Thread: Purgatory: CPAS = GAFCON? 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=000724

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
I have just received and email from John Dunnett, General Director of CPAS*, encouraging me to sign up for the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans+.

I must admit I am suprised. I thought they were a fairly moderate open Evangelical agency with some good leadership resources.

Have I missed something?


*An Anglican Mission Agency

+(GAFCON Suporters Club)

[ 15. June 2016, 18:45: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
IIRC, the CPAS has the patronage of many CofE parishes. This is a worrying development: it's my considered opinion that the FCA are schismatic, and if the CPAS are getting into bed with them, it doesn't bode well for the future.

edited to add: The CPAS nominate for 500 benefices.

[ 19. June 2009, 14:45: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Doesn't surprise me - the history of CPAS is to be conservative evangelical, so the fact that they are encouraging involvement with FCA is not really a surprise. You're also confusing 'Open Evangelical' with Liberal; when push comes to shove Open Evangelicals will be allies of GAFCON, not PECUSA. And the shove HAS come; the failure of the liberals to restraint the adoption of blessing of gay nuptials and the attempt to exclude certain bishops from ordained status has triggered the final break.
 

---

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :
 
I got the same "Meet the FOCAs" e-mail.

And I thought it was just for me.

Given what you, and I (and no doubt many others) perceived CPAS to be, sending the e-mail with the CPAS signature block is quite a smart move, don't you think?
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Would you, if possible, please post the text of the email invitation. It would be helpful to be dealing with sources. I've received an invitation via Reform (note: I'm not a member), but I'd be interested to see how CPAS sees FOCA.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
'Open Evangelical' with Liberal; when push comes to shove Open Evangelicals will be allies of GAFCON, not PECUSA.

---

quote:

---

Last week I was present at a meeting of the Church of England Evangelical Council at which the forthcoming Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans day (6 July) was discussed. All of us who were present were asked to help raise awareness of the event and to encourage as many as possible to attend – hence this email.

For those of you unsure as to the purpose of FCA and this gathering, my understanding is as follows. It offers a cross-party forum for those concerned to preserve orthodox faith and doctrine, a committedly Anglican framework for addressing the issues of the times and a means of demonstrating support for those in other parts of the Communion who are being persecuted because of their stand on matters of historic faith and understanding.

FCA is a movement for orthodox Anglicans – organised by evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and charismatics. FCA wishes to maintain unity and is avowedly not separatist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
when push comes to shove Open Evangelicals will be allies of GAFCON, not PECUSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
FCA is importing an argument we in the CofE simply don't need to have, and therefore there's no need for the FCA to organise within the CofE.

---

Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...' We know that liberals can't be trusted - they've proved that with their resort to institutional power to enforce their new doctrines having grown within the church because they weren't similarly treated when they proposed such things from a position of weakness. Which is why Evangelicals have always defended the patronage system with the CofE despite its illogic in theological terms; it allows us to get on with the real work of the church in the parishes
 

---

Posted by Fool on Hill (# 12183) on :
 
I think the idea of sides doesn't do justice to the nuances of Fulcrum's position, which seems to me to be to maintain an evangelical witness within the Church of England without ripping it apart.

Graham Kings has written extensively on this - see the Fulcrum website for details.
 

---

Posted by Jon G (# 4704) on :
 
I got one as well

I'm a bit disappointed with CPAS, as I use their resources (though they're not as good as they used to be - what happened to their confirmation stuff?).

As a high Anglican, I do not see Forward in Faith as orthodox Anglo-Catholics as the letter suggests. More as protestant schismatics in tat.

I've half a mind to send them an arsey email in reply.

Any suggestions what to put in it?
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
Is this necessarily a personal endorsement?

quote:

---

All of us who were present were asked to help raise awareness of the event and to encourage as many as possible to attend – hence this email.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon G:
More as protestant schismatics in tat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
FCA is importing an argument we in the CofE simply don't need to have, and therefore there's no need for the FCA to organise within the CofE.

---

Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...' We know that liberals can't be trusted - they've proved that with their resort to institutional power to enforce their new doctrines having grown within the church because they weren't similarly treated when they proposed such things from a position of weakness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
Is this necessarily a personal endorsement?

quote:

---

All of us who were present were asked to help raise awareness of the event and to encourage as many as possible to attend – hence this email.

---

seems to imply that he's sent it because he was asked to as a member of that committee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
Is this necessarily a personal endorsement?

quote:

---

All of us who were present were asked to help raise awareness of the event and to encourage as many as possible to attend – hence this email.

---

seems to imply that he's sent it because he was asked to as a member of that committee.

---

quote:

---

The basic narrative promoted by extremist evangelical Anglicans in the UK is this. "There are a few schismatic members of parishes and dioceses in the US and Canada who have attempted to transfer, uncanonically and irregularly, the buildings and property of their parish or diocese to an overseas bishop or province. Of course they knew that both the canons and the longstanding practice in all Anglican bodies required them to seek permission first of the competent authorities, but they chose, for their own reasons, to disregard both the canons and the practice that prevails throughout the Anglican Communion. Evangelical extremists misrepresent this sad episode, for their own ends, as one of faithful Christians under persecution by nasty libruls.

Extremist evangelicals also promote a large number of distorted and sometimes downright false stories about ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada, including the one about the "Buddhist bishop." Thew Forrester, about whom these stories circulate, is not a bishop at all, his election having been refused consent by a majority of TEC's Standing Committees, but not on the grounds that he was a Buddhist. That's a deliberate misrepresentation of his interest in the techniques of Zen meditation, an interest shared by Thomas Merton and others.

Extremist evangelicals have gotten away with such misrepresentations, because the reflex anti-Americanism of so much of the British Establishment ensures that their stories are listened to greedily, with itching ears. [See Ruth Gledhill, passim.] And now your home-grown extremists are about to bring to the Church of England its very own schism, because when push came to shove, you wouldn't do what the extremists told you to do, and kick all the North American libruls out of the Communion. Well, the road to salvation doesn't lead through Canterbury, ha ha!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
Personally, I think the Bishop has tried to tell the story from a particular perspective to try to help us to understand the position from which an email like this can be written.

---

quote:

---

My question on the email I received is about the phrase 'avowedly not separatist' - there are too many of these rather closed internal discourses at the moment, which don't sound convincing to those outside - because it seems from outside that this is a separatist move, and that the number of organisations is increasing (Reform, Anglican Mainstream, FCA) without any real sense of why another one is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike T:
CPAS aims to work across the evangelical spectrum - on the Trustee body (which I'm on) we have folk who would align with Reform, New Wine & Fulcrum as well as a number who would simply see themselves as evo (without an identifying adjective!). ... As such, given that GAFCON draws together a signficant (and probably growing) number of evos, from both conservative & charismatic streams (amongst others) then drawing attention to it, as John has done in his email, is not about endorsing all that it stands for (we haven't discussed what we think about that - I suspect we would have similar differing views as Trustees that mirror the wider evangelical debate) ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
It's certainly news to me that Open Evos would see the whole GAFCON thing as a 'cuddly' non-political and non-divisive element.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
AFAICS, any anti-ECUSA rhetoric has been imported from the dissenting elements across the pond.

- Chris.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

If Right-Wing Modernists want to fight to control the Church, using the Modernist weapons of PR and mass propaganda, well then, they will, and have, and do.

---

If +Pete is on the right-wing, I hesitate to think where I am!

 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I do have a dog in this fight, having left an enthusiastic GAFCON/FCA supporting church for another which is still evangelical but likes its bishop and enjoys the broad church.

+Pete's analysis of why evangelicals might see the FCA as something to join seems pretty much accurate, but I think there are very good reasons why they shouldn't.

But while evangelicals get their news of these events from other evangelical sources, not the secular media, and certainly not official church sources, they won't question the veracity of some of the 'orthodox' accounts coming out of the ACC/ECUSA splits, which are questionable at best and self-serving fabrications at worst.

And still no-one has adequately explained why the FCA are organising in the CofE.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Perhaps the people of this nice missionary organisation ought to check what they're getting into bed with.

The FCA's English promoters, supporters and begetters Anglican Mainstream have hosted and promoted the likes of Joseph Nicolosi and Jeffrey Satinover to push harmful and unscientific notions of 'cure' against gay people - the basis of therapies that can lead to serious mental damage and even death, as people can be driven to depression and suicide.

No ethical group should connect itself with the FCA until they dissociate themselves from this.

L.
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

And still no-one has adequately explained why the FCA are organising in the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I recall Bishop N. T. Wright linking his critique of TEC with his critique of G. W. Bush's foreign policy, identifying both as examples of American arrogance and unilateralism.* And, as a Canadian living in the United States, I have been struck that the animosity directed against TEC seems much sharper than that directed against the Anglican Church of Canada (even the bishop of New Westminster). Bashing Americans for "imperialism" and "neo-colonialism" just plays better than bashing Canadians with such language.

