the value of inclusion on the doctrine and theology of the Episcopal Church, rather than the motto itself. 'The Episcopal Church Welcomes You' is a great slogan, btw.
Okay---pace on the slogan thing.
You know, I think we're completely Biblically based on the value of inclusion. Jesus hung out with and healed Gentiles, tax collectors, women, and criminals---shocking the sensibilities of His followers. Is it not possible that we are trying to walk in our Saviour's footsteps?
And God was pretty clear to Peter that he had to get over his clinging to The Old Ways and make room for Something New. And he didn't like it at all---but he couldn't deny that God was removing the stumbling block of the dietary laws. Is it not possible that this is what we are doing with those very small number of verses about the inferiority of women and the evils of homosexuality?
Lyda--I'm with you, my friend. If I didn't believe that Jesus was more concerned with love and compassion (which is *exactly* what I get from the Gospels), I wouldn't be bothered to be a Christian.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Most, I think, would agree that it sits upon a proverbial three legged stool supported by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
Why?
Anglicanism has not traditionally seen scripture and tradition as co-equal legs. rather scripture is both foundational (as witnessing to Jesus christ) and correctional, in that it provides a limit to traditions. Thus far and no further. What is not provabel from scripture is not to be required.
Is everybody dodging the chicken-and-the-egg question? How do we know what Scripture is apart from the Tradition that gave it to us? How did they decide which writings should be part of Scripture - by looking in the Bible?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Not so much of a chicken and egg situation as far as post-Reformation Anglicanism is concerned: with the exception of the Apocrypha, the Canon of Scripture had been in undisputed existence for over a millenium by the time the 39 Articles were formulated giving supremacy to Scripture.
[ 10. January 2007, 14:34: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not so much of a chicken and egg situation as far as post-Reformation Anglicanism is concerned: with the exception of the Apocrypha, the Canon of Scripture had been in undisputed existence for over a millenium by the time the 39 Articles were formulated giving supremacy to Scripture.
How is that relevant? The question is, which has the ultimate authority, tradition or scripture? The only reason the Canon was largely undisputed is that everyone accepted the authority of the Church to decide. It sounds as if you are saying the 39 Articles have authority over Scripture. (I know you're not, but on this logic it's hard to see why not). And on what grounds did the Reformers reject the Apocrypha? (probably a dead horse, or at least a little foal...)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
No, I'm not saying that the 39 Articles have authority over Scripture just that, for Anglicanism, they establish the supremacy of Scripture IMO. And whilst I'm not sure whether or not the topic of the DCs are officially a Dead Horse, it has certainly been discussed here.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
"the DCs"? What are they?
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
Fie, top of page and missed the edit window. My question is in response to Matt Black's:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, I'm not saying that the 39 Articles have authority over Scripture just that, for Anglicanism, they establish the supremacy of Scripture IMO. And whilst I'm not sure whether or not the topic of the DCs are officially a Dead Horse, it has certainly been discussed here.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
'Deutero-canonical books" I think?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Yep; another name for the Apocrypha
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
You know, I think we're completely Biblically based on the value of inclusion.
You've read, I presume, Rowan Williams on this:
quote:
I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say 'Come in and we ask no questions'. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But in any case, since the C of E allows remarriage after divorce, in opposition to Christ's clear teaching on the subject
No it isn't. Why do you keep on saying that?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It is only from the US that I hear the repeated references to the Baptismal covenant.
What's "the Baptismal covenant" in this context?. the phrase makes me think of Presbyterians. But that is unlikely to be what you mean.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
ken -- I'm just frustrated. It is just extremely galling to be lectured on not valuing scripture in the case of homosexuality when we do value scripture very much, by people who live in houses of glass. Perhaps that's why I keep raising it in this context. Because it's hypocrisy.
I agree you can argue about whether it means we can allow remarriage (I think we should, for the reason that the Orthodox do). But Jesus' words were pretty clear. It's really more a point in favor of a broader view of scripture, but that is, of course, a dead horse. I'll ride it away. And I do raise it too much, I'm sorry. It's like a tic.
[ 10. January 2007, 15:57: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It is only from the US that I hear the repeated references to the Baptismal covenant.
What's "the Baptismal covenant" in this context?. the phrase makes me think of Presbyterians. But that is unlikely to be what you mean.
The BCP
Baptismal Covenant. Scroll down to "Baptismal Covenant". It's basically the Apostle's creed in Q&A format and a series of questions which were supposed to replace the one-liner in the 1662 BCP with five questions that supposedly set forth the Christian's obligations under scripture. I'm not sure why they'd be controversial.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
Here. From the 1979 BCP of the DaFMSotPECUSA. It continues on the next page.
[cross-posted]
[ 10. January 2007, 15:58: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
You've read, I presume, Rowan Williams on this:
quote:
I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say 'Come in and we ask no questions'. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions.
Custard--why on EARTH do you assume that we don't preach conversion?!
(And I've read enough Rowan to know that he extends the welcome mat to those who are critical of TEC, but not to those of us who support it. Mighty selective, that.)
I've never been in an Episcopal Church that said "Sin all you want---Jesus will love you anyway!" (Even though we do preach that Jesus loves you, regardless--since that is what scripture tells us.)
We call all to conversion and amendment of life---and if you don't feel that trying to love God and your neighbor requires a lifelong commitment to conversion, then you are far closer to sainthood than I.
I'm beginning to think that Qestia had the right attitude about this conversation from the get-go. Clearly, many of you think that Episcopalians are conducting orgies on the altar, persecuting conservatives by force-feeding them raisin cakes during the Eucharist, and engaging in scrapbooking parties where we cut out the bits of the Bible we don't like.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
Custard posted
quote:
Posted 10 January, 2007 15:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You've read, I presume, Rowan Williams on this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say 'Come in and we ask no questions'. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
andreas1984 mentions in another thread about wanting to be called Christian but not being prepared to make sacrifice. Would be interested to understand what sacrifices are being made in following Christ and being more like Him on both sides in the fight for control.
A lot is made about saying the words in the right order, danger being they can become meaningless as they are spoken parrot fashion. "This is what we do and makes us Anglicians."
Satan himself can say the Nicerne Creed with the best and will believe it more then a lot of those in churches because he knows it to be true. Do we.
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
Paige posted
quote:
've never been in an Episcopal Church that said "Sin all you want---Jesus will love you anyway!" (Even though we do preach that Jesus loves you, regardless--since that is what scripture tells us.)
Sad to say I have on this side of the great divide by clergy.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
It's basically the Apostle's creed in Q&A format and a series of questions which were supposed to replace the one-liner in the 1662 BCP with five questions that supposedly set forth the Christian's obligations under scripture. I'm not sure why they'd be controversial.
I have to say that I'm baffled - unless perhaps it is felt that it ought properly wait until such a time as the person is Confirmed?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It is only from the US that I hear the repeated references to the Baptismal covenant. Many people have remarked on TEC's emphasis on the ministry of all the baptised. In many ways this is a thoroughly good thing, but in my opinion the emphasis on the Baptismal covenant (with its relatively novel promises) tends to draw the focus away from personal discipleship, and transformation. It's enough to be baptised and say the baptismal covenant to have access to all the ministries of the Church.
I have no idea what basis you have for the notion that the baptismal covenant draws focus away from personal discipleship and transformation; it seems absurd to me, and it's certainly not what we are taught in my parish about what the baptismal covenant means. We renew our baptismal covenant at the Easter Vigil every year and every time we have baptisms, and each time we are reminded of its high demands. I don't see how someone could answer "I will, with God's help" to the following questions without realizing how much his or her life is going to change through the effort to keep these promises:
quote:
Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord.
Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
All I can think, Spawn, is that you are not aware that when we speak of the baptismal covenant in the Episcopal Church, we aren't talking in general about being baptized but are instead talking specifically about the declaration of belief in the Apostles' Creed and the five promises we make.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Would be interested to understand what sacrifices are being made in following Christ and being more like Him on both sides in the fight for control.
Sometimes just putting up with each other entails sacrifice. Compromising on the issue of homosexuality for me entails sacrificing some of my personal feeling about what we really ought to be doing and defending not having a formal rite for same-sex relationships on grounds of unity to gay people who are new to the Episcopal Church when I teach our newcomers class. When pete173 writes off our entire province because he's so deeply prejudiced against liberals in the church, I wonder why I bother. I disagree with Spawn, but I respect his position, at it is grounded in real observation of the Episcopal Church (and I agree with Laura's agreement with him).
quote:
A lot is made about saying the words in the right order, danger being they can become meaningless as they are spoken parrot fashion. "This is what we do and makes us Anglicians."
Satan himself can say the Nicerne Creed with the best and will believe it more then a lot of those in churches because he knows it to be true. Do we.
This is so insulting it's not even worth responding to.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
You've read, I presume, Rowan Williams on this:
quote:
I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say 'Come in and we ask no questions'. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions.
Custard--why on EARTH do you assume that we don't preach conversion?!
I try not to assume anything. I was simply quoting ++Rowan for the other bits.
*takes deep breath and speaks calmly*
What we often hear is that TEC seem to say that it's important to include people, regardless of their lifestyle choices, and citing Jesus as an example. Sometimes they then seem to say that because it's important to include people regardless of their lifestyle choices, those lifestyle choices are somehow neutral.
That might not be what you're wanting to communicate, but it's certainly what we hear.
What Rowan is pointing out is that Jesus welcomed sinners, but expected repentance (as with Matthew, Zacchaeus, woman in John 8, etc).
All too often, evangelicals haven't been good enough at welcoming people, largely because we've been so busy communicating repentance that people didn't hear the welcome.
Rowan seemed to be rebuking both groups.
Posted by Qestia (# 717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
I'm beginning to think that Qestia had the right attitude about this conversation from the get-go.
aw, shucks!
I was just trying to respond in the same tone as the OP:
quote:
So what's the deal here? We know that ECUSA have got a gay Bishop which is hardly universally popular, there's been a well publicised incident with raisin cakes and naff mother goddess liturgy.
I get the impression that ECUSA is rather more liberal than the Church of England. Probably more liberal than I am comfortable with. But - I realise this is all highly subjective - do ECUSAn's no longer subscribe to the Nicene Creed? Have Sacred Scripture been abandoned for readings from 'I'm OK, You're OK'? Is Spong representative? Is there honey still for tea?
Unfortunately it turns out that people out there don't think these assertions are ridiculous, but factual. No wonder we have problems.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sometimes just putting up with each other entails sacrifice.
You just said a mouthful, sister.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
When pete173 writes off our entire province because he's so deeply prejudiced against liberals in the church, I wonder why I bother.
You know, for months I have tried and tried to avoid joining Spawn's group of Episcopalians who don't give a flying fuck about the Anglican Communion, but I'm losing the battle, I'm afraid.
I feel as if I've been sentenced to eternity with a roomful of Ronald Reagan clones who keep repeating "Don't bother me with the facts!", because they cannot be arsed to learn how TEC does things. (And +Cantaur is the worst among them...)
Qestia--I cannot understand how people can read here for years, interact on a daily basis with people who are living refutations of the lies about what's going on in TEC, and still buy that tripe. It's enough to make me lose the will to live...
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I have to be away from my computer until this evening. This is not the reasoned reply I promised.
If this is not, I await what you consider (more) reasoned with great interest. quote:
I do have some sympathy for pete173's predicament (and Paige, I shouldn't worry about speaking to him as if he were a normal human being: that's why he comes on here, and it's one of his virtues
Indeed! When I was offline last weekend in Seattle, I was telling my hostess (who checked out the Ship after I told her why I was coming up) about him. quote:
---all the rest of the time people are politely abasing themselves, and it's bad for the character) as an open Evangelical bishop in the CofE, concerned to keep the more extreme evangelical sheep in the fold. I do get the impression that his views of TEC are not based on experience of it, or at the most, from an extraordinarily limited experience: lunch in the EDS cafeteria, perhaps.
What's EDS, sorry? But I have the same impression.
For what it's worth, I think there are a number of well-meaning but mush-minded chucklefucks in the works at 815 (TEC headquarters) but instead of spinning my wheels about them, I've chosen to get on with the business of living as I believe Christ has called me to do.
I'd say that TEC (esp. in major metro areas) is pretty congregational, so the community at St. Spike's is definitely part of the mix for me; TPTB are definitely on the more-orthodox end of the spectrum, which suits me down to my ex-con-evo toes. quote:
I wish we had a different Bishop Pete on here to offer a different viewpoint: +Peter of Worcester, who went to EDS (or ETS as it probably then was) and did his formative placement at (IIRC) San Quentin Prison. Theologically, he's certainly as orthodox as the bishop of Willesden, politically he may be a bit more liberal. Liberal enough that the loony end of the evangelical movement still frightens their children with his name. And yet I'm sure +Peter and +pete pray together, receive the sacraments from one another and consider themselves to be brother bishops in the CofE.
He did placement at Q? Definitely mad props to him from the other side of the Bay.
Has he published anything? I'm always interested in hearing from theologically more-conservative but socially-progressive Anglican leaders .
Charlotte
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I do get the impression that his views of TEC are not based on experience of it, or at the most, from an extraordinarily limited experience: lunch in the EDS cafeteria, perhaps.
What's EDS, sorry? But I have the same impression.
I would assume Episcopal Divinity School, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[preview post is my friend.]
[ 10. January 2007, 17:23: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
What we often hear is that TEC seem to say that it's important to include people, regardless of their lifestyle choices, and citing Jesus as an example. Sometimes they then seem to say that because it's important to include people regardless of their lifestyle choices, those lifestyle choices are somehow neutral.
Lifestyle choices are neutral. It's what they express in the people involved, their values, the essence of who they are and why they make those choices, that might have eternal significance.
Quoting Rowan Williams out of context does not help your credibility. My understanding is that his complaint against TEC is that they have been unwilling to explore all possible options before taking steps they knew other members of the communion were, for diverse reasons, unable to agree to.
Your readiness to make judgements, not just about individual 'lifestyles' but about a church that at least in part seems to be trying not to judge beyond its competence, is breathtaking.
You do thinking evangelicals a great disservice by identifying as one of them while posting this fundamentalist crap.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I do get the impression that his views of TEC are not based on experience of it, or at the most, from an extraordinarily limited experience: lunch in the EDS cafeteria, perhaps.
What's EDS, sorry? But I have the same impression.
I would assume Episcopal Divinity School, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Thanks. Out where I live, people don't talk too much about Other Seminaries .
(That was a helluva commute for placement if the Q story is true.)
Charlotte
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
Wow, what a thread. A bishop and the son of Cantaur emeritus. And all the rest of the usual suspects.
Just wanted to note that the Episcoblogs run by progressives/reappraisers/liberals here are much up in arms about the Panel of Reference's ruling in the case of the woman priest barring Diocese of Fort Worth, the Covenant Design group, etc. and are increasingly questioning why TEC continues to dump, annually, three quarter million dollars as its Communion dues.
While I would agree that most ECUSANs ("TECs" sounds like refugees from the IT department) could give a rodent's behind about the Anglican Communion, the amount of irritation with Rowan and the AC among at least the elites appears to be growing. (And not only in the good ole USA, apparently, as a diatribe by the "Mad Priest" would indicate, as he lambastes Rowan as the grand "Tufti" and blames Tony Blair for another "cockup" in appointing him.)
I wonder if Lambeth 2008 will be held minus most of its North American contingent?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
When pete173 writes off our entire province because he's so deeply prejudiced against liberals in the church, I wonder why I bother.
You know, for months I have tried and tried to avoid joining Spawn's group of Episcopalians who don't give a flying fuck about the Anglican Communion, but I'm losing the battle, I'm afraid.
I know that if it eventually comes down to a choice between being in communion with the lesbian and gay people in the pew with me in my parish or being in communion with Rowan Williams or Pete Broadbent or anyone else eight time zones away from me, I'm going to go with the folks in my parish. Some might call this a congregationalist attitude, and if so, so be it; I call it loving my neighbor. I trust our parish priest, and I trust our diocesan bishop, but I don't know people beyond that, and honestly, my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Los Angeles.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
What we often hear is that TEC seem to say that it's important to include people, regardless of their lifestyle choices, and citing Jesus as an example. Sometimes they then seem to say that because it's important to include people regardless of their lifestyle choices, those lifestyle choices are somehow neutral.
That might not be what you're wanting to communicate, but it's certainly what we hear.
And I'm telling you that you hear what you want to hear---well, that and what the schismatics bleat endlessly on about.
We have read the same Bible you do, and we have come to a different conclusion about the issue of homosexuality.
Not about fidelity and commitment and monogamy---those "lifestyle choices" you mention---just about whether those things can be found in homosexual relationships. And they clearly can.
And we also apparently have a different conception of evangelism than you do---I don't believe that people come in the door because they are aching to be told how sinful they are. People already know they are broken! They come to God in the hopes of being healed and loved, in spite of their imperfections. And this is the Good News we offer them.
We call on ALL people to repent---of their pettiness, anger, selfishness, self-righteousness, gossiping, hatred, gluttony, prejudices, sloth, lust, etc., etc., etc. We don't point our finger at one group (gays and lesbians) and say "REPENT! or you can't come in here."
(I clearly am going to have plenty to repent today, because this subject gets me so angry...)
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
All too often, evangelicals haven't been good enough at welcoming people, largely because we've been so busy communicating repentance that people didn't hear the welcome.
From where I sit, you've been so busy pointing your fingers at other people's "sins" that you haven't been attending to your own.
LA Dave---count me with those who have given up on ++Rowan. His chastising *us* for a failure to listen to others in the AC is the rankest hypocrisy.
Dave Marshall--Just a comment on your assesment of ++Rowan's issue with us: TEC has been debating the homosexuality and women's ordination issues for decades. The fact that no one else in the AC could be bothered to notice until they didn't like the outcome is not TEC's fault. Everything we do, we do in public.
Ruth--once again, I agree with everything you said.
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
I find it strange all this liberal stuff, was Jesus liberal? I do believe he was not an Anglican.
It looks like young Matey Pete of Willesden seems to have upset a few brothers and sister. Have heard him described by some clergy in the Willesden area as the most liberal bishop they have meet.
To be honest I have not much trust in him but feel just because he has a number of New Wine leaders seated in churches in his area can give wrong impression. On one occasion have seen him swing the burning handbag round the altar which such joy, it was difficult to see what was happening because of the smoke and he has admitted to liking chants. Also to best of my knowledge he has put at least one gay priest into a vicarage in the area. So it does appear he does appreciate both sides of the equation.
8 time zones can make a difference in one perspective.
[ 10. January 2007, 19:21: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
LA Dave---count me with those who have given up on ++Rowan.
Me three. I didn't have high hopes for Frank Griswold, and I did for Rowan Williams. And I ended up being far more impressed with Griswold's performance. Not to mention his backbone.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
LA Dave---count me with those who have given up on ++Rowan.
Me three. I didn't have high hopes for Frank Griswold, and I did for Rowan Williams. And I ended up being far more impressed with Griswold's performance. Not to mention his backbone.
I so agree with that! ++Rowan has been a bitter disappointment (somewhat like an ecclesiastical Jimmy Carter, IMO). I do try to sympathise with his position, presumably trying to find a way of keeping the AC together and riding out the current cultural crisis. However, I don't think he was the right man for the job. Frankly, I'd prefer, I think, even to have a conservative who spoke unambiguously and drew a line in the sand (I'd prefer to have a liberal who drew a line in the sand, this side of Nigeria).
My real point, however, is to underscore the suspicion that a lot of the consternation here does indeed have to do with fundamental transatlantic differences in how we do things, especially in the way institutions operate. I find the English at least (if not the British generally) to be in many ways a deeply conservative and reticent society, notwithstanding their outward displays of societal progress. However, the real ethos over here seems to be to keep your head down, acquiesce to the dominant ideology of the moment whilst continuing to do what you normally do. This coping style can be called "passive aggressive", among other possible labels. "Hypocrtical" is another possible assessment for what may come of this style of dealing with things. Perhaps "conflict-avoidant" would be more neutral and accurate. OTOH, Americans tend to be a lot more transparent, unambiguous (oh yes, another Briticism: "ambiguous", esp. for sexuality), and willing to call it as they see it.
Sorry if this sounds culturally chauvinistic. I live in England by choice and there's plenty I dislike about America. However, I do think I can see some of the cultural underpinnings that cause the English Church to operate different to TEC/ECUSA.
Of course, then there are the homo-haters on both sides of the pond--a surprising number of whom seem to be Anglicans.
A final point: as a truly big tent State Church, of course the CofE is going to have a wider range of opinion and practice than would generally be found in the unestablished TEC. I don't think that means that much of this opinion and practice at the ends of the bell curve is necessarily Anglican mainstream; the contrary rather.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Lets get this straight.
Do you ECUSA / TEC folks think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation or not?
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
Do us CofE folk think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation?
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
Or more bluntly do the C of E and Ecusa believe that Christ will judge us all! because there seems to be little teaching on Christ the Judge.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Is there common ground on what salvation is? Is it about living the eschata right now or is it about going to heaven after death / when The End (tm) comes?
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Lets get this straight.
Do you ECUSA / TEC folks think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation or not?
Is it really exactly that simple? I'd pose the question this way:
Is Jesus Christ the Way the Truth and the Light?
No doubt about it! I believe he is indeed and that no one comes to the Father except by him. But -how - that is isn't a simple equation in my mind. It's a mystery.
Too loosey goosey for you?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Do us CofE folk think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation?
Well, this one is happy to acquiesce in Article 18 "Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ:
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved."
Good example of how the formularies express what we find in scripture.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Your Excellency
It's not clear to me what you mean when you use words like liberalism and evangelicalism. Could you explain these terms the way you personally understand them? And what do you understand salvation by Jesus Christ alone to mean?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Is it really exactly that simple? I'd pose the question this way:
Is Jesus Christ the Way the Truth and the Light?
No doubt about it! I believe he is indeed and that no one comes to the Father except by him. But -how - that is isn't a simple equation in my mind. It's a mystery.
Too loosey goosey for you?
I'd prefer "The Way, the Truth and the Life" personally.
My impression, from what I've heard of her, is that KJS would disagree.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
++Rowan has been a bitter disappointment
To who? The editors of the Times and the Telegraph? Tony Blair? The British press has now tried a hatchet job on three successive Archbishops of Canterbury in my memory. They have been less successful against Rowan than they were against his predecessors.
Moast of those people I meet who who distrusted him at first have been won over. His reputation has grown amongst ordinary Christians in parishes. Especially those who have heard him preach.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Do us CofE folk think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation?
Well, I do.
And my personal opinion is that no-one who disagrees should be ordained.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Just a comment on your assesment of ++Rowan's issue with us: TEC has been debating the homosexuality and women's ordination issues for decades. The fact that no one else in the AC could be bothered to notice until they didn't like the outcome is not TEC's fault. Everything we do, we do in public.
That's been my impression all along. I don't see you could or should have done anything differently. I suspect though that Rowan Williams is taking the line he is because other churches, perhaps including the C of E, take a more conservative line and he's giving the communion as much opportunity as he can to sort itself out.
Contrary to apparently popular opinion in TEC/ECUSA, as far as I understand the anglican communion he's not the boss. It's not his place to tell Nigeria or Sydney where to get off, nor sidle up to ECUSA because for example he happened to be personally sympathetic to their position on gays and women in the Church.
But then I do have a lot of time for RW, not least because he manages to talk about the Church in a way that does not exclude me. The flip side of that is I have to recognise that he's going to give the same consideration to the Nigerian church and the Sydney church and evangelicals in the Church of England.
So I'll be a little bit offended on his behalf when I hear crass little no backbone jibes from people who've just admitted they've no loyalty to church beyond their own back yard. Although I'm the same in that respect, I'll try to think hard before being gratuitously offensive about someone who takes a wider view.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
Custard---as a universalist, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And I believe that He saves all. Not just Christians.
So yes, I believe that Jesus is the only way we can come to God. But as Comper's Child says, the way He gets us there is a Mystery.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
My impression, from what I've heard of her, is that KJS would disagree.
+KJS has a new book coming out next month. Why don't you read it before you go judging her theology?
+Pete--the 39 Articles aren't scripture, and I don't treat them as such.
Ken---++Rowan has disappointed ME. I recognize that I'm not important, but I'm not alone. He chastises TEC for doing what we did, showing a shameful ignorance about our way of doing things. He does not chastise the anti-TEC primates for border-crossing, or talking smack about gays and lesbians at every opportunity, or for their unconscionable rudeness to +KJS.
And, most especially, he does not chastise +Akinola for pushing legislation that would send gays and lesbians to prison (which, according to Nigerians I have talked with, is apparently the equivalent of a death sentence) merely for speaking out for their civil rights. That legislation is of the devil, and there is no excuse under the sun for ++Rowan to sit back and say nothing about it.
So he may be a wonderful preacher and a fine scholar---but as the ABC, he is a bitter, bitter disappointment.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
I'm going to be quite happy to lay into TEC tomorrow but only after tonight I've acknowledged its clear points of superiority over the Church of England.
1. Openness and accountability - I've been very critical of its General Convention at times. But in one main area it is preferable to the English system of government - that is in its openness. The Church of England is secretive, arcane and often duplicitous. TEC's system of government is open, unafraid of the outside world, and refreshingly honest.
2. The participation of laity - TEC is streets ahead of us in the CoE.
3. Enthusiasm - The Church of England remains suspicious of enthusiasm and very often lukewarm in faith. In my experience, TEC-ers have a much more entrepreneurial attitude to the ministry of the Church. Parishes often have ambitious and outward-looking projects and a can-do attitude to doing new things.
4. Liberal/Catholic churches can and do grow (sometimes quite spectacularly) in the Episcopal Church through their social ministries, open and warm worship, and their welcome of outsiders. I wish liberal Anglicans in the UK would sit up and take note. Remember that for years Anglican evangelicals have been selectively adopting church growth principles from the US, there's absolutely no reason why English liberals should not visit some of the more lively liberal churches in TEC to learn a few lessons in church growth and development.
5. Those of us who disagree with some of TEC's decisions, should take note of the fact that at least their wrongheadedness is motivated by a desire for justice and compassion. We should show more grace in return.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Ken -- Rowan may be turning out to be a spectacularly good Primate of the Church of England.
He is failing miserably to be a competent, much less a successful, head/link of the Anglican Communion.
In almost every decision he's made, he's given into the conservatives without even considering an alternative point of view. He appears to have written off ECUSA and the ACC already, but not to have considered that close to half the other provinces in the COmmunion supported ECUSA and the ACC at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative COuncil. He's going to look a little odd if, as seems likely, both the Episcopal CHurch in Scotland and the CHurch in Wales leave with ECUSA and the ACC if they are forced out. And it will have to be forced out, because no-one on this side of the Atlantic is going to take again the way they were treated at the Primates' meeting or at the meeting of the ACC.
The commission he appointed some months ago included Bernard Malengo -- an archbishop who should be defrocked, in my opinion, for blatant corruption and clear violation of the minimum guidelines of christian behaviour. He acquiesced in despicable behaviour by certain provinces, led by Nigeria, at the meeting of the ACC. He refuses to condemn or even note behaviour from Nigeria and other conservative provinces that clearly contravenes the WIndsor guielines. And his latest appointment to a "convenant" committee -- when even the concept of a covenent is not agreed -- shows on the face of it a conservative bias that guarantees a split in the communion.
John
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
+Pete--the 39 Articles aren't scripture, and I don't treat them as such.
Nor do I. What I said was "good example of how the formularies express what we find in scripture." Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and the Articles agree.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Contrary to apparently popular opinion in TEC/ECUSA, as far as I understand the anglican communion he's not the boss. It's not his place to tell Nigeria or Sydney where to get off, nor sidle up to ECUSA because for example he happened to be personally sympathetic to their position on gays and women in the Church.
Dave--sorry, I cross-posted with you.
I understand he's not "The Boss," but communion with Canterbury has always been what "Anglican Communion" meant. The fact is, +Rowan could have said "Look, we don't agree on these issues, but we pray together and take the Eucharist together. TEC has operated according to its canons and in good order---and what they do is not what everyone has to do. Let's get back to spreading the Gospel, shall we?"
But no. He isn't "The Boss," but he could have been a leader---and he chose not to be.
Instead, he's tried to placate the most reactionary, hateful voices in the Communion at the expense of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, our women priests, and TEC and Canada.
The sad thing is that he can't placate them, because they don't want to be placated. So he'll have sold out his own principles, and the AC will break up anyway.
Spawn---I know that tomorrow you'll be trying to rip TEC a new one again, but for today...thank you.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
I'm cross-posting right and left today...sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and the Articles agree.
Funny, I don't remember Jesus cursing people for presuming to say that God is merciful and can save whom He pleases...
So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take the 39 Articles as normative.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Is it really exactly that simple? I'd pose the question this way:
Is Jesus Christ the Way the Truth and the Light?
No doubt about it! I believe he is indeed and that no one comes to the Father except by him. But -how - that is isn't a simple equation in my mind. It's a mystery.
Too loosey goosey for you?
I'd prefer "The Way, the Truth and the Life" personally.
My impression, from what I've heard of her, is that KJS would disagree.
Relevant quote from The Inclusive God , by Steven Shakespeare and Hugh Rayment-Pickard: quote:
What, though, of the text so often quoted by conservatives: 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14)? Surely this says loud and clear that salvation is exclusive to followers of Jesus... But...if Jesus' 'way' is the path of a generous and non-judgemental love, then the path to the Father is not narrow dogmatism but an inclusive ethics.
Worry not, TECs/Ecusans, there are plenty in the C of E on your side. I can accept the fact that there are those like Custard who would (sensitively I hope) want to push a rigid interpretation of that saying, as long as they accept that the above is a vallid interpretation. IMHO it is more in tune with the character of Jesus as revealed in the gospels generally. I don't see why just on this particular passage we should have to take a fundamentalist interpretation or be driven out of the Church.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The commission he appointed some months ago included Bernard Malengo -- an archbishop who should be defrocked, in my opinion, for blatant corruption and clear violation of the minimum guidelines of christian behaviour.
Yes, Malango's support for +Kunonga is a great scandal and a deep embarrassment.
quote:
He acquiesced in despicable behaviour by certain provinces, led by Nigeria, at the meeting of the ACC. He refuses to condemn or even note behaviour from Nigeria and other conservative provinces that clearly contravenes the WIndsor guielines.
He has written to Primates explicitly addressing the issue of homophobia and his disapproval of boundary crossing. I agree that he could show himself to be more even-handed and active. But in some ways, that's just not ++Rowan. I hope he is much more active in addressing some of these concerns behind the scenes.
quote:
And his latest appointment to a "convenant" committee -- when even the concept of a covenent is not agreed -- shows on the face of it a conservative bias that guarantees a split in the communion.
John
The concept of a covenant has been backed by the ACC and the Primates Meeting. These are the two competent bodies to act on the recommendations of the Windsor Report. Don't forget it is then the Provinces of the Anglican Communion which will have the final say on the Covenant. But a covenant doesn't necessarily lead to a straightforward split in the Communion - it could lead to a two-track solution. Those who want to belong to an Anglican Communion as it continues to develop, and those who want to be part of a looser federation. I suspect that this is the only hope that ++Rowan sees for maintaining some kind of unity. My view is that the whole thing will fragment over a long period of time anyway.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
...I think American exceptionalism plays some part in our differences as well. It is far more likely that the C of E General Synod (and the Canadian one for example) would consider very carefully (and even be swayed) by what the rest of the Anglican Communion says to it directly on matters of importance and controversy. Many people in ECUSA couldn't give a flying f***.
And -- granting it for the sake of discussion (and I know there are SOME in ECUSA who feel that way) -- in this they differ from the African bishops just exactly how? Yes, their specific issues are different, but it's the same tendency to do what they want and the hell with the rest of the Communion. Do you have an equal problem with them?
Ross
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Do us CofE folk think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation?
A question best answered in the great words of John Dryden:
quote:
And though no name be for salvation known
But that of His eternal Son alone,
Who knows how far transcending goodness can
Extend the merits of that Son to man?
Who knows what reasons may his mercy lead,
Or ignorance invincible may plead?
I think, broadly speaking, if one finds oneself to be less liberal than a seventeenth century Catholic caught up in the religious controversies of the later Stuart period, one probably ought to have a quiet word with oneself.
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on
:
Callen's citation of Dryden is exactly on point, and consistent with the (so I thought) usual orthodox understanding of salvation through Christ. Christ is the Way, Truth, and Life and no one is saved except through him. One can only be saved through Him, and He may (not, necessarily will) save those who do not share explicit faith in Him if He so chooses.
Unfortunately, the battle lines seem to be drawn between those who believe that an explicit decision of faith in Christ is necessary (and sometimes sufficient) for salvation versus those who believe that Christ saves Christians, but others are saved and Christ has little or nothing to do with it - assuming that they even believe that there is sin and eternal death from which one is to be "saved," which usually, so it seems, they do not.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Attitudes to Scripture. It's only from ECUSAns that I've ever heard a literalistic version of the 'three-legged stool' analogy attributed to Hooker. Most Anglicans elsewhere know that Scripture is the primary means of doing theology with the use of reason and tradition. The idea that reason and tradition are somehow on a par with Bible is a peculiarly liberal piece of nonsense - and since TEC is the most liberal church in the Anglican Communion it is more commonly found there.
I think a fruit machine epistemology whereby if the three answers delivered by the three wheels are different the one that turns up in the reel marked 'reason' or indeed 'scripture' automatically trumps the other is pretty deficient. Certainly the notion that tradition is on a par with scripture is liberal is one that would surprise most Catholics and Orthodox who, IIRC, maintain that Scripture is part of Tradition and think that it is bad practice to oppose them. More generally Scripture is inert until we read it, pray through it and engage with it and to do that we need reason. Reason, to quote Hildegard Von Bingen is the root through which the resonant word flourishes. A rational belief is one which one has reasonable grounds to believe is based on true propositions and valid arguments. Should one really, if one holds such a belief, abandon it in favour of an interpretation of Scripture? Not according to those well known enlightenment liberals Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas and Pascal. In such a circumstance one should, I think, double check the propositions and arguments whilst re-engaging with Scripture to see if one has misinterpreted it.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
There are some wonderful posts here from Callan, Laura, RuthW and others. Thank you all for putting it so well.
I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father but by him. I don't think we're qualified to state exactly whom he brings or how he brings them.
Ross
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Guys, I think we must make clear to everybody throughout the world that their lives are not devalued if they are not living in the Kingdom, and also that if a Judgment takes place beliefs will not be valued against anybody, but, at the same time we should be clear that through Jesus we can enter the Kingdom right now and that despite the errors and dangers of the Christian religion we can enter the Kingdom right here right now through Jesus. But in order to be able to do so, we have to live the Kingdom ourselves, and here's where it gets tough. Frankness and openness is the way for us to go and not repeating fossilized expressions of faith that do not help even us enter the Kingdom.
Posted by Siena (# 5574) on
:
Sign me up as another member of TEC who believes that Christ is the the way to salvation, period, and He may save whichever sheep are not of his fold He desires. Which, as JArthurCrank points out, is a fairly orthodox view.
Custard, does that belief pass muster for your ordination threshold? Not asking to be a smart-aleck, I'm genuinely interested.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm going to be quite happy to lay into TEC tomorrow but only after tonight I've acknowledged its clear points of superiority over the Church of England.
[...]
5. Those of us who disagree with some of TEC's decisions, should take note of the fact that at least their wrongheadedness is motivated by a desire for justice and compassion. We should show more grace in return.
Awwww, Spawn, you big sweetie pie. Come have some of the Rector's Fund cookies. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Callen's citation of Dryden is exactly on point, and consistent with the (so I thought) usual orthodox understanding of salvation through Christ. Christ is the Way, Truth, and Life and no one is saved except through him. One can only be saved through Him, and He may (not, necessarily will) save those who do not share explicit faith in Him if He so chooses.
Unfortunately, the battle lines seem to be drawn between those who believe that an explicit decision of faith in Christ is necessary (and sometimes sufficient) for salvation versus those who believe that Christ saves Christians, but others are saved and Christ has little or nothing to do with it - assuming that they even believe that there is sin and eternal death from which one is to be "saved," which usually, so it seems, they do not.
I agree -- Jesus is the Way. It would be extremely presumptuous of me to say who he finds suitable. But it is certainly not sufficient to believe -- Jesus said that not every one who says "Lord, Lord" will be acceptable.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Bravo, Callan.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Callan, you've put it very well and in particular debunking the notion that putting Tradition on a par with Scripture is somehow 'liberal' ( ). Where I part company with your analysis (unsurprisingly you may think ) is your assertion that Scripture doesn't 'trump' the other two. As a (mainly) GLE (should that be 'BLE'?) that undermines my belief in the supremacy of Scripture and, may I be so bold to suggest, is not quite on all fours with the 30 Arts...
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Is it really exactly that simple? I'd pose the question this way:
Is Jesus Christ the Way the Truth and the Light?
No doubt about it! I believe he is indeed and that no one comes to the Father except by him. But -how - that is isn't a simple equation in my mind. It's a mystery.