* The irony was that most of the American "reasserters" (such as the folks at Truro Church) supported Dubya's foreign policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pete173
The debate on this thread is about whether a mainline and well-respected mission agency in the CofE which services parishes of all persuasions should be recommending folk to attend FCA.

---

quote:

---

But I suspect that those who turn up at the launch will mostly be at the Reform and FiF end of things. I'd be surprised if it got big support from New Wine or other non-Fulcrumites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
From what I've read of him, +Tom is a considered and nuanced man, and not a rabid anti-American ideogogue. The really nasty stuff I've heard against +KJS I've heard from Americans.

- Chris.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qupe:
And that 'moderate neutral open evos' who value broad church, like myself, will be pressured into moving to a more extreme position. Maybe we need to start up a rival 'Proud to occupy the middle ground' movement...? (only kidding...!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon G:
For all Pete173's explanations, CPAS must have known that any perceived support of FCA would alienate many people who themselves identify as "orthodox" Christians in the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Odd, Matt Black. I was under the impression that Biblical inerrancy, "Signs and Wonders" Pentecostalism, and Young Earth Creationism were 19th century innovations. Augustine, as we know, wrote against the last of these; the second was universally condemned by Church Fathers and authorities, and the first -- well, no one read anything in its "literal and grammatical sense," detatching meaning from its community of interpreters -- until Modern times.

St. Paul's endorsement of marriage was at best tepid, and the Primitive Church much preferred celibacy to heterosexual activity. Marriage has been one of the Seven Sacraments in the Catholic Church since the Middle Ages, but the Anglican Church held in the Thirty-Nine Articles and again in the Lambeth Quadrilateral that only two Sacraments were instituted by Christ and necessary for salvation. So the emphasis on heterosexual intercourse in marriage as the foundational sacrament, instituted at the Creation, which characterizes modern Evangelical theology, is historically odd to say the least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I was simply pointing out that someone who IS as "considered and nuanced" as he could easily employ anti-American rhetoric in pursuit of his argument. It is also worth noting that the kind of equation he drew (if I recall correctly) between TEC's ordination of Bishop Robinson and Dubya's foreign policy just wouldn't be drawn by American critics of TEC. The rhetoric about "neo-colonialism" and "imperialism," etc. is coming from outside of the United States, since the American TEC dissidents, being politically right-wing, just don't use this kind of language. "Neo-colonialism" is something left wing American eggheads and Ugandan bishops talk about!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon G:
For all Pete173's explanations, CPAS must have known that any perceived support of FCA would alienate many people who themselves identify as "orthodox" Christians in the Church of England.

---

I'll certainly be asking my CPAS contacts what's behind it and whether it indicates a change of direction from CPAS, but until I've done that I'm assuming it's one person being rather naive rather than CPAS suddenly going off down the FCA track.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike T:
What is intriguing is the amount of fear that seems to be around that we are in danger of being 'hijacked'. No chance (by any pressure group!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike T:
John's email (as he made plain) was simply in response to a general request at CEEC to encourage people to attend (not least, I suspect, to enable them to hear the debate & make their minds up on first hand knowledge). Nothign more than that should be read into it!

---

quote:

---

For those of you unsure as to the purpose of FCA and this gathering, my understanding is as follows. It offers a cross-party forum for those concerned to preserve orthodox faith and doctrine, a committedly Anglican framework for addressing the issues of the times and a means of demonstrating support for those in other parts of the Communion who are being persecuted because of their stand on matters of historic faith and understanding.

FCA is a movement for orthodox Anglicans – organised by evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and charismatics. FCA wishes to maintain unity and is avowedly not separatist.

---

quote:

---

Eh? What on earth has that got to do with mainstream evangelicalism?

---

quote:

---

We seek to honour God in everything we do, affirming the centrality of our faith in Jesus Christ, the supreme authority of the Bible, the transforming work of the Spirit and the power of prayer. Therefore, as an organisation and as individuals:
we value relationships of respect and integrity
we value relevance, creativity and excellence
we value individual responsibility and team delivery
we value wise use of all God entrusts to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Matt Black:

quote:

---

Eh? What on earth has that got to do with mainstream evangelicalism?

---

Southern Baptists aren't mainstream evangelicals? Rick Warren isn't a mainstream evangelical? Jerry Falwell wasn't a mainstream evangelical? Pat Robertson isn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
But why do you English evangelicals believe automatically that the ultra-right breakaways in the Episcopal Church hold the same beliefs you do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Grammatica - you originally responded to a post by Pete173. In that post, Pete put forward his interpretation of what he believes some UK evangelicals think (about a situation which also involves some US evangelicals). He did not say to what extent he agrees with this hypothesized UK evangelical viewpoint. Other UK posters may disagree with Pete regarding how widely and how fervently this hypothesized UK evangelical viewpoint is held. Pete himself stated that the viewpoint he outlined is probably not the most nuanced or fully-informed viewpoint possible. You then jumped in, 'edited' his post and ran away with various tangents about Young Earth Creationism, oppression of women, Biblical literalism, political standpoints, etc, etc, most if not all of which are largely irrelevant to the UK situation. (Pete himself said in his original post that those UK evos who might align themselves with FCA/GAFCON/whatever are likely to be doing so based on personal relationships with evos in the US, etc, rather than based on a broad view of what all the different camps believe about a wide range of religious + theological issues.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Sorry, people, but in the US, "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are synonyms.

---

quote:

---

Some are willing to permit women clergy; some are not creationists. I know of no -- repeat NO -- breakaways who do not vote the straight Republican ticket, support the war in Iraq 100%, or believe that Islam is a "religion of blood." Most are strongly influenced by Pentecostal/Charismatic movements of the "signs and wonders" type. Both Pat Robertson's and Oral Roberts' names come up in sermons frequently -- always praised, always held up as models.

---

quote:

---

But why do you English evangelicals believe automatically that the ultra-right breakaways in the Episcopal Church hold the same beliefs you do?

---

quote:

---

I think you ought to try to answer that question. Because if you are correct in your characterizations of the standard English evangelical, I have to say that is exactly the sort of person who would be unwelcome in any US evangelical church, including the breakaway Episcopal churches. Particularly the "left-wing" part. Please remember I am speaking from experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
On Southern Baptists, and so on, I know a fair few expat Southern Baptists in England. By English standards, they're generally extreme in their politics and social ethics (e.g. their position on alcohol, which can even make it difficult for them to fit in to British evangelical culture), and in some ways very conservative in their theology.

---

quote:

---

Yes, the average evangelical British Anglican is probably closer to the SBC than to ECUSA, but would be pretty uncomfortable in either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

I also understand that, from a TEC perspective, it was probably more like 'We are a liberal denomination and we are here to stand up for liberal Christian values. That is why many of us joined TEC in the first place.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Yes, the average evangelical British Anglican is probably closer to the SBC than to ECUSA, but would be pretty uncomfortable in either.

---

Do you know this? Have you ever attended a worship service in the US Episcopal Church? You might be surprised.

---

That's a bit rich coming from someone who just told a British Open Evangelical bishop that he knew jack shit about British Open Evangelicalism.
 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

We had an interesting debate on this a few weeks ago. I wonder if you might define the word fundamentalist,[/QB]

---

quote:

---

I said: Some are willing to permit women clergy; some are not creationists. I know of no -- repeat NO -- breakaways who do not vote the straight Republican ticket, support the war in Iraq 100%, or believe that Islam is a "religion of blood." Most are strongly influenced by Pentecostal/Charismatic movements of the "signs and wonders" type. Both Pat Robertson's and Oral Roberts' names come up in sermons frequently -- always praised, always held up as models.

---

quote:

---

You said: So what? Atheists also display xenophobia and politicical ignorance. What's that got to do with a person's stance in the bible? It's as illogical as saying some is a racist because they're an atheist. Sorry, doesn't follow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
Grammatica

I'm just wondering whether you know English evangelicalism at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

I also understand that, from a TEC perspective, it was probably more like 'We are a liberal denomination and we are here to stand up for liberal Christian values. That is why many of us joined TEC in the first place.'

---

I can't think of any part of the Anglican Communion I would feel generally more at home in than TEC (except perhaps Scotland). But the 'market-stall' approach that this assumes makes me uneasy. The reason, I suspect, that most C of E Anglicans are wary, to a greater or lesser extent, of our American brothers and sisters is this self-description as a 'denomination'. It's just not something we tend to think of ourselves as. I know it's inevitable in the American context, but it does create difference.