Too loosey goosey for you?
I'd prefer "The Way, the Truth and the Life" personally.
My impression, from what I've heard of her, is that KJS would disagree.
I think that the Light/life part is probably a typo, but the point is surely moot. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and also the Light of the world. It might not be the usual juxtaposition of Claims, but it's surely hardly heretical, so I don't realy understand your beef. I don't know whether KJS is universalist or not, but holding uniiversalist beliefs is hardly, in and of itself, inherently heretical or unscriptural, and is certainly not logically inconsistant with believing that salvation is only possible because of the atoneing work of Jesus.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Certainly the notion that tradition is on a par with scripture is liberal is one that would surprise most Catholics and Orthodox who, IIRC, maintain that Scripture is part of Tradition and think that it is bad practice to oppose them.
You're quite right, I wasn't addressing anything other than certain liberal views of the three-legged stool, and thus what I said was open to misunderstanding.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I think the whole notion of anything trumping anything else is flawed. Think Darwin. Think Galileo. If reason and scripture appear to be in conflict the answer is not to announce that scripture trumps reason, it is to re-examine both scripture and reason and tradition until they are drawn into alignment. If scripture is true it cannot, by definition, be in conflict with reason. It was one of the merits of Pope Benedict's Regensburg address that he pointed out that rationality is at the heart of the Christian faith. It is not a matter of having a magic book that dropped out of the sky (some editions with Apocrypha and some not) which we blindly adhere to, but possessing the teaching of the Holy Apostles and their Israelite predecessors and faithfully endeavouring to reinterpret it afresh for each generation in the light of contemporary knowledge.
None of which is contrary to the Articles of Religion. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[In response to Matt Black.]
[ 11. January 2007, 09:16: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But human reasoning is flawed...nevertheless I'm minded (with my flawed reasoning!) to concede your point
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Human reasoning is not flawed. It is limited. Two different things. Now, the way some people interpret the scriptures... that's what I call flawed!
For example, to say that the world is a few billion years old is not flawed human reasoning. To say that the world changed and death and pain were added when the first man sinned, now that's a human mistake. To say that God's honor demanded for the Son to be crucified, that's a flawed interpretation of scriptures.
Me thinks that some people cannot yet accept that their bibles contain mistakes and that their interpretations contain flaws. And that's a pity, because in many cases that leads to a lot of misery instead of the Holy Spirit's refreshment.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I agree -- Jesus is the Way. It would be extremely presumptuous of me to say who he finds suitable. But it is certainly not sufficient to believe -- Jesus said that not every one who says "Lord, Lord" will be acceptable.
I concur. Nor is it especially easy to be clear exactly what kind of faith is required - I like reminding people of the thief on the cross and the haemmorrhaging woman as examples that show we cannot draw a clear line as to whether specific individuals are saved or not.
On the other hand, it is very clear in all the gospels that some are in and some are out and I really don't see how they can lead to a universalistic interpretation of the gospels as a whole or of the large number of verses within them that maintain the distinction.
I believe this is a quote from an interview with KJS by Robin Young on NPR's Here and Now...
quote:
RY: TIME asked you an interesting question, we thought, “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” And your answer, equally interesting, you said “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.” And I read that and I said “What are you: a Unitarian?!?” [laughs]
What are you– that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.
KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience.. through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
No, Andreas, I cannot accept that human reasoning is merely 'limited'; "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and our critical faculties reflect that reality, as is borne out by the experience of history - the reasoning of Hitler and Stalin was not just 'limited', it was deeply, deeply flawed.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
A core component of rationality is: "I may be wrong and you may be right and by an effort we may attain to the truth". I don't think that attitude was particularly marked in the cases of Hitler and Stalin.
Any given person may reason in a flawed way but there are well known damage limitation strategies which can be used to ensure that flaws are not fatal. Reason may be limited and even flawed but it is not impotent. I think that there are truths of revelation that are beyond the scope of reason - the Trinity, the Incarnation, Holy Charity as the crown of all things - but when they are presented to reason, reason assents gladly*. They are mysterious but not irrational.
*Yes Dave, I know you disagree. Can we treat this as an intra-Christian argument on this thread please?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Matt Black
Well, if you think that a world-changing fall really happened, then you have to prove it. You see, the scriptures are not enough, because science proved them mistaken. If you don't like that, then it is up to you to prove what you claim. You cannot point us to a few verses in Paul. Can you show that this change happened? Because scientists show that no world-changing effect took place while the first humanoids lived. Prove your claims.
I am amazed you attribute reason to people like Hitler and Stalin. I am really amazed. On the contrary, they did not use logic to prove their claims. They appealed to people's emotions and they took power and misused it according to their own hearts. Where's reason in saying that the Hebrew people are to blame for poverty? Where's reason in saying that religion is to be exterminated? Where's reason in killing those who personally oppose you?
To say that reason is limited and we can experience God in ways that transcend reason is one thing, but saying that "human" reason is flawed (as if there exists another kind of reason, a non-human one) is, well, a mistake.
[ 11. January 2007, 11:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Ah, but Hitler and Stalin did use logic, a very terrible form of logic, albeit logic built upon a flawed/ false premise...hence examples of flawed human reasoning.
As to science 'proving' or 'disproving', I would retort with the 'state of the art' argument: what science says is 'truth' can and does change from time to time based on the nature and extent of information available to the scientist at any given time (eg: last week tea is very good for you, this week it gives you cancer etc), and I am therefore very wary of seeking to ascribe any kind of absolute or empirical empistemological value to its conclusions.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
I believe this is a quote from an interview with KJS by Robin Young on NPR's Here and Now...
RY: TIME asked you an interesting question, we thought, “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” And your answer, equally interesting, you said “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.” And I read that and I said “What are you: a Unitarian?!?” [laughs]
What are you– that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.
KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm– that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through… human experience.. through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.
And your problem with this is exactly?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Matt, your post is unreasonable. When we have evidence that dinosaurs who ate other animals alive existed long before man, this is empirical evidence that cannot change even if additional information gets revealed in the future. You have to account for the fact that death did not enter creation with Adam. You have to account for the fact that the first Christians e.g. believed that the End (tm) was imminent within their generation and that Paul himself thinks that he would be alive when that happened.
Blind faith is the problem, both with religious fundamentalists and with people like Hitler and the people that supported him. Hitler had faith that the Jews are bad and that he is the Savior of the German people. The people had faith in him. Reason was not used.
[ 11. January 2007, 11:30: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I mentioned nothing about dinosaurs Where do you get that from?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Matt, I do not know your background in science but it is to belittle science if you think that the caricature "last week tea is very good for you, this week it gives you cancer" is true. Modern science is not like that, precisely because it is based on reason along with empirical evidence. It can be something like "last week tea has excellent effect on man's health, but we do not have conclusive evidence whether it is responsible for some kinds of cancer or not, and next week tea has excellent effect on man's health, but it can also be the cause for some kinds of cancer with probabilities so and so, and we can be mistaken about that with a margin of error so and so" but this is not what you are portraying science to be.
When empirical evidence along with reason disprove religious claims, then it is the religious claims that have to change. You cannot still accept Paul's opinion on the Fall, when we now know that death did not enter creation with Adam.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
*Yes Dave, I know you disagree. Can we treat this as an intra-Christian argument on this thread please?
Er, what? Oh, OK.
I'll just agree with KJS and Andreas (clearly extra-Christian).
[ 11. January 2007, 11:52: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Andreas, I have had no scientific background since leaving school some 20 or so years ago, I have no wish to 'belittle' science and I will gladly defer to the scientists here, but I believe my epistemological point re: purported scientific conclusions still stands: either drinking tea has health benefits or it doesn't, and science can't seem to make up its mind on the subject...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I think Andreas is adverting to his oft made point that traditional narratives about the Fall and Original Sin cannot be historically true because we know that Genesis is not a description of a historical event.
Now whatever the current scientific position on tea drinking I don't think that a load of scientists are going to turn up at a press conference any time soon announcing that the theory of evolution has been declared redundant. Whist science is, undoubtedly, a work in progress in practice we can take large parts of it for granted. It would be highly unwise to take a headline in the Times about the medicinal benefits of red wine and use it to base a strong belief about anything but we can pretty much take the theory of evolution or relativity for granted.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Science making up its mind is an anthropomorphism. My point is that science IS NOT like that.
I think it was the Dalai Lama who said that if science and Buddhism disagree, then Buddhism will have to change so that it agrees with science. I find it amazing that many Christians do not even dare to think that some Christian "truths" might be mistaken. We need more enlightened people like the Dalai Lama, because it is these people that give meaning and joy in our lives, while those who repeat fossilized "truths" usually bring misery and internal conflicts.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
Thanks to Jolly Jape for pointing out my hastily made typo. The brain is on overload right now. What is important to me is that there be no doubt that Jesus is the unique Saviour for all humankind. Just who gets to the Father by him, through him and in what way, is to me unimportant.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
How did we get back onto this?
Its all irrelevant to the original posting.
Anyway (1) plenty of conservative evangelcals - almost all I suspect - would be quite hapy to sign up to the idea that only God knows who he chooses to save. And some of them might even like Dryden (though the'd mostly prefer his old mates Milton and Marvell - the three of them marched together behind Cromwells coffin at his funeral...) But they'd also say that that doesn't let them off the hook as far as preaching Christ to the whole world is concerned.
And (2) at least a large minority of evangelicals are universalists, or almost so (& I suspect a considerable majority of Chruch of England clergy in general)
And (3) whatever Anderas says, ercognising tht the universe is billions of yeaars old has no logical bearing whatsoever on whether we are fallen. Either could be true without the other. You don't need to be a Yeccie to believe in the Fall. And you can be a Yeccie without beliving in the Fall. There are loads of people in all four quadrants of that question.
So even if the supposed differences between CofE and ECUSA were really just reflections of an evangelical/liberal split over Scripture (& I don't think they are) the last 20 or 30 posts would be irrelevant to the question because I the issues addrresed are not the ones that divide.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Now whatever the current scientific position on tea drinking I don't think that a load of scientists are going to turn up at a press conference any time soon announcing that the theory of evolution has been declared redundant.
For what it's worth, tea is known to be good for you in most cases, but it has recently been demonstrated that this good is negated if it is drunk with millk... so this actually represents an ongoing refinement of knowledge without any obvious errors.
... although one can find plenty of other examples where research has invalidated previous assumptions. As Callan says, most scientists would be mildly surprised to see evolution by natural selection a la Darwin fall into this category.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
<snip>it has recently been demonstrated that this good is negated if it is drunk with millk
Well, possibly. Which was kind of my point; although this news was trumpeted as a great scientific discovery early in the week there were very quickly dissenting voices raised claiming that the reseach sample was too small etc. Nothing of any import has been said which Joe Public can actually rely upon.
Callan and Andreas, point taken re the fossil record/ evolution etc, but I would refer you in turn to the point which Ken has just made: just because there wasn't an historic Fall a la Gen 3 doesn't mean that mankind - and our reasoning - isn't fallen and flawed.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
I hear Dead Horses.
Please leave discussions that belong there out of this thread.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Sorry, Boss.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Anyway, back to ECUSA. I'm not sure what KJS means by:
quote:
RY: So you’re saying there are other ways to God.
KJS: Uhh… human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh.. that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
RY: It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.
KJS: I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.
If she is saying that divine grace may be operative in other, non-Christian, cultures then I think that is perfectly defensible. If she's saying that Krishna is every bit a path to God as Jesus Christ, then my sympathies are with Custard. I think she's saying the former but it's not terribly clear. Judging by the umming and aahing I think she knew she was on dangerous terrain. Nerves can be fatal to clarity.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I know that if it eventually comes down to a choice between being in communion with the lesbian and gay people in the pew with me in my parish or being in communion with Rowan Williams or Pete Broadbent or anyone else eight time zones away from me, I'm going to go with the folks in my parish. Some might call this a congregationalist attitude, and if so, so be it; I call it loving my neighbor. I trust our parish priest, and I trust our diocesan bishop, but I don't know people beyond that, and honestly, my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Los Angeles.
And I thought Los Angeles was kind of a cosmopolitan place.
Seriously though, are there not people on all sides of all these questions in your diocese, or even in your parish? There are in ours. Which is one reason lots of us here have been trying to keep the thing together.
And keeping it together is difficult. The church of the parish I live in (not the one I usually attend worship in) is one of the HQs of "Forward in Faith" and its vicar is prominent in pushing for the probably unworkable Third Province. Our own parish is now part of a team ministry with three churches in it. One famously liberal for decades, mostly white and middle-class, that has signed the Inclusive Church declaration. One very small congergation with a rather working-class conservative evangelical background. And one rather larger, once conservative evangelical then more charismatic, now considering itself "open evangelical" with a long-lasting commitment to the ordained ministry of women, whose congregation is now almost entirely African. So the splits in the Anglican communion literally run down our street.
But none of us could say "my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Southwark". Local loyalties are inextricably mixed up with international ties. Our own church has members from, as well as England, at least Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Togo, Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Jamaica, Barbados, Guyana, Germany, Spain, India and China. And we have recently had individuals from, all sorts of other places including Trinidad, Zambia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Poland, Hungary, Ireland, Armenia, Pakistan, Korea, Japan - and also Canada and the USA.
I had a sort of "which side are you on" moment last summer, at a wedding which was celebrated at our church. If there was some sort of international redivision of the Anglican Communion with the Nigerians on once side and some of the othrs on another I realised I would probably want our church (that is both our parish and the Church of England) to be in the same camp as the Nigerians.
Of course I was in a room with about four hundred Nigerians who seemed to be having all sorts of fun at the time, so I was probably biased.
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Do us CofE folk think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation?
Well, I do.
And my personal opinion is that no-one who disagrees should be ordained.
Hmmm. Better not come further south then - or north or west or east. You might find that there are an awful lot of clergy (among others, and ordinands, too)preaching that J is not "the only" way to God / salvation - but he most definitely is the Way for Christians. Are you then saying that anyone not Christian will never be reunited to God? How sad.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyway (1) plenty of conservative evangelcals - almost all I suspect - would be quite hapy to sign up to the idea that only God knows who he chooses to save. And some of them might even like Dryden (though the'd mostly prefer his old mates Milton and Marvell - the three of them marched together behind Cromwells coffin at his funeral...) But they'd also say that that doesn't let them off the hook as far as preaching Christ to the whole world is concerned.
And I as a liberal agree completely about preaching Christ to the whole world. For me the difference would come in saying how we should preach Christ -- sending missionaries to predominantly Muslim countries to say, "Hey, you're missing the Christological boat, and you'll burn in hell for it" doesn't seem like a good idea to me. (And before anyone goes off on me, that's a caricature used to make a point.)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Hmmm...I think I prefer Callan's nuance on the issue.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
So, Ken, is this "the side" you want to be on?
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I had a sort of "which side are you on" moment last summer, at a wedding which was celebrated at our church. If there was some sort of international redivision of the Anglican Communion with the Nigerians on once side and some of the othrs on another I realised I would probably want our church (that is both our parish and the Church of England) to be in the same camp as the Nigerians.
Recriminalising homosexuality, no doubt (with appropriate penalties like death) , barring remarried divorced people from church on the basis that they are living in adultery, and insisting on a dogmatic belief in the infallibility of the literal words of the Bible...? But which version of the Bible, I wonder?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
If you think that is all there is the the church in Nigeria or Kenya, or even that they think it vey important, you are very mistaken.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I had a sort of "which side are you on" moment last summer, at a wedding which was celebrated at our church. If there was some sort of international redivision of the Anglican Communion with the Nigerians on once side and some of the othrs on another I realised I would probably want our church (that is both our parish and the Church of England) to be in the same camp as the Nigerians.
Recriminalising homosexuality, no doubt (with appropriate penalties like death) , barring remarried divorced people from church on the basis that they are living in adultery, and insisting on a dogmatic belief in the infallibility of the literal words of the Bible...? But which version of the Bible, I wonder?
If they want to go back to literal biblical morality, they should not just bar adulterers, they should stone them to death - and also any children who are rude to their parents.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you think that is all there is the the church in Nigeria or Kenya, or even that they think it very important, you are very mistaken.
Ken---if they don't think those things are so important, why is their Primate angling to get TEC kicked out of the Anglican Communion?
Maybe the Nigerians/Kenyans/etc. in the pews don't care what TEC does---if so, they need to call their attack-dog-archbishops to heel.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Their Primate thinks that it's a Communion-dividing issue. If this is how he responds to things that aren't very important to him, I'd hate to see how he'd respond to something that was.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Thank you - it's been a useful and educative discussion. Perhaps my phrase "governing assumptions" didn't help - "plausibility structure" might work better.
If a denomination has a predominantly liberal ethos, then it provides a plausibility structure for liberalism. If a denomination has a predominantly conservative ethos...
Spawn's comments about attitudes to scripture and the teaching role of bishops on page 2 of the thread seem to me to be good examples of how the liberal ECUSA and conservative CofE plausibility structures are created. (For example, you can't -for better or worse - produce any report on church or world topics that goes to the CofE General Synod unless it has a an explicit chapter or more on the biblical/theological basis for the approach you are advocating, and [in many cases] unless it's been through the HoB before it goes to Synod. It's a particular way of doing things - and it may well be seen as a ridiculous comfort blanket to placate catholics and evangelicals, but it's our way of operating).
The question about any denomination for most evangelicals is "does this feel like a church/denomination in which I recognise that the faith once delivered to the saints predominates"? I don't think I would be able to exist in any denomination where the predominant consensus was theologically liberal, and that would override any stuff about "being in communion".
Thus I can appreciate those on the ECUSA side who want to say "We hold certain values here about self-determination, a commitment to a liberal theological approach, inclusiveness, and a desire to fight for the rights of those historically oppressed and excluded from the church on the grounds of their lifestyle" (etc.)
and will then say, as several folk from the other side of the Pond have said in this thread, "and if the CofE and the Anglican Communion don't hold those values, then stuff them."
All of which may mean that we haven't enough in common to hold together, or may mean that we can find ways of co-existence. But we shouldn't underestimate the differences.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I know that if it eventually comes down to a choice between being in communion with the lesbian and gay people in the pew with me in my parish or being in communion with Rowan Williams or Pete Broadbent or anyone else eight time zones away from me, I'm going to go with the folks in my parish. Some might call this a congregationalist attitude, and if so, so be it; I call it loving my neighbor. I trust our parish priest, and I trust our diocesan bishop, but I don't know people beyond that, and honestly, my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Los Angeles.
And I thought Los Angeles was kind of a cosmopolitan place.
The diocese of Los Angeles goes well beyond the city of Los Angeles; it comprehends Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. There are certainly some very cosmopolitan areas and people in the diocese. There are also places that are diverse without being truly cosmopolitan (and I'd say Long Beach, where I live, is like that), and other places that aren't terribly diverse, never mind cosmopolitan.
quote:
Seriously though, are there not people on all sides of all these questions in your diocese, or even in your parish?
Well, guessing at what "these questions" are ...
That the Bible comes first in the scripture-tradition-reason formula would go without saying to just about everyone in the diocese and in my parish.
Whether or not women should be ordained or should be bishops is not a discussion we have in this diocese -- it's a done deal. There are no doubt people here and there who aren't happy about it, but they have pretty much accepted it. In my parish the idea that women shouldn't be ordained or be bishops would be greeted with dumbfounded astonishment.
We have blessings of same-sex relationships in our parish. When the last rector performed the first one, most people were in favor of it, one person who really hated it left, and the ones who had been on the fence about it came to believe that it was a good idea when our interim priest performed the second one and did a far better job of educating and counseling around it than the previous rector had. As for the diocese, there are certainly people on all sides of this questions, but I feel confident about what direction we'll go in the end.
It would be a tragedy if the communion broke up over this. But if breaking up the communion made it easier for the Episcopal Church to go forward with developing a rite for blessing same-sex relationships, that would in my opinion be a very, very thick silver lining.
quote:
But none of us could say "my loyalties don't go further than the diocese of Southwark". Local loyalties are inextricably mixed up with international ties. Our own church has members from, as well as England, at least Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Togo, Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Jamaica, Barbados, Guyana, Germany, Spain, India and China. And we have recently had individuals from, all sorts of other places including Trinidad, Zambia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Poland, Hungary, Ireland, Armenia, Pakistan, Korea, Japan - and also Canada and the USA.
My parish is diverse, but not as much as yours is. The people from Mexico and Central America don't feel any loyalty to the Anglican churches in those countries, since they didn't leave the Catholic Church until after they got to the US. The few British ex-pats of course feel some loyalty to the CofE, and I imagine the folks from the Caribbean and Africa feel the same about the Anglican churches they grew up in. But the vast majority of the people who attend the English-language services are native-born Americans. Half of the people who attend the English-language services didn't grow up in the Episcopal Church (including me), and none of the people at the Spanish-language services did. A lot of them don't have much loyalty to the church beyond the parish; they are in the Episcopal Church because they liked what they found when they came to our parish, and they have varying degrees of knowledge about the larger church structures. So it's not going to make any difference to a lot of people in my parish if we suddenly aren't in communion with the ABC or Nigeria or anyone else they don't see at church on Sundays.
And that's a huge difference between the Episcopal Church and the Church of England -- we've got a lot of people who aren't culturally Anglican, especially in the west.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
+Pete---this is an honest, and heart-felt, question. One that I've asked repeatedly and never received an answer to, so I hope you will engage with me.
Why would you find it difficult or impossible to kneel at the altar rail with me and partake of the Eucharist?
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
Yes, +Pete, it's - the - question we're all facing and is at the heart of the OP. Whether it be Abp Akinola or KJS. I haven't any idea what the person next to me at the rail believes. I just trust in God and go on trying to live in love with with my neighbor...
In sincerity.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
Is kneeling at the altar rail together the whole of churches being in communion together? The TEC/ECUSA accepts all baptized Christians to the altar rail, yet as a church we are not in communion with all churches that baptize.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
It's not really an issue. I'll share communion with anybody - from any (Trinitarian)denomination. That's not where it bites. It's "where would I choose to go to church?", not "is the person next to me at the communion rail a Christian?" That's between them and God. Rather, it's about whether, if I were in the US, I'd automatically seek out an ECUSA church.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Rather, it's about whether, if I were in the US, I'd automatically seek out an ECUSA church.
If you didn't, where would you go?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Depends what's around. Anywhere biblical and radical. Probably Episcopalian in Washington, because I'm mates with Jim & Joy Wallis. Timberline AOG in Colorado - a bit socially conservative, but again leaders I know and trust. Campolo's tribe in the East. I tend to work with Anglicised Americans!
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
That's one way of looking at it... but then, when in Ireland or on the Continent I wouldn't seek out an Anglican church, I'd worship with the RC's or Lutherans or Orthodox or whatever. In the rest of the world - including America -I'd probably worship with either the Anglican or RC church, or possibly a Lutheran or Methodist one, depending on who looked likely to have the jolliest liturgy. But that doesn't mean my Anglicanism is in doubt, surely?
As a further point, why should considerations of
quote:
"does this feel like a church/denomination in which I recognise that the faith once delivered to the saints predominates"?
extend to just Provinces? There are plenty of CofE parishes where I don't feel that's what's being taught - probably the exact opposites to the ones most evangelicals would nominate, incidentally - so I just choose not to go to them.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
+Pete--I guess we are talking about different things, then. When I see "out of communion with," I think of the refusal to share the Eucharist. (And to a lesser extent, the refusal to recognize ordinations.)
And I think that's not an inaccurate assessment, based on the comments by the GS Primates I linked earlier. They are refusing even to sit at the same table as +KJS. They also refused to participate in a Eucharist with +Griswold at the last Primate's meeting.
I can understand choosing a church where one feels comfortable. I did that myself. But how on earth does our thinking about gays and lesbians in the church mean that we don't have the faith as given to the Apostles?!
I've already said:
We believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God who saves us from sin
We preach Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again
We hold to the Nicene Creed and the BCP
AFAIC, that is the faith delivered to the Apostles.
So tell me again why we can't be in communion with one another?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
We believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God who saves us from sin
We preach Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again
We hold to the Nicene Creed and the BCP
AFAIC, that is the faith delivered to the Apostles.
And I thought that I was a Prayer Book fundamentalist.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
And I thought that I was a Prayer Book fundamentalist.
Point taken, my friend.
Okay---neither the Nicene Creed or the BCP was available to the Apostles. But we hold to 'em anyway.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Okay---neither the Nicene Creed or the BCP was available to the Apostles. But we hold to 'em anyway.
Are you suggesting that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother didn't use the Coverdale Psalter?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I tend to work with Anglicised Americans!
I don't blame you. If I were in the UK, I'm sure I would gravitate toward things and people that made me feel more at home. But this comment makes me think your dislike of the Episcopal Church may be rooted in culture as much as in theology. Maybe more.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Are you suggesting that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother didn't use the Coverdale Psalter?
Given that God is outside of time, I am quite certain that the Holy Trinity uses the 1979 BCP and is particularly fond of Rite C.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
No, no, i have been informed that the Trinity uses only the 1928 BCP, KJV (As Jesus spoke you know) and the 1940 hymnal.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
"Out of communion with" is structural.
"Not taking communion with" is personal.
But the two overlap. If ECUSA, by its actions, puts itself out of communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion, it ceases to be part of the same family. We're structurally separated.
There will be occasions (perhaps such as Primates Meetings) where the sharing of table fellowship or the eucharist would carry the implication that there was no fracture, and that everything was hunky-dory between us. The symbolic nature of sharing together would pretend that family relationships were restored, when in fact they weren't. So I can understand why they wouldn't share with Griswold.
There are occasions when we as individuals are unable to break bread together (it's the sort of stuff that's addressed by Jesus in Matthew 5:23ff) and we're told to sort it out. The structural breakdown between ECUSA and the rest of the Communion isn't that easily resolved.
On an individual level, I'd have little difficulty in taking communion with any of you guys - but if the preacher or president were a bishop with whom I had fundamental differences over his teaching, that would be more difficult...
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
There will be occasions (perhaps such as Primates Meetings) where the sharing of table fellowship or the eucharist would carry the implication that there was no fracture, and that everything was hunky-dory between us. The symbolic nature of sharing together would pretend that family relationships were restored, when in fact they weren't. So I can understand why they wouldn't share with Griswold.
Forgive me, but...I was under the impression that we knelt to be in communion with God. Not that coming to the table said anything about our relationships with one another.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
On an individual level, I'd have little difficulty in taking communion with any of you guys - but if the preacher or president were a bishop with whom I had fundamental differences over his teaching, that would be more difficult...
This strikes me as Donatism.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
hate to say this, but I have a great deal of trouble with the "ECUSA put itself out of communion bit". Quite frankly, i see it as the Anglican Communion doing the putting out.
We have been more than gracious with the Anglican Communion, taken the Windsor Report seriously, etc.
I find myself remembering Jesus' comments about those who were so eager to fix what was wrong with their brothers (sisters) that they ignored their own sins.
If the Anglican Communion becomes a confessional church (beyond those items named already) I think there will be a split, and maybe it will be for the best.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
"Out of communion with" is structural.
"Not taking communion with" is personal.
The structural breakdown between ECUSA and the rest of the Communion isn't that easily resolved.
You mean parts, admittedly large ones, of the communion, right?.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
I spent three years in one of the dioceses in ECUSA that may want to leave. I had great hopes that we could all live together--mostly conservative parishes, a few liberal ones, but remembering that we are Christians together.
That is not the case. this is all very frightening to me, when differences of belief (that are outside the Nicene Creed for example) become litmus tests.
I agree with +Katharine that the church needs to be about the work of reconciliation, not becoming more exclusionary.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Coming to the table is always about our relationships - with God first, but then with each other. What's 1 Corinthians all about?
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked. Separation takes place in the NT as well - it's not all jolly and inclusive... 2 John and the Pastorals both address those sorts of issues.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
From this side of the pond, and from my vantage point (my own opinion here, although I am not alone in this) in ECUSA, i do not really think the issue in our current struggle is teachings of scripture. I think the issue is power and control--who gets to decide which are the teachings of scripture that should mark the line in the sand, who gets to tell others what to believe.
i do not know at all how this plays out in the CofE.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Coming to the table is always about our relationships - with God first, but then with each other. What's 1 Corinthians all about?
I seem to recall something about "Love bears all things...love is patient, love is kind...if I have not love, I am as a clashing cymbal." Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked.
I really don't mean it as a cheap shot.
Once upon a time, my former parish had an interim rector. On paper, he was as liberal as they come. But I found him personally repugnant. He was divisive and sexist--and I eventually had to leave my much-beloved parish for a time until he was gone, because I simply could not take communion from him.
I did not doubt his ordination. Theologically, he and I agreed on many things. But I could not get past my anger at his behavior---and that meant I was in no fit state to take communion from his hands.
I might have similiar feelings about taking the Eucharist FROM +Akinola, +Duncan, or +Iker. My comment about Donatism is one that I wrestle with myself, although I feel confident that I could take communion WITH any of them.
They, however, do not want to take Communion (or give it, either, I would guess) with me.
+Pete--if a priest or bishop teaches/preaches all those things I listed, but still believes in full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church, does that undercut all the foundational stuff?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked. Separation takes place in the NT as well - it's not all jolly and inclusive... 2 John and the Pastorals both address those sorts of issues.
It all seems pretty random though, to put it politely. Lambeth 98 said homosexuality was a no-no. TEC consecrates a gay bishop. Naughty, naughty. Alarums and excursions. But I seem to recall that Lambeth 98 also committed the Anglican Communion to listening to the voice of gay people. Akinola wants them banged up. Response: a long echoing silence. The leader of the racist kleptocracy in Zimbabwe gets political cover from the Bishop of Harare, who ordains his vice-president as a deacon, despite his pronouncement that white people aren't human, and cancels Divine Worship on his birthday so everyone can come to his party. Again: a long echoing silence.
I can quite see why someone who holds to the traditional view would think that TEC have impaired communion with their actions. What I can't see is how, assuming this is about principles and not about power, why the other stuff doesn't matter. Were the Bishops of the Anglican Communion lying when they said that they would engage with gay people? I seem to recall that St John the Divine mentioned something about liars and a lake of fire. I seem to recall that thieves get a pretty hard time of it in the New Testament. 'Thief' is a pretty accurate description of Mugabe. 'Murderer' isn't far from the mark either. St. Paul tells us that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile but in Zimbabwe a high profile racist can be ordained to the Diaconate. We are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy... enough already. I can quite see why people think +Robinson ought not to have been consecrated to the episcopate. I just wish that this high principle was applied to other provinces of the Anglican Communion. What is sauce for the liberal goose ought to be sauce for the evangelical gander.
The New Testament isn't lovely and inclusive all the time. But neither does one get a free pass for being Sound.
[ 11. January 2007, 18:19: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I really do not understand the reference to Paul and John and the Pastoral epistles... In the epistles we are advised to keep away from people who perverse the gospel of Jesus. Yet, this is not the case here...
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It all seems pretty random though, to put it politely.
It is of course not at all random. It follows a very clear pattern. As you show, many evangelicals feel pretty free about casting aspersions upon American liberals (despite not being very clear about what we believe, as in pete173's case), but don't have a word to say about the disgusting abuses of some African evangelicals. It makes charges of American exceptionalism appear baseless.
Not to mention the lunacy that is allowed to go on in Sydney. Spawn went on for quite a while about not liking the American take on the priesthood of all believers, but we aren't pushing for lay presidency, for crying out loud.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
It may be that the Americans and Brits are divided than more than a common lanugage.
When it comes to Jesus being the "only" way and how we define that "only" way, I would suggest reading the words of St. Clives of Oxbridge, Doctor of the Faith, in the last book of his Narnia series, "The Last Battle." Apparently it was possible for the apologist of Mere Christianity to accept that, in some cases, a non-Christian's faith would be accounted as righteous.
All this talk about "accepting Jesus" seems to be a bit oriented towards "works righteousness" to me. To say to someone that they must accept Jesus is to say to that person that they must do something. My Bible is clear that it is nothing that I do that accounts me righteous. Instead, it is what Christ did for me, with the faith that is given to me as a gift of Spirit. It is when I try to do something it messes things up.
Funny, my Bible says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only thing that can't be forgiven. (Note that I am not a Universalist. The option of not following the the Spirit is open to us. It is something that we can do.)
There is another way of looking at "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" that used to be popular in the Colonies among the low church that did not involve seating. It involved tricycles. Scripture was the big wheel, the one that drove things. But, the other two wheels had to be there or you weren't going to go anywhere. The Tricycle View might be closer to +Pete173's point of view, but I cannot speak to that.
(One of the problems of the Tricycle View is that the definition of Scripture [big wheel] is found in Tradition [little wheel]. So, how can a component part be greater than the whole? I guess it proves that all analogies are limited--even S, T, and R.)
+Pete173, if you are receiving in your heart by faith, with thanksgiving, tell me again why your problems in receiving communion with some fellow Anglicans is not a breaking of the Article that says "The worthiness of a minister...". I don't get it.
And, finally, those in the Mother Church need to remember that TEC (PECUSA, ECUSA) has always been a bit heterodox in terms of Anglicanism. Our first bishop comes from the non-juring lines in Scotland. We adopted the epiclesis as a requirement in the Eucharistic Prayer from the get-go. Our "adoption" of the Articles around 1801 (someone check a US BCP for me, please) had weasle words inserted even then (check out what we did to the reading of the Homilies).
We never were 100% in-step with the Mother Church. Why would we be now? But that has never stopped us from fellowship.
+Pete173, I have a modest proposal for you. Could you find a way to do some time working in a US diocese? 6 months to a year? Take some time to meet us and work with us, and take that home with you--and give a US diocese a chance to meet someone from the UK. Maybe something could be worked out with a US bishop as an exchange? (Don't ask me what would have to happen with the canons in both countries to permit such an exchange. That is not my specialty.) I think it is important that sitting bishops do this, not retired ones. It is not that I think of a retired bishop as a lesser bishop, but I know the authority of a retired bishop is being rolled back to getting a voice in the House of Bishops in TEC.
You might find out that we do have Evangelicals, even though we don't use that word like you do.
You might find out that most of us are just quietly doing the work God has given us to do. Maybe some of less quiet about it than others, but the point holds.
If people from the US and UK can't agree on the meaning of a simple sentence like "the man over there wearing a vest has khaki pants," how can we even begin to understand our differences in a word-bound medium such as this thread?
And, Spawn, thank you very much for your kind words about the way we operate in General Convention and a few other things. We are not perfect in TEC, but we at least try to be a witness to the Love God to the world.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I'm trying to keep this out of the realm of the Dead Horse. What I'm seeking to establish is:
1. that there are principles in the NT for not receiving another person's teaching, and therefore not being able to share eucharistic fellowship with them. Promoting apartheid as Christian might be an example. Teaching that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh (ie that he wasn't God incarnate) is a more obvious one.
2. that it isn't about "doubting his/her ordination" or "sacramental assurance" - I don't hold to those concepts, which are RC in origin. I'm happy to accept the orders and sacraments of any Trinitarian church (but that's another thread!). It's about whether there is sufficient agreement between us on matters of faith for us to share in the sacrament together. Normally, that's not a question you need to ask, but these are abnormal times.
3. that, if there are circumstances in which both individuals and denominations have to make judgements about whether they are "in communion" with each other (and the NT does seems to imply that there are - 1 Corinthians 13 isn't an override button, it's about how we exercise our gifts and ministries in the body once we have sorted our differences as a body - 1 Cor 5 - 10 precede all this, and Paul has moved on to teach how they should work together as a reconciled community - but the reconciliation has to take place, and the sin addressed, first).
4. that there is a range of issues that might well be considered communion breaking. I've been involved with the treatment of my priests who has been nominated to be a bishop in Malawi, so I'm very well familiar with double standards and double dealing. The questions that have to be addressed (by the Communion) are "what acts and teachings constitute a break in communion?" This is precisely the question I have posed to those conservative evangelicals who have been promoting their "covenant" - if you are or consider yourself to be out of fellowship with your bishop, what is it that he has done to make that a reality? What criteria do we use to judge that? What is "first order" (and thus communion breaking) and what is "second order" (and thus a matter indifferent)?
[ 11. January 2007, 18:41: Message edited by: pete173 ]
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked. Separation takes place in the NT as well - it's not all jolly and inclusive... 2 John and the Pastorals both address those sorts of issues.
It all seems pretty random though, to put it politely. Lambeth 98 said homosexuality was a no-no. TEC consecrates a gay bishop. Naughty, naughty. Alarums and excursions. But I seem to recall that Lambeth 98 also committed the Anglican Communion to listening to the voice of gay people. Akinola wants them banged up. Response: a long echoing silence. The leader of the racist kleptocracy in Zimbabwe gets political cover from the Bishop of Harare, who ordains his vice-president as a deacon, despite his pronouncement that white people aren't human, and cancels Divine Worship on his birthday so everyone can come to his party. Again: a long echoing silence.