And once you've described yourself as a denomination you've got to have a distinctive selling-point, hence 'liberal'. A church here might hold identical values to a 'liberal' church in the US, but we would tend to describe ourselves just as 'the parish church'. I'd be very uneasy about an English parish church that tended to sell itself on such distinctive features, whether it was liberal theology, traditional liturgy, conservative attitudes, or whatever. They do exist, but are outnumbered by those who see themselves first and foremost as parish churches to serve all within their parishes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
No, mountainsnowtiger, I "edited" his post to remove the misstatements and misleading remarks concerning the actions of the U.S. Episcopal Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... is naively taking the self-declared stance of the FCA at face-value, because evangelicals don't lie to each other or have hidden agendas. Read +Pete's list above. An alternative reading of the FCA might leave some to believe that they are narrow, heterodox, unAnglican, schismatic and avowedly separatist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
Sorry Grammatica

You write about 'we' and I don't understand who you think you are including in the 'we'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
The FCA is either separatist or at least potentially separatist as a contingency. If they weren't why bother?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
Sorry Grammatica

You write about 'we' and I don't understand who you think you are including in the 'we'?

---

The Episcopal Church. English evangelicals, on the evidence presented in this thread, believe all sorts of false and misleading things about the Episcopal Church. On the basis of this false and misleading information, English Evangelicals are willing to judge the Episcopal Church. Some Evangelicals are not willing to continue to belong to the Anglican Communion if the Anglican Communion also includes the Episcopal Church.

I do not want to see sentence passed on the Episcopal Church on the basis of this false and misleading information, that is all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
ECUSA has demonstrated that it is a community led and dominated by apostates

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I honestly wouldn't get het up about it, Grammatica, if attempts to behave decently and in a welcoming manner to people of other faiths and none and a refusal to be beastly to the gays are considered the worst crimes you can be accused of, you must be doing something right.

L.

---

quote:

---

....the generally "Laudian" Sir Thomas Browne... affirm[s] "with men": "that few shall know salvation, that the bridge is narrow, the passage straite unto life; yet those who doe confine the Church of God, either to particular Nations, Churches, or Families, have made it farre narrower than our Saviour ever meant it." (Religio Medici I.55) .".. particular Churches and Sects usurpe the gates of heaven, and [deplorably] turne the key against each other..." (RM I.56) "....many are saved who to man seem reprobated, and many are reprobated, who in the opinion and sentence of man, stand elected" (RM I.57).

---

quote:

---

They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised

---

quote:

---

Grammatica said:

The basic meaning stems from the "Four Fundamentals of Christianity.'" These have been said to include: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ. (Yes, more than four on that list.)

Over the years, there have been differences of emphasis among the Fundamentals, but those I am calling "Fundamentalists" still subscribe to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Matt Black:

quote:

---

Eh? What on earth has that got to do with mainstream evangelicalism?

---

Southern Baptists aren't mainstream evangelicals? Rick Warren isn't a mainstream evangelical? Jerry Falwell wasn't a mainstream evangelical? Pat Robertson isn't?

---

quote:

---

Plenty more they believe, too. Headship. No women clergy. No women teaching adult men, ever. Women must submit to men. Feminists all bad. Democrats all bad. Obama all bad. Bush all good. Israel all good. Iraq War all good. Muslims all bad.

---

quote:

---

Look, you have all the other churches already -- why do you have to try to take mine, too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
ECUSA has demonstrated that it is a community led and dominated by apostates

---

You are in Manchester. Yet you say you know this. What do you know about the Episcopal Church? How many services have you attended? Where? Who celebrated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
Grammatica

I'm just wondering whether you know English evangelicalism at all?

---

I don't (on the evidence here) think English evangelicals know very much at all about the Episcopal Church in the US. Yet you judge us and wish to see us excluded from the Anglican Communion.

---

Dammit. Another missed memo! Though as I'm not an English evangelical - merely a former Irish CofE member with an evangelical background - maybe I couldn't be trusted with news of TEC's excommuncation!

Could you clarify what you mean by 'English evangelicals', please? People who are English and evangelical, ie, of any and every denomination? Or Church of England evangelicals, many of whom will not be English; or Anglican Communion evangelicals, many of whom consider many English evangelicals barely Christian at all?

BTW, I'm impressed you speak for the entire TEC, according to one of your replies above . I've spent over forty years in the Anglican Church and wouldn't dream of 'speaking for' any one of the congregations I've known, with the confidence you have, let alone the entire membership of a member Church of the Anglican Communion.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
ECUSA has demonstrated that it is a community led and dominated by apostates

---

You are in Manchester. Yet you say you know this. What do you know about the Episcopal Church? How many services have you attended? Where? Who celebrated?

---

So which of ES' charges is incorrect? (Honest question, BTW.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

[QUOTE][qb]last time I looked it was Jesus' church, not yours or mine. But since you ask...it's not a matter for me of 'taking' the CofE, just continuing to reflect and to defend its historic Reformation roots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
From what I've read of him, +Tom is a considered and nuanced man, and not a rabid anti-American ideogogue. The really nasty stuff I've heard against +KJS I've heard from Americans.

- Chris.

---

I don't disagree at all with your characterization of the Bishop of Durham. I wasn't accusing him of being "a rabid anti-American ideogogue." I was simply pointing out that someone who IS as "considered and nuanced" as he could easily employ anti-American rhetoric in pursuit of his argument. It is also worth noting that the kind of equation he drew (if I recall correctly) between TEC's ordination of Bishop Robinson and Dubya's foreign policy just wouldn't be drawn by American critics of TEC. The rhetoric about "neo-colonialism" and "imperialism," etc. is coming from outside of the United States, since the American TEC dissidents, being politically right-wing, just don't use this kind of language. "Neo-colonialism" is something left wing American eggheads and Ugandan bishops talk about!

As for the nasty stuff about +KJS, you're quite right, and again, I wouldn't expect such from +Wright or any other English bishop. They are just too polite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So which of ES' charges is incorrect? (Honest question, BTW.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Grammatica said:

The basic meaning stems from the "Four Fundamentals of Christianity.'" These have been said to include: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ. (Yes, more than four on that list.)

Over the years, there have been differences of emphasis among the Fundamentals, but those I am calling "Fundamentalists" still subscribe to them.

---

And belief in which particular doctrine/s from that list justifies the use of the word fundamentalist instead of the simple use of the word Evangelical? A term which refers to a perfectly legitimate expression of Anglican churchmanship, and which is arguably the quintessence of the historical Reformation Anglicanism as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Despite a few wistful attempts to the contrary, there is no such thing in the United States as a left-leaning Evangelical movement. It simply doesn't happen.

---

If you believe this, you and the right-wing fundamentalists have at least something in common...
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Except that we are taking about the Church of England here.

I do however note your description of 'fundamentalism' as originally conceived as being "opposed to liberalizing tendencies" and a "return to the 'Four Fundamentals*' of Christianity", so thanks for agreeing with me on that point at least.

* I always thought it was five (Niagara Convention and all that).

[cp with Doc Tor]

[ 22. June 2009, 13:45: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Grammatica said:

The basic meaning stems from the "Four Fundamentals of Christianity.'" These have been said to include: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ. (Yes, more than four on that list.)

Over the years, there have been differences of emphasis among the Fundamentals, but those I am calling "Fundamentalists" still subscribe to them.

---

And belief in which particular doctrine/s from that list justifies the use of the word fundamentalist instead of the simple use of the word Evangelical? A term which refers to a perfectly legitimate expression of Anglican churchmanship, and which is arguably the quintessence of the historical Reformation Anglicanism as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles.

---

Hmm. The problem must be that you are speaking of "fundamentalism" as the swear word it became, and I'm speaking of "fundamentalism" in its original use, as a self-definition.

---

quote:

---

[b]I hope this clears up my own use of the term sufficiently. You may need to understand that use of the term "Evangelical" to describe a person will means, to an American, that the individual so described accepts the "Four Fundamentals," including Biblical inerrancy and all that follows from it. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that we are taking about the Church of England here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty: ]I'm not convinced that your were using the phrase [Fundamentalist] in its original sense. I think that you are back-peddling.

---

quote:

---

Biblical inerrancy does not - of necessity - require a young earth creationist perspective. I hold strongly to biblical inerrancy; I do not hold to young earth creationism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[qb] No, the fact is that I don't like Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, they being one and the same in American usage. I will attempt to represent their views correctly, but I don't at all like them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
An American --any American -- will expect a self-described "Evangelical Christian" to hold to all of the "Fundamentals," to be politically right-wing, to support Israel and oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. The belief system of Evangelicals in the US comes as a complete package, and doubt as to any of its points leads to abandonment of the whole belief system. (I have watched this happen.) Despite a few wistful attempts to the contrary, there is no such thing in the United States as a left-leaning Evangelical movement. It simply doesn't happen.