I can quite see why someone who holds to the traditional view would think that TEC have impaired communion with their actions. What I can't see is how, assuming this is about principles and not about power, why the other stuff doesn't matter. Were the Bishops of the Anglican Communion lying when they said that they would engage with gay people? I seem to recall that St John the Divine mentioned something about liars and a lake of fire. I seem to recall that thieves get a pretty hard time of it in the New Testament. 'Thief' is a pretty accurate description of Mugabe. 'Murderer' isn't far from the mark either. St. Paul tells us that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile but in Zimbabwe a high profile racist can be ordained to the Diaconate. We are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy... enough already. I can quite see why people think +Robinson ought not to have been consecrated to the episcopate. I just wish that this high principle was applied to other provinces of the Anglican Communion. What is sauce for the liberal goose ought to be sauce for the evangelical gander.
The New Testament isn't lovely and inclusive all the time. But neither does one get a free pass for being Sound.
Well said. Ecclesiastical hypocrisy (again).And why aren't you a Bishop in order to add a voice of sanity to the AC.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What criteria do we use to judge that? What is "first order" (and thus communion breaking) and what is "second order" (and thus a matter indifferent)?
So, the African abuses of which Callan speaks are second order? But having a gay bishop is first order?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I haven't said that. I have said very little about the Dead Horse topic. I was trying to point out that we all make these sorts of distinctions. If you or I decide that we are not in fellowship with the Bishop of Harare (a judgement to which I would certainly be inclined), we have made a judgement that his behaviour and support for Mugabe undermine his credibility as a bishop and teacher. Seems a reasonable call to me.
If you agree, then you have established the principle that it is not Donatist to refuse to be in fellowship or communion with a person because of his/her words or actions.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Is there biblical basis for saying simultaneously that I do not want to be in fellowship with N. because of his teachings / actions and saying that N. and his flock are part of the Church? Because the way I read the scriptures they seem to say that only when the gospel of Jesus is perverted we are to break fellowship with those who do such thing. In other cases, we are to sort it out, because it is our pride that goes in the way between ourselves and our brothers and sisters.
What is the scriptural basis for this discussion? Can we have a closer look at the scriptures themselves?
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I haven't said that. I have said very little about the Dead Horse topic. I was trying to point out that we all make these sorts of distinctions. If you or I decide that we are not in fellowship with the Bishop of Harare (a judgement to which I would certainly be inclined), we have made a judgement that his behaviour and support for Mugabe undermine his credibility as a bishop and teacher. Seems a reasonable call to me.
If you agree, then you have established the principle that it is not Donatist to refuse to be in fellowship or communion with a person because of his/her words or actions.
The prayers of the Bishop of Harare are no more or less effective than yours. That is not to say which of you I would rather prefer as my bishop.
Since all have sinned, I refuse at this point to get into the game of trying to decide who has sinned enough to break fellowship with in the Church. I don't think I have been named to a jury in a court case trying the Bishop of Harare to see if there is enough evidence to convict him of being a Christian.
His actions, though, are more in the realm to be judged. As is all our actions.
I suspect I hold a fairly Anglican point of view on this, or else I would hear about priests and bishops using the disciplinary rubrics about refusing communion to someone more often.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Pete173, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a dead horse whether having a gay bishop is a first or second order offense. I hope I don't seem to be junior hosting here, but I really wanted to see what you'd say to Laura's question.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Andreas - I agree with you. The problem is that issues that may not warrant action build up until there comes a tipping point. I'm not sure that pointing at single issues is going to give an explanation of the whole story.
Bede's American Successor wrote: quote:
+Pete173, I have a modest proposal for you. Could you find a way to do some time working in a US diocese? 6 months to a year? Take some time to meet us and work with us, and take that home with you--and give a US diocese a chance to meet someone from the UK. Maybe something could be worked out with a US bishop as an exchange? (Don't ask me what would have to happen with the canons in both countries to permit such an exchange. That is not my specialty.) I think it is important that sitting bishops do this, not retired ones. It is not that I think of a retired bishop as a lesser bishop, but I know the authority of a retired bishop is being rolled back to getting a voice in the House of Bishops in TEC.
There's nothing like meeting the facts in their context to help see more clearly. But it carries a risk too. If you cast your mind back, years ago +Akinola was actually supportive of ECUSA generally. Frank Griswold issued a "come and see" invitation to overseas primates, and Akinola was one of those who took him up. It was on his return that he went apeshit. I would dearly love to know why but neither side is letting on. Maybe it was coincidence, but I doubt it.
Ian
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Well, you see, I'm trying to push this inclusiveness of ECUSA to its limits. So there's no reason to break fellowship with the Bishop of Harare. It doesn't seem to me that I hear you being prepared to break fellowship with anybody, not even a person who denied the incarnation. Yet the New Testament clearly make such distinctions.
(And, as an aside, some bishops in ECUSA seem to have a habit of declaring all kinds of conservative Anglicans to have broken fellowship with them and turfing them out of their church buildings - which, despite previous huffings and puffings on this thread, English bishops have no power to do).
So come on guys, are you all so inclusive that there is nobody you'd consider you weren't in fellowship with?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Frank Griswold issued a "come and see" invitation to overseas primates, and Akinola was one of those who took him up. It was on his return that he went apeshit. I would dearly love to know why but neither side is letting on. Maybe it was coincidence, but I doubt it.
This is very interesting and enlightening... I think that we should have made that discussion on sexuality and the gospel a long time ago. An open discussion that embraces the wholeness of Christendom. As far as I can see, there are many who recycle the same old stuff about sexuality. No real all-embracing dialog. And that's a pity. It seems that some justly take the lead and make steps over the void. But it would be a lot better if all churches from their primates to the lay people engaged with these issues in a communal way.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Pete: I think you have it backwards.
Some conservatives have declared themselves the "real Christians", the ECUSA as the "anti Christ", declared themselves independent Anglicans or under other bishops in Nigeria, etc., and THEN been turfed out of their buildings by their ECUSA Diocesian bishop.
I am pretty sure that if a British parish tried to do the same thing they would lose their property too.
[ 11. January 2007, 20:39: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It doesn't seem to me that I hear you being prepared to break fellowship with anybody, not even a person who denied the incarnation.
Denied or redefined?
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
The question I asked has nothing to do with any Dead Horse, except very peripherally. As Callan noted in the Styx, it's rather tiresome to have people constrantly assuming things to be Dead Horses b ecause they have some distant relation to a Dead Horse issue. We are not in the business of expanding DH beyond the very narrow topics that belong there.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Pete: I think you have it backwards.
Some conservatives have declared themselves the "real Christians", the ECUSA as the "anti Christ", declared themselves independent Anglicans or under other bishops in Nigeria, etc., and THEN been turfed out of their buildings by their ECUSA Diocesian bishop.
I am pretty sure that if a British parish tried to do the same thing they would lose their property too.
Please understand that the freehold of office does not allow any incumbent in the CofE to be turfed out. Bishops simply haven't got that power.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
(And, as an aside, some bishops in ECUSA seem to have a habit of declaring all kinds of conservative Anglicans to have broken fellowship with them and turfing them out of their church buildings - which, despite previous huffings and puffings on this thread, English bishops have no power to do).
A very dear friend of mine, now sadly departed this earth, wrote to the Church Times in defence of bishop Eric Kemp when he deposed one of his clergy (quite rightly) for coming out as a non-realist. English bishops are not all that impotent.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
What's a non-realist?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It doesn't seem to me that I hear you being prepared to break fellowship with anybody, not even a person who denied the incarnation.
Denied or redefined?
This is getting to be a one person inquisition. Andreas, I'm not playing. Denied will do as an example. It's what the NT talks about.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Andreas1984:
quote:
What's a non-realist?
Someone who holds that God does not really exist but is a human convention or belief which somehow gives meaning to life.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
I think some of Bishop Pete's assertions about the ECUSA are of the same, but reverse nature as this colonial sentiment
quote:
THe CofE is an otiose and ineffectual remnant of class and empire
I think Pete's confusion is more marked by churchmanship than culture, but just in case, let's remember that:
US Episcopalians represent about 2% of the US population. Despite the impression given on the Ship that almost all Americans are also Anglicans, Anglicanism in the US exists in an extreme minority.
Let's also remember that in the US churchgoing is normal. Lots of people go to church, and hardly anyone thinks it's odd if he discovers one goes to church. In England hardly anyone goes to church and almost everyone thinks it's odd that anyone does go.
Of all those Americans who go to church, most of them go to some brand of conservative evangelical/ fundamental congregation. The dominant culture of Christianity in the United States is, in fact, of the conservative variety with which Pete would (according to his posts on this thread) feel right at home. The small minority of US Episcopalians quite naturally define themselves within and against the context of this reality.
In the same way that English Anglicans (and Christians generally) define themselves within and against the context of post-imperialism and Secularism.
What's astonishing is that Pete (and others) think it is so important to quibble amongst ourselves about who is in communion with whom and how grave or not butt-sex is. No wonder the secular world regards us as raving fanatics or bumblings anachronisms or both!
A question about the Anglican Communion: it seems to me that all these Anglican churches got on perfectly well before we had a sense of a "communion". If Pete had traveled to the United States in the C19 before there was such a thing as the "Anglican Communion" -- where would he have gone to church?
And a question about lex orandi &tc: The biggest outward difference between the CofE and the ECUSA is that in ECUSA the overwhelming majority of parishes use one of the authorised liturgies in the 1979 BCP. Almost without exception. We all know the BCP is not normative in the CofE, and the attempt to provide an acceptable variety of authorised texts in "Common Worship" has resulted in a worship that is anything but common, even where CW obtains.
Anglicanism never used to be about a set of dogmas. It was about a shared practice. It's unfortunate that, frightened into our several niches by the onslaught of secularism and skepticism, we've resorted to dogmatism and mutual suspicion.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Your Eminence: The NT talks about people thinking Jesus was a phantom. We know that gnosticism and the groups that come from it, predate Christianity. As far as I can tell, nobody says today that Jesus was a phantom, a figment of our imagination...
Dear Callan: Thanks. I see. I am not really comfortable with those who say that God exists as if His existence is something we can speak about in terms we can understand... Anyway.
[ 11. January 2007, 20:50: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
OK - I'll try to answer what's being asked, and shut up.
Nobody seems to want to say that there are limits to inclusiveness. You are willing to accept fellowship with anyone. That appears to be a given in ECUSA.
That's not how it is elsewhere. There are conservative evangelicals and others in the CofE and throughout the Communion who wish us to draw all kinds of lines as to who is in fellowship with us and who isn't. I spend a lot of my time, believe it or not, on this side of the Pond opposing them for not being inclusive enough. I am not an ultra conservative evangelical, and we are in deep dialogue with a group who would like to declare UDI from their diocesan bishops.
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed. I happen to believe that there are, that the Christian faith has always accepted that proposition, and that the NT and the Creeds are precisely examples of the way in which those limits were drawn.
The first order/second order debate in the Anglican Communion will continue. It's clearly not one that I hear ECUSA being all that interested in (for obvious reasons - your values of inclusivism, self-determination and tolerance of diversity will not lead you to wish to self-define in this way).
For many in the Anglican Communion, the Windsor Report represents a helpful attempt to tease out those distinctions between core beliefs and adiaphora. You will know that the judgments of Windsor are not accepted in totality by ECUSA, but Windsor does at least provide us with a framework within which we can (if we want to) address those issues.
I hope that the Primates' Meeting makes some progress on this. But it may be doomed to failure. The differences between us will not go away. And they will include making different calls about what is a first order issue and what is not.
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on
:
quote:
THe CofE is an otiose and ineffectual remnant of class and empire
I
Of all those Americans who go to church, most of them go to some brand of conservative evangelical/ fundamental congregation. The dominant culture of Christianity in the United States is, in fact, of the conservative variety with which Pete would (according to his posts on this thread) feel right at home. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Hmm what about Roman Catholicism? There are 63 million Roman Catholics, it's the biggest religious denomination in the US.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Your Eminence,
it's a pity that the discussion we have puts a heavy burden on you, with all the questions directed at you.
Yet, I think that your contribution is important as we try to understand each other.
I hope you do not mind me making another comment:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed. I happen to believe that there are, that the Christian faith has always accepted that proposition, and that the NT and the Creeds are precisely examples of the way in which those limits were drawn.
I will say again that the NT and the Creeds remove from fellowship people whose teachings and lives lead away from the Kingdom, people who have not known God and do not follow Jesus' gospel.
This is not what happens here.
Diversity and pluralism are according to God's will, as evident by the amazing strangeness of the creation. To value these things is one thing, and to become a wall that obstructs the people who want to follow Jesus is another. The first can and indeed should have a place in the church, the latter shouldn't.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Didn't we kick the bishop of Harare out of the Anglican Communion? Or at least do a General Synod motion saying he was a very naughty boy?
If we didn't, we certainly should have done.
Oh, and my views on communion seem to be much the same as +Pete's. I happily receive communion at Pusey House and with Zwinglian Baptists, and I'd be happy receiving it with RC, Orthodox, etc if they'd let me.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Nobody seems to want to say that there are limits to inclusiveness. You are willing to accept fellowship with anyone. That appears to be a given in ECUSA.
Hang on for a while. It's only been an hour since you posted the question, and I've never really thought of it that way. As you note, we're not usually looking around for people to exclude, and vicious bishops aren't exactly thick on the ground here. Whether I'd exclude one or not isn't something I have to decide, so considering the hypothetical could take a while. Perhaps you'd care to hold off on the judgements?
quote:
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed.
If that's what you were trying to do, I missed it entirely. I thought you were just bad-mouthing liberals, which is pretty tired.
quote:
The first order/second order debate in the Anglican Communion will continue. It's clearly not one that I hear ECUSA being all that interested in (for obvious reasons - your values of inclusivism, self-determination and tolerance of diversity will not lead you to wish to self-define in this way).
Hear where? Where on earth do you get these idea about us? We have been going round and round about whether this is a first order or second order issue for years. Parishes and whole dioceses are attempting to leave because they think it's a first-order issue, where the majority seems to think it's a second-order issue.
I begin to think you don't know Thing One about the Episcopal Church, and aren't really interested in learning, either.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not to mention the lunacy that is allowed to go on in Sydney. Spawn went on for quite a while about not liking the American take on the priesthood of all believers, but we aren't pushing for lay presidency, for crying out loud.
I don't know what you're talking about as far as the American take on the priesthood of all believers. I've simply said that your polity might be partly responsible for the Bishops reneging on one vital part of their episcope - their teaching ministry.
However, if Sydney proceeds to lay presidency in spite of plenty of warnings from the rest of the communion, they will have crossed the line. They will be effectively walking away from the Communion and I have no doubt that their departure will be formalised.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't know what you're talking about as far as the American take on the priesthood of all believers.
I was referring to what you said about the importance we place on the baptismal covenant -- and your misunderstanding of it.
quote:
However, if Sydney proceeds to lay presidency in spite of plenty of warnings from the rest of the communion, they will have crossed the line. They will be effectively walking away from the Communion and I have no doubt that their departure will be formalised.
Why do you have no doubt? Because I don't hear anyone yelling and screaming about lay presidency the way I hear them yelling about our openly gay bishop.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
Hmm what about Roman Catholicism? There are 63 million Roman Catholics, it's the biggest religious denomination in the US.
Indeed, but in the US and abroad it would be ludicrous to posit that RC-style Christianity in any way dominates the cultural imagination. Furthermore, RC may be the biggest single denomination, but Protestants as a group still outnumber RCs in the United States. And even though Mr Bush tempers his evangie-speechification to include pro-life RCs with phrases like "culture of life", no one says "neocon" and thinks "ah -- conservative Roman Catholic!" "Religious Right" in the US refers almost exclusively (at least in the popular imagination and the press) to conservative/ evangelical/ fundamental protestants.
quote:
originally posted by Bishop Pete
You are willing to accept fellowship with anyone. That appears to be a given in ECUSA.
That's not how it is elsewhere. There are conservative evangelicals and others in the CofE and throughout the Communion who wish us to draw all kinds of lines as to who is in fellowship with us and who isn't.
Bishop Pete is obviously aware that there are such people in America as well.
He must also be aware that most Episcopalians wish ardently to define themselves against "conservative evangelicals", which reek of the (many would say ignorant, judgmental or bigoted) culture of popular Christianty in the United States.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
OK - I'll try to answer what's being asked, and shut up.
Nobody seems to want to say that there are limits to inclusiveness. You are willing to accept fellowship with anyone. That appears to be a given in ECUSA.
That's not how it is elsewhere. There are conservative evangelicals and others in the CofE and throughout the Communion who wish us to draw all kinds of lines as to who is in fellowship with us and who isn't. I spend a lot of my time, believe it or not, on this side of the Pond opposing them for not being inclusive enough. I am not an ultra conservative evangelical, and we are in deep dialogue with a group who would like to declare UDI from their diocesan bishops.
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed. I happen to believe that there are, that the Christian faith has always accepted that proposition, and that the NT and the Creeds are precisely examples of the way in which those limits were drawn.
The first order/second order debate in the Anglican Communion will continue. It's clearly not one that I hear ECUSA being all that interested in (for obvious reasons - your values of inclusivism, self-determination and tolerance of diversity will not lead you to wish to self-define in this way).
For many in the Anglican Communion, the Windsor Report represents a helpful attempt to tease out those distinctions between core beliefs and adiaphora. You will know that the judgments of Windsor are not accepted in totality by ECUSA, but Windsor does at least provide us with a framework within which we can (if we want to) address those issues.
I hope that the Primates' Meeting makes some progress on this. But it may be doomed to failure. The differences between us will not go away. And they will include making different calls about what is a first order issue and what is not.
[My italics added]
Then you might have had the grace to ask a direct question to which a direct answer might have been given. Instead of making statements that assumed a negative conclusion, based on assumptions that are (and have been) easily disproven, and without any real knowledge or experience of the situation.
Seems to me if anyone is playing games on this thread it's the person who has now twice avoided commenting on the action of some Primates in refusing to take communion with their fellow primates, while claiming to be a voice for moderation and good sense.
I'm off the thread, both as participant and host. No point in trying to talk to the willfully deaf.
John
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed.
If that's what you were trying to do, I missed it entirely. I thought you were just bad-mouthing liberals, which is pretty tired.
I should add for the record that I do not self-identify as a liberal. As it happens I do believe that Our Lord will judge the quick and the dead and that the only way to Salvation is through Him. I also approve of the Windsor report and delore the response made to it (very volubly, as it happens, from my bishop).
All that said, if I wanted to be a conservative evangelical, I would go and be one. The only diffence is, if I wanted to be a con-evo in England, I could do so and still be an Anglican. If I wanted to be con-evo in the United States, I would have to be something else (which is what the Falls Church proved, and is perhaps what Pete refers to when he says it cannot all hang together).
I've said this before: if I can be inclusive when it comes to what people believe about the Sacrifice of the Mass/ Memorial of the Lord's Supper, surely I needn't quibble too much about what people do with their bottoms. To each his own.
[fixed quote code]
[ 12. January 2007, 15:15: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
1. that there are principles in the NT for not receiving another person's teaching, and therefore not being able to share eucharistic fellowship with them. Promoting apartheid as Christian might be an example. Teaching that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh (ie that he wasn't God incarnate) is a more obvious one.
Apart from the fact that promoting apartheid implies a denial of the incarnation, I fail to see why a doctrinal difference should be seen as a more obvious barrier to communion than a moral one.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
...There is another way of looking at "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" that used to be popular in the Colonies among the low church that did not involve seating. It involved tricycles. Scripture was the big wheel, the one that drove things. But, the other two wheels had to be there or you weren't going to go anywhere....
(One of the problems of the Tricycle View is that the definition of Scripture [big wheel] is found in Tradition [little wheel]. So, how can a component part be greater than the whole? I guess it proves that all analogies are limited--even S, T, and R.) ...
Good reference to C.S. Lewis. As for the tricycle analogy, it works nicely if you apply it to the "adult tricycles," sold mostly to older folks, that have three wheels of the same size.
Pete, as I have said before, and as others have said, when the extreme conservatives start denouncing the Jensenites in Sydney and the Bishop of Harare and his counterparts with half the vigor they expend on our openly gay bishop, I'll respect them a whole lot more. So far, they are much too selective to be taken seriously.
Ross
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It all seems pretty random though, to put it politely. Lambeth 98 said homosexuality was a no-no. TEC consecrates a gay bishop. Naughty, naughty. Alarums and excursions. But I seem to recall that Lambeth 98 also committed the Anglican Communion to listening to the voice of gay people. Akinola wants them banged up. Response: a long echoing silence.
I'm aware of discussions in the Anglican Communion on homosexuality going back to 1978 and numerous occasions where the Primates, the ACC, and Bishops have addressed the subject since the mid-1990s. And this has at times included listening to the voices of gay people (after all, their voices quite rightly simply will not shut up). So it's not accurate to claim that the call to listen to homosexual voices has not been followed. Many provinces of the AC are simply not in a position to do this - they don't have even significant minorities of people identifying themselves as gay, or they have more pressing issues such as poverty, AIDs, war etc to deal with.
I'd be very surprised if ++Akinola's support for repressive laws on homosexual assembly was being ignored by leaders in the Anglican Communion. But given the volatile state of community relations in Nigeria you might want to consider that the Archbishop has received sound advice that behind-the-scenes lobbying is better than outright condemnation at the current time. It's a tinder box in some of the northern states in particular and it wouldn't take much to set it off again.
quote:
The leader of the racist kleptocracy in Zimbabwe gets political cover from the Bishop of Harare, who ordains his vice-president as a deacon, despite his pronouncement that white people aren't human, and cancels Divine Worship on his birthday so everyone can come to his party. Again: a long echoing silence.
No, you're wrong here. The Archbishop has called on +Kunonga to stand down..
quote:
I can quite see why someone who holds to the traditional view would think that TEC have impaired communion with their actions. What I can't see is how, assuming this is about principles and not about power, why the other stuff doesn't matter....
I just wish that this high principle was applied to other provinces of the Anglican Communion. What is sauce for the liberal goose ought to be sauce for the evangelical gander.
Of course, the other stuff matters. But we don't go breaking off communion with Central Africa and Zimbabwe because of a corrupt bishop who is terrorising his parishioners. We support those parishioners and keep as many doors open as possible to act in this situation. On the other hand, I certainly don't feel we're in communion in any meaningful sense with +Kunonga given the plea by the Archbishop for him to step down. There are corrupt and unpleasant church leaders throughout the world (including the west). In Rwanda after the genocide the Anglican Communion had to help the Province get rid of an absentee Archbishop and three others, and put a new constitution in operation. In Sudan one Anglican Bishop was a government minister whilst that same government was dropping bombs on Anglicans in the south. His fellow bishops couldn't do anything about it and neither could the Archbishop of Canterbury despite repeated attempts. These situations are rarely straightforward to deal with.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
+Pete,
The diversity limits question isn't the one I thought you were asking. I do think there are limits to diversity. I would say that tolerating some of the African shenanigans Callan set out is beyond those limits. It sounds as if you don't think so. But you do think tolerating homosexual priests is outside those limits. I was just trying to understand where you draw the lines.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
No, I actually specifically said I would exclude the Zimbabwean. I was trying to raise questions, not prescribe answers.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
So come on guys, are you all so inclusive that there is nobody you'd consider you weren't in fellowship with?
Here is the easy one:
Do I reject Spong's theology? Yes. He makes mistakes a typical first year seminarian would be embarrassed to make. It is easy to reject his theology.
Do I reject Spong? No. He is a person made in the same image of God that I am. While seeming a bit self-promoting at times, he is calling for all of us to comply with the definiton of True Religion (that scripture passage that mentions widows and orphans and the like).
Now for the hard one:
Do I reject Akinola's theology? Yes. His god isn't big enough.
Do I reject Akinola? I would like to say "no," my intellect says "no," but I think my emotions may just get in the way with him should we be at the same communion rail. I would probably receive with him, but I wouldn't be thinking Holy Thoughts.
The fact that would have more problems with Akinola than Spong is my problem and my sin. Schism is worse than heresy.
Let me make this personal:
My parish has a wide range of opinions with theology and social issues. Wide range. All the way from God may be a wonderful feeling to three cheers for Akinola.
There are two gentlemen that regularly offer prayers for the sick and annointing during the communion of the people on Sunday. I know one of the gentlemen, shall we say, is not a gay rights advocate (Anglican understatement here); I suspect the other gentleman is not one, but I don't know for sure.
I am a survivor of adult soft-tissue sarcoma. It was on my lower left leg. I still have a wound on my leg from radiation three years ago that is getting smaller, but still there. In the first 5 years, I have a 30% chance of reoccurence with a 14% chance of death.
The radiologists and my surgeon have to watch my CT scans closely, as there is some small nodules on my lungs. They haven't grown any, but they are watching. (Just had scans again on last Monday.)
Let's add to this that in the past year I have been through a process that diagnosed that I have a severe case of sleep apnea (obstructive and central).
Virtually every Sunday I covet the prayers and annointing of either of those men after receiving communion. (Only once did one of them even hint at he was praying for healing for something involving my sexuality--but it was only a hint.)
These men ask me how I am doing. They are truly concerned about my health and pray for me.
I know the concern at my parish is not limited to these two men.
The rector of a well-known Charismatic congregation in the Seattle area once said that I shouldn't limp around his place because at this place someone might start praying for me. While we had been joking up to that point, I verbally gave him a double-barrell shotgun blast for that comment. While he was probably joking, I did not appreciate any hint that people in my own congregation were not praying for me.
If there ever were to be a split in my congregation, those two men and I would probably end up in different places. That is a sin.
Schism is worse than heresy. I really am trying to walk the talk.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Please understand that the freehold of office does not allow any incumbent in the CofE to be turfed out. Bishops simply haven't got that power.
If you brought a priest up charges of abandonment of communion and won, wouldn't you get the property back then?
In a TEC parish, there is no Corporation Sole in the rector. Usually there is a non-profit corporation headed by the Vestry, of which the rector is the chair. All parishes are created by the diocese, and must declare to be under the control of the diocese.
(There are some exceptions to the above on the East and Gulf Coasts of the US. In these cases, the parishes were established during colonial times, and are older than the diocese. Their status is only a little more cloudy.)
All dioceses in TEC were created by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Same rule about dioceses being under the control of TEC that a parish has to a diocese.
(The charges [that were dismissed] against +San Joaquin were based on his diocese taking a possible first step towards removing the control of TEC and making the bishop the Corporation Sole. Let's just say that there are no canons that permit this, so if the diocese and bishop of San Joaquin try this, +Katharine will have to do something she doesn't want to do.)
By repeated US Supreme Court decision, the property of a congregation in a hierarchial church is held in trust for the national church (most cases involved Presbyterians). There is a lower state court decision in California that is trying to reverse this (this case involves Methodists), but this hasn't made its way completely through the state and federal court systems yet. If Bush has truly appointed conservatives to the bench at the federal level, then the existing US Supreme Court decisions will stand.
Such are the legalities in the US.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
I have to say that I consider myself "in communion" with anyone who believes in the Trinity, believes that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the scriptures (Old and New Testaments) contain all that is needed to be saved.
Why yes, that's a whole lot of people. Now whether or not they consider themselves "in communion" with me is another matter.
But I can only take care of myself. I can't tell others what to believe and how to think. Only the Holy Spirit can change others. I can't. (Heck, I can't change myself without the Spirit's help!)
I really don't care about first order, second order, etc. issues.
To be quite honest, I think sin is sin is sin. Sin is anything that separates us from God. I think once we try to say which sin is worse or better, then we start saying that my sin is OK, but theirs isn't.
I don't think that there isn't one person in this whole mess who hasn't messed up in some way. We all point at someone else and say, "See what they are doing?" instead of dealing with our own sin.
It's a human fault and a human failing. I don't expect any religious leaders not to be human and not to be sinful. But I do want them to admit that they do mess up at times, and to try to do better.
I'm not sure that the TEC really has done that. We've said it, but I don't think that we have really meant it. We are still too busy pointing fingers at other people.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed.
No it didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
However, if Sydney proceeds to lay presidency in spite of plenty of warnings from the rest of the communion, they will have crossed the line.
Worse than a bishop who aids and abets a murdering, thieving tyrant, worse than a bishop who commits adultery with his boyfriend, is a theologically orthodox, happily married, law-abiding, respected teacher bishop who permits lay presidency after careful examination of scripture and Reformed practice.
The OP and thread title don't reflect that this is a wider conflict than one between the ECUSA and C of E. Each denominational term is shorthand for something else, and those camps exist and co-exist uneasily in every AC as well as between ACs.
Schism is a terrible sin, but I can't see how it can be avoided. The first 9 verses of Genesis 13 offer a blueprint. I'm not going to say which of us I think is Abraham and which Lot. After a split, which I hope and pray is lovingly managed, I'll be free to worship in my own tradition as the norm, but still choose to break bread with my sisters and brothers in other traditions when I'm travelling or one of them is visiting.
It occurs to me that many of you will think that I'm free to worship in my own tradition now. If you think that, then ignorance of what's happening on the ground in much of north American and Australasian anglicanism is more widespread than RuthW misattributes to +Pete.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
I find it strange all this liberal stuff, was Jesus liberal? I do believe he was not an Anglican....
I think he was a liberal; he ate with sinners and tax farmers. He allowed people in states of ritual uncleanness into his presence - lepers and the woman with a discahrge of blood, for example.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Lets get this straight.
Do you ECUSA / TEC folks think that Jesus is the only way to God / salvation or not?
Yes. But I don't believe that the Episcopal or even the Christian church is the only way to Jesus. Read C.S. Lewis The Last Battle and reflect on Tash.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
Sometimes I think that part of the problem is that we (church people, myself included) tend to take ourselves way too seriously.
i don't think it states anywhere in scripture that the Anglican Communion, CofE, or ECUSA is synonomous with the Kingdom of God.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
..My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed. I happen to believe that there are, that the Christian faith has always accepted that proposition, and that the NT and the Creeds are precisely examples of the way in which those limits were drawn. ...
There absolutely are limits; the actions of certain bishops of all stripes make me very aware of those issues. I used to admire Michael Ingham; then I read the justification his Chancellor wrote for "local option" on same-sex blassings. It is now hard to find, alas. It was the most transparent peice of "we want to do this and we've flanged up an argument" that I've ever read. Ingham provoked it and I've lost respect for him to about the level of the African bishops. I might attend a public lecture; I would not attend a Eucharist he celebrated.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
I think I might as well comment as to why evangelicals aren't objecting to the Sydney lay presidency thing.
It's because most, but not all, of the evangelicals in the C of E don't see that it matters who presides at communion (as long as they're in a leadership position), but we're happy to let it only be clergy so as not to offend the Anglos.
But we don't want to do the whole "Let's be offended on behalf of someone else" thing unless the group are genuinely oppressed. One hopes some sensible Anglo leaders have written the authorities at Sydney a nice letter asking them not to offend against the Anglo consciences.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
I was thinking similarly custard but wondered if i just wasnt c of e enough and so didnt post!!
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
emma - I think you're reasonably representative of the thinking part of one of the largest bits of the contemporary C of E, so it's important to listen to you.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Please understand that the freehold of office does not allow any incumbent in the CofE to be turfed out. Bishops simply haven't got that power.
If you brought a priest up charges of abandonment of communion and won, wouldn't you get the property back then?
There is no such offence in the CofE.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Schism is worse than heresy. I really am trying to walk the talk.
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Schism is a terrible sin, but I can't see how it can be avoided. The first 9 verses of Genesis 13 offer a blueprint. ... After a split, which I hope and pray is lovingly managed, I'll be free to worship in my own tradition as the norm, but still choose to break bread with my sisters and brothers in other traditions when I'm travelling or one of them is visiting
Church splits, right from the earliest days, have generally had catastrophic longterm results. East and West: which probably had a significant effect on the atrocious Fourth Crusade and the ultimate fall of the Christian Byzantine Empire. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation and the blood spilt in the Wars of Religion. Northern Ireland today.
I understand + Pete's meticulous understanding of the 39 Articles and the works of learned English divines like Hooker and Jewell. He is probably as good on Cranmer and all the rest. But, if I read him correctly, I wouldn't want to walk the road he seems to be prepared to take.
If the Church - not just the Anglican Church worldwide (already in schism within itself) - is The Body of Christ, then, it appears a pretty shattered body.
Why look at one more funeral? Especially when it's both unecessary and your own.
Some of the conservative Provinces within the Anglican Communion, like the Nigerian Church, are very new and may, in time, deviate rather more from Christian orthodoxy then some of their current admirers might wish.
Sexuality - that terrible weathervane - is something which needs a great deal of prayer and light. The Church and churchpeople, whether overt or covert, have always run the whole gamut of human sexuality. If all closets were opened, I suspect we would see many we would never expect climbing out with red faces.
My words to those looking forward to this: Don't! Everyone will suffer. You will regret it! The "perfect" Church only exists in Christ Himself. You cannot construct it.
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pete173:
Please understand that the freehold of office does not allow any incumbent in the CofE to be turfed out. Bishops simply haven't got that power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you brought a priest up charges of abandonment of communion and won, wouldn't you get the property back then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such offence in the CofE.
Is this why it seems to be common practice now for the clergy to given fixed term contracts. Do you have any idea what the percentage of vicars in Willesden area who have permanent freehold?
[ 12. January 2007, 08:19: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
emma - I think you're reasonably representative of the thinking part of one of the largest bits of the contemporary C of E, so it's important to listen to you.
Indeed, it is 'CofE enough'; at an evo parish near me, many of the attendees are there because it's the nearest 'good evangelical church' for them and on more than one occasion I've heard puzzlement expressed as to why they need someone from the clergy to 'do communion'. NB these are mainly graduates saying this BTW.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Is this why it seems to be common practice now for the clergy to given fixed term contracts. Do you have any idea what the percentage of vicars in Willesden area who have permanent freehold?
You are completely wrong about what happens here. Our practice, as I have posted on several occasions, is to give freehold to all clergy who are entitled to it. There are about 4 parishes in the Area where the freehold has not been restored because there is still reorganisation going on. Everyone else has the freehold.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
I'm aware of discussions in the Anglican Communion on homosexuality going back to 1978 and numerous occasions where the Primates, the ACC, and Bishops have addressed the subject since the mid-1990s. And this has at times included listening to the voices of gay people (after all, their voices quite rightly simply will not shut up). So it's not accurate to claim that the call to listen to homosexual voices has not been followed. Many provinces of the AC are simply not in a position to do this - they don't have even significant minorities of people identifying themselves as gay, or they have more pressing issues such as poverty, AIDs, war etc to deal with.
I'd be very surprised if ++Akinola's support for repressive laws on homosexual assembly was being ignored by leaders in the Anglican Communion. But given the volatile state of community relations in Nigeria you might want to consider that the Archbishop has received sound advice that behind-the-scenes lobbying is better than outright condemnation at the current time. It's a tinder box in some of the northern states in particular and it wouldn't take much to set it off again.
The point is that the Nigerians signed up to a resolution that condemned (admittedly mutedly) prejudice against homosexuals and committed the church to listening to gay people. I don't think: 'Hey we listened to a gay person in 1996' really cuts it. If the US is to be disciplined for ignoring Lambeth, shouldn't Nigeria be? If Gene Robinson is not a fit person to be a Bishop because he is an impenitent homosexual are Akinola and co. fit persons to be Bishops because they are impenitent liars? Or did lying get downgraded to venial sin and I somehow missed the memo?
quote:
No, you're wrong here. The Archbishop has called on +Kunonga to stand down.
Ah, yes. A muted condemnation from Canterbury, four years after the terror started after his own Primate has consistently refused to discipline him. This is presumably the school of diplomacy that says that the problem with Pius XII was that he was too outspoken.
quote:
Of course, the other stuff matters. But we don't go breaking off communion with Central Africa and Zimbabwe because of a corrupt bishop who is terrorising his parishioners. We support those parishioners and keep as many doors open as possible to act in this situation. On the other hand, I certainly don't feel we're in communion in any meaningful sense with +Kunonga given the plea by the Archbishop for him to step down. There are corrupt and unpleasant church leaders throughout the world (including the west). In Rwanda after the genocide the Anglican Communion had to help the Province get rid of an absentee Archbishop and three others, and put a new constitution in operation. In Sudan one Anglican Bishop was a government minister whilst that same government was dropping bombs on Anglicans in the south. His fellow bishops couldn't do anything about it and neither could the Archbishop of Canterbury despite repeated attempts. These situations are rarely straightforward to deal with.
You're not exactly selling the idea that the wider Anglican communion ought to have any say in the counsels of TEC. The gist of your argument is that if Bishops are complicit in genocide or mass murder it should be handled quietly and behind the scenes whereas if a Bishop lives in quiet domesticity with a person of the same sex the writs of excommunication should start flying forthwith. Still, as Peter Akinola famously observed: "human suffering is not an issue".
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I think I might as well comment as to why evangelicals aren't objecting to the Sydney lay presidency thing.
It's because most, but not all, of the evangelicals in the C of E don't see that it matters who presides at communion (as long as they're in a leadership position), but we're happy to let it only be clergy so as not to offend the Anglos.
But we don't want to do the whole "Let's be offended on behalf of someone else" thing unless the group are genuinely oppressed. One hopes some sensible Anglo leaders have written the authorities at Sydney a nice letter asking them not to offend against the Anglo consciences.
It's not the 'anglo' in me that objects to lay presidency, but the 'catholic'. If I was a member of TEC I'd object to the implication that being Anglican had something to do with being English (and I'd probably want to distance myself from the term 'anglican' for that reason).
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I think Custard meant 'anglo' as shorthand for 'Anglo-Catholic' rather than English.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think Custard meant 'anglo' as shorthand for 'Anglo-Catholic' rather than English.
I know that. But you'd only abbreviate it in that way if you thought the 'anglo' bit was more significant than the 'catholic' bit.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
+Pete (and by the way, what is the correct form of address for an Area Bishop in another Diocese? I respect Andreas's use of Your Eminence but I get the impression I'd get deservedly wacked over the head with a crozier if I tried it ), I've been pondering your earlier replies to me about canonical obedience. I can't find anything in the canons to which you referred me that require anyone to believe any of the Articles - just that they can be assented to.
On the other hand, I did come across this one which has a directive:
quote:
A 8 Of schisms
Forasmuch as the Church of Christ has for a long time past been distressed by separations and schisms among Christian men, so that the unity for which our Lord prayed is impaired and the witness to his gospel is grievously hindered, it is the duty of clergy and people to do their utmost not only to avoid occasions of strife but also to seek in penitence and brotherly charity to heal such divisions.
That looks pretty clear-cut to me. I appreciate you're giving an honest appraisal of the situation as you see it, but how are the opinions you're expressing here compatible with A8?
As an aside, this canon and the reasoning behind it addresses Matt and Emma's question. If the more independently-minded evangelical wing of the CofE want to know why they can't do communion without a priest, I'm sure the more integrated evangelicals will be able to answer truly that they're doing it out of charity towards the rest of us, who believe either that there's no sacramental assurance without a priest or that the three-fold orders are given to us by God for the good of the Church. In recognition of the fact that such charity is both commended in Holy Scripture by St Paul, and practically the only way to hold the different factions together.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I hadn't realized in how much contempt and distaste our decisions in TEC are held in England and the readiness of a respected bishop to toss relationship with our church on the trash heap for being too "tolerant" compared with the forbearance he shows to other churches whose leaders support active oppression and life-threatening persecution in their countries. If feeling runs that way generally, and if the CoE wants to walk away from us to maintain relationship with churches that have what they feel are appropriate "limits to diversity" that are inclusive of hate-mongering and narrow Biblical interpretation but exclusive of care and protection of the outcast, then I guess the CoE will keep on walking away arm in arm with its spiritual and ethical bretheran.
This thread has been eye-opening and very sad.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Maybe it's time for a poll. I'd hazard a guess that the English Anglicans on the Ship would overwhelmingly vote in solidarity with TEC. And I think if you put the question to most congregations around the country they would too. Anyway, you've got my vote.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
As an aside, this canon and the reasoning behind it addresses Matt and Emma's question. If the more independently-minded evangelical wing of the CofE want to know why they can't do communion without a priest, I'm sure the more integrated evangelicals will be able to answer truly that they're doing it out of charity towards the rest of us, who believe either that there's no sacramental assurance without a priest or that the three-fold orders are given to us by God for the good of the Church. In recognition of the fact that such charity is both commended in Holy Scripture by St Paul, and practically the only way to hold the different factions together.
Actaully, this more-integrated evangelical typically gave your answer about sacramental assurance, with which the other party would take issue (on the basis I suspect that they had a more Zwingllian view of communion anyway), to which my retort was "So you'd allow any old bloke in off the street to do it, then?" They didn't really have an answer to that one...
[ETA - I didn't submit a bill for the bit of free catechesis referred to above (lawyers, like prostitutes charge by the hour you know)- to whom should I address it...? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
]
[ 12. January 2007, 09:57: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
The clergy call me Pete, Bishop Pete or Bishop, depending on what they feel comfortable with. Pete is the norm for most of them.
What clergy do is take ordination vows, make the declaration of assent, and take the oath of canonical obedience. This commits them to the canons, including Canons A2 - A7, which gives you tripods and tricycles, and A8, which gives you the duty to do your utmost to prevent schism - which is what I've been working my butt off to do with the Con Evos over the past 4 weeks.
But bishops are also teachers and guardians of the faith, and have a duty to dispel erroneous doctrines. Sometime that will involve excluding people (e.g. non realist clergy). It may even involve structural action to exclude denominations, which is what we've been discussing. Unity and inclusion are not the highest values in Christian teaching (though some on this thread perhaps may differ on that).
So of course we do our best to avoid occasions of strife and heal divisions, but there are also occasions where you have to walk away. The judgement to be made is which you do when.
Have a look at 1 Cor 11, which ought to be at the very heart of unity at the eucharist, but where Paul recognises that division is not only possible, but sometimes necessary. Unity is not an absolute - because church discipline (against all types of sin, as Callan says) is also a part of the deal.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Oh, I know from previous discussions that you understand the issues Matt. I just think the fact that C of E evangelicals accept things they think to be unnecessary for the sake of the rest of us, is underplayed and my hat's off to anybody that does that.
My answer would have been along the lines of, "Because you'd be breaking communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion and disobeying both our Lord's wishes as expressed in John 17 and St Paul's instructions in Romans 14."
I'd make a very bad Bishop.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Thanks for the reply, +Pete. I see what you're saying.
I guess it comes down once again to the question of adiaphora.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
The other answer I would give was similar to that I gave to a Shipmate a while back (can't remember the details) which went something like: "If denominations can be compared to fast food franchises, then ordained clergy are part of the CofE franchise in the same way that burgers are part of the Burger King franchise; if you don't like burgers and want to eat pizza then don't go to Burger King, go to Pizza Hut, and if you don't like ordained clergy then don't go to the CofE place."
Or something.
[Reply to GreyFace's first post above]
[ 12. January 2007, 10:26: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe it's time for a poll. I'd hazard a guess that the English Anglicans on the Ship would overwhelmingly vote in solidarity with TEC. And I think if you put the question to most congregations around the country they would too. Anyway, you've got my vote.
Thanks, Angloid.
The point of tolerance is to not walk away but to keep on talking, even if disagreeing, to keep finding points of congruence. The people and churches who wish to have done with us until we mend our ways (by their standards) say we've walked away from them. Maybe true in the sense that some of our ideas have gone beyond what can accepted by many other people. The ethical policies of some of the African churches make my blood boil, but I do not advocate cutting off communion with them although they have decided to cut ties with us. I'd prefer that we be in there fighting side by side with them against poverty and AIDS, pray with them for the guidance of the Spirit for all of us. I'd even prefer that their bishops come here as guests of our dioceses to make their cases for their theological outlooks- without their threatening schism to punish us for not being convinced by them if we are not. And I'd prefer that they in turn would listen with open hearts to the stories of people who influenced our ideas.
A number of the radically opposed bishops will not even sit down with our bishops (except the ones they've co-opted), let alone receive communion with them. That's walking away.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Callan posted:
quote:
You're not exactly selling the idea that the wider Anglican communion ought to have any say in the counsels of TEC. The gist of your argument is that if Bishops are complicit in genocide or mass murder it should be handled quietly and behind the scenes whereas if a Bishop lives in quiet domesticity with a person of the same sex the writs of excommunication should start flying forthwith. Still, as Peter Akinola famously observed: "human suffering is not an issue".
A little clarification on the Rwanda situation. The mass deposition by the Communion, very revolutionary in canon law terms and little commented on for reasons I cannot quite understand, was on account of abandmont of their posts by bishops. To the best of my knowledge, there were no charges of compliance with genocide or mass murder (as there has been with an RC bishop). In any case, a deposition of several bishops by an authority which possibly may have had no real jurisdiction is hardly dealing with the issue quietly and behind the scenes.
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted. Given that this is the practice in most Anglican churches, folks should not be surprised that there is widespread miscomprehension as to why Bp. Robinson continues in office. The intensity and length of the international response may reflect a concern with other ECUSA approaches and characteristics as the domestic US response has much to do with cultural politics, but that's another discussion.
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on
:
Hi there,
Sorry for jumping into the debate long after it's started...
I'm an English Anglican (and sort of 'Open Evangelical'/wannabe-catholic-orthodox) and can relate to alot of the views here.
I sympathise with +Pete. He is a Bishop, most of us aren't. He has the 'duty' of leading and guarding the Church, and will be held more responsible than many of us (before Christ) for how he discharges that duty. Just the awareness of that fact would be enough to make me more conservative (in the sense of 'let's just not change anything...') than I already am.
However Lyda*Rose is so right in saying that we need to avoid 'walking away' even if we strongly disagree. In this modern day of transport and communication (the fact that we having a global debate on this issue via the internet shrinks 'communion boundaries' somewhat!) there is no excuse to stop continuing discussion and debate - even where we have chosen to adopt different practices.
However, if I had responsibility for the Spiritual health of a diocese and I believed certain ideas to be heterodox and potentially harmful for those in my care I wouldn't go around inviting such people to teach and preach without oversight (or providing an alternative position), so we would - de facto - be in a state of 'impaired' communion.
I guess I would hope that ongoing dialogue and debate would help lead us all back into a 'fuller' communion, but there's no sense pretending we agree (and that this doesn't matter) when we don't (and it does).
On this note, I would also be concerned as to the 'message' that some Bishops from the Global South would 'preach', and would exercise similar oversight over any such ideas.
I guess I'm trying to say that the Body of Christ, world wide, experiences differing sorts of 'communion', some more impaired - some less, and that this will affect how we 'share ideas' together. But I also believe that our 'goal' is to move towards the 'Truth' (and no single church or denomination has a monopoly on THAT) and that this will only come about through holding together in relationship (even if the 'holding' is by the tips of our fingers).
I don't know whether an Anglican Covenant will be able to achieve this, but am prepared to wait and see what God might just do through the process.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I just wanted to dip a toe in this rather hot water to say that I think there are complex cultural issues involved here, not just decisions based on principle.
First, I think in England we hear far more about the doings of TEC and Episcopal/Anglican churches in the 'Old Commonwealth' (and of course the other provinces in these islands) than we do about the doings of other provinces in the communion.
Secondly, anything to do with sexuality gets into the mainstream media headlines.
Thirdly, I think there is still a post-colonial guilt thing which makes it particularly difficult for the CofE when it makes comments in relation to the 'New Commonwealth' countries.
These differing factors combine together to give a high profile to relations between the CofE and TEC around issues of sexuality. And on the other side of the coin, sometimes a very sketchy knowledge among some journalists about actions and statements by the ABC on issues which don't normally attract such Media attention.
I don't think this is a complete list and there is a very complex network of issues around how the USA is regarded by Brits for which 'anti-Americanism' is too stark a label - although there are certainly elements in there which are anti-American.
The difficulty with this kind of thing is the extent to which it forms a backdrop to discussions which has a significant impact on them but is largely unacknowledged and unexplored.
Thus the actions of the differing parties can very easily be perceived as a hangover of British colonialism/imperialism by one side and as an example of American cultural imperialism by the other.
Finally, as I understand it, ++Rowan regards unity as a theological virtue in its own right and ISTM gets flak from both sides for his efforts to include their opponents.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Unity and inclusion are not the highest values in Christian teaching (though some on this thread perhaps may differ on that).
I would, but with the big proviso that we are talking about 'the unity and inclusion of redeemed creation in the triune being of God' - the Kingdom, as it is generally called. This might militate against less ultimate forms of unity (do we want to be united with groups which systematically obscure this unity?) or inclusion (do we want to 'include' the BNP?). Probably a better word for all this is 'catholicity'.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted.
Except that it wouldn't. I can think of three who do precisely that within about a five mile radius, with no particular show of pretense.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted.
Except that it wouldn't. I can think of three who do precisely that within about a five mile radius, with no particular show of pretense.
Mileage can differ, as the car ads note. I simply speak from my own territory and experience. I should also add my own diocese of Ottawa where a married lesbian cleric, an immigrant from south of the border, now holds a licence.
On the Rwandan bishops, I eat crow, hot and without sauce. My memory had relied on press releases and statements by the Anglican Consultative Council which, in 1996, had declared several diocesan thrones vacant on grounds of abandonment. Louis Crew's site provides us with the unhappy instance of Samuel Musabyimana, former Bishop of Shyogwe, who was indicted for crimes against humanity, and gives us details of reprehensible statements by Augustin Nshamihigo, once Archbishop of Kigali and Metropolitan of Rwanda, and his coadjutor, the now-deposed Jonathan Ruhumuliza. A pro-atheist site gives further details of an RC bishop, Augustine Misago, now doing time, as well as of a range of Seventh Day, Methodist and Baptist clergy either convicted or indicted of genocide.
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Is this why it seems to be common practice now for the clergy to given fixed term contracts. Do you have any idea what the percentage of vicars in Willesden area who have permanent freehold?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are completely wrong about what happens here. Our practice, as I have posted on several occasions, is to give freehold to all clergy who are entitled to it. There are about 4 parishes in the Area where the freehold has not been restored because there is still reorganisation going on. Everyone else has the freehold.
As a number of vicars have told me they are on 5/7 year contracts how does that effect the freehold. Where does the freehold revert to at end of contract if not renewed.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I have private messaged Coiled Spring about this, which is simply untrue.
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
I bow humble to Pete relating to the subject over fixed term contracts..
It appears that priests in charges and team vicars would be on fixed term contract and would not hold freehold. It also seems that those who gave me this imformation were not in fact vicars as claimed.
If I have caused Pete any embarresment in this matter am sorry and will talk to the priests concerned who gave me this information.
Who can one trust in these times.
[ 12. January 2007, 14:29: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Thanks for the gracious apology.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The point of tolerance is to not walk away but to keep on talking, even if disagreeing, to keep finding points of congruence. The people and churches who wish to have done with us until we mend our ways (by their standards) say we've walked away from them.
Well, yes, exactly. That's the whole point. They want to keep on talking, but - it seems to them - isn't talking.
Does a marriage break up when one of the partners starts sleeping with someone else? Or when they finally get round to getting a divorce?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Of all those Americans who go to church, most of them go to some brand of conservative evangelical/ fundamental congregation. The dominant culture of Christianity in the United States is, in fact, of the conservative variety with which Pete would (according to his posts on this thread) feel right at home.
I think that most conservative evangelicals in the UK would be surprised to find Pete reckoned as one of them.
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on
:
Agree with Ken,
+Pete is absolutely NOT a 'conservative' evangelical by English 'evangelical' standards!
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They want to keep on talking, but - it seems to them - isn't talking.
Sorry, ken, it seems at least one word is missing here. Can you clarify? Who is the they who want to keep talking? Who isn't talking?
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
quote:
Does a marriage break up when one of the partners starts sleeping with someone else? Or when they finally get round to getting a divorce?
Have noticed quite often marriage/partnerships break up when they stop listening and talking to each other...
The knooky side comes in later.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
TEC, I suppose.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
An attempt to follow-up the OP. So what are the real differences between Church of England and ECUSA? Its hard to tell because I'm only very familiar with one of them. But some wild guesses:
- The establishment still hobbles Church of England in many ways. Not an issue in the USA.
- On the other hand Establishment it has given the CofE a rather different model of service to the whole community, which means that it has got very good at not dropping any component part entirely. Its much harder for even the most liberal Church of England clergy or lay people to contemplate going out of communion with all those nasty Nigerians and sexist Sydneysiders - or their equivalents in Britain - than it seems to be for some ECUSAns. We imagine ourselves as being able to carry on living together in one church structure because, on the whole, thats what we have done in the past.
- The Church of England still harbours feelings of being The Church, at least in England. A sort of default version of Chritianity.
- US bishops and dicocesan bureaucracies have much, much, more control over parishes than English ones do.That's mainly because of the legal setup of the English church, but also partly because elected bishops inherently have more popular authority than appointed ones, and at least partly because the dioceses are smaller. From All Saints Battersea to Wisdom of God Kingswood the Bishop of Southwark has something like 350 parishes to care for. However proactive he wants to be there is no way he, or even his three suffragans, can monitor goings-on in alll of those places.
- ECUSA still seems to be the church of the social elite in a way that the CofE hasn't been for a long while. Paradoxically that means both churches are consistently politically to the left of the governments of their respective countries.
- CofE is in a far less openly Christianised environment than ECUSA and so was perhaps earlier (by about a century) to see its homeland as the mission field. Both evangelicals and Catholics could pray for "the conversion of England" in the late 19th century (though they meant different things by it!)
- British theological liberalism is not typically more left-wing than theological conservativism (whether of catholic or evangelical flavour). In fact the opposite might be true. Most Americans, on the other hand, seem to assume a simple equation between political and theological liberalism. I expect this might make it hard for lefty orthodox British Christians to fit into US churches. (*)
- The ordination of women is no longer a big deal for most of the Church of England, including most Evangelicals. It is a very big deal for a minority of Anglo-Catholics. The same is true of ECUSA, but some Americans (of the few who ever think about churches abroad) seem not to realise it. Maybe Forward in Faith speak loudly enough that they drown out the vast majority. In this aspect the two are perhaps much more similar than they realise.
- As far as I can tell there really are low-church Anglican churches in the USA, and also evangelical ones, at least in some states (**). And there are bishops and priests who hold to a traditionally orthodox view of God and Christ. But some Brits (of the few who ever think about churches abroad) seem not to realise it. Maybe liberal-catholic Bishops speak loudly enough that they drown out many other voices, at least when heard from abroad. In this aspect the two are perhaps a little less different than they realise.
(*) For example somene who is both gay and black, from a Pentecostal background but increasingly into liturgical worship, found no natural church home in the US setup - perhaps fitted in better with UCC than ECUSA, but thought them more theologially liberal than they would have liked)
(**) A friend of mine recently came back from a semester at Yale. She says that she was surprised to find almost all the Episcopalian churches around New Haven lower down the candle than she expected
Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted.
Except that it wouldn't. I can think of three who do precisely that within about a five mile radius, with no particular show of pretense.
Three is conservative. I would think: Ottawa, Toronto, Niagara, New Westminster, at least.
What is quite rare, and this may be a legacy of the Jim Ferry affair, is to have openly gay, out n' proud clergy who have made the church a full-time career.
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Thanks for the gracious apology.
A (clergy) friend [not in your neck of the woods, pete173]once said - rather flippantly - that probably the only things which could remove a freehold cleric from her/his post, other than death, would be (a) hand in the till (b) orgies at the Vicarage e.g being a scandal to the congregation(c) being convicted of a criminal offence. And it would have to go to an ecclesiastical court anyway, wouldn't it? Not be decided by a Bp. As I understand it, this is quite different to ECUSA and other parts of the AC. Is this something to do with the CofE being Established (my ignorance, I'm afraid) , canon law or something else?
[ 12. January 2007, 16:33: Message edited by: jerusalemcross ]
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
Having been a part of a congregational meeting with my Bishop about property and governance (not my parish), I will state that it's pretty difficult for a bishop in TEC to remove a "rogue rector" (exceptions as noted above, I imagine) although it may have been tougher at this particular parish because they actually own their property (the Diocese does not), which is highly unusual in TEC.
The bishop noted that the person most at danger from a "rogue rector" in that parish was the curate .
Charlotte
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
It's to do with freehold, which means that the cleric has a job for life with freehold of property (parsonage, church building, graveyard). Thus he/she cannot be removed unless found guilty of an ecclesiastical offence.
Non freehold clergy are being (effectively have been) brought under employment protection legislation, which means that they can no longer be removed on notice unless they have reached the end of their contract.
We are moving over to common tenure, which will put all clergy onto an equal footing, and will actually have the effect of establishing rights tantamount to freehold for all clergy except those in title posts or posts limited in length by available money. Some clergy are worried at the erosion of freehold, but they will paradoxically be in a stronger position because they will have recourse in extremis to both ecclesiastical and secular employment protection.
The Clergy Discipline Measure has been introduced, consolidating the provisions for taking action against clergy for offences in relation to money, "conduct unbecoming" or matters criminal. All of this has checks and balances built in, so that no bishop could depose someone in the way in which it appears to be possible in ECUSA.
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
ken: A few comments on your observations which, overall, I think were quite good.
As to the issue of women's ordination: There is overwhelming general acceptance of this concept in TEC, both among clergy and laity. It is true that there are three dioceses (out of 100 domestic dioceses) that do not recognize it, but I suspect that in all three there are significant minorities of laity that think otherwise. However, if a split occurs in the American church, I would suspect that the conservative branch will have fewer women clergy, and will ordain fewer women clergy in the future than the TEC remnant.
As to the issue of TEC's social status: I think this varies from geographic region to region. I think that it can be argued that TEC is a church of intellectual elites, as the Presiding Bishop so inelegantly put it a while ago. So, think college professor instead of corporate executive.
In terms of "lowness" -- I have no experience of C of E worship, but my experience of TEC worship is that the vast majority of parishes could probably be described as "liberal Catholic" -- Eucharist at every service, but liturgy that is not in any sense spiky. There are of course significant exceptions -- the St. Spike's of certain Eastern cities as well as the low church variants found in places like Virginia. But even in "snakebelly low" Virginia, adherence to the Rite II Eucharist at most services is fairly common, IMHO.
Finally, the institutional character of the C of E -- its link to the state, to the very historical fabric of England -- is almost entirely missing in the US. Only with respect to some of the Southern colonies was Anglicanism in a similar position, and then only for approximately 150 years. After the Revolution, the Episcopal Church in Virginia had to be reconstructed almost in whole in the early 19th century.
TEC is a "denomination" -- it is not "the Church."
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The Clergy Discipline Measure has been introduced, consolidating the provisions for taking action against clergy for offences in relation to money, "conduct unbecoming" or matters criminal. All of this has checks and balances built in, so that no bishop could depose someone in the way in which it appears to be possible in ECUSA.
pete173, could you name or link to some representative samples of the US cases you're thinking of? I don't know if I'm thinking of the same kind of bishop/rector-congregation struggles that you are, or not.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe it's time for a poll. I'd hazard a guess that the English Anglicans on the Ship would overwhelmingly vote in solidarity with TEC. And I think if you put the question to most congregations around the country they would too. Anyway, you've got my vote.
And mine
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe it's time for a poll. I'd hazard a guess that the English Anglicans on the Ship would overwhelmingly vote in solidarity with TEC. And I think if you put the question to most congregations around the country they would too. Anyway, you've got my vote.
And mine
And mine
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
For what it is worth -- the Rev. Mark Harris, a priest in the Diocese of Delaware and a member of TEC's Executive Committee (which helps to run the church between Gen Cons) has published on his website a long missive called "The Vocation of the Church" questioning TEC's membership in the Anglican Communion. The piece introducing the missive is headed: "Enough: it is time to move on."
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
Here is a link to it.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The Clergy Discipline Measure has been introduced, consolidating the provisions for taking action against clergy for offences in relation to money, "conduct unbecoming" or matters criminal. All of this has checks and balances built in, so that no bishop could depose someone in the way in which it appears to be possible in ECUSA.
pete173, could you name or link to some representative samples of the US cases you're thinking of? I don't know if I'm thinking of the same kind of bishop/rector-congregation struggles that you are, or not.
I think what I'm alluding to is the use of the "abandonment of communion" charge, used by +Smith against the Connecticut Six; by +Leidel against Geromel; by +McKelvey against Harnish. I'm trying to contrast the quite clear aversion on the part of brothers and sisters in ECUSA to any kind of discipline being exercised on moral or theological grounds with the very strong discipline exercised against clergy for saying they are out of fellowship with their diocesan bishop. It seems that the biggest "sin" you can commit in ECUSA is to be out of fellowship with your bishop.
By contrast, we have no such power on this side of the pond, should we even want to exercise it. Clergy can put two fingers in the air to their bishop and we have no recourse whatsoever.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
By contrast, we have no such power on this side of the pond, should we even want to exercise it. Clergy can put two fingers in the air to their bishop and we have no recourse whatsoever.
Not very professional or Godly that would be.
I don't know of the case you speak of, but it seems to me that most such issues you've been mentioning are really about who owns the property not about who's a Christian.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Pete173 said
quote:
I suppose ECUSA feels like the CofE would if the liberals ever actually won. And if they did, I'd have left.
And then Paige said something and was reminded by someone else that
quote:
Paige, I shouldn't worry about speaking to him as if he were a normal human being: that's why he comes on here
The original sentiment seemed more the domain of a young theology student at Oak Hill who's just discovered blogging and not that of a bishop. We'll just say that it was best expressed in here over a pint than at a meeting in the real world.....
RR
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
But Pete, re the powerless of CofE bishops to deprive their clergy or accuse them of abandonment of communion:
There has been plenty of moaning about 'power plays' by 'revisionist bishops'. What is the substance of this complaint. I do remember one case of a clergyman who was deprived by his bishop but the clergyman won the appeal. If you're right - that bishop's don't have that sort of power - what are Chris Sugden and others groaning about?
RR
[ 12. January 2007, 17:43: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted. Given that this is the practice in most Anglican churches, folks should not be surprised that there is widespread miscomprehension as to why Bp. Robinson continues in office. The intensity and length of the international response may reflect a concern with other ECUSA approaches and characteristics as the domestic US response has much to do with cultural politics, but that's another discussion.
Actually, I think it's entirely germane to this discussion. If they don't know why Bishop Robinson continues in office, then they really don't understand our polity, never mind our cultural politics.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
pete173, thanks -- I'll read about those.
gwai, it wouldn't come to an argument about property at all if the bishop wasn't saying "out, you can't be rector of an Episcopal church in my diocese." Which isn't the same as saying "you're not Christian" by a long shot.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
But if the rector is saying that he wantsn to use one diocese's property to do things with another diocese, one can see why there might be an issue. Ideally, the one diocese would sell the property to the other diocese, but I doubt that happens as often. If the problems are deeply rooted, it may feel like saying I will use your property to worship improperly or even sacrilegously.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
But Pete, re the powerless of CofE bishops to deprive their clergy or accuse them of abandonment of communion:
There has been plenty of moaning about 'power plays' by 'revisionist bishops'. What is the substance of this complaint. I do remember one case of a clergyman who was deprived by his bishop but the clergyman won the appeal. If you're right - that bishop's don't have that sort of power - what are Chris Sugden and others groaning about?
RR
Well, that's a very good question, and one which I am spending an interminable amount of time on at present. We have a meeting this weekend where we are trying to tease out precisely what the perceived problems are, and what can be done to resolve them. The Conservative Evangelicals seem to think that they are out of communion with a large number of bishops over here. You may have seen the stuff on Anglican Mainstream
Keeping them in will be a tough call.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted. Given that this is the practice in most Anglican churches, folks should not be surprised that there is widespread miscomprehension as to why Bp. Robinson continues in office. The intensity and length of the international response may reflect a concern with other ECUSA approaches and characteristics as the domestic US response has much to do with cultural politics, but that's another discussion.
Actually, I think it's entirely germane to this discussion. If they don't know why Bishop Robinson continues in office, then they really don't understand our polity, never mind our cultural politics.
A fair point, and there are several points in this thread which suggest that there is more than a little bit of polity miscomprehension-- we can see that shipmates are being helpful and trying to explain their own local realities.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
My new year's resolutions are twofold: To read Hebrews quite a lot this year and to learn to like it/understand it/figure out why it made it into the Canon of Scripture. The other thing will be to try and understand what the Presiding Bishop of TEC is trying to say. I've read four or five things she's written and seen a couple of videos of her speaking. I keep butting up against this Wall of Language which seems deliberately constructed to weaken propositions. I'm not at all ECUSA bashing - had a great summer spent in the Diocese of Alaska as a summer intern when I was in seminary - lots of fun with the Ecumenical Cursillo folks from Ketchikan Alaska and Prince Rupert B.C. that summer. I've got an episcopalian summer intern coming over here from the U.S. this summer to work with me in Scotland. Can someone refer me to something KJS has written, recorded or videoed that is clear as to what she thinks on a subject?
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Reading between the lines on Sugden's stuff and other stuff which appears on Anglican Mainstream or Mainline or whatever: It appears that there has been an unwillingness to ordain certain people on demand without going through the normal channels of discernment and not supporting the establishment of certain missions right next to an existing community of faith. Is that more or less what the complaint seems to consist of or have their been many cases of Evangelical clergy being hounded out by liberal bishops?
RR
And by the way: Anglican Mainstream is tolerable. Many of the 'conservative' blogs stateside are terrible. You want to wash your eyes out after reading them.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
I haven't looked at the examples pete173 mentioned yet, Gwai, so they may have that flavour.
I was thinking of situations from before the recent rash of rampant flying bishops, e.g. where the presenting incidents seemed to be along the lines of rectors refusing their female bishop to come confirm (surely only the tip of the iceberg in the situations in question, but still...). I think in those cases the rector (and congregation) are not saying they're in another diocese, or not Episcopalian, but nevertheless their position becomes an issue that can be forced and does get forced.
I understand pete173 to be saying such things can't happen that way in the CofE. In addition to pointing to disparities in which kinds of things cause these kinds of forcing battles.
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
There has been plenty of moaning about 'power plays' by 'revisionist bishops'. What is the substance of this complaint. I do remember one case of a clergyman who was deprived by his bishop but the clergyman won the appeal. If you're right - that bishop's don't have that sort of power - what are Chris Sugden and others groaning about?
This was the Coekin case that featured heavily on these boards at one time. His bishop's (Tom Butler of Southwark) response to the perceived offence was to withdraw his licence immediately. However, this was reinstated after an appeal to the ABoC and a successful church court hearing.
I too am very curious about Pete173's comment about apparent episcopal powerlessness. This seems to minimise completely the value of the bishop's licence to minister. So I would like to ask him under what circumstances CoE bishops are able and justified in withdrawing a clergyman's licence? And what are the consequences of a withdrawn licence?
Do clergy in the USA/Canada/elsewhere operate under a similar bishop's licence?
Neil
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
ECUSA still seems to be the church of the social elite in a way that the CofE hasn't been for a long while.
This is not currently true of the ECUSA and has not been true for a long time (50 years?). In particular, it may never have been true in many (but not all) regions west of the Alleghenies.
Indeed, the church of the social elite [those that still have church] in the U.S. these days is more likely to be of a con evo sort. That's certainly true in these parts.
This hardly makes the ECUSA diverse with respect to class - but it is resolutely middle class rather than the church of the elite.
Along other lines:
To my mind, the key way in which ECUSA differs from the C of E is that we have proportionally far fewer self-identified "evangelicals" or Calvinists.
The role of bishops is a red herring. Our polity has been the essentially the same since the first general convention to the consternation of none over the years. Indeed, the role of bishops varies across the provinces of the communion. In the ECUSA, bishops certainly have a teaching role. As in some other provinces, synod "outranks" bishops. Unlike some other provinces, the laity are part of synod.
Certainly not every province seems as adept as ECUSA in providing theological and scriptural bases for their actions and policy. I certainly don't see scripture, tradition or reason in any permutation at work in the Church of Nigeria's support for the criminalization of association between gays and lesbians.
? Change title of thread to: ECUSA found not to be Evangelical - Shock Horror! ?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
To my knowledge, Canadian licensing rules are on a diocesan basis, sometimes as canon, sometimes as diocesan policy. Parochial and extra-parochial clergy get them as a matter of course, as do retired and canonically-resident-elsewhere-but-living-here clerics, usually attached to a particular church; they are normally only lifted For Cause and most places have an appeal mechanism either to a diocesan tribunal (I believe in Toronto) or to the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province (we have 4). However, bishops have been known to lift licences arbitrarily (I can think of two examples from previous bishops of Ottawa) and (in the far past) ++John Charles Roper preferred to request the return of licences (including from the infamous Trebitsch Lincoln) from errant clergy.
The fairly peremptory withdrawal of licences by +Michael Ingham was one of the manifestations of trouble in New Westminster a few years ago, and their restoration was an aspect of a recent appeal decision (was it the Panel of Reference?).
Posted by mgeorge (# 10487) on
:
This has been an interesting discussion, and I'm sorry to chime in so late.
The ECUSA social elite are a myth, at least locally. I've been involved in the ECUSA for many years now and have yet to meet anyone who is wealthy and/or upper class.
I've heard many stories here and elsewhere about budget struggles, priests only serving 1/2 or even 1/4 time because the churches can't afford to pay them otherwise and so on (my church included). If there are any rich Episcopalians out there, they're in stealth mode.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
While raised on the frontier with Our Great Southern Neighbour, my intimate knowledge of the workings of ECUSA is limited to upstate NY and to eastern Florida. Class-wise, they are as different as chalk and cheese.
The eastern Floridians were solid golf club retirees and quite quite comfortable. However, they did fork out for worthy causes and maintain some uncomfortable ministries (try prison work lately?) by volunteer work. While they complained about their child`s tuition at Swarthmore, they were able to pay it and to buy them a starter condo. There was one black parishioner, but she was a retired professional of Caribbean origin. They did not think of themselves as élite, but I would have classified them as such.
In upstate NY, while a few wealthy older families can be found in the parishes along the Saint Lawrence River, most of them were were middle class with a good sprinkling of poorer people. On my visits to churches, I found a very broad spectrum (class-wise) and people seemed very comfortable with each other.
Chatting with US folk over the years, I think that the notion of Episcopalians as the rich folk is an outdated stereotype-- unquestionably Episcopalians provided a strong strain in national leadership but, like the Quakers, that had more to do with the specific subculture than sheer cash. Not only do you have the diversity of a very variegated US, but there are dozens of historical and ethnic strains in ECUSAn history, resulting in a difficult to generalize-about population. I wouldn't even try.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
One thing you will find about TEC: you can go into almost any Episcopal Church on Sunday, and it is using the Book of Common Prayer or some authorized addendum to it. I know there are exceptions (St. Gregory Nyssa of San Francisco comes to min), but they are exceptions.
We don't get hymn sandwiches in TEC, even in places where a non-ordained Worship Leader (lay reader) with license to preach is taking the services. In these cases, the congregation is probably using either the Rite I or Rite II daily offices.
We are people of the book (BCP). So, from St. Luke's to St. Luke's, you have a chance to recognize the service.
I find that those congregations and people that take the time to work with the BCP are more content with the denomination, even when there are disagreements. The BCP provides something in common for all of us. (Those that use it because they have to are more likely to wonder why the bother.)
It sounds like people in TEC consent to the US BCP; clergy in the C of E assent to the 39 Articles.
And about a bishop's control over the clergy in a diocese: Yes, there licenses that can be pulled. Abandonment of communion is a possible charge. But, the bishop is not an absolute monarch. Instead, the bishop is more like a prosecuting attorney. Everything is subject to trial and appeal. Most bishops don't have the resources to spend on stuff like this.
And, it is very hard to impossible for a diocesan bishop to prevent a priest from taking a position in a parish (rector, or assistant/associate/curate) if the priest is already canonically resident in that diocese.
+Pete173, you need to talk with several of your US colleagues in a variety of dioceses on what a bishop really can do over here, either canonically or practically.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think that most conservative evangelicals in the UK would be surprised to find Pete reckoned as one of them.
As I say "according to posts on this thread".
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mgeorge:
The ECUSA social elite are a myth, at least locally. I've been involved in the ECUSA for many years now and have yet to meet anyone who is wealthy and/or upper class.
The "elite" question is complicated by the fact that in the United States "upper class" means "rich". ECUSA is not a millionaire's club at prayer. Some ECUSA parishes, are, however, stuffed to the rafter with crusty old worthie, DAR members and the like.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think that most conservative evangelicals in the UK would be surprised to find Pete reckoned as one of them.
As I say "according to posts on this thread".
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
I certainly was. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think that most conservative evangelicals in the UK would be surprised to find Pete reckoned as one of them.
As I say "according to posts on this thread".
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
I certainly was.
Yes, me too. And pete173's comments on this thread have pushed me considerably further toward the feeling that the Anglican Communion can go fuck itself than I was a few days ago.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
The majority of clergy I know in the C of E wouldn't go to TEC normally, except out of curiosity.
But then the C of E is so broad that pretty much all the other denominations in the UK could fit inside it, so the differences between denominations are often much less than differences within the C of E...
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
Custard: How are you using "broad"?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But then the C of E is so broad that pretty much all the other denominations in the UK could fit inside it, so the differences between denominations are often much less than differences within the C of E...
Yes, it's good like that.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But then the C of E is so broad that pretty much all the other denominations in the UK could fit inside it, so the differences between denominations are often much less than differences within the C of E...
Well, I guess, from the time of Queen Elizabeth 1, there was a very conscious devolopment of a National Church, both with its Catholic (Universal Western) roots in history and establishment, but also, as in the 39 Articles, ultimately basing its beliefs on the Bible. Catholic and Protestant.
The "Anglican compromise", and I'd call it more a brilliant synthesis of the two, which, with the general policy of the Tudors (except Mary), did, sometimes through morally contentious worldly action, bring peace, unity and prosperity to an England riven by strife during the Wars of the Roses.
The concept of a broad, National Church of this sort was elucidated in F.D. Maurice's "The Kingdom of Christ."