I hope this clears up my own use of the term sufficiently. You may need to understand that use of the term "Evangelical" to describe a person will means, to an American, that the individual so described accepts the "Four Fundamentals," including Biblical inerrancy and all that follows from it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The OP is about the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
(Reply to Grammatica's post above)

Sheesh, what a thing to say! 'You don't agree with us politically so you're not welcome to worship with us here, chum.' Guess that was one parable of Christ's didn't make the edit, then?

It would be reassuring to hear from any other TEC evangelicals out there who aren't happy at Grammatica being their official spokesman, or are you all happy with her representation of the entire membership of your Church?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The OP is about the CofE.

---

No, it's about the reasons C of E parishes should join FOCA/GAFCON. These reasons were a set of accusations against the Episcopal Church in the United States, repeated by Bishop Pete, that were slanderous, distorted, slanted, and false.

I pointed out that fact. Ender's Shadow replied with a different set of accusations. No evidence has been offered for any of this.

To date, none of the accusations against the Episcopal Church repeated here have been substantiated. So now you want to make the discussion about your own sense of victimhood?

Let me repeat: the accusations against the Episcopal Church are false, slanderous and misleading. Evangelicals on this board are having a very hard time digesting that fact, it seems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Grammatica, the original insult was yours, against Pete. All the ECUSA stuff that came up afterwards has been people defending themselves against your allegations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The OP is about the CofE.

---

No, it's about the reasons C of E parishes should join FOCA/GAFCON. These reasons were a set of accusations against the Episcopal Church in the United States, repeated by Bishop Pete, that were slanderous, distorted, slanted, and false.

I pointed out that fact. Ender's Shadow replied with a different set of accusations. No evidence has been offered for any of this.

To date, none of the accusations against the Episcopal Church repeated here have been substantiated. So now you want to make the discussion about your own sense of victimhood?

Let me repeat: the accusations against the Episcopal Church are false, slanderous and misleading. Evangelicals on this board are having a very hard time digesting that fact, it seems.

---

So, are you claiming, for example, that TEC clergy don't bless same-sex unions? Or that TEC didn't go ahead and consecrate Gene Robinson despite being warned that to do so would put them out of step with the Anglican Communion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The OP is about the CofE.

---

Matt, everything is always about the US.

Even when it's a question about two different groups within the Church of England.

Get with the programme and repeat after me:

Everything is always about the US
Everything is always about the US
Everything is always about the US


 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
While there are serious questions worthy of discussion in this thread, there is also far too much nasty yelling for my liking.

I sat through a challenging and painful sermon about unity this weekend, drawn from Psalm 133 among other things.

Part of what made it so challenging and painful was that it made clear to me that nasty yelling is not the solution, no matter how much I WANT to engage in nasty yelling at people who have made me feel like an outcast in my own church.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Thanks for that!

So, Grammatica, do they or don't they? Yes or no?

[cp with Seeker963]

[ 22. June 2009, 14:29: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that!

So, Grammatica, do they or don't they? Yes or no?

[cp with Seeker963]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The allegations against ECUSA are very simple - they have chosen to endorse same sex sexual relationships in the clergy including the episcopate. They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised and apologised for evangelising Hindus. All these acts contradict the stance of the rest of Anglican communion as expressed in the Lambeth Conference resolutions or the ancient traditions of the church. In acting in this way ECUSA has demonstrated that it is a community led and dominated by apostates (Bishop Spong remains a member of the House of Bishops in good standing).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
To my mind, it is TEC who have taken the first steps towards schism. By openly defying the rest of the Communion, they are in the process of removing themselves from that Communion. Now, if that's what they want to do, having weighed up all the pros and cons, then I guess that's fine if a little sad. But they shouldn't expect if they thumb the nose at the rest of the Communion that the likes of FCA do not arise to likewise thumb the nose back. Now, Grammatica, if you have evidence that TEC did not so unilaterally act and that it's not as bad as it is thus painted, now's the time to produce it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Who is prepared to be celibate to follow that call.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
To my mind, it is TEC who have taken the first steps towards schism. By openly defying the rest of the Communion, they are in the process of removing themselves from that Communion. Now, if that's what they want to do, having weighed up all the pros and cons, then I guess that's fine if a little sad. But they shouldn't expect if they thumb the nose at the rest of the Communion that the likes of FCA do not arise to likewise thumb the nose back. Now, Grammatica, if you have evidence that TEC did not so unilaterally act and that it's not as bad as it is thus painted, now's the time to produce it...

---

I do, Matt. The Windsor Report and the reports of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Windsor Continuation Group, none of which have found that TEC has removed itself from the Anglican Communion. Further evidence is to be found in General Convention 2006's passing of B033, confirming that TEC will abide by the Communion-wide ban on the ordination of openly gay or lesbian bishops, as the Windsor Report requested it to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Who is prepared to be celibate to follow that call.

---

Not wanting to go into the too-much-information corridor but are you not confusing him with Jeffrey John?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I would also suggest to ES that a grain of salt might be useful with some of things she hears about the US church.

After all, as much as I love reading Augustus Carp I do not automatically assume that all English Evangelical churches are like St. James the Least of All--or that all English Evangelicals are like the good Augustus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
To my mind, it is TEC who have taken the first steps towards schism. By openly defying the rest of the Communion, they are in the process of removing themselves from that Communion. Now, if that's what they want to do, having weighed up all the pros and cons, then I guess that's fine if a little sad. But they shouldn't expect if they thumb the nose at the rest of the Communion that the likes of FCA do not arise to likewise thumb the nose back. Now, Grammatica, if you have evidence that TEC did not so unilaterally act and that it's not as bad as it is thus painted, now's the time to produce it...

---

I do, Matt. The Windsor Report and the reports of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Windsor Continuation Group, none of which have found that TEC has removed itself from the Anglican Communion. Further evidence is to be found in General Convention 2006's passing of B033, confirming that TEC will abide by the Communion-wide ban on the ordination of openly gay or lesbian bishops, as the Windsor Report requested it to do.

---

So, does that truly mean that there won't be another +Gene Robinson?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - note that I've focused on the actions of BISHOPS, not priests in this debate, and as you can see they are sourced from neutral or hostile territory.
I note that Grammatica has not challenged my evidence - just changed grounds for the defence...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I don't disagree at all with your characterization of the Bishop of Durham. [...] It is also worth noting that the kind of equation he drew (if I recall correctly) between TEC's ordination of Bishop Robinson and Dubya's foreign policy just wouldn't be drawn by American critics of TEC. The rhetoric about "neo-colonialism" and "imperialism," etc. is coming from outside of the United States, since the American TEC dissidents, being politically right-wing, just don't use this kind of language. "Neo-colonialism" is something left wing American eggheads and Ugandan bishops talk about!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Of course, some of the main protagonists in Reform and elsewhere would like to provoke a rumble with their diocesan bishop or with Rowan, or both. But that's not basically where the average evangelical Anglican parish is coming from. They just want to get on with the job of worship and mission; they have mission links with African churches who are part of all this; all the people with whom they identify are on the FCA side of the fence - so, they think "let's give them some support".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty
Biblical inerrancy does not - of necessity - require a young earth creationist perspective. I hold strongly to biblical inerrancy; I do not hold to young earth creationism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
The problem must be that you are speaking of "fundamentalism" as the swear word it became, and I'm speaking of "fundamentalism" in its original use, as a self-definition. We owe the term to a late nineteenth-century movement of Christians opposed to critical Biblical scholarship and other liberalizing tendencies. They met and called for a return to the "Four Fundamentals" of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

It is true that most who subscribe to these beliefs would no longer call themselves "Fundamentalists" but "Evangelical Christians" or simply "Christians." Sometimes they call themselves "Bible-based" or "Bible-believing Christians."

---

quote:

---

Belief in Biblical inerrancy leads, logically, to Young Earth Creationism, for example.

---

quote:

---

The submission of women to their husbands is "Biblical" according to the Southern Baptist Convention. Yes, they did pass an official resolution to that effect.

---

quote:

---

Strong and (in my view) uncritical support of the Israeli government is warranted by their reading and interpretation of certain prophetic texts.

---

quote:

---

Fundamentalist, or Evangelical, Christians in the US are best known by these consequences of their beliefs, and not the beliefs themselves.

---

quote:

---

An American - any American - will expect a self-described "Evangelical Christian" to hold to all of the "Fundamentals," to be politically right-wing, to support Israel and oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools.

---

quote:

---

Despite a few wistful attempts to the contrary, there is no such thing in the United States as a left-leaning Evangelical movement. It simply doesn't happen.

---

quote:

---

I hope this clears up my own use of the term sufficiently. You may need to understand that use of the term "Evangelical" to describe a person will means, to an American, that the individual so described accepts the "Four Fundamentals," including Biblical inerrancy and all that follows from it.

---

quote:

---

Doc Tor posted.
A minority of UK evangelicals are aligning with GAFCON for their own reasons: the rest of us are like 'WTF?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was looking for evidence of repentance by TEC; it sounds to be that B033 may well be it...so thank you for enlightening me on that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - note that I've focused on the actions of BISHOPS, not priests in this debate, and as you can see they are sourced from neutral or hostile territory.
I note that Grammatica has not challenged my evidence - just changed grounds for the defence...

---

Let's have your evidence, then. Which bishops? When? Quote their pastoral letters, please. What are your sources? You gave none. That's not shifting the grounds, just asking you for your evidence. Apostacy and heresy are heavy charges; you ought to offer proof for them before you make them. It is not for me to prove to you that I am not a heretic; it is for you to prove to me that I am.

---

Did you read my post above which provides evidence of the behaviour of the bishop of LA who was the source of quote about the Hindus here whilst Wikipedia is quoting Spong's theses - I'm afraid I can't find anything more authoritative... but to me these seem unchallenged.
 

---

Posted by TheMightyMartyr (# 11162) on :
 
Here are my credentials in this: I am a member of the Diocese of New Westminster. I sit on Diocesan Council as Youth Delegate and have recently been appointed Lay Secretary of the Diocese.

So to the issue of CwoB, I know of at least 5 parishes within the Diocese who openly practice CwoB, including the Cathedral, and I have the leaflets to show it.

And to the issue of SSB's we have 8 parishes that currently have the approval of the Bishop to conduct them, with 6 others who have voted to do so as well. The blessings occur with a rite that is approved by the Bishop as well.

But as I'm not a member of PECUSA, I'm sure this won't matter to Grammatica...
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was looking for evidence of repentance by TEC; it sounds to be that B033 may well be it...so thank you for enlightening me on that one.

---

Now that's interesting. I am surprised you didn't know about B033 -- passed, it must be admitted, with reluctance on the part of TEC's House of Deputies, but passed nonetheless at General Convention 2006. The Presiding Bishop has said she is not interested in revisiting this resolution at GC 2009. Though there may be clarifications of it, it will continue in effect.

I wonder how many other English Evangelicals are mediating schism in the absence of crucial information like this?

Full disclosure: TEC, in B033 and other statements, has officially and on record expressed the regret called for in the language of the Windsor Report. We are sorry (and yes, I personally am sorry) that we so disturbed the peace of the Communion.

We have not "repented" of ordaining +Gene Robinson, and many of us continue to believe it was the right thing to do. Many in the Church of England think so too. And in the Welsh, Irish, Canadian .... and other churches. Throughout the Communion, people are of several minds about +Gene's ordination. Some, within the English church as well, are for "full inclusion." Others regard gay people as under an especially heavy judgment. The debate continues (in Dead Horses, mostly).

But all that is, strictly speaking, beside the point. TEC was not called upon by the Communion to repent. GAFCON would like us to repent, but the Communion as a whole has not called for this. To demand this repentance Communion-wide would be to provoke a Communion-wide schism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - note that I've focused on the actions of BISHOPS, not priests in this debate, and as you can see they are sourced from neutral or hostile territory.
I note that Grammatica has not challenged my evidence - just changed grounds for the defence...

---

Let's have your evidence, then. Which bishops? When? Quote their pastoral letters, please. What are your sources? You gave none. That's not shifting the grounds, just asking you for your evidence. Apostacy and heresy are heavy charges; you ought to offer proof for them before you make them. It is not for me to prove to you that I am not a heretic; it is for you to prove to me that I am.

---

Did you read my post above which provides evidence of the behaviour of the bishop of LA who was the source of quote about the Hindus here whilst Wikipedia is quoting Spong's theses - I'm afraid I can't find anything more authoritative... but to me these seem unchallenged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
Here are my credentials in this: I am a member of the Diocese of New Westminster. I sit on Diocesan Council as Youth Delegate and have recently been appointed Lay Secretary of the Diocese.

So to the issue of CwoB, I know of at least 5 parishes within the Diocese who openly practice CwoB, including the Cathedral, and I have the leaflets to show it.

And to the issue of SSB's we have 8 parishes that currently have the approval of the Bishop to conduct them, with 6 others who have voted to do so as well. The blessings occur with a rite that is approved by the Bishop as well.

But as I'm not a member of PECUSA, I'm sure this won't matter to Grammatica...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that we are taking about the Church of England here.

---

No, Matt Black, we are talking about the allegations of apostacy leveled by Evangelicals against the American Episcopal Church.

Now if your lot of Evangelicals and my lot of Evangelicals disagree politically, fine, although I can assure you that your lot would not be welcome in any Evangelical gathering in my region, not with those political views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
And no doubt they will go on seeming to you to be unchallenged. A little research would reveal that Bishop Spong is hardly typical of the American church. He is frequently challenged. And in any case he is now retired.

Gee, should we schism because of the "Red Dean" of Canterbury? How about the Archbishop of York who denied the Virgin Birth? Guess that makes the whole Church of England apostate, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It may surprise you to learn this, but I for one do not want +VGR to resign, partly because what's done is done (IMO) but mainly because I hope I'm not a vindictive sort of bastard...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
And no doubt they will go on seeming to you to be unchallenged. A little research would reveal that Bishop Spong is hardly typical of the American church. He is frequently challenged. And in any case he is now retired.

Gee, should we schism because of the "Red Dean" of Canterbury? How about the Archbishop of York who denied the Virgin Birth? Guess that makes the whole Church of England apostate, right?

---

1) There is a fundamental difference between 'going unchallenged' and being formally removed from his seat in the House of Bishops, which he retains after his retirement. So no, he is not out of the picture, and the failure lies in the church's absence of response to him.

2) I assume you are talking about Jenkins, bishop of Durham. As anyone who knows the story well, it is far more nuanced than a simple denial; certainly not a list of issues where he is radically at odds with the entire Christian tradition.

3) As to the 'Red Dean' - I repeat: I am focusing on bishops here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
Here are my credentials in this: I am a member of the Diocese of New Westminster. I sit on Diocesan Council as Youth Delegate and have recently been appointed Lay Secretary of the Diocese.

So to the issue of CwoB, I know of at least 5 parishes within the Diocese who openly practice CwoB, including the Cathedral, and I have the leaflets to show it.

And to the issue of SSB's we have 8 parishes that currently have the approval of the Bishop to conduct them, with 6 others who have voted to do so as well. The blessings occur with a rite that is approved by the Bishop as well.

But as I'm not a member of PECUSA, I'm sure this won't matter to Grammatica...

---

New Westminster is a Canadian diocese. It is not clear to me why any actions on the part of a Canadian diocese call for the Episcopal Church of the United States to be expelled from the Anglican Communion. Please clarify.

And one more question: Are you a member of the ACNA schismatic group that calls itself New Westminster? Or of the Diocese of New Westminster?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
I can see English/ Irish Evangelicals are moving into a very challenging time all the way around. Some of you will join FOCA/GAFCON, others will not. That will be schism. The pretext for this schism will be the alleged apostacy of the American churches (TEC and Canada).

Now if I say to you, on the eve of your own schism, "Don't believe everything you've heard about TEC," you might be able to avoid your own schism. If you were willing to investigate the truth of the allegations against TEC, that is.

But this would come at a price. You would discover that many of the things you've heard about Those Awful Americans aren't true. You might lose faith in some of your leaders who have repeated, or generated, those falsehoods. There might be other consequences. There will be some pain.

To those of you who are unwilling to undergo this pain, all I can say is: In that case, enjoy your schism!

I have done what I could do to try to prevent it. He who has ears....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
It is certainly a painful process to listen to those who you feel personally hurt by, to recognise them as fellow humans, and to be prepared to learn that the truth about them is less black-and-white than you had been told, the people perhaps even acting for good motives, and who are also hurt by the actions of those on 'your' side.

The problem with the GAFCON debate, and with the difficulties of TEC, seems to be that both sides are not prepared to take this approach with the other, preferring to misrepresent and demonise rather than to understand and communicate.

You seem to be addressing your plea for understanding of TEC to UK evangelicals. Would you advocate that the left wing of the C of E do the same for the right-wingers in the US church? This is irrespective of the issues involved; should we be seeking to understand our 'opponents' or should we just be taking sides?

- Chris.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
Here are my credentials in this: I am a member of the Diocese of New Westminster. I sit on Diocesan Council as Youth Delegate and have recently been appointed Lay Secretary of the Diocese.

So to the issue of CwoB, I know of at least 5 parishes within the Diocese who openly practice CwoB, including the Cathedral, and I have the leaflets to show it.

And to the issue of SSB's we have 8 parishes that currently have the approval of the Bishop to conduct them, with 6 others who have voted to do so as well. The blessings occur with a rite that is approved by the Bishop as well.