Certainly, in England, and, in my country, Australia, the Anglican Church does seem to see itself as a Church for everyone in the nation. I suspect, even in the successor state to the 13 rebel colonies in North America, many churchpeople, ordained and lay, would hold this view.
I guess you would find it very difficult to have a totally anarchic "fee form" Church in perpetual danger of imminent collapse. So I take + Pete's points on the need for some sort of sane church governance with some discipline (fair, open and appelable). I also appreciate his very real Anglican scholarship and the practical problems he raises from his experience as a bishop.
My feeling is that I would not wish the already fractured Anglican Communion to break up entirely. Some of the alternatives out there are truly horrific.
Posted by mgeorge (# 10487) on
:
That is true--it seems the ECUSA has more aging members and gray hairs than anyone else, and my church is definitely guilty of that. At 40+ I'm a relatively young member. At this rate, the ECUSA may simply die of old age, schism or no schism.
What keeps us old? I've seen a lot of unwillingness to change, too many old members who make it their mission to hold up and derail any sort of change, and young members simply giving up in frustration.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
It may be that the numbers are skewed by the baby-boomers reaching their dotage. There are simply more of us geezers living than any other age group.
[ 13. January 2007, 05:10: Message edited by: Gort ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Our parish has quite a few young families, actually. Probably not in comparison to the general population, but healthy numbers nonetheless. One couple -he lapsed RC, she unchurched- decided to join our church because they have an autistic child, and they noticed how lovingly all types of people among us were treated, so they decided our church would be a good place to bring their child.
Posted by Mixture IV (# 5353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The majority of clergy I know in the C of E wouldn't go to TEC normally, except out of curiosity.
And the majority of clergy I know in the C of E would instinctively see TEC as their home if in the US. I guess it just goes to underscore the diversity of experience of "church" in the C of E.
For my part, it never occurs to me that TEC is any different as an expression of "my home" than the C of E. In Rome last weekend, I had to decide which of the two Anglican churches (one C of E, one TEC) to attend for Sunday Mass. I based my decision on shortest walk. Period!
Mixture IV
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mixture IV:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The majority of clergy I know in the C of E wouldn't go to TEC normally, except out of curiosity.
And the majority of clergy I know in the C of E would instinctively see TEC as their home if in the US. I guess it just goes to underscore the diversity of experience of "church" in the C of E.
Same for the majority of clergy I know. I do know some folks who would hesitate, but many of them struggle with the breadth of Anglicanism full stop and would be in search of a particular kind of 'bible believing' or charismatic experience.
A good many people I know of in local CofE congregations are also quite happy to 'adopt' TEC churches when they visit the USA.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted. Given that this is the practice in most Anglican churches, folks should not be surprised that there is widespread miscomprehension as to why Bp. Robinson continues in office. The intensity and length of the international response may reflect a concern with other ECUSA approaches and characteristics as the domestic US response has much to do with cultural politics, but that's another discussion.
I think that is fair enough. What bothers me about all this is not that most of the Anglican Communion thinks that TEC went too far. It is the way that the Anglican Communion is going from a position of having no disciplinary mechanisms to a disciplinary mechanism which says that if you fall foul of the dominant fraction you will get the book thrown at you whereas if you are in good standing with the dominant fraction you will be treated much like the British Attorney General treated BAE when they were being investigated for bribing the Saudi Government. If we are going to go down the route of pan-communion governance then the rules ought to apply to everyone across the board. Otherwise any disciplinary measure is going to look entirely arbitrary. This will do nothing for the credibility of the Communion and everyone will feel justified in breaking the rules whenever they feel strongly about it and can get away with it on the grounds that everyone else does.
Maybe TEC were out of order but if I were an TECCIE I would be disinclined to back down given that no-one seems to be interested in giving TEC a fair hearing and the disciplinary system seems to be weighted as to whether or not one is an ally of Nigeria.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Can someone refer me to something KJS has written, recorded or videoed that is clear as to what she thinks on a subject?
I imagine that K Jefferts (1985) "Gonatus ursabrunae and Gonatus oregonensis, two new species of squids from the northeastern Pacific Ocean" (Veliger vol 28 pp 159-174) is pretty clear.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
Exactly, Callan--although I don't think that +Gene's living with a partner is a morally bad thing.
It is also my understanding that Lambeth gave a pass on issue of polygamy at the request of the African church some time ago. methinks there is a serious double standard going on here.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
It is also my understanding that Lambeth gave a pass on issue of polygamy at the request of the African church some time ago.
That's false.
Also there is no "the African church" in the Anglican Communion - there are different ones, with widely different views on how polygamists should be treated. And indeed different views on most of the things that the Anglican Communion differs with ,itself about, from theological liberalism to women priests, to dressing up to preside at Communion, to the length of the sermon. Though not, we have to point out, over homosexuality - with the one exception of the South Africans.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Can someone refer me to something KJS has written, recorded or videoed that is clear as to what she thinks on a subject?
I imagine that K Jefferts (1985) "Gonatus ursabrunae and Gonatus oregonensis, two new species of squids from the northeastern Pacific Ocean" (Veliger vol 28 pp 159-174) is pretty clear.
Or, try something more recent.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
Exactly, Callan--although I don't think that +Gene's living with a partner is a morally bad thing.
It is also my understanding that Lambeth gave a pass on issue of polygamy at the request of the African church some time ago. methinks there is a serious double standard going on here.
It would suit my position to argue that Lambeth allowed polygamy so the Africans should reciprocate. However, I read somewhere that Lambeth didn't - but cannot remember where I read it.
I would be grateful for some references.
[ 14. January 2007, 16:12: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The 1988 Lambeth had a resolution on polygamy-- the date does not really sustain a tit for tat arrangement in terms of any same-sex issues. There were some comments at the time of the 1998 Lambeth about the behaviour of polygamous black bishops from Africa but, as no African bishop (or any cleric, as far as I know) is polygamous, one can only charitably assume that these comments were examples of inept or sophomoric humour.
I am not certain as to the extent or, if at all, any of the African churches modified procedures or canons to implement Lambeth 1988/26, but perhaps more learned shipmates might have something??
[ 14. January 2007, 18:59: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Can someone refer me to something KJS has written, recorded or videoed that is clear as to what she thinks on a subject?
I imagine that K Jefferts (1985) "Gonatus ursabrunae and Gonatus oregonensis, two new species of squids from the northeastern Pacific Ocean" (Veliger vol 28 pp 159-174) is pretty clear.
You've done your homework on my PB and Primate, haven't you?
To forget that +KJS was an active research oceanographer is not wise. She is not the Vicar of Dibley in rochet and chimere.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The 1988 Lambeth had a resolution on polygamy-- the date does not really sustain a tit for tat arrangement in terms of any same-sex issues. There were some comments at the time of the 1998 Lambeth about the behaviour of polygamous black bishops from Africa but, as no African bishop (or any cleric, as far as I know) is polygamous, one can only charitably assume that these comments were examples of inept or sophomoric humour.
I am not certain as to the extent or, if at all, any of the African churches modified procedures or canons to implement Lambeth 1988/26, but perhaps more learned shipmates might have something??
Thanks for the link.
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
The latest salvo in the "Anglican Communion? Anglican Communion? We don't need no stinking Anglican Communion" fracas was fired by the Bishop of Bethlehem (Pennsylvania, not Judea), Paul Marshall. It can be read at several places, including Ruth Gledhill's blog, Daily Episcopalian and Thinking Anglicans.
A very critical blast at the A of C, from a bishop that, contrary to Ruth's blog, is hardly on the "fringe" of TEC. Bishop Marshall could probably be best described as a "moderate liberal" who has expressed scorn both at the right and the left in TEC. Among the criticisms raised by Bishop Marshall is the refusal of Rowan to actually come to the US and meet with the House of Bishops so that there can be a dialogue about the issues paining the communion.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
As one somewhat on the conservative side of this discussion - somewhat - I have to say Marshall's point is well taken, I think. ++Rowan seems to keep his distance from ECUSA while favoring the southern hemisphere with his attention.
This breaks my heart.
[ 15. January 2007, 19:58: Message edited by: Comper's Child ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
A link is here.
Painful reading. But if anyone is interested in the case for TEC it is definitely worth a gander.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
Yes, it's certainly illuminating.
It may well be that ++Rowan sees mistakes he has made reflected somewhere in amongst the obsequious rhetoric. But the letter looks to me a self-serving, self-righteous indictment of TEC's attitude towards the rest of the communion. All the more so because the author seems oblivious to what he's revealing.
If this is coming from a credible source, I'd have thought it was time to delete TEC from the Lambeth Palace mailing list and move on.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
How do you work that out Dave? Not wishing to be harsh but you do make most of us here look like the second coming of John Paul II. Why the downer on TEC?
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But the letter looks to me a self-serving, self-righteous indictment of TEC's attitude towards the rest of the communion. All the more so because the author seems oblivious to what he's revealing.
Which would be what?
That people need to talk in order to work things out?
That the TEC believes that it is following the Winsor Report and therefore doesn't understand why they are (as it looks to us) to be kicked out of the communion?
That the TEC thinks that it is right? (And on the flip side, doesn't the CofE, the AAC, Nigeria, etc?)
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
A link is here.
Painful reading. But if anyone is interested in the case for TEC it is definitely worth a gander.
Thank you for posting this. I didn't know how frustrated this one bishop is. And, it is painful reading someone this frustrated.
There were those that feared ++Rowan becoming ABC because he was associated with the more liberal element of Anglicanism. I had never stopped to realize that ++Rowan was not communicating with those that just may have been reading what he wrote, and chose to accept it.
Is ++Rowan telling us to do as he does politically, and not do as he says theologically?
Is ++Rowan thinking that the TEC won't go away because we are so loyal, so he can play with +Akinola to try to keep him around?
Is ++Rowan nervous because in meeting +Katharine he has seen the church his more liberal writings encouraged.
I noticed that there was some emphasis placed on the TEC's relationship with the Old Catholic churches at the last General Convention. Actually, there was some emphasis on all the non-Anglican relationships the Episcopal Church has.
I wonder what it would take to have TEC formally accepted into the Old Catholic family of churches? Note that I did not say that we should leave the Anglican Communion, just that the Episcopal Church should maybe expand its horizons a bit. That they all may be one.
Would ++Rowan be happy to push us out, only to find the TEC accpeted as Old Catholic? Based upon what I've read on this thread, TEC may be more Old Catholic than Anglican, anyway.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
I had not realised that ++Rowan's comments after 9/11 had been taken badly in the States. Here, they seem well-regarded.
Carys
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
How do you work that out Dave? Not wishing to be harsh but you do make most of us here look like the second coming of John Paul II. Why the downer on TEC?
The irony is not lost on me.
As I see it, this is not about the rights and wrongs of TEC policy on gays and women - I'm with them on that. What they're doing, though, is moving ahead of the Communion as whole (with good reason) but then expecting Rowan as ABC to side with them against the rest.
They are the ones who have moved. This letter is saying, that doesn't matter, TEC is right, the conservative majority are wrong because TEC says so. It's claiming authority in the Communion that I don't see it has.
TEC has chosen to move ahead. Good on them. The price, though, if it is really that significant, is it puts them out of step with the conservative majority. Why not hold their head up and say, yes, we're not prepared to wait, we'd rather be out communion?
But no, it seems some want the blessing of the ABC as nominal head of the Communion, something the Communion as things stand is not mandating him to give. To demand this in any way would be out of order. In the manner of this letter, well, I can't think of a suitably disparaging form of words to describe it.
[ 15. January 2007, 22:50: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I had not realised that ++Rowan's comments after 9/11 had been taken badly in the States. Here, they seem well-regarded.
Carys
++Rowan's comments were not as noticed on the West Coast of the US, where we are thousands of miles away from "Ground Zero." Also, there are fewer Episcopalians out here, so the press won't push it as much.
I'm not saying ++Rowan's comments were unnoticed, just that we have some separation from what happened that day. Timewise, I literally was taking my morning shower when the WTC was hit. I think the response from Buckingham Palace was much more appreciated and noticed, though.
++Rowan was right from a technical point of view about taking a look at how others look at you. And, Americans tend not to be good at the personal introspection that leads to better behavior. (I don't know if any other national group is better; I just happen to have US citizenship by birth.) Meanwhile, no one knew what was happening in the US after 9/11. ++Rowan's timing could have been better.
If I remember correctly (and I may have my geography off here), the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania came down in the Diocese of Bethlehem. If not, awful damn close. So, this bishop may be revealing some of his personal reaction here.
Something that probably should go on the Pond Differences thread is that 9/11 is the first time since Pearl Harbor that any noteworthy attack happened to US territory. (Yes, I do know about Dutch Harbor, Alaska, during WWII, but most US citizens don't. Most don't know about the attempts the Japanese made to burn the Pacific Northwest forests from ballons, either.) The US isn't used to this type of stuff actually being on our shores. The US should probably grow up and act like a grown-up country.
Of course, the people of the US can still be shocked by things. Worry if we ever lose this trait, for I fear for my country and everyone else.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
How do you work that out Dave? Not wishing to be harsh but you do make most of us here look like the second coming of John Paul II. Why the downer on TEC?
But no, it seems some want the blessing of the ABC as nominal head of the Communion, something the Communion as things stand is not mandating him to give. To demand this in any way would be out of order. In the manner of this letter, well, I can't think of a suitably disparaging form of words to describe it.
That is not what the letter said.
All the Bishop of Bethlehem asked is that ++Rowan spend a little time with our HOB, just as he has already done with others. Go, present his case, and listen to the answer. There was no request for equal time, just some time. He clearly said that he did not feel ++Rowan had to agree.
At least this is how this person that reads and writes American English read the letter.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
It just occurred to me that Rowan Williams may be letting his obviously quite negative feelings about the United States, the political entity, color his reactions to TEC.
I hand't considered this before.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Which would be what?
That people need to talk in order to work things out?
That the TEC believes that it is following the Winsor Report and therefore doesn't understand why they are (as it looks to us) to be kicked out of the communion?
That the TEC thinks that it is right? (And on the flip side, doesn't the CofE, the AAC, Nigeria, etc?)
I'm speculating here, but it looks to me as if the ABC is working from the view that TEC effectively put itself outside the Communion when it ordained +Gene after he, at some cost, had held back from allowing a similar step in the C of E. If he were seeing it that way, then other things being equal he might feel in Communion terms there was nothing further to discuss.
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
All the Bishop of Bethlehem asked is that ++Rowan spend a little time with our HOB, just as he has already done with others. Go, present his case, and listen to the answer. There was no request for equal time, just some time. He clearly said that he did not feel ++Rowan had to agree.
I think if that's all the Bishop meant, and he really was asking rather than demanding, he would have written a very different letter.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I had not realised that ++Rowan's comments after 9/11 had been taken badly in the States.
That never occured to me at all. I didn't imagine such a thing. Had I thought about it at all I'd have expected that what he said would be evidence of a closer connection between him andthe USA than most British people feel. A positve, rather than a negative, And certainly not "Communion-breaking". I have no idea why anyone would write that.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
The Bishop of Bethlehem wrote this sentence, link above
quote:
All of this said, it seems necessary to report my perception that the nadir in Rowan's overall relationship to the US, Canada and perhaps South Africa has been the appointment of a virtual lynch mob to draft the Covenant that will by all reports attempt turn a fellowship into a curial bureaucracy in which the worst elements of the great and oppressive Colonizer and of the Resentful Colonized will as meet as a scissors to the denigration of significant number of God's people who were almost equal in Christ for one brief shining moment.
Great rhetoric, but I haven't the faintest idea what it means ... probably belongs on another thread, anyway.
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm speculating here, but it looks to me as if the ABC is working from the view that TEC effectively put itself outside the Communion when it ordained +Gene after he, at some cost, had held back from allowing a similar step in the C of E. If he were seeing it that way, then other things being equal he might feel in Communion terms there was nothing further to discuss.
The situations are really not identical. +Gene was living in an openly non-celibate homosexual partnership when elected to his bishopric. The diocesan Bp of Oxford and ++Rowan approved the selection of a declared - but celibate - homosexual as a suffragan Bp in the Diocese of Oxford. The nominee was living according to the guidelines of the House of Bishops of the CofE which said, to the best of my recollection, that clergy could be homosexual as long as they were celibate. However, under organised vocal pressure, negative and sensational media reporting and the threat of withdrawal of financial contributions to the CofE from the conservative evangelical parishes in the Diocese of Oxford, ++Rowan apparently put pressure on both the nomineee and +Oxford to withdraw their acceptance. It was hypocrisy of the first order. Why was the nomination approved by both + and ++ and then support withdrawn only when financial (among other) threats were made? Please.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The piece from Paul Marshall says
quote:
My neuralgia on the question of the ABC's witness and function has been growing since his disastrously insensitive comments on 9/11 -made in New York!- which were alone nearly communion-breaking for lay people in grief, and which have never been effectually mended. People in my own diocese who lost loved ones in that attack have never recovered from the insensitive academic speculation of their galactic leader asking those covered in blood, ashes, and strewn body parts to reflect on the bombers and "why they hate" the US.
which astonished me.
I tried to find the things he was complaining about. They don't seem to be there. Or I can't find them. I assume the comments "made in New York are the ones on the website of the Church in Wales (which Rowan was archbishop of at the time) - his initial press release on 12th September and a longer statement from a few days later
Does Paul Marshall mean this part?
quote:
Today it is right and proper that we seek for justice. Even in the extremity of anger and misery, people are always answerable for the choices they make, and the decision to kill several thousand innocent people was a real decision, and unspeakably wicked and deluded decision. [...]
It's not for us here to talk prematurely about forgiveness and it is sentimentality to suggest that the gospel has nothing to do with punishment. But those who have written about punishment have so often said that ideally a punishment must make sense to the person being punished - it must be recognisable as more than retaliation.
Or this?
quote:
Faith is about dealing with the fear of death. But it is about dealing with death by acknowledging and accepting that the power we have is first of all limited and that it is in our hands only to be shared, because it can't be kept for ever… Last Tuesday, I was privileged to know for a couple of hours what it might be to face death in company, and was blessed with a group of people around me with whom I can say without exaggeration I was glad to be in such a moment.
"The Church is supposed to be a community of people you'd be glad to die with; it strikes me that this is a sobering standard, but it is one of the things I want to leave with you today in the wake of last week's experiences. And if that is true about the Church, then faith becomes the one wholly inflexible ground for resistance to violence, precisely because it teaches us how to face death - not in excited expectation of reward, but in the sober letting-go of our fantasies in the sure hope that a faithful God hold us firmly in life and death alike. This is the hope that allows us to recognise power for what it is and isn't: as what is given us for the setting-free of each other, not as the satisfying of our passion for control. And only if we are learning in this way how to die and to love, can anything we say have any way in weight in a violent world. We have to prove that risk and reconciliation are indeed 'a new and living way' and to plead with the powerful to consider where true security lies, lest the trap of violence close still more finally on us. It is a hard moment; perhaps we can understand afresh why we pray not to be brought to the time of trial and to be delivered from evil.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I had not realised that ++Rowan's comments after 9/11 had been taken badly in the States. Here, they seem well-regarded.
Meanwhile, no one knew what was happening in the US after 9/11. ++Rowan's timing could have been better.
He had no control over the timing. The terrorists did that.
quote:
If I remember correctly (and I may have my geography off here), the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania came down in the Diocese of Bethlehem. If not, awful damn close. So, this bishop may be revealing some of his personal reaction here.
Which is exactly what Rowan Williams was doing. Revealing his personal reaction. He was in the street walking towards Trinity church in Manhattan at the time. What is he supposed to do when he's just seem the towers come down two blocks from where he is standing and then spent most of the rest of the day sheltering from rubble and dust and someone asks him what his reaction is? Say "no comment, I'm only a foreigner, go and find an American bishop"?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
Why was the nomination approved by both + and ++ and then support withdrawn only when financial (among other) threats were made?
Perhaps because ++Rowan felt that the C of E taking this step might enable ECUSA to also hold back from doing something that would split the Communion.
But like I said, at some personal cost. Including for ever being accused of hypocrisy by those whose only sources of information are the news media.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Not that it matters particularly, but I'm going to guess that Shanksville is in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Shanksville is about a half hour distant from a parish (Somerset, PA) in the Diocese of Pittsburg, while it is about three hours distant from the nearest parish (Lebanon, PA) in the Diocese of Bethlehem.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
The Bishop of Bethlehem wrote this sentence, link above
quote:
All of this said, it seems necessary to report my perception that the nadir in Rowan's overall relationship to the US, Canada and perhaps South Africa has been the appointment of a virtual lynch mob to draft the Covenant that will by all reports attempt turn a fellowship into a curial bureaucracy in which the worst elements of the great and oppressive Colonizer and of the Resentful Colonized will as meet as a scissors to the denigration of significant number of God's people who were almost equal in Christ for one brief shining moment.
Great rhetoric, but I haven't the faintest idea what it means ... probably belongs on another thread, anyway.
I think that it has to do with the fact that the TEC from it's conception has always had a problem with centralized power.
The "instruments of unity" are seen as taking power away from whom we see as doing much of the actual work of the Gospel, the laity, and putting that power in one, or a few hands, in a place far across the sea.
I know that's not what most people think. But it's what I think he's trying to get at.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think if that's all the Bishop meant, and he really was asking rather than demanding, he would have written a very different letter.
You don't recognize frustration when you read it, do you?
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
Why was the nomination approved by both + and ++ and then support withdrawn only when financial (among other) threats were made?
Perhaps because ++Rowan felt that the C of E taking this step might enable ECUSA to also hold back from doing something that would split the Communion.
But like I said, at some personal cost. Including for ever being accused of hypocrisy by those whose only sources of information are the news media.
How would ++Rowan's action "enable" the Episcopal Church to do anything of the sort? If he thinks this was enabling anything, ++Rowan clearly did not understand the goverance of TEC.
quote:
CANON 1: Of the Ministry of All Baptized Persons
Sec. 1. Each Diocese shall make provision for the affirmation and development of the ministry of all baptized persons, including:
(a) Assistance in understanding that all baptized persons are called to minister in Christ's name, to identify their gifts with the help of the Church and to serve Christ's mission at all times and in all places.
(b) Assistance in understanding that all baptized persons are called to sustain their ministries through commitment to life-long Christian formation.
Sec. 2. No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.
Canons of the General Convention, Title III: Ministry
The Episcopal Church has not been secret about any of this. The development on all of this was not hidden, including at Lambeth Conferences. Apparently no cared, or at least they weren't paying attention, that TEC and others were moving in the direction seen in the canons of TEC above until +Gene Robinson's ordination.
It looked like the CoE was one of those moving with us until the One Defining Case for a suffragan at Oxford. And, TEC does not have a central figure (like ++Rowan) that can exert pressure on someone. Really, +Katharine does not have that type of power. Really.
It would have been even more interesting if +VGR's election had occurred outside the relatively narrow window for consents to be given by the House of Deputies and House of Bishops. Normally it is the Standing Committees of the several dioceses that make up the TEC that give consent. There would not have been one event (General Convention) to cover; there would have been 103 meetings to cover (or whatever the number of dioceses we now have).
Maybe you will begin to understand what may look like hubris on the part of TEC from outside the US looks differently from inside the US?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
At the risk of heading rapidly towards Dead Horses, I'm fine with those canons of TEC.
On the other hand, I think it is very appropriate to refuse to appoint people because of differences in belief and/or practice from what the Church says (or indeed what the Church understands the Bible to say).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I'm rather uncertain about aspects of the critiquing of +Rowan. As far as I can see, he has been consistent in not attending the conclaves of any of the parties involved in the USA (or Canada I think). He has made himself available for consultation to a seemingly endless stream of people from all positions.
Whilst one may differ from him on the way to do it, I have difficulty in seeing how charges of partiality can be pressed. Unless of course you are one of those people who thinks that anyone talking to someone who disagrees with you is a traitorous act. There are plenty of them around in the blogosphere.
Whilst on the subject of Rowan, I had my doubts when he was appointed - not doubts about him, but about the great rejoicing and hat-throwing that took place - "we've got one of our side in charge! Rejoice!". My reaction would be to ask how much of Rowan's writings such a celebrant had actually read. The fact is that he is a small-l liberal, but not a capital-L liberal. Which is to say that he is not a liberal in the culture-wars, partisan sense, so any unthinking analysis predicated on that sort of understanding is going to come off the rails sooner or later.
As a matter of fact, there is precious little evidence that he has caved in to dark forces or whatever the rhetoric says today. Everything he has done or says has had some antecedent in his thoughts and writings, and the one thing that looms large so far as this discussion at least is the reciprocal duty and obligation of the individual and the community.
And in a sense that makes discussion of the polity of ECUSA a somewhat secondary-order issue. It doesn't really matter where the locus of decision-making is in contentious issues. Community (I'll not say communion, though some would) can only be achieved through a process of reciprocity. The individual, or lesser community, contributes to the greater body and vice versa. Each provides those things the other lacks, or is poor at. It's very Pauline really. And it does show up the loss that the communion would suffer if the split becomes a permanent fracture.
Personally, I don't do this 2-track thing. It won't work in the longer run - I think it will just generate a new niche in the continuum. Or a new circle of hell. But that's just my view - it might be what happens.
Ian
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
ISTM that part of ++Rowan's thinking is consistently overlooked in this area. It is exemplified in part of the interview he gave to Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian.
I'm thinking of the bit where Rusbridger says:
quote:
AR: We can't get through this without talking about gays -
AC: There comes a point in every interview where someone says...
AR: Well, let's try and find a way to talk about it that doesn't, sort of, end at a cul-de-sac. I suppose what puzzles people about you, is that people think they know what you truly think because you talked about it fairly openly before becoming Archbishop. And so it comes back to where we began, it's a question of leadership. It feels as though you are not being true to yourself, that you are being forced into a role of politician and people say "why should anybody care what your beliefs are, if you can't stand up for the things that are assumed to be your beliefs?"
The part that is key is where ++Rowan talks about the responsibility he feels he has to care for the health of the church as a whole and says:
quote:
And it's got a lot to do therefore, with valuing and nurturing unity, not, as I've often said, not as an alternative to truth, but actually as one of the ways we absorb truth. That means that, structurally speaking, in the church as I believe it to be, it really is wrong for an Archbishop to be the leader of a party...
[I shouldn't really end the quote there, but I am conscious of copyright issues and fair dealing]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Maybe you will begin to understand what may look like hubris on the part of TEC from outside the US looks differently from inside the US?
I'm sure the situation does look different from inside TEC. I also recognise that the Bishop of Bethlehem is likely frustrated by his perception of events. I don't think that's sufficient justification for publishing this letter.
Posted by Incipit (# 10554) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
Why was the nomination approved by both + and ++ and then support withdrawn only when financial (among other) threats were made?
Perhaps because ++Rowan felt that the C of E taking this step might enable ECUSA to also hold back from doing something that would split the Communion.
But like I said, at some personal cost. Including for ever being accused of hypocrisy by those whose only sources of information are the news media.
But not only by them. I knew a bit about this episode from closer sources than from the media - and I make the same accusation. One can, of course, both be hypocritical or a betrayer AND suffer some personal cost as a result.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Incipit:
One can, of course, both be hypocritical or a betrayer AND suffer some personal cost as a result.
One can also encounter a situation where something that contradicts either what you've said in the past or in general still believe but in this particular case seems the right thing to do.
I only know what I've seen in the news and on here. From that perspective I can't say whether any hypocrisy was involved. But if it was, I choose to conclude that does not indicate Rowan Williams is a hypocritical person, but one who found himself in a position where other considerations took precedence.
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on
:
Possibly, RW believed that the unity of the C of E had a higher and prior claim over the consecration of a bishop that he personally thought was worthy of the post. Or, I recall reading at the time that there were inquiries made from Buckingham Palace about the controversy, and as a result, someone forced RW's hand. Neither scenario represents hypocrisy. What's really going on is that Anglican liberals thought that the enthronement of RW was a great triumph for their cause, but they have been extremely disappointed. ACs suffered the same disappointments with Michael Ramsey.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
... Anglican liberals thought that the enthronement of RW was a great triumph for their cause, but they have been extremely disappointed. ACs suffered the same disappointments with Michael Ramsey.
And some sorts of theologically conservative evangelicals about George Carey.
Maybe the Church of England has been lucky (or blessed) in that despite its theologicially indefensible dodgy way of choosing bishops, all its recent Archbishops of Canterbury have been men who tried to work for the whole of the Church of England and not just their own party within it.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
Imagines Jesus saying to self, "Hmm, if I go on the road saying the things I believe God is calling me to say, then it might cause problems with the leadership, mess up the balance with the Romans, annoy synagogue leaders. . . think I'll just see if I can't get on the Sanhedrin."
I am being sarcastic because I think a great many evil things can and have been done in the name of "unity." I have not seen ++Rowan address that issue at all. (And I may not have seen something he has written to further explicate his ideas.)
I further hold that ECUSA, in electing +Gene, followed our canon laws appropriately. For how many more decades should Lambeth discuss/avoid discussing sexuality?
You know, I believe some of these same arguments were made about holding back from granting African American full rights during the Civil Rights era. Let us proceed carefully. Unity is so important.
Jesus, in my reading of the gospels and as best I understand them, was never particularly concerned about unity of religious institutions.
I would not be happy to see the Anglican Communion split, but when did "unity" become the highest good?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
Jesus, in my reading of the gospels and as best I understand them, was never particularly concerned about unity of religious institutions.
Not for the other religious organisations of his day, perhaps - but passe His prayers 'that all might be one' at the Last Supper, it would seem that the unity of His Church was dear to Him indeed. Of course, once one starts proof-texting, one can always cite that business about equal-yokiing and cutting-off-of-hands, so the situation is far from a limpid.
Nevertheless, unity is not something to be harmed lightly, especially as Christian disunity makes us look very silly in the eyes of the world.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
dj brings up exactly the point: that all might be one.....well, it seems to me that the way things are going "all" means those who believe certain things and the power struggle is over who gets to decide "which things" get one in the charmed circle and "which things" get one kicked out, and thus "all" no longer means all.
+Peter Akinola and many others may truly think that homosexuality is evil, and I may think that Akinola's words are evil, but I am not trying to kick Akinola out of the Anglican Communion.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I understand the arguments you make, DaisyM - they have been well propounded before and I think both sides of the discussion understand them. The opponents simply disagree with the analysis (broadly).
But the point I would make is that nobody has queried New Hampshire's holding to their canon laws. At least if they have I haven't heard it. Matters are not solely determined by whether one complies with the law, important though that is. (And of course laws are usually retrospective in that they are designed to address problematic situations that have already arisen).
So far as the Anglican communion is concerned, it is not as if the consecration of +VGR occurred in a vacuum. All the primates were convened to discuss it before the event. They said "Please do not do this - if you do it will strain the communion to breaking point." Frank Griswold signed that document. Then he went home, and the election and consecration took place.
As I said earlier, I don't think the issue of the locus of the decision on the selection of +VGR is of primary importance. And nobody is suggesting the canon law was violated. But if you do decide to go ahead on a decision that has been forwarned against so strongly, surely it is not surprising that what was forwarned might come about?
Ian
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
Wow, this really is an issue where people are not talking the same language--and I do not mean that as an insult.
For those of you not in the US, (and this has been said too, I am sure), the PB does not have the power to forbid or decree an action by a diocese. The PB has a lot of influence by not power. So Frank's signing a document no doubt (I wasn't there) signified his intent, but not his absolute ability to follow through. I'm not +Frank, I can't speak to his thoughts, etc.
And, Ron, if I stated arguments that have been well propounded before, then you understand why NH did what it did--and we just have a major difference of opinion.
I am sorry that the primates felt "strained to the breaking point." But IMO, that's their problem. They took the situation to the edge.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
And here is one thing I just do not understand. Many posters are willing accept that those opposing ECUSA's consecration of +Gene are acting from a sincere, moral point of view.
Why can't those same people understand that many of us in ECUSA do not consider the action a deliberate affront but the right thing to do? We see it as morally imperative to fully include gays and lesbians in the life of the church. It's about the gospel to a lot of people.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
As I said earlier, I don't think the issue of the locus of the decision on the selection of +VGR is of primary importance. And nobody is suggesting the canon law was violated. But if you do decide to go ahead on a decision that has been forwarned against so strongly, surely it is not surprising that what was forwarned might come about?
I think the locus of the decision on the selection of Gene Robinson is very important, because given that no canon law was violated, the only ways to stop the consecration going forward once Robinson was elected would have been either a) Robinson stepping aside, or b) a bunch of Episcopal Church bishops choosing to vote against his consecration. If they had done so, they would have been setting aside the proper and valid election of a bishop who in their own minds was fit and qualified to be a bishop because some folks outside our province didn't like him. Churches within the Anglican Communion are supposed to be autonomous, and there is no proper mechanism in place for bishops outside TEC to affect decisions made entirely within TEC.
The decision-making process here is a bit of a mess, as we ought to have had some kind of agreement about the status of same-sex relationships in the church before consecrating a bishop in a same-sex relationship. But the decision-making process in the communion is a bigger mess because people outside our province want to affect our decisions without having a good way to do it. What you call a forwarning I would call a threat. Either way, there's no process for it, and at this point the primates are all just making it up as they go along.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
For those of you not in the US, (and this has been said too, I am sure), the PB does not have the power to forbid or decree an action by a diocese.
Neither, except in a few odd circumstances defined in law, does the ABC in England. However he is supposed to take part in the consecration of any bishop in his province (Canon C2).
As far as we are aware, the ABC did not legally prevent Jeffrey John from becoming a bishop, nor did he say that he would refuse to take part in his consecration (though I suppose it is possible that someone might have hinted at such a thing in order to persuade John not to take up the post)
I've no idea what happens if the relevant Archbishop refuses to consecrate a candidate for bishop.
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
For those of you not in the US, (and this has been said too, I am sure), the PB does not have the power to forbid or decree an action by a diocese.
Neither, except in a few odd circumstances defined in law, does the ABC in England. However he is supposed to take part in the consecration of any bishop in his province (Canon C2).
As far as we are aware, the ABC did not legally prevent Jeffrey John from becoming a bishop, nor did he say that he would refuse to take part in his consecration (though I suppose it is possible that someone might have hinted at such a thing in order to persuade John not to take up the post)
I've no idea what happens if the relevant Archbishop refuses to consecrate a candidate for bishop.
I thought that the AofC would be ordered by the Queen to consecrate a candidate and that refusal to do so would violate a criminal statute dating back to who knows when.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
And here is one thing I just do not understand. Many posters are willing accept that those opposing ECUSA's consecration of +Gene are acting from a sincere, moral point of view.
Why can't those same people understand that many of us in ECUSA do not consider the action a deliberate affront but the right thing to do? We see it as morally imperative to fully include gays and lesbians in the life of the church. It's about the gospel to a lot of people.
Which gospel?
I don't ask that to be snarky. I think the core of the problem is that views of "the gospel" in the Anglican Communion are so different that they are really different gospels.
As someone once said at a past ECUSA General Convention, "There are two religions in the house!"
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
RuthW wrote quote:
What you call a forwarning I would call a threat. Either way, there's no process for it, and at this point the primates are all just making it up as they go along.
It's difficult to disagree with that - we are in uncharted waters.
Re. the locus of decision. Let me try to put it another way - as you say, we are all autonomous provinces. It is up to us all to establish our own canons, and these will vary. Actions that conform with the canons may be licit within the jurisdiction concerned, but the exstence of canons should be driven by what is considered important for directing that church. Many situations will arise where one should not do something where nevertheless there may be no canon to offer guidance. What I suspect the other members of the communion would reply to the argument is to point out that any action (say in this case) must be determined to be the right one first, otherwise you will be putting the canons over and above the life and witness of the church, which they were never designed for.
DaisyM - yes, I agree, there is a divergence of opinion. When you say quote:
Why can't those same people understand that many of us in ECUSA do not consider the action a deliberate affront but the right thing to do?
- honestly, I don't think that is a problem here. I don't think anyone doubts ECUSA's majority POV is sincere. I've not seen anyone think it duplicitous or insincere in any way, at least insofar as this issue is concerned. They simply think it wrong in some way. Some minor, some major. Or maybe they have doubts.
This is sometimes expressed as a justice issue, and I think that is right. The problem comes not when the issue is cast in those terms but when it is taken to trump any countervailing arguments. Justice is about doing the right thing and setting wrongs to rights. In this case there are wild disagreements as to what the right thing actually is - it is a rights issue for everybody.
Please understand that my posts on this thread are just to try and add bits I thought might have been missed. I'm not offering a substantive argument on either side. If you want to know my own view, I consider the entire discussion in these sort of terms is a mistake. That's not intended as a criticism of anything anyone has posted here, let alone Callan's OP, which had a specific remit. But any debate (let alone answers) is highly conditioned by how you frame the question. The adequacy of the underlying assumptions inherent in that are what I would like to see questioned. But that's more than this thread would bear so I'll desist.
Ian
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
On the other hand, I think it is very appropriate to refuse to appoint people because of differences in belief and/or practice from what the Church says (or indeed what the Church understands the Bible to say).