But as I'm not a member of PECUSA, I'm sure this won't matter to Grammatica...

---

New Westminster is a Canadian diocese. It is not clear to me why any actions on the part of a Canadian diocese call for the Episcopal Church of the United States to be expelled from the Anglican Communion. Please clarify.

And one more question: Are you a member of the ACNA schismatic group that calls itself New Westminster? Or of the Diocese of New Westminster?

---

I am a member of the Diocese of New Westminster, though I grieve for the seperation that has occured within our Diocese. I'm not calling for our or the PECUSA' expulsion from the AC but to deny these things occur and do provide for strife within the Church is ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

what's CwoB?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
No, the fact is that I don't like Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, they being one and the same in American usage.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Call Me Numpty
I say pleasantly surprised because, quite frankly, they do find themselves being oppressed by the ruling revisionist elite that is busy embarking on wholesale apostacy in their own church.

---

quote:

---

Grammatica said:
Of course, whatever TEC and the rest do, it would still be possible for you to say: "it seems to me that TEC is apostate" or "schismatic" or "removing itself from the Communion." That statement will be true if it seems to you that TEC is apostate [etc], whatever the facts of the case may be.

Here is an analogous case. The statement "I believe pigs can fly and do advanced algebra" is true as long as I believe it. However, though I may believe, passionately, that pigs can fly and do advanced algebra, in fact, it is the case that they cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
2) Spong's theses, for which he has not been disciplined and despite which he remains a member of the House of Bishops are clearly apostate - see here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Grammatica said:
Of course, whatever TEC and the rest do, it would still be possible for you to say: "it seems to me that TEC is apostate" or "schismatic" or "removing itself from the Communion." That statement will be true if it seems to you that TEC is apostate [etc], whatever the facts of the case may be.

Here is an analogous case. The statement "I believe pigs can fly and do advanced algebra" is true as long as I believe it. However, though I may believe, passionately, that pigs can fly and do advanced algebra, in fact, it is the case that they cannot.

---

I find this statement fascinating. Would you please explain to me how your analogy is designed to function? I ask because from where I'm sitting it really does look like you're saying that something is actually true because you believe it; even though it isn't really true&trade, true. Is that what you're saying?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Dubious Thomas
That said, I do wonder, as a point of comparison, how would a bishop who held views similar to Spong's be "disciplined" in the CofE? Was +David Jenkins "disciplined"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
As one of those who the OP may be referring to as an Evangelical who is open on many of the issues that GAFCON seem so upset with, and as someone who has spent the last five years travelling between the US and the UK, and involved in publishing some of the 'left wing' US authors mentioned (such as Shane Claiborne, Brian MacLaren, Rob Bell etc) I am so disheartened by the tone on this thread.

Most Christians of any flavor seem to me to be more concerned with living a life that is worthy of the name Christian (however imperfectly), but there is a militant tendency on all the different wings of the Anglican church that cannot tolerate others thinking they are wrong. I suppose I expect it more of the conservatives, as they are so concerned with 'pure doctrine' etc. I guess I am more disappointed with illiberal liberals who are ready to flame anyone who may think they are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Good. 'Tis a pity many in the TEC can't tell the difference.

---

Well, I see you feel compelled to resort to cheap shots. Does that mean you no longer have an argument?
 

---

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
Ok..

Reporting as a liberal to moderate member of TEC who happens to believe strongly in spreading the gospel..

Yes, TEC is strongly democratic. It's a wonderful thing and can be a pain at the same time. We are also very, um..., independent even among ourselves. Diocese A might say one thing where Diocese B says something quite different. And nothing "official" may be done about it. There is no real strong top down structure in TEC.

And that means that also Bishop A could say something that the majority of people in Diocese A could roll their eyes at and continue on without caring. It makes life interesting and makes it difficult to impossible for anyone (including the PB) to pin us down on anything.

The problem for me as a "closet fundamentalist" is that there are no churches that I know of that maintain the apostolic traditions (communion, the 3 or 4 order of ministry, etc.) and allow me to read the Bible and allow me to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit as to what it means to me and what I should do.

What is coming out of GAFCON to me is a checklist of things that I must believe (outside of the Nicene creed) that I simply can't check off on. I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell me how to interpret scripture. They can help and guide, but I don't believe in being told believe or else.

I believe strongly in spreading the gospel as far and wide as it can be. I believe that people have the right to believe what they wish about the ordination of women, gays, marriage as long as they can back up those beliefs with scripture (I don't have to agree with their interpretations, but I would like something to back it up.)

If CPAS believes in spreading the gospel to anyone who wishes to hear it without preconceptions of whether or not the church will end up liberal, conservative, high, low or inbetween, then YEA!

If they want their members to realize that there are people outside of their community who want to spread the gospel and are wanting their members to see if they want to help, but aren't saying that they HAVE to, then what's the problem?? I just don't see it.

(and NO, I refuse to defend TEC in this thread. It's not the point of it. AND I only defend my own beliefs and choices, not others. I cannot speak for them.)
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But of course, you are absolutely right. Don Cupitt is probably the nearest the CofE has to a JSS, and I don't think he's ever been disciplined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But of course, you are absolutely right. Don Cupitt is probably the nearest the CofE has to a JSS, and I don't think he's ever been disciplined.

---

Neither was he a bishop, or even a parish priest for very long (if at all). He's been a teacher for most of his career. So no question of church discipline arises.

We nasty evangelicals don't believe in censoring what university teachers say. Its not like we're Catholics
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
It seems to boil down to what it is we're willing to be tolerant about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
There's also an aspect of this view, that says one shouldn't expect censure from those with a liberal stance; as if to be liberal means to be without any cross-able bounaries, or faculty of judgement (as opposed to good old judgementalism!). It seems to boil down to what it is we're willing to be tolerant about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The spiteful parody of what Pete173 wrote wasn't a good advertisment for American liberal Anglicanism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Good. 'Tis a pity many in the TEC can't tell the difference.

---

Well, I see you feel compelled to resort to cheap shots. Does that mean you no longer have an argument?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The spiteful parody of what Pete173 wrote wasn't a good advertisment for American liberal Anglicanism.

---

Pete173 was in a very good position to know that he was repeating half-truths and untruths about TEC without comment or correction. He deserved being taken down for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The spiteful parody of what Pete173 wrote wasn't a good advertisment for American liberal Anglicanism.

---

Pete173 was in a very good position to know that he was repeating half-truths and untruths about TEC without comment or correction. He deserved being taken down for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:

quote:

---

what's CwoB?

---

Communion without Baptism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:

quote:

---

what's CwoB?

---

Communion without Baptism?

---

Thanks! Again, do they really do that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
They most certainly do... and not even used as a "converting ordinance," just allowed with no type of limits or conditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, I know that a lot of the free churches have that practice, but in an Anglican Church? Even within evo CofE parishes, I haven't heard of that; our parish certainly doesn't do it.

---

Dunno, maybe it's a North-West thing? It's certainly what I've grown up with. When a new vicar at my previous Parish expressed some surprise at our custom and practice, we thought him very strange. What happens in your church? How are people invited? "Any baptised person in good standing...." is a formula I have heard at other churches from time to time.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
If a formal invite is given at all, yes. I guess it's kind of assumed most of the time.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Thinking about it, both my Anglican Parishes have had pretty close associations with the respective local Methodists (even to the extent, on one occasion, of being able to hear the Local Preacher's sermon over our PA, courtesy of a new radio mic and a clash of frequencies ). It may be something we picked up from them.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I've quite often heard Anglican priests give invitiations with words like "all who love the Lord". George Carey used to thirty years ago.

I suspect that if you asked them they would explain that they mean "... and are baptised and in good standing with their own churches" or something like that, but that they don't want to use bureaucratic jargon in the liturgy. And that they never intended to invite the unbaptised.

In the last few months our vicar has started explicitly mentioning baptism at the Communion. It is a it clumsy from a liturgical point of view. But sometime between the Peace & the EP she'll say something along the lines of "It is our practice at this church to come up to the altar rail and kneel or stand to receive Communion. If you are a visritor from another church please feel free to come to Communion. If you do not want to recieve the bread and the wine or if you are not baptised pleace and you want a blessing come up to the rail and keep your arms folded" There are a couple of othe rpoints as well and she probably puts it better than that. But I noticed a couple of weeks ago that she has started mentioning not being baptised as a reason for not taking Communion.
 

---

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :
 
Both CofE places I attend regularly have this kind of welcome/fencing hybrid, but just before the beginning of the service, where I think it's less of an awkward rhythm change, i.e. after a "good morning" and before "In the name of the Father..."

One place talks about people from other denominations who are used to receiving communion in their own church being welcome. The other states that this is a service in the Anglican tradition and others are welcome. Sometimes, but not always, I've heard "baptised and..." as part of these, especially if there is a baptism or other ceremony with a lot of one-time visitors, when we will get the long version including how to come up for a blessing, as in ken's church.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...'

---

Are you referring to TEC? (The "P" was dropped sometime back. If so, what sort of paranoid fantasy scenario is this? (If the above scenario wasn't so spectacularly non-factual I would have merely contented my self with a )

TEC is not "picking off" anyone. No one kicked out those who split.

CAVEAT: I tend to be very linear-minded (and literal-minded) so forgive me if i'm missing some irony

[ 23. June 2009, 12:36: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 

---

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
For what it's worth....

There certainly is debate in the Episcopal Church over the issue of "communion without baptism," and there are, without any doubt, parishes that practice a radically "open communion" with an invitation that says something like "all are welcome to receive the consecrated Bread and Wine," with no statement about baptism and an implicit expectation that non-baptized persons might receive.

These parishes are disobeying existing canons, and a resolution passed at the 2006 General Convention. They are aware of this, but see what they are doing as a case of "civil disobedience."

Here's a link to a blog post by Tobias Haller BSG, a TEC theologian, "Muddy (Baptismal) Waters". Note that Br. Haller's post begins with reference to a recent article on the issue in the Spring 2009 Anglican Theological Review.

The issue has also been dealt with in other Episcopal Church blogs. For example, there's this reflection by CREEDAL CHRISTIAN.

In short (sort of!): There is no official policy in TEC advocating communion of the unbaptized, and there are in fact official statements against it; however, there are parishes that practice offering communion of the unbaptized, and there are those who are arguing for formal acceptance of the practice (at least as a licit option for those parishes that wish it).
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by Dubious Thomas
In short (sort of!): There is no official policy in TEC advocating communion of the unbaptized, and there are in fact official statements against it; however, there are parishes that practice offering communion of the unbaptized, and there are those who are arguing for formal acceptance of the practice (at least as a licit option for those parishes that wish it).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What is your feeling here, DT? Is it mostly the dissenting parishes (ie those allied to Gafcon) who would be most likely to offer an open invitation (on this side of the pond, the more evo a parish, by and large, the less likely it is to stand on ceremony) or is it the "radical inclusionists" who are the flagbearers for CwoB?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...'

---

Are you referring to TEC? (The "P" was dropped sometime back. If so, what sort of paranoid fantasy scenario is this? (If the above scenario wasn't so spectacularly non-factual I would have merely contented my self with a )

TEC is not "picking off" anyone. No one kicked out those who split.

CAVEAT: I tend to be very linear-minded (and literal-minded) so forgive me if i'm missing some irony

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
It can be seen as being "kicked out" if you are thrown out of the church building where you have worshiped for years and years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Yes, but if you see yourself as Anglican, is leaving one part of the church that you see as sliding into heresy and joining one that you see as not, really leaving the church?

It's not like you are really leaving, just reorganizing...

---

Your question is really a theological one...and I reject its basic premise, that TEC is "sliding into heresy".

Be that as it may, we can't settle issues of property on theological grounds. This is a matter of polity. The Anglican Communion doesn't own the buildings used by TEC congregations. TEC does. So, another province of the Anglican Communion has no right (either in canon law OR, more importantly, in American law) to alienate TEC's property.

Imagine an American Roman Catholic congregation voting to switch to the Polish National Catholic Church. Would the Roman Catholics allow them to take their building... just because the group to which they were switching was accepted to be validly "Catholic"? No.

Let's turn this around and run a scenario more to-the-point. What if a liberal CofE congregation were to decide that they preferred being part of TEC? Would they be able to disaffiliate from the CofE and take their building? I very much doubt it....
 

---

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
I'm playing Devil's advocate here (somewhat). I actually don't believe TEC is sliding into heresy. Yet.

I quite understand the legal implications of what is going on.

I also know that there are spiritual implications (which I'm trying to point out), and I sincerely wish that each side would actually listen to the other.

I see sincere heartbreak on both sides. I also see both sides simply do things just to make the other angry.
 

---

Posted by TheMightyMartyr (# 11162) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
What if a liberal CofE congregation were to decide that they preferred being part of TEC?

---

quote:

---

So, another province of the Anglican Communion has no right (either in canon law OR, more importantly, in American law) to alienate TEC's property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
What if a liberal CofE congregation were to decide that they preferred being part of TEC?

---

That is the only analogy that works. I imagine the answer is 'no' in most cases. However, there are some parishes that didn't hand over ownership to the dioceses. One of my former parishes was very proud of the fact that they'd managed (somehow, I don't really understand it) to transfer ownership to the Safegaurd Saint Seraphim's Trust or whatever, rather than the DBF or whoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!

---

Sadly, I have the service leaflets to prove it.

This is taken from page 13 of the October 12, 2008 Harvest Thanksgiving Service:


Share the Gifts

If you know the brokenness of life, its fractures within and its division without, then you have participated in the broken body of Christ and you are invited to share in the breaking of bread. If you desire to know the love of god that overcomes indifference and despair, if you desire the reconcilication that over comes estrangement and alienation then you are invited to share the cup of the new covenant.


No requirement for baptism there...

---

quote:

---

YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!

---

Sadly, I have the service leaflets to prove it.

This is taken from page 13 of the October 12, 2008 Harvest Thanksgiving Service:


Share the Gifts

If you know the brokenness of life, its fractures within and its division without, then you have participated in the broken body of Christ and you are invited to share in the breaking of bread. If you desire to know the love of god that overcomes indifference and despair, if you desire the reconcilication that over comes estrangement and alienation then you are invited to share the cup of the new covenant.


No requirement for baptism there...

---

Nor here:

quote:

---

YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

---

---

quote:

---

Draw near with faith. Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.

Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.

---

[Edited to include context (top of page )]

[ 24. June 2009, 16:03: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 

---

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:

No requirement for baptism there...

---

quote:

---

YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:

No requirement for baptism there...

---

Nor here:

quote:

---

YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

---

This brief note by Br. Tobias Taller provides an implicit response on this point. This traditional invitation reflect a time when it could be assumed that only baptized Christians were present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
My point is rather that one cannot prove that a church is practicing CWoB from the language of a service leaflet alone....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
My point is rather that one cannot prove that a church is practicing CWoB from the language of a service leaflet alone....

---

Fair enough. However, it is a fact that there are churches practicing CWoB, and given that invitation statements in bulletins typically mention baptism, avoidance of reference to baptism is a strong 'clue' that a congregation affirms CwoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
For me, and the way I look at things, I'd rather check it out with a member of the congregation in question, or better yet a member of the clergy, before I said positively: "Such-and-such a church affirms/practices communion of the unbaptized."

Otherwise, rumors get into circulation, then become amplified and distorted, and end by becoming pretexts for schism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The allegations against ECUSA are very simple [....[ They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
Grammatica, as my parents were married there, I was baptised and confirmed there, and I have attended on many other occasions, I know the practice of the parish, which is CwoB...

I have been in other parishes in the Diocese where it has been announced that "in the Anglican Church of Canada all are welcome at the table," which is contrary to canon law last time I checked.

---

On the other hand, this is much closer to proof, though I still wish I might hear someone from the parish explain why they do it this way.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers?

quote:

---

Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.

Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.

Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers?

---

 

---

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
On the other hand, this is much closer to proof, though I still wish I might hear someone from the parish explain why they do it this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers?

quote:

---

Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.

Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.

Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.

---

---

An invitation based on TEC's actual policy would be much more straightforward... and actually does appear (with slight variation) in hundreds of bulletins throughout the United States:

All who have been baptized with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity are invited to receive communion.

Of course, unlike the CofE, we're sliding into apostasy....
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Frankly, I think that most of the arguments being presented here about CwoB are picking up on theological points that would completely escape the average parish secretary responsible for putting together a pew bulleting, and I'm far from convinced that they would even be present in the mind of a priest at the exact moment that he or she tells people to come up to the altar rail.

I've been to church my entire life and I can't ever recall this being an issue subject to much discussion. When I think about it carefully, the most common invitation I heard in my last church was to anyone who was 'a member of another church'. Does this pass muster?

The idea that a statement needs to be interrogated to establish it's specifics on baptism just doesn't make sense to me in the ordinary, day-to-day context.

I don't doubt its importance in the sense of establishing the formal position of a church, which I am sure IS communicated to clergy. However, in this thread people seem to be trying to rely on much LESS formal statements as evidence in a way that I don't think was ever intended by the makers of those statements.
 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, I think that most of the arguments being presented here about CwoB are picking up on theological points that would completely escape the average parish secretary responsible for putting together a pew bulleting, and I'm far from convinced that they would even be present in the mind of a priest at the exact moment that he or she tells people to come up to the altar rail.