Please pay attention:
Bishops in TEC are not appointed. There are a whole lot of people involved in the election of our bishops. To say our bishops are appointed totally misses the basis of the polity of TEC.
When the Diocese of Olympia elects a new bishop diocesan this year, the vote will (probably*) be a "vote by orders." The laity has the same power as the clergy (priests and deacons) in the election.
After the election, it something like 75% of the standing committees of the several dioceses that make up TEC must give consent. Standing committees are made up of lay and clergy, as elected by their diocesan conventions (lay and clergy).
It is absolutely not an appointment process. The presiding bishop does not play a part in the process. (The PB has the right to be chief consecrator, but does not always take this authority. Neither of the bishops in the Diocese of Olympia had the PB in attendance when they were consecrated.)
By the time a bishop is elected and confirmed in TEC, there is a vast amount of support shown to this person, lay and clerical. The process cannot be completed by a few people with an agenda, unless a whole lot of people go along with it. Why is this point so hard for those elsewhere in the Anglican Communion to understand?
*I say probably because I haven't read those canons recently. Typically in US dioceses, there is a vote by orders. The laity voting as a block must give a majority (sometimes 2/3) to a candidate, and so must the clergy voting a block give a majority (sometimes 2/3) to the same candidate. It almost always takes more than one ballot to elect a bishop at a diocesan convention. These (special) conventions don't always elect a bishop the first time they get together; I seem to remember at least one case where the convention was adjourned and they went back to the drawing board.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
And here is one thing I just do not understand. Many posters are willing accept that those opposing ECUSA's consecration of +Gene are acting from a sincere, moral point of view.
Why can't those same people understand that many of us in ECUSA do not consider the action a deliberate affront but the right thing to do? We see it as morally imperative to fully include gays and lesbians in the life of the church. It's about the gospel to a lot of people.
There are two issues here (I think). The first is that they do understand; they just disagree (FWIW I see both arguments, which places me in a difficult position in my home parish, but that's my problem, and not pertinent to the thread).
The second issue is the question of affront. This goes back to the discussions at Lambeth 1998, and how the wording allowed different elements to think that they had carried the day. An old Anglican tradition, one might think? However, many of the Southern Opposed read that a commitment had been made by ECUSA, but many in ECUSA had interpreted a commitment to multilateralism in a different way. In times past, slow communication permitted a more deliberate working out of the discrepancies... but these are not times past.
There are further cultural factors at play here, including the effect of US exceptionalism and an African response to Islamic propaganda/ evangelism, but that has been much discussed elsewhere on the Ship.
If I might be permitted to make a further observation, we often seem to have a universal inability to look beyond our own polities. Southern types wonder why there is no discipline and order, and northern types (ECUSA, ACC) are so focussed on our own procedures that we have difficulty in believing that our order is not given the same respect that we give it. Here is where I begin to sympathize with ++Rowan when he wonders if the climate of the discussion on this topic has made it difficult to deal with the theology of it.
I hope this makes sense; I had some very nice Bierzo red tonight in an attempt to inoculate myself against the -25°C outside and it may have inhibited my ability to type and reason.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
Paul Marshall's letter fits very well with what I remember of him from Yale -- lots of huffing and puffing about how personally hurt and affronted he is by some statement or action that in fact had nothing to do with him personally. It was annoying then and it's annoying now.
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As far as we are aware, the ABC did not legally prevent Jeffrey John from becoming a bishop, nor did he say that he would refuse to take part in his consecration (though I suppose it is possible that someone might have hinted at such a thing in order to persuade John not to take up the post)
There was quite overwhelming personal pressure (far more invidious than legal measures) from ++ for JJ to withdraw from accepting the post of suffragan Bp; combined with JJ's own developed sense of obedience to one's Father in Christ and responsible concern for the (supposed) unity of the CofE. I don't recall that the CofE allows general participation in, or interference with, the appointment of Bps; it is up to the ABp's Selection Secretary, the selection panel, the Diocesan Bp (in the case of suffragans) and the ABC, along with the Prime Minister and the Queen. I fail to see that any appointment would have been announced had not all of these people agreed to the nomination. JJ's orientation was hardly a secret. And this is from several personally known sources far closer to the actual truth and centre of it than the media, most of which missed the actual principles at stake.
My point is that JJ's lifestyle was in accordance with what the House of Bps had fairly clearly stated as guidelines for clergy behaviour; and the vocal elements in Oxford holding the CofE to financial ransom (among other things) had no business in implying JJ was lying about his personal life. Or that their own "standards" were of a higher authority than those given to clergy by their own Bishops. As I recall, the NT in particular says nothing whatsoever about forbidding a homosexual to be clergy of any sort. Presumably it's OK for him to be a Dean but not a Bp?
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If I might be permitted to make a further observation, we often seem to have a universal inability to look beyond our own polities. Southern types wonder why there is no discipline and order, and northern types (ECUSA, ACC) are so focussed on our own procedures that we have difficulty in believing that our order is not given the same respect that we give it. Here is where I begin to sympathize with ++Rowan when he wonders if the climate of the discussion on this topic has made it difficult to deal with the theology of it.
I can see where you would think that.
For me, it is not that I think others need to give our methods the same respect that we do. I would hope that, at the very least, they would acknowledge that our polity is different. If others expect to affect change in TEC, they at least have to acknowledge the structure we have in place.
To think that General Convention can just shut the process down to prevent the election and consents of a future gay bishop (even in the short run) is a fantasy; the power doesn't exist in General Convention. That is why we had this convoluted resolution passed at last General Convention:
quote:
B033: On Election of Bishops. Calls upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
When the report was made to the Convention of the Diocese of Olympia by one of the clerical deligates, one that also happens to be a municipal judge so is used to matters legal and convoluted, said something to effect that "I don't know what this resolution means, and frankly, you don't know what it means either."
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Bede's American Successor notes:
quote:
For me, it is not that I think others need to give our methods the same respect that we do. I would hope that, at the very least, they would acknowledge that our polity is different.
Indeed, that is what I meant; I had expressed it more obliquely. Describing precisely mutual incomprehension is more challenging than I had initially thought.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As far as we are aware, the ABC did not legally prevent Jeffrey John from becoming a bishop, nor did he say that he would refuse to take part in his consecration (though I suppose it is possible that someone might have hinted at such a thing in order to persuade John not to take up the post)
There was quite overwhelming personal pressure (far more invidious than legal measures) from ++ for JJ to withdraw from accepting the post of suffragan Bp; combined with JJ's own developed sense of obedience to one's Father in Christ and responsible concern for the (supposed) unity of the CofE. I don't recall that the CofE allows general participation in, or interference with, the appointment of Bps; it is up to the ABp's Selection Secretary, the selection panel, the Diocesan Bp (in the case of suffragans) and the ABC, along with the Prime Minister and the Queen. I fail to see that any appointment would have been announced had not all of these people agreed to the nomination. JJ's orientation was hardly a secret. And this is from several personally known sources far closer to the actual truth and centre of it than the media, most of which missed the actual principles at stake.
My point is that JJ's lifestyle was in accordance with what the House of Bps had fairly clearly stated as guidelines for clergy behaviour; and the vocal elements in Oxford holding the CofE to financial ransom (among other things) had no business in implying JJ was lying about his personal life. Or that their own "standards" were of a higher authority than those given to clergy by their own Bishops. As I recall, the NT in particular says nothing whatsoever about forbidding a homosexual to be clergy of any sort. Presumably it's OK for him to be a Dean but not a Bp?
And I can add that sources of mine (outside the media) have indicated that JJ's name was not on the original list sent by Oxford to Lambeth. My sources believe it was added there. No one was suggesting the ABC himself added it, but there was speculation as who who did it and why.
JOhn
[ 17. January 2007, 04:30: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
If ECUSA as a whole can't do anything about who gets appointed bishop, then would someone care to explain what's happening in South Carolina now?
here's a letter by the guy who was elected by the diocese...
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
There was quite overwhelming personal pressure (far more invidious than legal measures) from ++ for JJ to withdraw from accepting the post of suffragan Bp; combined with JJ's own developed sense of obedience to one's Father in Christ and responsible concern for the (supposed) unity of the CofE. I don't recall that the CofE allows general participation in, or interference with, the appointment of Bps; it is up to the ABp's Selection Secretary, the selection panel, the Diocesan Bp (in the case of suffragans) and the ABC, along with the Prime Minister and the Queen. I fail to see that any appointment would have been announced had not all of these people agreed to the nomination.
I suppose this highlights the difference between the CofE and ECUSA in this matters. The diocese (clergy and lay people) are not involved in the selection process of the bishop. The problem began after the nomination had been announced because many people in the diocese were not happy. If we elected bishops, I suspect the diocese would not have elected him.
I actually admire Jeffrey John for being gracious and stepping down. He came out looking better than his opponents. But I've only just thought about it from the perspective of actually doing the job -- it would have been very hard for him to be bishop with that level of distrust from the clergy one is supposed to be overseeing.
Carys
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
My point is that JJ's lifestyle was in accordance with what the House of Bps had fairly clearly stated as guidelines for clergy behaviour; and the vocal elements in Oxford holding the CofE to financial ransom (among other things) had no business in implying JJ was lying about his personal life. Or that their own "standards" were of a higher authority than those given to clergy by their own Bishops. As I recall, the NT in particular says nothing whatsoever about forbidding a homosexual to be clergy of any sort. Presumably it's OK for him to be a Dean but not a Bp?
This is not strictly true. In his writings and lectures it is quite clear that Jeffrey John regarded himself as being in a long term same-sex relationship which he described as a covenanted partnership. At some random date in the 1990s he reluctantly subscribed to the discipline and teaching of the church by deciding that this relationship should be non-sexual (I say reluctantly because in his lobbying and writings he opposed the teaching). The fact is that people opposed his appointment because of this highly ambiguous relationship which had once been sexual and now wasn't in the same way that they would oppose the appointment of a heterosexual who had been cohabiting for years and then decided to get married. Furthermore, in the case of both Jeffrey John and Gene Robinson it is putting the cart before the horse to consecrate them as bishops before the Church (through its due processes) has decided that their partnerships are licit.
As to your last question, no I don't think it is okay for him to be a dean and not a bishop. He should be neither. However a bishop has a specific universal and apostolic ministry as well as being a more high profile position. The fact is that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion in appointing a practising homosexual bishop that you have deliberately changed the teaching of the Church (by placing facts on the ground rather than theological debate and synodical decision-making) whereas same sex partnerships among other clergy have more of the nature of an anomaly.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Not for the other religious organisations of his day, perhaps - but passe His prayers 'that all might be one' at the Last Supper, it would seem that the unity of His Church was dear to Him indeed. Of course, once one starts proof-texting, one can always cite that business about equal-yokiing and cutting-off-of-hands, so the situation is far from a limpid.
Nevertheless, unity is not something to be harmed lightly, especially as Christian disunity makes us look very silly in the eyes of the world.
If we're proof texting then its worth mentioning Sunday's NT reading for Evensong, Ephesians 4:1-16 where Paul talks about unity as something that Christians possess in the Spirit and insists that they make every effort to make fast that unity "with bonds of peace".
This, of course, is precisely what didn't happen. TEC knew damn well that electing +Robinson would cause a blazing row and went ahead and did it any way. The TEC conservatives saw an opportunity for grandstanding and snatched it with both hands. The Primates of the Global South saw an opportunity for a shift of the balance of power within the communion. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
With the exception of +Rowan (and +Robin) I don't think any of the protagonists has been remotely interested in unity, so it's unsurprising its not on the cards.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The Bede's American Successor wrote: quote:
Please pay attention:
Bishops in TEC are not appointed. There are a whole lot of people involved in the election of our bishops. To say our bishops are appointed totally misses the basis of the polity of TEC.
I'm not sure about American usage, but in UK usage, "appointment" can equally refer to the job itself rather than how somebody got it. Therefore you are likely to see people from this side of the pond continuing to use the word even when they know how your bishops are elected. It doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand the election thing.
Though I suspect many away from these boards (and some here) don't know and you are right to remind them of the fact.
Ian
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
At some random date in the 1990s he reluctantly subscribed to the discipline and teaching of the church by deciding that this relationship should be non-sexual (I say reluctantly because in his lobbying and writings he opposed the teaching).
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Your own life, I suppose, has been a model of fidelity to the precepts of the Gospels?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Callan wrote: quote:
This, of course, is precisely what didn't happen. TEC knew damn well that electing +Robinson would cause a blazing row and went ahead and did it any way. The TEC conservatives saw an opportunity for grandstanding and snatched it with both hands. The Primates of the Global South saw an opportunity for a shift of the balance of power within the communion. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
With the exception of +Rowan (and +Robin) I don't think any of the protagonists has been remotely interested in unity, so it's unsurprising its not on the cards.
Ah, well now we're getting somewhere. Just add Spawn's comment about putting facts on the ground, and you've got as concise a summary of what is going on here as anyone needs. Bring on the scapegoats!
Ian
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Your own life, I suppose, has been a model of fidelity to the precepts of the Gospels?
Well, I'm not seeking high office in the Church of England, neither am I a clergyman. Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Well, I'm not seeking high office in the Church of England, neither am I a clergyman. Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
And yet, you are asking the TEC to agree to follow the dictates of the Anglican Communion against what the majority of the TEC currently teaches?
How do you reconcile those two? Or are you saying a church in the Anglican communion believes something that the majority does not then they should no longer be a part of the communion?
I'm not quite following the logic of even if you follow the rules, but don't agree with them, then you are breaking them? Isn't that a little odd?
As far as South Carolina is concerned, they are asking for something that has never been asked for before. They don't have a problem with their bishop, but don't want +KJS to be their primate. And there is no current policy in place for that. Is there in any Anglican church? Can a church in the CofE decide not to want ++Rowan to be their ABC?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I actually admire Jeffrey John for being gracious and stepping down. He came out looking better than his opponents.
To be quite honest, I'm hard-pressed to think how -JJ could possibly have avoided coming out of the debacle looking better than his opponents. Burning down an orphanage in a fit of pique, perhaps.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And yet, you are asking the TEC to agree to follow the dictates of the Anglican Communion against what the majority of the TEC currently teaches?
How do you reconcile those two? Or are you saying a church in the Anglican communion believes something that the majority does not then they should no longer be a part of the communion?
I don't understand how there's any contradiction in what I've said. I'm in favour of orderly decision-making and I think TEC's decision-making has been chaotic. I don't think TEC has valued its dissenters enough to move into unprecedented territory (as the C of E did in 1993 with the Act of Synod) in order to preserve as much unity as possible.
Furthermore, TEC was warned that its Communion with other Provinces would be impaired or broken in 2003 and it still went ahead. TEC responded half-heartedly to Windsor. For want of a better phrase, TEC still thinks it can have its cake and eat it. Despite attempts at trying over the past century, the Anglican Communion still does not have a developed sense of authority. It was probably inevitable therefore that it would fragment at some point. For most of us, things will just carry on as usual in our parish churches and we'll barely notice the shifts and changes which are taking place.
My main sadness about the whole mess is that the Anglican Communion had real promise as a contributor to the unity of all Churches. Now it just seems to be adding to schism and disunity.
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on
:
PataLeBon writes
quote:
...are you saying [if] a church in the Anglican communion believes something that the majority does not then they should no longer be a part of the communion?
Of course they should no longer be a part of the communion - if the difference in belief is important enough, and if communion is to mean anything!
In Jeffery John's case, it was his teaching, not his (current) lifestyle, which was the real impediment to his being a bishop.
'It pertains to [the office of a bishop] to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions' as well as to be himself 'an example of righteous and goldy living' (Canon C18 of the Church of England).
Is this a Pond Difference?
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
Dave Marshall wrote:
quote:
They are the ones who have moved. This letter is saying, that doesn't matter, TEC is right, the conservative majority are wrong because TEC says so. It's claiming authority in the Communion that I don't see it has.
No. What it's claiming is the right to do what it's done, which of course it has. Individual Provinces moved ahead, or not, on the issue of women priests and were allowed so to do, which was a massive break from traditional attitudes at the time. I don't see how this is different, except that the political dynamics have changed.
Consequently it's the Windsor Report that is the biggest break with tradition thus far, and something that worries me greatly.
Callan wrote:
quote:
This, of course, is precisely what didn't happen. TEC knew damn well that electing +Robinson would cause a blazing row and went ahead and did it any way.
I'm not sure that it's that straightforward. The Episkies of NH elected Robinson, and I don't know how far they knew/cared what the rest of the Communion thought. Once that had happened, you couldn't really have the same Machiavellian stitch-up that we had over JJ. The fact that TEC elects bishops I think gives them a strong mandate and a clear indication of the views of the folks in the pews which we don't have in the CofE. As a result anyone can claim to be voicing the views of the majority, because we've no real means of discerning them.
Spawn said:
quote:
Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Yes you are. Plenty of thoroughly unpleasant types did oppose him on those grounds, and I find your sophistry unconvincing. Plenty of priests and even the odd bishop believe practicing homosexuality to be acceptable. Should they be dismissed? If not then orientation is the issue not their opinions, let's not try and pretend otherwise.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Yes you are. Plenty of thoroughly unpleasant types did oppose him on those grounds, and I find your sophistry unconvincing. Plenty of priests and even the odd bishop believe practicing homosexuality to be acceptable. Should they be dismissed? If not then orientation is the issue not their opinions, let's not try and pretend otherwise.
I've usually found unpleasant, bigoted types on both sides of the arguments. I'm sometimes embarrassed by other evangelicals and know plenty of liberals who share the same distaste for some of their fellow travellers.
But you really should try reading my post again to understand that my argument was not purely about Jeffrey John's teaching but the lifestyle he had adopted for much of his ministry, and his 'covenanted partnership'.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't understand how there's any contradiction in what I've said. I'm in favour of orderly decision-making and I think TEC's decision-making has been chaotic.
So pretty typical of Americans.
It seemed to be pretty straight forward to me. In the TEC, once someone has been ordained a priest they can be elected a bishop. That's been well known since the 1980's at least. Seems to me that the Communion should have decided to break communion with the TEC in the 90's if they didn't want anyone like +Robinson bishop. It was only a matter of time.
quote:
I don't think TEC has valued its dissenters enough to move into unprecedented territory (as the C of E did in 1993 with the Act of Synod) in order to preserve as much unity as possible.
True. I have been aggravated with General Convention over their treatment of dioceses who are still having difficulties with woman priests. I don't think that the TEC has a good way to deal with the minority opinions that exist and will always exist. (And realize that I do speak from one in my diocese. The only reason that my current church is still in the diocese is the fact that the bishop respects those that don't agree with him, and we still respect him. But we disagree on much and the parish does little on a diocesan level.)
quote:
Furthermore, TEC was warned that its Communion with other Provinces would be impaired or broken in 2003 and it still went ahead. TEC responded half-heartedly to Windsor. For want of a better phrase, TEC still thinks it can have its cake and eat it. Despite attempts at trying over the past century, the Anglican Communion still does not have a developed sense of authority. It was probably inevitable therefore that it would fragment at some point. For most of us, things will just carry on as usual in our parish churches and we'll barely notice the shifts and changes which are taking place.
My main sadness about the whole mess is that the Anglican Communion had real promise as a contributor to the unity of all Churches. Now it just seems to be adding to schism and disunity.
When you make absolute rules for what you have to believe beyond the creeds, then you have a problem, as scripture is always subject to interpretation. And sometimes tradition is simply doing it because it has always been done that way.
Once you make rules, then some will be in and some will be out. I'm not sure how one can ask for the unity of all Churches when you are asking that Christianity be more than the ancient creeds and believing in Jesus.
[ 17. January 2007, 12:18: Message edited by: PataLeBon ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
My point is that JJ's lifestyle was in accordance with what the House of Bps had fairly clearly stated as guidelines for clergy behaviour; and the vocal elements in Oxford holding the CofE to financial ransom (among other things) had no business in implying JJ was lying about his personal life. Or that their own "standards" were of a higher authority than those given to clergy by their own Bishops.
That's another topic entirely, and one done to death already. For what its worth, those few evangelicals here in Southwark, including clergy, who expressed an opinion in my hearing, all thought that Jeffrey John should have been a bishop. Even those who thought that Gene Robinson shouldn't. The issues were seen as quite different.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
PataLeBon wrote quote:
When you make absolute rules for what you have to believe beyond the creeds, then you have a problem, as scripture is always subject to interpretation. And sometimes tradition is simply doing it because it has always been done that way.
Well put! This neatly sums up the problems involved with the misapplications of both a protestant an a catholic approach, respectively.
Tradition - as opposed to tradition - is the embodied understanding of the truth. Understand what the truth is and you can change the way you convey the truth. Fail to understand the truth and you risk conveying some other message entirely.
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And I can add that sources of mine (outside the media) have indicated that JJ's name was not on the original list sent by Oxford to Lambeth. My sources believe it was added there. No one was suggesting the ABC himself added it, but there was speculation as who who did it and why.
JOhn
This is true. The ABC didn't add JJ to the list. It was added by someone else involved very near the centre of the process, as I understand it was felt that the candidates originally on offer weren't quite what was wanted for +Reading. Take that as you will. Quite frankly, with someone of JJ's abilities, I'm surprised that he wasn't on the original list. And, yes the point about CofE Bps being appointed (supposedly sans input from anyone outside the official selection process ) and ECUSA ones being elected illustrates a lot of differences between us.
Some of the concealed (e.g. well hidden under the mantle of fulminating about his orientation)objections from elements of extreme conservative evos in Oxford were also concerned with his churchmanship and their suspicion that he was "too carflick" , eg an extremely well educated, articulate and published theologian who would have been able to properly balance their own particular Biblical teaching and views (among other things). JJ has done considerable exegesis on the subject of homosexuality in the Bible. As for some Southwark evangelical clergy being in favour of his appointment, they, of course, all had on-the-spot evidence in their own diocese of his work, preaching, teaching and behaviour.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
At some random date in the 1990s he reluctantly subscribed to the discipline and teaching of the church by deciding that this relationship should be non-sexual (I say reluctantly because in his lobbying and writings he opposed the teaching).
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Quite. I don't see any of the married Anglican clergy refugees who were redone as RC priests voluntarily offering themselves into observing the rule of celibacy which is mandatory for other RC priests. They wouldn't have to get a divorce, "just" forever refrain from further sexual partnerships with their wives.
[ 17. January 2007, 14:48: Message edited by: jerusalemcross ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Jerusalemcross sez:
quote:
Quite. I don't see any of the married Anglican clergy refugees who were redone as RC priests voluntarily offering themselves into observing the rule of celibacy which is mandatory for other RC priests. They wouldn't have to get a divorce, "just" forever refrain from further sexual partnerships with their wives.
Apart from the obvious comment on this paragraph, which we'll take as read, an undertaking of celibacy within marriage (companiate marriage, I believe it is called) is a possible option for married Latin-rite RCs seeking to be ordained priests. The only case I can recall is of a professor from Paderborn in the days of Pius XII.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
ECUSA and the CofE have a set of virtually identical liturgies. Indeed, I should think that the formal, prescribed liturgies are far more apt to be ignored among the Evos of the CofE than in TEC. Further, in TEC I haven't experienced any generalised liturgical differences between theologically and socially conservative parishes and liberal ones (if we must use these dreaded terms).
Overall, ECUSA's really a pretty normal, boring place most of the time.
But then there are high-profile occasions like the enthronement of Katharine Schori, which are spectacularly revisionist and creative. Head in sand, I didn't pay enough attention to the thread about this occasion in Ecclesiantics, but didn't it include e.g. an episode of splashing ashes on the altar in penitence for the church's past misdeeds? Am I wrong to find such scary? If this kind of thing would happen during the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, then the differences between TEC and CofE may be minimal. If not, then this conversation does have something to talk about.
Yes, restive local laity are reassured from time to time: relax, things will be just the same when we go to church next Sunday as they were last Sunday. Never mind if in the top echelons our mother church seems to be out a-whoring. We do worry, though, that one of these days she will never come home again and we'll be orphaned.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But then there are high-profile occasions like the enthronement of Katharine Schori, which are spectacularly revisionist and creative. Head in sand, I didn't pay enough attention to the thread about this occasion in Ecclesiantics, but didn't it include e.g. an episode of splashing ashes on the altar in penitence for the church's past misdeeds? Am I wrong to find such scary? If this kind of thing would happen during the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, then the differences between TEC and CofE may be minimal. If not, then this conversation does have something to talk about.
Yes, restive local laity are reassured from time to time: relax, things will be just the same when we go to church next Sunday as they were last Sunday. Never mind if in the top echelons our mother church seems to be out a-whoring. We do worry, though, that one of these days she will never come home again and we'll be orphaned.
I believe that in the TEC the higher up you get there is something that makes you flakier, at least liturgy wise.
True, maybe we ought to do something about that, but I'm not sure how or what.
However, I'm not sure how you connect liturgical stupidity with whoring. I've seen many liturgical stupid moments done by people who really meant well, but really didn't have a clue about what they were borrowing or what it really meant or, on the flip side, those in the pews who didn't understand the liturgy because it was something different than they had experienced before.
I don't know if +KJS borrowed something without really understanding it, made something up, or if we don't understand. Without facts everything is just speculation.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Your own life, I suppose, has been a model of fidelity to the precepts of the Gospels?
Well, I'm not seeking high office in the Church of England, neither am I a clergyman. Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
You already have high office in the C of E - as a layman. Any distinction between ordained and lay, in terms of hierarchy or the demands of the gospel is surely unscriptural.
On the issue of whether Jeffrey's teaching was out of line, it (in the book he did for us in Affirming Catholicism) was in line with the House of bishops' document 'Issues of Human Sexuality' which allowed laypeople in conscience to form stable L/G relationships (and i know that contradicts what I said in the previous paragraph but is shoiws what a mess the C of E is in).
Re - the wider issue of ECUSA, the Anglican Communion is committed, after Lambeth '98, to a listeing oricess. Could it not be said that ECUSA actually did the listening changed its mind. Contrast that with the Ugandan bishops who refued to hear a presesntation from Changing Attitudes and even refused to sit in the same room as them. They claimed that the Church was following some 'secular agenda' yet Thomas Aquinas wrote, "every truth, no matter by whom it may be spoken, comes from the
Holy Spirit."
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
If ECUSA as a whole can't do anything about who gets appointed bishop, then would someone care to explain what's happening in South Carolina now?
here's a letter by the guy who was elected by the diocese...
If you do happen to find out, please let the rest of us know, too.
I'm sure Augustine the Aleut will know the exact number, but I think that only 1 or 2 bishop-elects have ever not received consents—and this was around the US Civil War. We are in uncharted territory.
The rumors (emphasis on the word "rumors") of what I am hearing is that there is some concern that this bishop-elect will try to take South Carolina out of TEC. I really don't know if there is anything to those rumors; they could be absolutely and totally false.
We are talking about South Carolina, here. It becomes very easy to assume the worse by those outside the state, whether or not it is really warranted. (Please note how I worded that last sentence.)
<tangent>
You think the Anglican Communion is having problems? Do a Google search on "confederate flag south carolina" to get a small taste of a really big controversy, at least from US eyes.
</tangent>
If the bishop-elect of South Carolina can quiet fears that he really isn't out to rip TEC apart, I suspect that he will receive his consents. From what I've seen, there really is no other reason to deny consents.
Remember that the abandonment charges against bishop of San Joaquin have been dropped, at least for now.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
So let me get this straight.
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
That's what I'm hearing here anyhow.
[ 17. January 2007, 19:01: Message edited by: Custard. ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
However, I'm not sure how you connect liturgical stupidity with whoring. I've seen many liturgical stupid moments done by people who really meant well, but really didn't have a clue about what they were borrowing or what it really meant or, on the flip side, those in the pews who didn't understand the liturgy because it was something different than they had experienced before.
I wouldn't connect all liturgical stupidity with whoring, but would defend the metaphor in this case because (1) the incident implied shame and regret for associating with the church that she had campaigned and been elected to lead; (2) it also implied that we may expect some radical changes in the near future; (3) the above being the case, perhaps by a process of elimination we must conclude that the motivation for it must have come from warm feelings for the Zeitgeist and a cheap desire to flatter those outside the church rather than in it.
As I said before, all this is hardly reassuring to those of us who have been told that having our first woman PB isn't really going to make that much of a disturbance. I suppose that the gesture is honest, because it certainly doesn't look politically astute from our POV.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
So let me get this straight.
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
If anyone tears the Anglican Communion apart, it won't be Gene Robinson. He has at least expressed no such desire.
So if a bishop-elect or candidate is indeed "out to" tear whatever body apart, the situation is not at all comparable.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
So let me get this straight.
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
That's what I'm hearing here anyhow.
I really don't think those people that voted to call +Gene, and then gave consent, really believed the Anglican train would come off the tracks. I kept hearing analogies to female ordination. That is, female ordination is a sticking point for some, but not a deal breaker. Every person who is aware of the world knows that there has already been gay bishops in the Anglican communion and beyond. So why split up over this one?
(I would ask a rhetorical question here, but someone may not recognize it as such and think I was trying to drag a dead horse in here.)
The fact that you got a convoluted resolution from General Convention about electing and consenting to the election of those with whom others might have problems elsewhere in the Communion shows that there really is concern about the wider Anglican Communion in TEC.
The fact that the Diocese of California (really, San Francisco) didn't call the Very Rev. Robert Taylor to be its bishop is considered by many to be because the Diocese of California was aware of the issues. (I don't how true this really is, but that is the story accepted commonly in the Diocese of Olympia, where Taylor is Dean of our Cathedral.)
Meanwhile, there are those that are still trying to figure out why +Gene is a deal breaker, whereas a female presbyter isn't. And, how we were supposed to know this time it was such a deal breaker.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
I bet someone is confusing the smudging with spreading ashes.....
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
You're right. Perhaps this did not happen.
(It wouldn't be the first time that a couple of my friends have exaggerated.)
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
First of all the feud at hand has much much more to it than the election of +Gene Robinson. But you're right, nonetheless, that the protests about being obliged to consent to the election of Gene Robinson when they're not obliged to consent to the fellow from South Carolina don't make a lot of sense to this foreigner.
I gather, btw, that the Schism has now been approved by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY
[ 17. January 2007, 21:33: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Sorry - screwed up the URL - that would be THIS Highest Authority.
RR
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
I bet someone is confusing the smudging with spreading ashes.....
It seems that for many people these days, when it comes to TEC, it's raisin cakes all the way down....
(Not referring to you, Alogon. Your friends, maybe, though. )
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
quote:
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
Ok, one more time, ECUSA--as in the gathered House of Bishops, General Convention (e.g.,ratifying ++Katharine), Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees--do consent or withhold consent to an election. ++Frank did not have that power.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Meanwhile, there are those that are still trying to figure out why +Gene is a deal breaker, whereas a female presbyter isn't.
What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why would anyone expect ordained women to be the "deal breaker"? The two issues, though both controversial in many places, are utterly unrelated to each other.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Meanwhile, there are those that are still trying to figure out why +Gene is a deal breaker, whereas a female presbyter isn't.
What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why would anyone expect ordained women to be the "deal breaker"? The two issues, though both controversial in many places, are utterly unrelated to each other.
Admittedly they are unrelated now (kind of sort of...it's complicated), BUT
How is the TEC electing someone who the rest of the communion believes shouldn't be a priest (+Robinson) different from electing a female bishop who again many people in the Anglican Communion believe shouldn't be a priest?
Unless all you are worrying about is who they are having sex with, or want to have sex with, then there seems to be some correlation.
It's confusing to some of us that who you "lust" after is a first order issue...
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Patalebon asks:
quote:
How is the TEC electing someone who the rest of the communion believes shouldn't be a priest (+Robinson) different from electing a female bishop who again many people in the Anglican Communion believe shouldn't be a priest?
Well...down in Dead Horses, you will find answers to this... basically, the first would be seen by some as a shouldn't be, and the second by some as a couldn't be. Admittedly, some may not see a difference there.
Earlier up this thread, a shipmate kindly thought that I would know about the instances where PECUSA (as it then was) withheld consent to the election of a bishop. There were three occasions, I believe, but the only specific one I can recall was the 19th century election of Bl. James de Koven, on account of his catholic tendencies.
In the US, there is no need to state a reason for withholding consent or, indeed, to have a specific reason at all (aside from conscience and decency-- such serious matters should never be whimsical or arbitrary). I recall reading in a history of PECUSA in North Carolina how, when a black bishop suffragan was being appointed after the Civil War for "coloured work," other southern dioceses were canvassed in advance to ensure that there would be no withholding consent.
Canadian canons limit the reasons for objection on the part of the bishops of a province-- generally, lacking the requisite age (30) or seniority (not a priest for at least 6 years), and some ecclesiastical provinces (Canada and Rupertsland, I believe) add ungodly living or having taught a doctrine not held by the Anglican Church of Canada. There is an appeal process in place, should this ever happen (it hasn't, yet, although I can think of a few instances where it would have been a good idea--to think that electoral synods are alone in possessing infallibility is ...cough... cough..).
US canons have a series of provisions to address a situation where consent is withheld, in order to provide for a bishop for a diocese in such a situation-- I think that this owes something to the Scottish Church's collegial approach to the episcopate, but I may be talking through my hat on this.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
How is the TEC electing someone who the rest of the communion believes shouldn't be a priest (+Robinson) different from electing a female bishop who again many people in the Anglican Communion believe shouldn't be a priest?
Because the reasons for believing they should not be a priest are different. Especially for the evangelicals. Insofar as it is evangelicals who are making the running in the protests then what they think is important.
The people who object to openly gay clergy object on moral grounds. They think it is a sin. They would think that a male priest living with his same-sex partner in an apparently sexual relationship would be sinning, in pretty much the same way as a male priest living in a sexual relationship with a woman he is not married to would be sinning.
But the business of ordaining women is one of church government. Quite different. And most of the evangelicals are in favour of women priests - or if they are against them then they are often against them on quite different grounds that aren't communion-breaking.
Also, on purely churchmanship party grounds, objections are split:
- Those Anglicans who don't mind gay male priests but object to women priests (and there are some) tend to be in the "liberal catholic" camp, who have been in the ascendency in all the English-speaking provinces for decades now (unless you count Sydney as separate from the rest of Australia). As such they are on the defensive because they have most to lose - in a cynical political sense - from a shift in the balance of power between churchmanships or betwen provinces. So they will have an interest in defering the question, doing things quitely and under the table.
- Anglicans who are in favour of ordaining women but opposed to appointing gay men to office in the church, are often from the "charismatic evangelical" side of things, which is perhaps the fastest-growing slice of Anglicanism (Alpha and all that), prominent in England and dominant in parts of Africa, but as far as I can tell thin on the ground in the USA. It thinks of itself as the coming thing, and is flexing its muscles. So they are likely to be tempted to force the issue because they think they can win.
quote:
Unless all you are worrying about is who they are having sex with, or want to have sex with, then there seems to be some correlation.
Well that is all they are worrying about, as far as homosexuality is concerning them.
quote:
It's confusing to some of us that who you "lust" after is a first order issue...
It isn't. Appointing a man as a bishop when he is widely thought to be living in open sin is. At least for many conservative evangelicals.
Filling out our grid of Anglicanisms (with a cynical tongue in my cheek):
- the hardline Anglo Catholics are in theory against both homosexuality and women priests. But they can get over the homosexual priests with a "don't ask, don't tell" position, because for them, even if they think it is a sin, the worthiness of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacraments. Also, some of their best friends are gay. But women bishops are a communion-breaking issue for them because they call into question the value of ordinations (which they will deny is a "theory of taint") and they believe that bishops in the tactile Apostolic Succession are neccessary for us to claim to be the true Church. Such people are probably more significant in England than other parts of the Anglican community, but they do get everywhere. But they are rarely a majority and so tend to have few bishops. So they feel under-represented in Anglican diplomacy. So they have an interest in trying to connect homosexuality with women's ordination in our minds so that they can attempt to recruit conservative evangelicals into their campaign for separate provinces.
- Hardline Reformed conservative evangelicals are also against both, but for them the moral issues (i.e. homosexuality) are more important. Women priests don't bother them as long as they don't have to have one in a "headship" role in their own parish. The essence of the church is not in bishops but in the gathered congregation. They've spent four hundred years working around catholic-minded bishops who they often see as barely-Christian busy-bodies more interested in church politics than in saving souls. They can ignore women bishops just as easily as they can ignore men bishops. So in practice theologically conservative evangelicals are likely to make more fuss about homosexual priests, because it seems more important to them. As well as reinforcing their long-held notion that the church in general is deeply corrupt and worldly. This is a dominant churchmanship in most of the smaller Anglican provinces, especially in Roman Catholic countries with a small Protestant minority, or missionary churches in mostly non-Christian countries in the Middle East and Asia. So they tend to have small provinces and are over-represented at conferences!
- the "open" evangelicals arestrongly in favour of women priests, but in practice are also "don't ask, don't tell" about gay priests. That might be because a lot of the ministers are in fact more liberal theologically than their congregations and don't want to stir up questions to which they fear the answers. Also they feel emotionally vulnerable to accusations of being liberal from their left. And some of them might will be very wary of linking the two issues, because they want to keep and many charimatic and conservative evangelicals on their side as possible. So their interests lie in keeping quiet about the whole thing and hoping it will go away.
(And nobody mention the Fisherfolk...)
[ 18. January 2007, 01:53: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
quote:
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
Ok, one more time, ECUSA--as in the gathered House of Bishops, General Convention (e.g.,ratifying ++Katharine), Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees--do consent or withhold consent to an election. ++Frank did not have that power.
And one more time again... Given what you are saying, what is happening with the bishop-elect of South Carolina?
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But then there are high-profile occasions like the enthronement of Katharine Schori, which are spectacularly revisionist and creative. Head in sand, I didn't pay enough attention to the thread about this occasion in Ecclesiantics, but didn't it include e.g. an episode of splashing ashes on the altar in penitence for the church's past misdeeds?
No, it didn't. You can watch both investiture services on the National Cathedral website. The liturgies weren't even "spectacularly revisionist", just tricked out with waving banners and liturgical dancers and smudging and whatnot. Somewhat tedious and silly, in my view, but nothing shocking.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
Ken - I actually understand personally.
What you do have is many people who don't.
One has to realize that the TEC is made up of a majority of "converts".
They simply don't have a global understanding of church, but a local one. So when you try to put things in a global perspective, they just shake their head and ask why people in a far place would care and if we have already done ground breaking things why is this different?
I'm not sure that there is anything that the ABC can do to change that kind of perspective. How do you teach someone to have a global perspective, and add to that an American citizen with all that entails.
America is not noted for looking beyond itself.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
quote:
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
Ok, one more time, ECUSA--as in the gathered House of Bishops, General Convention (e.g.,ratifying ++Katharine), Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees--do consent or withhold consent to an election. ++Frank did not have that power.
And one more time again... Given what you are saying, what is happening with the bishop-elect of South Carolina?
Well the consecration has been postponed for one thing.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Quite.
It's interesting seeing the contrasts between the two cases...
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
I bet someone is confusing the smudging with spreading ashes.....
It seems that for many people these days, when it comes to TEC, it's raisin cakes all the way down....
(Not referring to you, Alogon. Your friends, maybe, though. )
And it's this kind of gossip (which, incidently, is condemned by Scripture) that makes it hard to take seriously anything the angry Anglican right says. I have read many out-of-context quotes, false witness accounts about what people have said and did and over-the-top language, that when you go to the source doesn't resemble that is being spread around. I feel like I have to get the hip boots on when I read it.
It even turns off some of my friends who are sympathetic to their beliefs and concerns.
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Earlier up this thread, a shipmate kindly thought that I would know about the instances where PECUSA (as it then was) withheld consent to the election of a bishop. There were three occasions, I believe, but the only specific one I can recall was the 19th century election of Bl. James de Koven, on account of his catholic tendencies.
It happened twice to de Koven, once in 1874 and again in 1875 for bishoprics in Wisconsin and Illinois, respectively. Cf. here.
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
Sorry for the double-post. This link to the Episcopal News Service about the election of Jack Iker to Ft. Worth (and how contentious it was) closes with the assertion that De Koven was the only one. Of course, he was disqualified for views rather than for an invalid process.
Posted by mgeorge (# 10487) on
:
Just curious:
I'm an Episcopalian and I don't know what you're all talking about re: raisin cakes. Seriously. I've never seen them in more than 12 years of potluck, coffee hour, and other social functions. I've never seen them at a worship service, either.
Could someone please enlighten?
[ 18. January 2007, 15:14: Message edited by: mgeorge ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
This is the story. This may be the liturgy (Though this site clearly has a particular POV, so I am open to correction.)
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
BroJames: I am wary of using the evidence of someone who is obviously a critic. I have tried to get to the same spot from the official TEC website but so far failed. The best I can do is to get to this Women's Worship Resources. I cant see how you get from here to the 'service' being criticised.
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
Interestingly further down the page in the liturgy given by BroJames is a comment which says quote:
This ritual was never sanctioned by the Episcopal Church and how it got on their site is a mystery but it is gone now. The priests in question was looking for a way to bring pagans over to Christ, but they went too far and the story got twisted.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I read the rite when it was on the Episcopal Church website, and what BroJames has linked to looks right to me. The rite was removed from TEC's website when it was found to be copyrighted material from the druid group the priests in the NY Times article belonged to.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Jeez that was all a while back. I remember thinking that an organization like TEC - with a modest membership by American standards - has a rather large organizational structure down there at 815. People get lost in ecclesiastical structures and particularly anomalous bits of liturgy get stuffed in file folders marked 'womens' liturgies' or 'save for review later on'. Nowadays, of course, with the sharks circling the Episcopal Church looking for anything which is news, everything which has any online presence at all is being pored over by folks who don't wish TEC well - all those bow-tied clad 'conservative pundits' on loan to Anglican Mainstream now that Hillary Clinton is no longer seen as as much of a threat are just waiting. Their nipples get hard when the little 'you've got mail' sticker comes on on their computers and then it 'fingers tap away, we got druids at 815!'
I wonder if weird liturgies stuffed in file folders by weary religious leaders for later review would have explained the Dead Sea Scrolls? Dunno
RR
[ 18. January 2007, 16:28: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
Posted by mgeorge (# 10487) on
:
Thanks for the links. That explains a lot!
This what looks like a very isolated incident happened three years ago and it's still floating around as an (assumed) Episcopal practice?
[ 18. January 2007, 17:18: Message edited by: mgeorge ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
There was a rather testy thread on the subject with assorted evos saying: "Behold, the abomination of desolation foretold by the Prophet Daniel", the rest of us saying: "What to the point of ever" and Dave Marshall saying: "This is bad, why?"* Consequently 'raisin cakes' has entered ship folklore as a shorthand for liturgical flakiness. I don't think that anyone now thinks that ECUSA clergy routinely offer raisin cakes to Astarte, whatever more excitable people may have implied at the time.
*Actually, I just made that up to get a cheap laugh.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
What exactly does "out of communion" imply in a Communion that practices open Table Fellowship?
It seems to me that "out of communion" (variations include" "tearing the Communion apart" &tc) are sticks which both sides use to beat each other because, as someone said above, there is no defined authority in the Anglican Communion to enforce popular or unpopular discpline.
I've said it before: it seems astonishing to me that we could all live with divergent beliefs about the Office of the Holy Communion, but we have to get in a pet about what people do with their knobs.
Somewhere on this thread the Bishop of Willesdon said that if he came into the United States he would probably not go to an Episcopal Church (is he "out of communion" with ECUSA?). Would he not do so because of the dirty sexual habits of one of ECUSA's bishops, or because the ECUSA teaches a belief in the Real Presence in the Holy Communion?
These troubled times make me wonder just with whom I am "in communion" (if that phrase has any meaning) and if "in communion" has anything whatever to do with the actual Holy Communion or if it's just a way to get het up about the buggery.
Posted by mgeorge (# 10487) on
:
Got it, Callan. Thanks!
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Somewhere on this thread the Bishop of Willesdon said that if he came into the United States he would probably not go to an Episcopal Church (is he "out of communion" with ECUSA?). Would he not do so because of the dirty sexual habits of one of ECUSA's bishops, or because the ECUSA teaches a belief in the Real Presence in the Holy Communion?
These troubled times make me wonder just with whom I am "in communion" (if that phrase has any meaning) and if "in communion" has anything whatever to do with the actual Holy Communion or if it's just a way to get het up about the buggery.
I think I'd prefer pete173, just to keep us in SOF mode, please. And it's "Willesden".
And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA. I await the results of the Primates Meeting and the response of ECUSA to the Windsor proposals. And you misrepresent (rather trivially) the point I was trying to make about limits to diversity.
The conversation, yonks back on the thread, was about whether the "governing ideology" or plausibility structure - take your pick as to how you describe it - of a denomination can make it inherently liberal (or conservative, or whatever), and therefore unpalatable as a first choice place of worship to someone of a different theological hue.
Because we misunderstand each other across the Pond, many of the ECUSA folk might assume that all CofE people would automatically resort to an ECUSA church when in the US. I was saying that I wouldn't.
(Sorry, long point of explanation, but I do think that you were rather venting your spleen on the wrong target!)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The conversation, yonks back on the thread, was about whether the "governing ideology" or plausibility structure - take your pick as to how you describe it - of a denomination can make it inherently liberal (or conservative, or whatever), and therefore unpalatable as a first choice place of worship to someone of a different theological hue.
Yes, I remember. And you basically accused the Episcopal Church of not having a governing ideology based on scripture. I'd still like to know where on earth you got that idea.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I think we had that discussion on page 1 of the thread! You may not have liked my answer, or thought it resonated with your understanding, but I think I did try to answer it.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
No, you just cited our presiding bishop's sermon on the millenial goals as evidence that we're not biblically based, and that was refuted, complete with scriptural citation (Matthew 25), before we reached page 2. If you're going to make the truly outrageous claim that the Bible is not our governing principle, you would do well to provide some real evidence that this is the case. And if you really want to try to make a real argument, you could say, with evidence, what you think is the governing principle of the Episcopal Church.
[typo]
[ 18. January 2007, 19:27: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... and Dave Marshall saying: "This is bad, why?"* Consequently 'raisin cakes' has entered ship folklore...
*Actually, I just made that up to get a cheap laugh.
As cheap laughs go, I probably resemble that one. Good to know I'm at least making an impression on you, Callan, if not on the foundations of the Church of England.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I think I'd prefer pete173, just to keep us in SOF mode, please.
As you wish, but the point I was trying to make is that there is somewhat different implication for an Anglican bishop saying he would seek outside the Anglican communion for worship than yer average punter from WillesdEn.
quote:
And you misrepresent (rather trivially) the point I was trying to make about limits to diversity.
Well, no, I'm not representing anything. I'm actually asking how divergent theologies of the Lord's Supper are within the limits of diversity but differing views on buggery in the purple are outside?
quote:
(Sorry, long point of explanation, but I do think that you were rather venting your spleen on the wrong target!)
Don't know about my spleen and its vents. For what it's worth I'm conservative on the issue of the Bishop of New Hampshire but it doesn't mean I feel compelled to seek alternative oversight from My Lord of Chester.
So I'm just wondering what the big deal is (not just for pete173).
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, you just cited our presiding bishop's sermon on the millenial goals as evidence that we're not biblically based, and that was refuted, complete with scriptural citation (Matthew 25), before we reached page 2. If you're going to make the truly outrageous claim that the Bible is not our governing principle, you would do well to provide some real evidence that this is the case. And if you really want to try to make a real argument, you could say, with evidence, what you think is the governing principle of the Episcopal Church.
I've been awaiting that evidence as well.
By the way, I sat and watched the entire ++KJSfest, and while I thought it was frequently tedious and silly, I didn't see any ashes on the altar. That sounds like the David Virtue version.
Posted by badman (# 9634) on
:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other? And, as a bishop in the Church of England, you must know which?
I assumed you were in communion with ECUSA for the time being at least, that being the default position in the Anglican Communion. Seems to me that you are straining the bonds of affection a lot on this thread, and not least by equivocating on this pretty basic point.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
Hookers Trick said:
quote:
For what it's worth I'm conservative on the issue of the Bishop of New Hampshire but it doesn't mean I feel compelled to seek alternative oversight from My Lord of Chester.
So I'm just wondering what the big deal is (not just for pete173).
And this is really the cruncher. It's pretty clear Akinola and his fan club really do regard homosexuals as unspeakably vile and abhorent which at least explains why they are acting as they are.
For those who claim they don't feel like this, I still don't see:
a: How other provinces get to intefere in the appointment of a TEC bishop when it's all been done by the book, and when such interference is clearly in violation of Anglican tradition/governance. And indeed how Akinola's behaviour in all this is better than TECs.
b: How the previous behaviour of a CofE cleric, who has sworn to stop said behaviour, and has cleared this with his bishop is the business of anyone else at all.
c: When you are consecrated as a bishop, where in your vows do you get to stick in the caveat: "unless the liberals take over".
I'm aware there some in the CofE who feel far more loyalty to the EA or whatever than they do to their actual church, I just wasn't aware that there were bishops among them.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
I still don't see:
a: How other provinces get to intefere in the appointment of a TEC bishop when it's all been done by the book, and when such interference is clearly in violation of Anglican tradition/governance.
I'm an observer in all this, but it seems to me that the view that there's been any interference is a very unhelpful misreading of the situation.
My understanding is that being 'in communion', what being part of the Anglican Communion is about, is a state that exists when different Churches recognise in each other a shared way of being a Church. It's not a club membership thing. If one Church decides, for whatever reason, in whatever way, to do something the others would not do, they're not 'kicked out' of the Communion. They simply no longer have the same way of being a Church as the others. It's a state that has changed, not a membership that's been revoked.
If the others point this out, which is I think what has been going on here, I don't see that is interfering. It's a consequence of what is being or has been done. I'd have thought that fell squarely within the freedom of speech values that TEC upholds, and was an unavoidable outcome of Churches who try to talk openly and honestly to each other.
Of course the politics makes this look infinitely complex. But I can't help thinking that a bit more clarity about the nature of 'communion' in this context would avoid some of the misunderstandings.
[ 19. January 2007, 13:22: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
This is a tangent, but indulge me:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Presumably all Anglicans have to be in communion with the Church of England (or the See of Canterbury at least) whether or not they are in "communion" with each other.
Can yo be "in communion" with the See of Canterbury and "out of communion" with the Church of England?
Presumably being "out of communion" with the See of Canterbury results in no longer being Anglican.
I'm not sure what the consequences of being out of communion with the Province of Nigeria or the ECUSA are.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There was a rather testy thread on the subject with assorted evos saying: "Behold, the abomination of desolation foretold by the Prophet Daniel", the rest of us saying: "What to the point of ever" and Dave Marshall saying: "This is bad, why?"*
If we cut it off right there before the raisin cakes, this describes about 2/3 of the threads in Purgatory.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Hooker's Trick asks:
quote:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Well, there is the Church of England in South Africa, which broke away in the wake of Bishop Colenso's critique of Deuteronomy etc., and which continues, supplied by retired CoE bishops and the Archbishop of Sydney, whom I gather provided them with the Apostolic Succession. I'm not sure if the Reformed ECUSA (an 1870s-era secession from the then-PECUSA) classifies itself as Anglican, but perhaps some US shipmates might provide us with that information. And then, of course, there is the alphabet soup of the Continuum...
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
"It is also entirely possible for a church to be completely Anglican in heritage and origin, but for it not to be in communion with the See of Canterbury."
Se this list from "Anglicans Online"
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Certainly, in my humble and unlearned opinion.
Mind you, I haven't quite worked out a precise definition of what it means to be Anglican yet. It would just seem like rank hypocrisy to claim churches that break away from the Communion lose their Anglicanism, yet get all huffy when the Roman Catholics ask what happened in the 16th century.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other?
Hmmm... I read that as "I personally as an individual am not in or out of communion"
Intercocommunion in this sense being between churches as churches (or dioceses as dioceses, or provinces as provinces) rather than between individual Christians.
As someone else said, as Anglican churches tend to welcome worshippers from other traditions to the Lord's table anyway, it doesn't really mean much to say that some individual is in or out of communion.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
Dave Marshall said:
quote:
If one Church decides, for whatever reason, in whatever way, to do something the others would not do, they're not 'kicked out' of the Communion. They simply no longer have the same way of being a Church as the others. It's a state that has changed, not a membership that's been revoked.
Except it's not been done over other differences. Issues over various African churghes have been cited, women priests, liturgical differences have all been taken in their stride. Why suddenly is there such an extreme and unpreedented response?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I'm not sure if the Reformed ECUSA (an 1870s-era secession from the then-PECUSA) classifies itself as Anglican, but perhaps some US shipmates might provide us with that information.
I read in a book, just today, that they had ordinations by the South Africans that were mentioend earlier.
As far as I can gther the REC is the only one of these split-off churches than has more than a handful of parishes or a few hundred worshippers. Is that about right?
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other? And, as a bishop in the Church of England, you must know which?
I assumed you were in communion with ECUSA for the time being at least, that being the default position in the Anglican Communion. Seems to me that you are straining the bonds of affection a lot on this thread, and not least by equivocating on this pretty basic point.
*Sigh* that looks like what's going on to me.
For what it's worth, Pete, your attitude on this thread is very, very, very discouraging (to say the least) to those of us on the more-progressive side who have been urging patience (etc.) to the more-extremists in *our* camp. Ruth touched on this with her "I wonder why I bother" but I think this is worth spelling out.
If this is the way that you're trying to keep the Run-That-Woman-Out-On-A-Rail gang in line, I can see why things have been getting worse.
If this is All Not What You Really Meant, I am, of course, all ears.
Bede's reminder that a lot of the rest of the AC isn't really aware of our polity* is an excellent one. And, of course, the Raisin Cakes/Clown Mass brigade gets *press*.
* Ruth's point that TPTB should have done policy before the VGR thing is a Most Excellent one.
After reading your posts, I'm both hungry for waffles (don't know if that slang requires a pond translation, but if so, I hope some kind shipmate will step up and provide it) and have "The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord" going through my mind's ear. Time for breakfast .
Charlotte
[ 19. January 2007, 15:37: Message edited by: Amazing Grace ]
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Hooker's Trick asks:
quote:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Well, there is the Church of England in South Africa, which broke away in the wake of Bishop Colenso's critique of Deuteronomy etc., and which continues, supplied by retired CoE bishops and the Archbishop of Sydney, whom I gather provided them with the Apostolic Succession. I'm not sure if the Reformed ECUSA (an 1870s-era secession from the then-PECUSA) classifies itself as Anglican, but perhaps some US shipmates might provide us with that information. And then, of course, there is the alphabet soup of the Continuum...
The REC does consider itself Anglican . . . because we are.
And we are in the apostolic succession.
Yes, the Continuum is quite an alphabet soup, to our discredit. We are making concrete moves to become more unified, such as the ongoing merger of the REC and the APA.
Posted by badman (# 9634) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other?
Hmmm... I read that as "I personally as an individual am not in or out of communion"
I wondered about that after I posted, but the full quote was "And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA. I await the results of the Primates Meeting and the response of ECUSA to the Windsor proposals." - which suggests that he will have a personal in-or-out-of-communion position, when the results are in, and is in a state of suspended communion in the meantime, which was a surprise (if that is what he meant) to me.
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on
:
Well-said, "Wulfstan!"
And for those of you who do not know what the "interference" is, it is the continuing interference into the lives/process/polity of other dioceses in the Anglican Communion by Akinola and other likek-minded bishops. The Windsor Report specifically asked for such interference to stop.
Another example of the double standards going on in the whole debacle.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
The REC does consider itself Anglican . . . because we are.
If the EUCSA were not in communion with the See of Canterbury I would no longer consider her Anglican.
Greyface: I'm rather with the Roman Catholics on that one.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
HT, do you consider there to be anything special about Anglican churches? In leaving communion with Canterbury, have the continuum lost anything beyond the obvious?
If so, we're all in trouble. If not, Anglican is just a label that means "in communion with Canterbury" and nothing more.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If not, Anglican is just a label that means "in communion with Canterbury" and nothing more.
I think that is what it is.
Continuing "Anglican" is essentially a synonym for "worshipping according to some variation of the 1928 BCP".
If the "special" thing about Anglicanism is worship derived from the Prayer Book, then Divine Outlaw Dwarf (and others) are not Anglicans.
If the "special" thing about Anglicanism is comprehensiveness, the very existence of "continuing Anglicans" (and indeed, the existence of this thread) seems to undercut that notion.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
* Ruth's point that TPTB should have done policy before the VGR thing is a Most Excellent one.
I think that was me, but anyway, it's something that is very important. That step was skipped, and it shouldn't have been. But in the end, the problem with this issue is that it seems all very theoretical until you're dealing with actual gay people who you know and love (really, not just in a Christian sense). Do we somehow have more gay members of TEC than the CofE does and so far greater knowledge of actual gay people? Because extensive exposure makes having a theoretical theological discussion about whether having gay sex is a bar to ordination (or whatever) much more difficult. However difficult, though, it's a decision that should have been made, though, before we made a gay guy a bishop.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Do we somehow have more gay members of TEC than the CofE does and so far greater knowledge of actual gay people?
Having been to a geat many Anglo-Catholic churches here in England its hard to see how that would be possible. Short of actual gay clubs or bars they seem to have a higher proportion of gay men as members than any other institution in society.
Though my main experiences are in Brighton (my home town) and the dicocese of Southwark where I live now, so it might not be statistically valid. Both places are much more "High Church" than most parts of the Church of England, Southwark dicocese has a partly deserved reputation for theological liberalism, Brighton has an entirely deserved reputation for social liberalism. It also has the largest proportion of out gay men of any city in Britain. (And the largest proportion of drug-related deaths of any city in Britain ). So my observations may not be relevant to the rest of the country.
Evangelical churches are a different story. But I don't think I've ever been to one of any size that didn't have homosexual members. (More lesbians than gay men I think, not that I've ever tried to count). But very often, even if they are "out" in general society they are not obviously out and gay in church.
So it might be possible for someone who wanted to believe that there are none in th church to carry on believing that, if they didn;t pay too much attention. Don't ask, don't tell is still the default policy. (and I'm not sure its a bad one, but that's a subject for another thread, which is probably dead)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Though my main experiences are in Brighton (my home town) and the dicocese of Southwark where I live now, so it might not be statistically valid.
I nominate this remark for understatement of the year!
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
I find myself growing (quite rightly unpopularly)nostalgic for the days when
quote:
Don't ask, don't tell (was) still the default policy.
I think the issue with TEC is that the policy was abandoned there. Honesty is a costly policy.
RR
[ 21. January 2007, 22:07: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Though my main experiences are in Brighton (my home town) and the dicocese of Southwark where I live now, so it might not be statistically valid.
I nominate this remark for understatement of the year!
And seconded...and third-ed! Interesting how +Southwark went from guns-blazing-anti-gay-clergy to "don't ask, don't tell" in a very short space of time. Probably realised that he would have too many vacancies if he really did refuse to "knowingly license or institute homosexual clergy living in full same-sex relationships" in Southwk. His get-out, of course, was "knowingly".
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is dreadfully underrated. It covers so many things, from gluttony to adultery that we really just don't want to know about, and gives us all plausible deniability, even when you know that the organist's "friend" is so much more. Worked for our parents' generation. Well, apart from the alcoholism, depression, suicide and occasional prosecution.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Personally Laura I think that
quote:
alcoholism, depression, suicide and occasional prosecution
are dreadfully under-rated. There is a tendency now in parishes to underplay the events which mark life's passages.
il faut souffrir pour etre belle
Everything's so homogenous nowadays!
R
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is dreadfully underrated. It covers so many things, from gluttony to adultery that we really just don't want to know about, and gives us all plausible deniability
There are plenty of things that some Christians think are sins and either avoid or confess, but others either don't think are sins at all, and legitimate practices, or at worst morally neutral weaknesses.
Like drinking beer, or drinking lots of beer, or betting on horse races, or oral sex, or voting Tory, or reading Harry Potter books, or telling dirty jokes, or lending money at interest, or marrying a Jew, or joining the army, or eating meat, or not eating meat, or using pornography, or getting fat, or listening to punk rock, or smoking, or saying prayers to Mary. Just to name a few.
If we were always going on about such things in church we'd never get round to worshipping.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
Ken, that was a great post
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I agree with ken. I was making a joke, but obviously not doing a very good job of it.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Actually, I'm at a real disadvantage in the homosexuality debates because I just don't really care about what priests' family lives are as long as they aren't scandalous, abusive, adulterous, what-have-you. (I care far more about other qualities -- whether the priest is able to model Christ, whether he administers his responsibilities well, whether she understands liturgy and music, whether she can give good Sermon. That sort of thing.)
I also feel very strongly that the decision to spend a lot of time and energy on who's stupfing whom is taking attention away from things like the fact that huge proportions of the globe's population are living in war-torn half-starved misery and the environment is going down the toilet and this is time we could spend on that.
So perhaps I'm not a good person to be participating in this argument, in fairness.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
- on the other hand, maybe it makes you well qualified to offer guidance on that basis.
- or on the other hand again (I have 3 hands) perhaps we are supposed to get all these things right
Ian
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
Amazing Grace said:
quote:
* Ruth's point that TPTB should have done policy before the VGR thing is a Most Excellent one.
Perhaps but I don't see why it doesn't equally apply to TEC's opponents. Again, the point is not simply that the consecration of GR was wrong, but that it's being made out that it was SO wrong that radical changes have to be made to the governance of the entire Communion so that we can more effectively cut off the right hand that is being so offensive. The arguments so far seem to be as follows:
1: It's against traditional Anglican teaching.
Like the ordination of women was and like offering Alternative Episcopal Oversight to TEC parishes still is.
2: It's a violation of Anglican policy on this issue.
Like many other provinces/dioceses/parishes who demonise homosexuals and are, in the case of Nigeria campaigning to have them all locked up.
3: It's immoral.
A rather more contentious suggestion, but how is it more so than the behaviour of certain bishops in Zimbabwe for example?
It's not that people who feel strongly shouldn't oppose or campaign against what's happening, but that they might stop short of restructuring the governance of the Anglican Communion so as to be able to expel those they disagree with.
This thread has been running for 10 pages now and I've yet to see anyone try to explain why this issue is so much worse than all the other examples cited.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA.
I struggle to see how this makes sense.
I understand that you await the results of the primates' meeting. But in the meantime, you presumably either are, or are not, in communion with the bishops of ECUSA.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
Look, I'm really cheesed off with this. Gene Robinson was unfit to be ordained presbyter, leave alone consecrated bishop, on so many grounds that ECUSA's support for him is sufficient by itself for that sect to be put beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Parading homosexuality is just one symptom to be added to adultery, divorce and alcohol abuse. None of these disqualify him from God's love and the church's care, and in that regard perhaps ECUSA has the high ground. But all of them compounded remove him from consideration for presbyteral office.
How can any orthodox overseer associate himself with a sect which disregards scripture, tradition and reason so blatantly?
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
ECUSA's support for him is sufficient by itself for that sect to be put beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Whereas, say, Jack Shelby Spong was OK.
It is faintly ridiculous to claim that the issue in the Robinson case is one of 'orthodoxy'. Which fundamental dogma has he denied?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA.
I struggle to see how this makes sense.
I understand that you await the results of the primates' meeting. But in the meantime, you presumably either are, or are not, in communion with the bishops of ECUSA.
No, I think that for many of us we would feel that ECUSA have broken communion by their actions. That means (in the CofE) that the Bishop of New Hampshire was not permitted to undertake liturgical functions when he came to the Diocese of London last year. But we are also committed to the Windsor process, and would not want to jump hastily to the conclusion that ECUSA have excluded themselves. That will be discerned in due course.
That's why the situation is ambiguous.
As for Spong, I imagine that he too would have been unwelcome in the Diocese. But I'm not aware that he asked to come.
I also think that the English HoB will have to come to a mind on the matter. But we have not discussed this per se. So, the answer to your question is that I personally would not see myself as in communion with ECUSA, but would prefer to act and work collectively with the whole English College of Bishops and with the wider Anglican Communion.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
When the Fathers settled on Timothy and Titus to be in the canon of scripture, they didn't have a text which said that parading one's active homosexuality, deserting one's wife for one's boyfriend and being an alcoholic is behaviour which the would-be presbyter should aspire to.
I don't know whether I'm more annoyed with the ECUSA types who seem to be in blissful ignorance of some required personal qualities of a presbyter, or C of E clergy who know perfectly well that these are unacceptable behaviour traits but still think that they have to support their ritualist mates against an orthodox bishop.
And no, the execrable Spong is not OK. That my own archbishop welcomes him under his roof is just one of many points of divergence between us. But Spong is becoming inactive and is more or less a laughing stock, so we don't have to undo his damage any longer.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the point is that no-one started talking about being out of communion, or finding a new archbishop, or splitting the communion, over Spong, not whether they thought he was "all right" or not; we know they didn't.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
deserting one's wife for one's boyfriend
*sigh* I know there's absolutely no point in wasting my time in posting this, but here we go again - +New Hampshire met his partner years after his divorce from his wife. You know that, I know that, Anglicans across the whole world know that.
I quite agree that electing an alcoholic is neither Scriptural nor sensible, although I don't recall whether he was actually an alcoholic at the time of his election of whether the stress of being branded the official Worst Anglican Ever just got to him.
I'd also point out that if his alcoholism is such a problem, why no protests over the various booze-sozzled CofE bishops who have turned up over the years? Where are the angry Nigerians and Sydneyites and Fort Worthies demanding that +Southwark and half-a-dozen others be sacked or else the CofE be cast out of the Communion? If the supposed epistles of the Blessed Apostle to SS Timothy and Titus are the arbiter, then drunkeness is just as much there as the 'one wife' clause.
Once again, homosexuality is judged under a completely different standard from absolutely anything else you can name.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Pete, I'm a little confused here.
I can understand from the point of view I think you hold - although it's quite likely that I've misunderstood this - that you consider yourself to be out of communion with the bishop of New Hampshire based on his unsuitability for the position according to traditional readings of Scripture. I don't then see how that extends to anyone else in ECUSA unless either
a) you consider yourself out of communion with anyone who either agrees with his attitude to homosexuality or believes he is a suitable bishop, in which case you should surely be also out of communion with many members of the Church of England including perhaps several bishops, or
b) you accept the idea of a corporate identity at the diocesan or provincial level, in which case shouldn't you also be out of communion with national or provincial churches that harbour bishops who have, as been previously mentioned, acted in a scandalous manner?
Please could you explain your thinking? I'm not asking this to score points. I just don't see where you're coming from ecclesiologically or theologically.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
The story of VGR deserting his wife for a bloke is just a better story. Try telling stories to people that aren't memorable. They'll soon forget them. They'll move on. You wouldn't be much of a story teller then, would you?
RR
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
It's about the official position of the church (which is why Spong is irrelevant to this, since he's heterodox by nearly anyone's standards).
Read the Windsor Report, the HoB response to it here, and Repair the Tear which you can access here.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
It still looks to me like it's a case of "ordain people we disagree with and we'll get huffy about it. Ordain a poofter and we'll split".
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
deserting one's wife for one's boyfriend
*sigh* I know there's absolutely no point in wasting my time in posting this, but here we go again - +New Hampshire met his partner years after his divorce from his wife. You know that, I know that, Anglicans across the whole world know that.
I quite agree that electing an alcoholic is neither Scriptural nor sensible, although I don't recall whether he was actually an alcoholic at the time of his election of whether the stress of being branded the official Worst Anglican Ever just got to him.
I'd also point out that if his alcoholism is such a problem, why no protests over the various booze-sozzled CofE bishops who have turned up over the years? Where are the angry Nigerians and Sydneyites and Fort Worthies demanding that +Southwark and half-a-dozen others be sacked or else the CofE be cast out of the Communion? If the supposed epistles of the Blessed Apostle to SS Timothy and Titus are the arbiter, then drunkeness is just as much there as the 'one wife' clause.
Once again, homosexuality is judged under a completely different standard from absolutely anything else you can name.
Ah, but I think that all sins should be judged with the same exclusionary standards.
Which promptly casts me out into the Outer Darkness™.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
The annoying part of all of this from my perspective is that I do agree that +VGR was not a good bishop candidate and I still don't know why the good people of NH elected him their bishop. I keep getting hung up on the weird "take back our wedding vows" ceremony the Robinsons held to undo their marriage - bleah!
But, dear Foaming Draught, I'm not sure why he was any less suitable as a priest than any of the thousands of wine-soaked gluttons, skirt chasers and/or queens the CofE have had in holy orders over the years.
I do wish that NH had waited until they had a ferociously upright, extremely psychologically settled gay candidate before shoving one up the nose of the Communion, but they didn't, and now we all have to deal with it. As with Jackie Robinson (may his memory be eternal), when you pick a trailblazer, you want him alas to be as nearly perfect as possible.
[spelling]
[ 23. January 2007, 12:56: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
FWIW, I think we should have protested more strongly about Spong too (and a fair few English bishops), but now things have changed in England (and elsewhere) and theological liberalism is very much in the minority (and getting more so), so those who want to uphold Scriptural, Traditional and Reasonable understandings of church discipline can do so. Part of me doesn't want to think what would have happened if Runcie had been ABC at the time.
Oh, and this week the Church of England Newspaper ran a front page story about KJS not wanting to call Jesus "Saviour" or "Lord" (I can't find it online).
True? False? Distortion? Christian?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Just because Spong shouldn't have been a bishop either doesn't mean that Robinson should have been.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
It still looks to me like it's a case of "ordain people we disagree with and we'll get huffy about it. Ordain a poofter and we'll split".
Except that no-one's split, we're still at the stage of being 'huffy' about it.
But there are other differences. Spong's heterodoxy emerged over a period of about 20 years and during that time there was still plausible deniability that his theology represented that of his Church. In fact, it was clear that while his heterodoxy had significant support across ECUSA (as it was known then) his views did not represent the official view of the American Church. In other words, his view was an extremist one and did not alter the church's teaching one jot. Furthermore, many people criticised him and did not regard him as a fit bishop. Had +Spong been elected Bishop of Newark with his 12 Theses as an election manifesto and gained the necessary consents then that would be scandalous and just as divisive as +Robinson's election and consecration.
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage. And the election of +Robinson (and the later +Spong) officially downgrades the authority of the Bible in favour of culture and experience (or in Spong's case suspicious and outdated scholarship).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
It still looks to me like it's a case of "ordain people we disagree with and we'll get huffy about it. Ordain a poofter and we'll split".
Except that no-one's split, we're still at the stage of being 'huffy' about it.
True, but the huffiness is far closer to "we'll split" than any huffing done about Spong.
quote:
But there are other differences. Spong's heterodoxy emerged over a period of about 20 years and during that time there was still plausible deniability that his theology represented that of his Church. In fact, it was clear that while his heterodoxy had significant support across ECUSA (as it was known then) his views did not represent the official view of the American Church. In other words, his view was an extremist one and did not alter the church's teaching one jot. Furthermore, many people criticised him and did not regard him as a fit bishop. Had +Spong been elected Bishop of Newark with his 12 Theses as an election manifesto and gained the necessary consents then that would be scandalous and just as divisive as +Robinson's election and consecration.
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage. And the election of +Robinson (and the later +Spong) officially downgrades the authority of the Bible in favour of culture and experience (or in Spong's case suspicious and outdated scholarship).
Erm - did Gene Robinson get elected with his sexuality and beliefs about it specifically as his manifesto? I'm not aware that candidates for bishop have manifestos.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[Tangent] I have just had this picture come into my head of Gene Robinson dressed up as Dafydd from Little Britain roaming the highways and byways of New Hampshire with a megaphone shouting "Gay rights for gays!"[/tangent]
Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
Spong became bishop because he was elected by Episcopalians in Newark diocese (many of whom, no doubt, repented at leisure). I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, my point was that they elected him knowing some at least of his views. I'm trying to figure out why Spong's election doesn't mean that TEC were a bunch of evil liberals then, but GR's does. Spawn's answer seemed to me to take a great many words to say "it's just different".
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Custard:
quote:
Oh, and this week the Church of England Newspaper ran a front page story about KJS not wanting to call Jesus "Saviour" or "Lord" (I can't find it online).
True? False? Distortion? Christian?
Does anyone want to produce any actual evidence? Or is the default anti-TECCIE position now that we'll just assume TECCIES are heterodox when there is no evidence and tell lies when there is (e.g. the well documented case of Robinson not leaving his wife for a bloke.)
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, my point was that they elected him knowing some at least of his views. I'm trying to figure out why Spong's election doesn't mean that TEC were a bunch of evil liberals then, but GR's does. Spawn's answer seemed to me to take a great many words to say "it's just different".
Why it is different in as few words as possible:
+Robinson's election, and consecration says to the whole world that The Episcopal Church has changed its teaching on sexuality and marriage in spite of what the rest of the Communion warned would happen. +Spong's election didn't have the same ramifications because it didn't change the official teaching of ECUSA on anything because he was unrepresentative, and his views weren't known and developed before he was elected(*).
* I've got his autobiography sitting round somewhere. According to my memory he was known as a theological liberal when he was elected, was known as a civil rights activist (a good thing), and was open to dialogue with Jews (another good thing). According to people I have spoken to he was thought of as being homophobic in the early years of his episcopate and was a relatively late convert to the gay cause after other bishops had already taken it up.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I suppose - not wishing to concede that Spawn has a point - one could argue that the election of Spong could be construed as misfortune and the election of Robinson looks like carelessness.
Mind you, I'm not sure that a church whose episcopate has been graced by, among others, +Barnes, +l'autre Robinson and +Jenkins is really in a position to wrap itself in the chasuble of Saint Athanasius.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage.
I really don't see why... It means that a majority of NH Anglicans (or maybe just the largest minority, I don't know exactly what the election results in NH were) don't see that particular sin as being a barrier to episcopal office in the same way that they don't see the usual gamut of pride or gluttony or whatever as being such a barrier.
Whether a majority of NH Anglicans don't think that his lifestyle is sinful at all is not something that can be assessed from the result, any more than the continued support for my Lord of Southwark means that the CofE does not consider drunkenness a sin, or the former ++Jorvik's 'gray area' declaration means that we no longer believe in letting our 'yes' be 'yes' and our 'no' be 'no'.
Such a judgement would be justified if General Convention or whatever other relevant authority permitted same-sex blessings, for example, but can't currently be made.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Karl Liberal Backslider noted:
quote:
I'm not aware that candidates for bishop have manifestos.
I haven't delved back on to the WWW's past to see what it was that Gene Robinson said before his election to NH, but his partnered-outness was definitely an aspect of what was known to NH electors. While I would criticize him for allowing his name to go forward, he cannot be faulted (as Spong might conceivably be) for not having been open.
More to the point, candidates for bishops do have manifestos. Most US episcopal election websites post candidates' answers to a range of questions, many designed by the committee responsible for the election, and some submitted from the diocese. Reading them, I have found most revealing those which relate to candidates' vocation, and to their recreations-- their responses about why they feel themselves suited for the Sacred Purple often make me ill with an overdose of their inarticulate false humility, but that's me-- perhaps I have diabetic tendencies I don't know about. These days, most dioceses take care to put a great deal of information about nominated candidates on the web.
In some places, candidates have insufficiently (I think) blocked the circulation of pamphlets with photos of their smiling, gender-balanced, respectable families. Candidates, however, are finding that their past statements, essays, bloggings and sermons, so easily retrieved from the WWW, are also be food for electors' meditation. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
In many places, candidates (and spouses) go to regionally-based townhalls for electors or to more informal walkabouts, to answer questions. I've not spoken with anyone who goes to these things, so do not know if they are worshipful press conferences, or vigorous pursuits of follow-up to the questionnaires. Perhaps other shipmates can enlighten us with their experiences??
While Canadian elections have not gone this way in the past, I suspect that, more and more, we will be following the US route. Our politicking has tended to be behind the scenes, and has relied overmuch on rumour, nudges and winks. ECUSA's approach, while objectionable in some ways, is likely an improvement on our traditions...
By the by, can we relegate Bp. Robinson's leaving his wife for his partner to the same embarrassing place as the polygamous African bishops stories? They are offensive, inaccurate, and detract from our ability to address real issues (and real peripheral issues).
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage.
I really don't see why... It means that a majority of NH Anglicans (or maybe just the largest minority, I don't know exactly what the election results in NH were) don't see that particular sin as being a barrier to episcopal office in the same way that they don't see the usual gamut of pride or gluttony or whatever as being such a barrier.
It's not just New Hampshire. All the Dioceses have a role in consenting to such elections and the Province through its Primate consecrates a bishop for the whole Church (the part of it that accepts Anglican orders).
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
ECUSA's support for him is sufficient by itself for that sect to be put beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Whereas, say, Jack Shelby Spong was OK.
It is faintly ridiculous to claim that the issue in the Robinson case is one of 'orthodoxy'. Which fundamental dogma has he denied?
He was on NPR's Fresh Air around the time of the '03 GC. With Spong ("not my hero" is an understatement here) in mind, I was listening between the lines. He's an ex-con evo who got a scholarship to Sewanee. He sounds "sound" to my ex-con-evo ears.
I was thinking that the complainers about ECUSA (as we then were) should be happy that a diocese elected themselves a bishop who's totally signed up with the Nicene Creed.
I, too, am waiting for a credible explanation as to why this is worse than, say, Zimbabwe, or the stories I keep hearing about polygamous presbyters in parts of Africa. Sometimes it seems to me that there's been a choice to emphasize one and not the other because the African church is growing and they would be more likely to pick up their toys and go home.
Charlotte
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
Ooops, read Augustine's message after the edit window had passed. If he says the polygamy thing is merely a nasty rumor, I trust his judgement, and withdraw that part of my post.
Charlotte
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I seem to remember from various discussions on this topic that the polygamy rumour arises because in some parts of Africa new converts arrive with multiple spouses and it is thought better to permit this to continue rather than to require all but one wife to be abandoned. They are certainly not permitted to take multiple spouses after becoming Christians, and I rather doubt that a person with multiple spouses from their pre-baptismal days would be permitted to be ordained.
So no, it's a myth.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Mind you, I'm not sure that a church whose episcopate has been graced by, among others, +Barnes, +l'autre Robinson and +Jenkins is really in a position to wrap itself in the chasuble of Saint Athanasius.
I don't remember anything about Barnes, but JAT Robinson and David Jenkins weren't any mroe liberal than an awful lot of earlier and later bishops. They just got popularly known for it. And neither went anywhere near the non-realist & to be honest non-Christian views of Spong.
Jenkins, I suspect, was more orthodox than a great many bishops now serving in both England and the USA. He just had this trick of talking like an old "progressive" academic in a way that made people think him less orthodox than he was. (Much the same might be true of Rowan Williams)
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
A couple of years ago while in Rajahmundry A.P. India they were having elections for a bishop for local Lutheran (?) church. There was a dispute between 2 of the candidates, which resulted in an interesting outcome.
One of candidates was addressing a meeting when the other crept up behind him a chopped his head off with a machete. One way to settle a dispute.
Considering the bigoted arguments being offered up by all sides it could only be a matter time for something similar to happen within the peaceful confines of Anglicanism.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
In defense of the good people of New Jersey, (and I'm happy to be corrected here) I don't think Spong's Unitarianism was known at the time of his election. His most upsetting writings (from an orthodox perspective) came much further down his career road. Without a mindreading device or a time machine, there'd be no way the Diocese of NJ could have known how ... courageous (in the Yes, Minister sense) his later theological statements would be.
[ 23. January 2007, 16:20: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Oh, by the way, pace ken: I don't think the US Church should keep saying: "Well, NH elected him and we were stuck with him". The Convention could have rejected him and didn't. That would have been a big deal, and a rare event, but not impossible. In this case, the majority of Convention delegates approved the election, and so TEC should have he courage of its convictions and just say "we did it", not act like we would have loved to do differently but gosh golly jeepers our hands were tied. We did it.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
By the by, can we relegate Bp. Robinson's leaving his wife for his partner to the same embarrassing place as the polygamous African bishops stories? They are offensive, inaccurate, and detract from our ability to address real issues (and real peripheral issues).
That sounds fair to me.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
AG, if I'm not mistaken, that vile wolf/bishop of Zimbabwe is being disciplined. He's not exactly in good standing with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
That means (in the CofE) that the Bishop of New Hampshire was not permitted to undertake liturgical functions when he came to the Diocese of London last year.
Would the following be allowed to undertake liturgical functions in the diocese of London currently:-
(a) A (male) bishop of ECUSA who considers himself in communion with Gene Robinson.
(b) Any other male bishop in communion with the see of Canterbury who considers himself in communion with Gene Robinson. The bishop of Chelmsford, for example.
(c) A priest ordained by and/ or holding the license of bishops of type (a).
(d) ditto, type (b).
If so, I'd love to know the eccesiology informing the decisions. It seems me that the concept of 'communion' at play here is one being made up on the hoof. '
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Ultimately you would have to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, since it is he who decides whether a priest or bishop from overseas can officiate in the Province of Canterbury. (You'll be aware that, for other reasons, women bishops from overseas are not permitted to exercise episcopal functions here).
I suspect that while the jury is still out on ECUSA, there would be some question about any ECUSA bishop exercising a ministry here. It's not about the Bishop of New Hampshire, it's about the decisions of ECUSA as a Church. So it would be equally unlikely that anyone in category (a) would be able to exercise episcopal ministry in Chelmsford either...
(b), (c) and (d) are not relevant to the issue.
[ 23. January 2007, 17:01: Message edited by: pete173 ]
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It's about the official position of the church (which is why Spong is irrelevant to this, since he's heterodox by nearly anyone's standards).
Read the Windsor Report, the HoB response to it here, and Repair the Tear which you can access here.
Yet, to some of us, Anglican bishops currently seem more worried about 'the official position of the church', understood as a document of the House of Bishops, than they do with the 'official position of the Church', in the form of the Catholic Creeds.
There are first-order issues, and then there are the sex lives of bishops. And orthodoxy entails having a sense of proportion about the two, more than it does thinking the right things about the latter. Get wound up about the Spongs. Worry about the unusual baptismal formulae in use in parts of the Communion. Get concerned about whether the Overseer of Sydney is an Arian. And if you have any energy left after that, by all means, write a strongly worded letter to the Bishop of New Hampshire.
[ 23. January 2007, 17:06: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
Would a woman bishop be able to exercise the functions of a priest in the CofE? Cantuar permitting.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
Don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's "some Imperialist hangup about democracy." To me the problem is that when we've said again and again that our bishops are elected, not appointed, and people still persist in referring to the appointment of bishops in the Episcopal Church, I can't help but wonder what else they're not reading in our posts and how deep their (mis)understanding of our polity goes.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
(b), (c) and (d) are not relevant to the issue.
Surely they are. Communion is not about the Bishop of Willesden not liking the Bishop of New Hampshire. Communion is a corporate ecclesial relationship between churches, understood as fellowships of bishops, their presbyters and the baptised faithful.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To me the problem is that when we've said again and again that our bishops are elected, not appointed, and people still persist in referring to the appointment of bishops in the Episcopal Church, I can't help but wonder what else they're not reading in our posts and how deep their (mis)understanding of our polity goes.
Works the other way round too, Ruth. See Laura's last post.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
It's not (for the 499th time) about "not liking the Bishop of New Hampshire". Read Windsor. That's what it's about. ECUSA has taken a step that makes its communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful. That's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of a large number (I'm not playing the numbers game here) of Provinces. Until that matter is resolved, there must remain an element of doubt tending towards impairment. If it isn't resolved, then your other categories become relevant. At present, they aren't.
In response to "who is allowed to minister?", try this legal opinion. (if you can stand it!)
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ECUSA has taken a step that makes its communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful. That's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of a large number (I'm not playing the numbers game here) of Provinces.
You see, I find the post-Windsor position rather baffling.
We are to believe that the consecration of an out gay man is an 'action which makes... communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful'. Before now provinces have consecrated women, in spite of other provinces not believing that the people thereby consecrated are bishops. Provinces have consecrated people (Spong, for one) who depart from credal Christianity on fundamental issues of orthodoxy. Provinces have consecrated people (++Sydney) whose commitment to catholic order as Anglicanism has received it is profoundly doubtful. What is it about the Robinson case which, uniquely, means that his consecration represents a severing of communion?
I would argue that questions around the validity of orders, credal orthodoxy and fundamental ecclesiology are more important than the ethical issues at play in the Robinson case. And, if we're playing the numbers game, I hazard a guess that the greater part of universal Christendom, current and past, agrees with me.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
DoD I agree with you entirely. We seem to be going round in circles now though.
Pete173 said:
quote:
It's not (for the 499th time) about "not liking the Bishop of New Hampshire". Read Windsor. That's what it's about. ECUSA has taken a step that makes its communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful. That's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of a large number (I'm not playing the numbers game here) of Provinces.
That TEC has offended many isn't really the issue any more. It's why must such unprecedented action be taken over this issue and why only against TEC. Why not Akinola? Why not, for other reasons, the bishop of Harare?
Is there another issue on which this kind of action might be taken and if so what?
Without answers to these kinds of questions it's hard not to view this carnival with a cynical, if not despairing eye.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
AG, if I'm not mistaken, that vile wolf/bishop of Zimbabwe is being disciplined. He's not exactly in good standing with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Excellent news, if true, St. Punk. Thank you most kindly for the update!
Charlotte
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Ahem. Obviously reading for comprehension isn't the strong suit on this thread.
Read this.
I'm sure Karl is well aware of how ECUSA bishops are elected.
People keep asking "why this and not something else?" The long answer involves a whole lot of explanations from different angles. But to cut that short, the real reason that there is so much incomprehension going on is that the answers being given are being fed into a totally different POV/worldview/paradigm. The analytical engine grinds and just throws out a "cannot compute" message.
Understanding should not be confused with agreeing. But if you want to understand, you need to be far more radical in reviewing the rigour of your own presuppositions and that goes for both sides in this argument. There is so much that is unexamined and disagreed on, that the best a thread like this can do (in the absence of such radical self-appraisal) is to serve as an exchange of views. Been there, done that.
Ian
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Agreed. I think we've done this thread.
Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
Was trying to get through replying before the baby woke up; this didn't really work. His second nap is longer, so here goes:
The point is that if a central authority appoints someone with a known set of views, or a known pattern of behavior, we can infer something useful about the central authority's views from that. If, for example, the Vatican were to name an out gay man living in a relationship to the episcopate, then we could assume that the Vatican's views of sexuality had shifted. We can also infer a lot from -Jeffery John's story about the Church of England hiearchy's views about sexuality.
What we can't do, on the other hand, is look at the election of a diocesan bishop in the ECUSA, or in the Anglican churches in the former Dominions, and infer anything about the views of the national churches from that. The place where serious, meaningful church authority lies in Canada and the United States is at the diocesan level, and our churches are best seen as loose confederations of dioceses as anything else.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
In response to "who is allowed to minister?", try this legal opinion. (if you can stand it!)
Now I have a headache...
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pete173:
In response to "who is allowed to minister?", try this legal opinion. (if you can stand it!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I have a headache...
We now know what man consider a legal opinion (?), would it not be a good time to ask Jesus for an opinion. It is His church or has things changed in 2,000 years.
Last time I suggested a day of pray to find out what Jesus and God wanted for a church, matey Pete told me to keep pushing it and I end up with more flack then some get on Hell thread. It might be worth it this time though
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
And when is Nigeria and the vast majority of Anglicanism going to be held accountable for its failings in the Windsor Report AND Lambeth 1.10?
Lambeth 1.10 says:
We commit ourselves to:
listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
And the Windsor Report calls for similar dialogue and affirmation of our "full" membership.
Well gee. I lived in the Diocese of Dallas for several years and never heard anyone tell me that. In fact, the Bishop made it very clear that I was not a full member of the Body of Christ at a Confirmation service I attended. And NO one ask to listen to my, or anyone else's experience. The Bishop never invited Integrity or any other gay group in town to discuss our experience. The only groups that got play were ex-gay groups (a couple whose poster children came out as ex-ex-gay later.)
Heck I once even had a dream that I was in church and was trying to yell but no sound came out, which pretty much summed up how I felt.
Now, the Church of Nigeria is supporting legislation that will make a crime to even say "I am a homosexual", for gay people to gather or for someone to show support for gay people. Even GW Bush's State Department is concerned about the possible human rights violations at stake.
I hear a lot about the supposed failings of the TEC in implementing the Windsor Report but where is the repentance on the other side? Why are so many people so willing to talk ABOUT us but not TO us? Why do I always feel like an issue instead of a person?
[ 23. January 2007, 20:19: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Hypothetical maybe, but would +Gene's appointment be causing such a stir if he were living (unmarried) with a heterosexual partner? Possibly he would have been quietly persuaded to resign, but I can't see it being a Communion-splitting issue. Yet Anglican policy is [a] that any sexual relationship outside marriage is unacceptable, and [b] (as ToujoursDan reminds us) gay people should be valued and treated as equals.
I sense a lot of second-hand homophobia, in that Western church leaders may not be directly homophobic themselves, but they certainly seem to be afraiid of doing anything to upset the African bishops, many of whom are clearly homophobic.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
And also incapable of standing up to a new (and rich) type of agressive conservative evangelical in the 'global North'.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
FWIW, I agree that there was too much homophobia among British evangelicals, especially over the Jeffrey John thing, though I also agree with Spawn that there were valid reasons for objecting to him.
I think that has changed, by and large. I know plenty of evangelical churches (and theological colleges) have had gay speakers in to discuss their experiences. Celibate gay people mostly, but they're no less gay than anyone else. We now seem to be making the wise distinction between orientation and practice much better and more clearly.
And yes, I lament the difficulties in relating to Nigeria, for example, on that. But the African church has a distinctly wide range of views on the issue; Nigeria is just the most extreme. And I doubt what I say is going to change anything there.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
I was very hearted at our last clergy conference when one of the assistant clergy in one of our evangelical congregations mentioned that there had been a congregational discussion group on the whole subject of homosexual relations and that a congregational member (or two) who were involved in a gay relationship had been asked to speak. I initially fell into the trap of imagining that this was someone who a) had once been gay but had 'changed' or that b) this was not an active member of the congregation but was soon disabused of my prejudice and was told that it was exactly as had been described.
When I was back in Montreal there was this one extremely evo congregation - vicar was a graduate of Oak Hill - the real McCoy - and one of the wardens was an extremely 'out' university professor. I asked him what sort of 'fit' he felt this was. His response was that the sort of worship at St X's was what he wanted. He understood what the public stance of the congregation via Anglican Essentials Canada was but that nobody had called him on it. There was some rapprochement (the details of the conversation are a little fuzzy).
There's more to this story than meets the eye. There are plenty of gay evangelicals around and many of them are attending evangelical churches. It's just back where the rest of the church was 30 years ago.....the closet I guess.
RR
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
If the House of Bishops decides that Episcopal Bishops are no longer in communion with CofE Bishops, will there cease to be an Anglican Church in the United States of America?
Will the House of Bishops decide some other Anglican "church" is the "real" Anglican church, and invite those bishops to Lambeth?
How does this work?
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
I don't think that's going to happen. I think the House of Bishops may decide they're going to do what they feel led to do and nuts to anybody who tells them they can't. They seem to be growing in that determination. But they won't be the one's to cut the apron strings.
I don't think.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If the House of Bishops decides that Episcopal Bishops are no longer in communion with CofE Bishops, will there cease to be an Anglican Church in the United States of America?
Will the House of Bishops decide some other Anglican "church" is the "real" Anglican church, and invite those bishops to Lambeth?
How does this work?
There's been speculation that the Camp Allen bishops who have submitted themselves to Windsor/Dromantine will be recognized as the representatives of Anglicanism in the U. S. and that they will be asked to elect a new primate.
That could be so, but I doubt it. In any case, there's a number of ways to form a new U. S. province. They may be all somewhat messy, of course.
And I suspect the Primates, not the CofE House of Bishops, will take the lead in any such realignment should it happen.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If the House of Bishops decides that Episcopal Bishops are no longer in communion with CofE Bishops, will there cease to be an Anglican Church in the United States of America?
Will the House of Bishops decide some other Anglican "church" is the "real" Anglican church, and invite those bishops to Lambeth?
How does this work?
Well, if I may chime in here:
1. Assuming that you refer to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
2. You're not going to see the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church decide any such thing even if the notion somehow came into the bishops' heads. The House of Bishops of TEC alone are not empowered to do such a thing. Only the General Convention could do such a thing.
A. Because it is part of the written Consitution of Ther Episcopal Church.
and
B. Such an action could not be accomplished without a 3/4 majority vote of both the House of Bishops and and the House of Deputies in two successive General Conventions.
Actually there is no "Anglican Church" in the USA that is in communion with the see of Canterbury except The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion.
The Episcopal church can be said to be Anglican by heritage and association, but it is particularly sui generis - in unique ways its own special thing.
But perhaps you meant this the other way around ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
with the English House of Bishops severing ties with The Episcopal Church? Thre is no precdent for that, but surely the authority for it would lie in the province of the archbishop of Canterbury acting with the consent of the Church of England General Synod by overwhelming majority.
That is a scenario just as unlikely as the first one I put forward vice versa.
INMHO
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
Don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's "some Imperialist hangup about democracy." To me the problem is that when we've said again and again that our bishops are elected, not appointed, and people still persist in referring to the appointment of bishops in the Episcopal Church, I can't help but wonder what else they're not reading in our posts and how deep their (mis)understanding of our polity goes.
In my case, it's a semantic difference. The verb "appoint" does not, in my lexicon, dictate how the person appointed was chosen. It makes perfect sense to me, for example, to say that a bishop was appointed by being elected. ' Elected' and 'Appointed' are not mutually exclusive. Possibly a pond difference, possibly just a personal difference. I don't know.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
But perhaps you meant this the other way around with the English House of Bishops severing ties with The Episcopal Church? Thre is no precdent for that, but surely the authority for it would lie in the province of the archbishop of Canterbury acting with the consent of the Church of England General Synod by overwhelming majority.
That is a scenario just as unlikely as the first one I put forward vice versa.
The ball lies in the Archbishop of Canterbury's court - not the House of Bishops and not the General Synod. An Archbishop of Canterbury could, in theory, declare that he is not in communion with TEC. He could decide to act alone in not issuing invitations to meetings of the Communion over which he presides. In reality, I daresay the Archbishop would take advice and would make any such decisions after consultation with the Archbishop of York, the House of Bishops, the General Synod and the other Anglican 'Instruments'.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The verb "appoint" does not, in my lexicon, dictate how the person appointed was chosen. It makes perfect sense to me, for example, to say that a bishop was appointed by being elected. ' Elected' and 'Appointed' are not mutually exclusive.
Yes. The bishop was appointed, chosen for office. The people who appointed him were the members of the churches in the diocese.
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
Pond difference, I expect. "Appointed" in the U.S. has the connotation of having been selected by a smaller group possessing authority. Judges may be elected or appointed by the governor depending on jurisdiction. Our county board of conservation commissioners are elected, but in my parent's town the town manager is appointed by the town council (even though the town council voted on whether to appoint the manager).
Quite often which positions must be elected and which are appointed are explicitly enshrined as such in the national or state constitutions.
As a great deal of thought went in to exactly what positions need to be elected (intending greater responsiveness to the people) and which can be appointed, the term 'appointed' has taken on the context of 'not elected'.
There is generally an accompanying sentiment that elected positions are more directly responsive to the people. [I said 'more responsive' rather than 'responsive].
The theory of American Constitutional government was highly influential in the organization of General Convention.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Confirming that over here, "appointed" is the opposite of "elected", when speaking of jobs.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Confirming that over here, "appointed" is the opposite of "elected", when speaking of jobs.
Here they are opposites in debates about House of Lords reform.
Carys
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Shipmates who read through my above post on episcopal elections manifesti may now take a certain perverse delight in learning that my home diocese now has an election web page where you can follow the candidates' answers, whenever any of them agree to be nominated (so far, they seem to be nervous at the prospect and are very demure in allowing their names to go forward).
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
God combined with google and wrote a poem
----------
Where are the "God-fearing" today' Has God changed so that there ...2 Oct 2006
... speaker and writer the Reverend Dr. Peter Toon, has kindly agreed to . ...
and Toon Disney off its Expanded Basic cable lineup starting Wednesday, Oct. 25.
... His animated Toon Disney show Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go! ...
Toon - http://toon.speed-experts.com/
---------
RR
[ 24. January 2007, 17:24: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
Somebody spiked the Rabbit's carrots.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
Methinks this brief article gives an important glimpse of ++Rowan's direction concerning TEC.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
I don't think one has 'unguarded moments' with Louie Crew and I must assume that everybody knows this. Hence his dissatisfaction was disseminated via Louie. It constitutes a 'blurt'.
A necessary blurt, perhaps, but a blurt.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Saint Punk has alerted us to quite an interesting scoop. That Canon Kearon feels this is one thing, that he has communicated it to Louie Crew is quite another. Oy.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Saint Punk has alerted us to quite an interesting scoop. That Canon Kearon feels this is one thing, that he has communicated it to Louie Crew is quite another. Oy.
Good point. But I think both are quite notable.
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
Yes, the Canon's e-mail is making big headlines on the Episcoblogs in the USA. One influential blog, Daily Episcopalian, writes about Rowan as if he were a "reverse Dale Carnegie" -- i.e., as someone who is good at losing friends and not influencing people.
There is also much anger in progressive circles over the invitation of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan to chat with the Primates. Duncan is the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, a group that while still in TEC, is establishing a parallel network of institutions (including a rival to Episcopal Relief and Development). The other bishop is Bishop McPherson of Western Louisiana -- a so-called "Windsor Bishop."
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
This one will undoubtedly have legs, as they say.
Just as a matter of interest, I observed earlier that Rowan has avoided attending any conclaves, but has spoken to a continuous stream of people on all sides of this argument (a crap way of putting it I agree - can't think of a better one).
For those who feel Rowan is not acting evenhandedly, how would you rather have had him do things? Meet with the HoB or Deputies and whatever passes for the organizational meetings of the dissenters? Not receive anyone at all? Something else entirely?
Ian
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
For those who feel Rowan is not acting evenhandedly, how would you rather have had him do things? Meet with the HoB or Deputies and whatever passes for the organizational meetings of the dissenters? Not receive anyone at all? Something else entirely?
For one thing, he could bother to read, mark, and inwardly digest how we do things here.
For another, he could treat our presiding bishop in the same deferential way he treats +Akinola. (Many of us are going to have a hard time forgetting "I have decided not to withold an invitation" to +KJS...or that he couldn't be bothered to attend her installation as PB.)
He could remind +Akinola, +Orombi, etc. that both Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report make demands on them as well---demands they conveniently ignore.
If he's going to invite +Duncan to Tanzania, he could invite any number of progressive bishops--including +VGR---to at least PRETEND he's trying to listen to the vast majority of Episcopalians who are NOT trying to break away from the church (and steal the silver while they are at it...)
He could speak out forcefully on the issue of equal civil/legal treatment of gays and lesbians.
That would do to be going on with...
But he has done none of those things. And I've given up hoping...
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
OK Paige - well, thanks for engaging. Though my point was really directed at how this disagreement was being handled rather than wider problems in the communion. But in the spirit of engagement, let me try to probe further on those things -
1. To what extent do you think the way you do things has not been adequately considered? Surely the disagreement is about what you have done rather than how you have done it? Nobody has suggested you haven't followed your canons or whatever.
2. I'm not sure he is particularly deferential towards Akinola - he hasn't really said anything. In fact I wish he would (publicly that is - I've no idea what has happened in private). There was a load of flannel on the internet about Akinola planning to have himself "crowned" as new leader of global anglicanism some while back, which turned out to have no basis. Is that what you were referring to?
3. +KJS - has Rowan attended the installation of any other Archbishops or equivalent? I'm not aware of it. If so, why make an exception for her? I'm open to information/correction on this.
4. Lambeth 1.10. I happen to agree. However, Dromantine did change that one, and Dromantine governs the implementation of Lambeth. Those primates would reply that they have only offered their oversight to congregations that have already decided to leave and then approached them. No, it's not helpful in the broader context - but then it's a very messy situation, and it surely needs much more self-criticism from ECUSA powers-that-be to recognise the part they played in this.
5. Tanzania - as I understand it, bishops Duncan and MacPherson have been invited to be present for a pre-meeting. They represent the outright opponents (Duncan) and the "opposed but want to continue in ECUSA" contingent (MacPherson). Your PB will be there to represent ECUSA formally anyway. Why should a load more be invited? The option to present your case was given at Nottingham, where the case was presented as "To Set our Hope in Christ". Those days are past - we are onto the next stage, whatever that may transpire as.
6. The issue of equal civil/legal traetment of gays & lesbians - well, what exactly are you looking for? He does regularly say that all gays and lesbians must be accorded the respect due to all humans and that positions based on hatred have no part in our life. Does it get reported adequately?
Please forgive my saying so (yet again), but to me at least, so much rhetoric from both sides of this dispute presupposes a very polarized world, one indeed that all too frequently characterizes itself as Liberal or Conservative. Six months ago, the big-C blogosphere was all doom and gloom. Now it's the turn of the big-L supporters.
Entrenched positions beget entrenched positions - it seems pretty clear to me that Rowan joining you in the trenches, which is what I read you as wanting, is going to solve nothing save crushing somebody or other. Depends on whose trenches Rowan joins. I don't think he is interested in doing that, and my respect for that grows daily.
Ian
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
3. +KJS - has Rowan attended the installation of any other Archbishops or equivalent? I'm not aware of it. If so, why make an exception for her? I'm open to information/correction on this.
This is correct. Archbishops of Canterbury as a matter of course send representatives to installations of other Primates rather than attend themselves. The one exception to this during my father's time as Archbishop was to attend the installation of the Archbishop of Sudan. Sudan was an exceptional case for him because the Church was experiencing such pressure, persecution and violence from a particularly malign Islamist regime.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Thanks, Spawn - I suspected so.
Though it's worth taking a look at this. It seems to undermine one of my earlier points somewhat (only somewhat, as he is not going to engage in "political" discussions).
Ian
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
I don't recall there being much irritation at Rowan for not attending her installation rites; in fact, I don't think that anyone expected him to be there.
But the tone of his "congratulatory" letter to Katharine after her election could best be described as "frosty" and that certainly started the irritation that many in TEC have felt with respect to Rowan's treatment of the PB and of TEC in general.
By the way, posters to the leftish Episcoblogs are beginning to fantasize about creating a new communion out of TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada, Scotland, Wales (ironic, that), New Zealand, Sydney-less Australia and South Africa, among others.
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The one exception to this during my father's time as Archbishop was to attend the installation of the Archbishop of Sudan. Sudan was an exceptional case for him because the Church was experiencing such pressure, persecution and violence from a particularly malign Islamist regime.
Thanks for that info, Spawn---I knew that it had been done before, but wasn't aware of all the particulars. I agree that your father was right to go.
HRB---I promise to come back soon and answer your other questions. But I will say two things--++Cantaur appointed a Panel of Reference that made recent pronouncements about the OoW in TEC. That report showed lamentable ignorance of our policies and the Panel apparently spoke to no one among the VAST majority of Episcopalians who are in favor of OoW---just the 3 dioceses (out of 110) that are, as we say down here, agin' it.
The report was a shoddy piece of work, and poured gas on the flames. He put them up to it, he needs to take ownership of it. (And he also needs to stay the hell out of our national church policy making---but that's another thread...)
Since +KJS is the first female Primate in the history of the Anglican Communion (of which TEC is still a member, the last time I looked), it would have meant a lot to many of us to have ++Rowan attend. It might have shown us that he wants to keep us in the AC.
As I think he is fast becoming the 21st century version of Neville Chamberlain, however, I'm not sure that he does. If he would break communion with us, while maintaining it with those who are turning Anglicanism into nothing more than the latest "fundagelical" Protestant church, then I'm not sure why so many of us have spent the last two years agonizing.
++Rowan lost my respect over the Jeffrey John incident. He has done nothing since then to regain it. But I pray for him daily, because I cannot imagine that his life is a very happy one since he put on that pointy hat...
Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on
:
This may or may not be connected:
quote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, will make his first visit to Canada as Archbishop of Canterbury with a visit to the April meeting of the Canadian house of bishops in Niagara Falls, Ont.
“We have had the invitation in the works for over a year; we struggled with his calendar and we received the answer today (Jan. 26). We’re delighted,” said Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.
The move is significant since Archbishop Williams has come under criticism for avoiding the U.S. and Canadian churches since his election in 2002 and since the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada have been seen as moving toward more-liberal views on homosexuality at about the same time.
Rest of article at link.
Posted by Anthropax (# 11234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
By the way, posters to the leftish Episcoblogs are beginning to fantasize about creating a new communion out of TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada, Scotland, Wales (ironic, that), New Zealand, Sydney-less Australia and South Africa, among others.
Why on Earth Wales? Is there something I don't know about my home province? I thought Wales was seen as one of the more Trad parts of the UK, Anglicanism-wise?
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
Upon re-reading the post in question, I was incorrect. Wales was not included.
Posted by Anthropax (# 11234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Upon re-reading the post in question, I was incorrect. Wales was not included.
Out of interest, do you have a link?
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
Look at Preludium, the blog run by Mark Harris. I don't have a ready link, but I think it may be found at Anglicanfuture.blogspot.com.
Posted by Anthropax (# 11234) on
:
cheers
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Look at Preludium, the blog run by Mark Harris. I don't have a ready link, but I think it may be found at Anglicanfuture.blogspot.com.
I looked at it. The link is as you said There are comments by one Raspberry Rabbit. Apart from them, I could make head nor tail of it. The issues discussed have little relevance to the issues discussed in any church I've ever been in. There is a lot of talk about a place called Africa that bears little resembance to the Africa I've been to or the Africans I know, and someone called the Archbishop of Canterbury who seems quite differnt to the British bishop of the same title. All very odd.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I think Mark Harris's blog is one of the less strident - though still highly polarized - of the american anglican blogs. But I also find them - of both flavours - highly disorienting. The terms "left-wing", "right-wing" and "progressive" in particular seem to mean something totally different to what I am used to.
If you are going to go reading the anglican blogs, for heavens sake treat yourself to a quadruple G&T before reading the comments, though. They appear to be written by a machine fuelled by nitric acid.
Ian
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
... Raspberry Rabbit always excepted, of course...
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
I appreciate not being included in that mob of vitriolic commenters. I do occasionally 'blurt' but it usually takes the form of a bit of humour rather than straight apocalyptic ranting.
RR
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There are comments by one Raspberry Rabbit. Apart from them, I could make head nor tail of it. The issues discussed have little relevance to the issues discussed in any church I've ever been in. There is a lot of talk about a place called Africa that bears little resembance to the Africa I've been to or the Africans I know, and someone called the Archbishop of Canterbury who seems quite differnt to the British bishop of the same title. All very odd.
I found this sentence interesting:
quote:
He is conservative but a very constructive and pastoral person.
The implication of the "but" is that conservatives are not generally constructive or pastoral. I didn't know liberals had a corner on the constructive and pastoral market.
Can you imagine the howls of rage if "conservative" were replaced by "female", "gay", or "black"?
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I found this sentence interesting:
quote:
He is conservative but a very constructive and pastoral person.
The implication of the "but" is that conservatives are not generally constructive or pastoral. I didn't know liberals had a corner on the constructive and pastoral market.
Can you imagine the howls of rage if "conservative" were replaced by "female", "gay", or "black"?
It's as annoying as when african-americans are described as "well-spoken" as if that would be a surprise.
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
quote:
It's as annoying as when african-americans are described as "well-spoken" as if that would be a surprise.
or worse still Africans....
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
ken: I read many of the Episcoblogs, right and left, and I don't think that the sentiments expressed in that post are unusual among the left. Just this weekend, a resolution was proposed (but tabled -- this is the American usage, which means not acted upon) at the convention of the Diocese of Washington (DC) that criticized the AB of C and called for examination the question of continued membership of TEC in the Anglican Communion.
Now the resolution was tabled, but Jim Naughton, a highly respected former reporter for the Washington Post, reported on his blog that many people were in sympathy.
This kind of public dissatisfaction with the Archbishop and the Anglican Communion has never, in my memory, been expressed by American Episcopalians.
I wonder what odds the London bookies are making on the participation of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada bishops at the 2008 Lambeth conference.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
I read many of the Episcoblogs, right and left
The use of the words "left" and "right" gets confusing and unhelpful here.
In talking about the Reformation people sometimes use the word "right" to mean the more conservative parts of the church - in that context the Roman Catholics - and use "left" to desdcribe the more far-out Protestant groups, the emotional and intellectual ancestors of modern-day evangelicals and fundamentalists. So when I read that someone is on the "left" in church politics I tend to read it as that they are congregationalist or presbyterian rather than episcopalian (without capital letters here because I don't mean the denominations with those names). So talking of "left-wing" or "right-wing" Anglican blogs brings on some congnitive dissonance.
And of course outside the church context Rowan Williams is almost certainly to the political left of most of these critics of his in the USA. Probably far to the left of most of them.
quote:
I wonder what odds the London bookies are making on the participation of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada bishops at the 2008 Lambeth conference.
I doubt if any of them know or care!
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
LA Dave muses:
quote:
I wonder what odds the London bookies are making on the participation of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada bishops at the 2008 Lambeth conference.
This might be a useful point to remind folk that ECUSA was the more general subject of the Windsor report, given that it was General Convention that ratified the election of Bp Robinson; the ACC, on the other hand, has but one errant diocese in New Westminster (although we might be getting more errant at General Synod later this year, but that is yet to be seen), so the situation is slightly different.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Whilst waiting for interest among bookies to pick up, why not keep your hand in with a spot of Pope-Betting (i.e. betting on who is to succeed B16).
I see that a certain Fr. Dougal Maguire of Craggy Island is listed at 1000/1. You could make a tidy sum if he came top of the polls.
Ian
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Cardinal Martini is only 100/1? I know he's knocking on a bit but shurely shome mishtake (++Cormac has better odds!)?
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I see that a certain Fr. Dougal Maguire of Craggy Island is listed at 1000/1. You could make a tidy sum if he came top of the polls.
Indeed, although he's running the same as Bono.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
What are the odds on Sinead O'Connor?
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What are the odds on Sinead O'Connor?
Slightly better than for Gene Robinson, I think.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Speaking of Bono, I see he's also up for the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. Slightly better chance of winning that one, I see, though he is trailing Cliff Richard by a margin. I hope for his sake that he doesn't win both, or he'll be run ragged.
Ian
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
quote:
Slightly better than for Gene Robinson, I think.
I would have Gene Babyface Robinson would have been in with a good chance consiering he is no longer married
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on
:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly better than for Gene Robinson, I think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have thought Gene Babyface Robinson would have been in with a good chance considering he is no longer married...
sorry about previous post grammer
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0