I've been to church my entire life and I can't ever recall this being an issue subject to much discussion. When I think about it carefully, the most common invitation I heard in my last church was to anyone who was 'a member of another church'. Does this pass muster?

The idea that a statement needs to be interrogated to establish it's specifics on baptism just doesn't make sense to me in the ordinary, day-to-day context.

I don't doubt its importance in the sense of establishing the formal position of a church, which I am sure IS communicated to clergy. However, in this thread people seem to be trying to rely on much LESS formal statements as evidence in a way that I don't think was ever intended by the makers of those statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Dubious Thomas:

I am responding to a claim originally made by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The allegations against ECUSA are very simple [....[ They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised.

---

I say that is not true as stated, and actually, I don't think we are in disagreement there. In fact, the Episcopal Church has not endorsed communion for the unbaptized.

The "proof" offered in this discussion that the Episcopal Church endorses communion for the unbaptized was a worship service bulletin from a Canadian diocese that did not mention baptism as a requirement for communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers?

quote:

---

Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.

Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.

Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.

---

---

Excellent, except that you missed the rubric for the blessing of coming forward with an Order of Service sheet or your arms folded across your chest.
 

---

Posted by TonyinOxford (# 12657) on :
 
At the risk of entering Dead Horse territory: it looks to me as though Grammatica has been trying with great eloquence and passion to deal with a rhetorical problem. Bishop Pete explained the view held by many evangelicals (he said) of the Episcopal Church in the US (which he refers to as ECUSA); Grammatica pointed out that this view is distorted and culpably misleading; +Pete says he is only stating the view held in many parts of his own constituency. Matters might have been easier if he had said whether or not he thought the account he gave was as inaccurate a representation of TEC as Grammatica suggested. It is perhaps helpful that he has now commented elsewhere on a Fulcrum thread (about GAFCON and FCA) -- 'There's not, in my opinion, much left to commend ECUSA and the Canadians [...]': still room for some expansion, of course.

 

---

Posted by Fool on Hill (# 12183) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers?

quote:

---

Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.

Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.

Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.

---

---

Excellent, except that you missed the rubric for the blessing of coming forward with an Order of Service sheet or your arms folded across your chest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
And the bit about those who are allergic to components of the elements [and the optional bit about the precautions to be taken to avoid passing on swine flu or other infectious diseases]

---

quote:

---

Christians of all denominations are invited to receive Communion. Sidespeople will direct you to a place at the altar rail - those in the side aisle pews come forward first. Communion is offered in both kinds, both bread and wine. If it is your custom preference or need, you may receive in one kind only, either just the bread or just the wine. The communion is complete in either form so that receiving either bread or wine alone constitutes receiving full communion. We do not practice intinction, that is dipping the bread in the wine. Again, options for receiving are in one kind only, bread or wine or receiving both. Instead of intinction one may touch the base of the chalice if you desire.
As receiving communion is essentially a spiritual communion, the administrators will pause at every person at the altar rail and say the words of administration, including for those who do not receive. Please cross your arms on your chest to indicate you will not be receiving that particular element. [This section is underlined in the original.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Dubious Thomas:

I am responding to a claim originally made by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The allegations against ECUSA are very simple [....[ They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised.

---

I say that is not true as stated, and actually, I don't think we are in disagreement there. In fact, the Episcopal Church has not endorsed communion for the unbaptized.

The "proof" offered in this discussion that the Episcopal Church endorses communion for the unbaptized was a worship service bulletin from a Canadian diocese that did not mention baptism as a requirement for communion.

---

No - the proof offered was the reported admission of Hindus to the communion at LA cathedral. This is far more important than a failure to strictly enforce standards in every parish. However to avoid the issue derailing this thread - which appears to be far from its home anyway! - I've started a new one on Communion without Baptism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyinOxford:
It is perhaps helpful that Bishop Pete has now commented elsewhere on a Fulcrum thread (about GAFCON and FCA) -- 'There's not, in my opinion, much left to commend ECUSA and the Canadians [...]': still room for some expansion, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...'

---

Are you referring to TEC? (The "P" was dropped sometime back. If so, what sort of paranoid fantasy scenario is this? (If the above scenario wasn't so spectacularly non-factual I would have merely contented my self with a )

TEC is not "picking off" anyone. No one kicked out those who split.

CAVEAT: I tend to be very linear-minded (and literal-minded) so forgive me if i'm missing some irony

---

It can be seen as being "kicked out" if you are thrown out of the church building where you have worshiped for years and years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Check again -- they turned out to be members of the Church of South India,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Check again -- they turned out to be members of the Church of South India,

---

And I think it would be illuminating to see what statements the Churches of India have issued about relations with Hinduism and prostelyizing.

---

Not sure why, in this context?

The alleged incident to which Ender's Shadow was referring took place in LA.

Here is an account of what actually happened, subject to correction, of course.

At a large service, presided over by Bishop Bruno, to which members of other faiths had been invited, a number of South Asians in traditional dress came up to take communion. Someone (hostile to TEC) in the congregation spotted them at the rail and said -- aha! communion of the unbaptized! Because apparently anyone in a sari must be a heathen pagan unbeliever. Well, the alleged pagans turned out to be members of the Church of South India (a conservative province and member of the Global South).

Disappointed that rumor is still circulating. Very disappointed it is used as a pretext for schism. But not surprised...
 

---

Posted by innocent(ish) (# 12691) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
If I am correct about this, he did attend GAFCON and refuse to attend Lambeth, one of the few English clergy to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by innocent(ish):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
If I am correct about this, he did attend GAFCON and refuse to attend Lambeth, one of the few English clergy to do so.

---

No, I'm afraid you are incorrect in this. He did not attend either Lambeth or GAFCON

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't speak for Fulcrum, but I don't think I'd be far wrong in saying that the OEs are much more likely to side with the CofE liberals (who want to remain in the CofE as it stands) than the CofE CEs (who don't - either leaving or molding it in their own image).

FCA is importing an argument we in the CofE simply don't need to have, and therefore there's no need for the FCA to organise within the CofE. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The CofE is a broad church. Most of us like it like that. Most evangelicals like it like that, too. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dolwgan:

I think that there is a slight misunderstanding here. CofE CE's are basically trying to stand by the traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism; OE's, along with the liberals, are challenging that traditional understanding and teaching. That would seem more likely to be a process of remoulding than the CEs' standing by those traditions. Now, it may be right that the traditions and teachings should be remoulded - after all, all denominations ahve ideas and practices that are (at best) dubious when placed against New Testament teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...I don't think it's quite as simple as that, either on the 'scientific' point or on your commentary on the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is in the process of being significantly amended to drop the provisions you fear in their current form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Check again -- they turned out to be members of the Church of South India,

---

And I think it would be illuminating to see what statements the Churches of India have issued about relations with Hinduism and prostelyizing.

---

Not sure why, in this context?

The alleged incident to which Ender's Shadow was referring took place in LA.

Here is an account of what actually happened, subject to correction, of course.

At a large service, presided over by Bishop Bruno, to which members of other faiths had been invited, a number of South Asians in traditional dress came up to take communion. Someone (hostile to TEC) in the congregation spotted them at the rail and said -- aha! communion of the unbaptized! Because apparently anyone in a sari must be a heathen pagan unbeliever. Well, the alleged pagans turned out to be members of the Church of South India (a conservative province and member of the Global South).

Disappointed that rumor is still circulating. Very disappointed it is used as a pretext for schism. But not surprised...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...I don't think it's quite as simple as that, either on the 'scientific' point or on your commentary on the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is in the process of being significantly amended to drop the provisions you fear in their current form.

---

Now I'm getting confused. I thought it was the Equality Bill which some Christians fear might take away freedom of speech, and which certainly narrows the exemptions which the churches currently have. On the Coroners and Justice Bill an attempt is being made by Lord Falconer to amend the Bill to protect from prosecution those who assist people who seek to end their lives (assisted dying) in other countries. Church leaders maintain that this opens the door to euthanasia. So there are currently two controversies bubbling.

---

D'oh! Yes, you're quite right - I've been bombarded with so many emails on both over the last several weeks from the likes of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship that I've got throughly confused myself
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dolwgan:
I think that there is a slight misunderstanding here. CofE CE's are basically trying to stand by the traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Would that be the 'traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism' under (Thomas) Cromwell, Henry VIII, or Cranmer; or Edward VI or even Elizabeth I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just because this is in the news today, there's an interview in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 July 2009, with the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali saying why he's joined the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
quoting

quote:

---

Just because this is in the news today, there's an interview in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 July 2009, with the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali saying why he's joined the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

---

Er...I think that'll be the Mail

---

quote:

---

The following week, the Episcopal Church in America is expected to endorse liturgies for single sex marriage and allow more homosexuals to be made bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks! I wonder then what Grammatica makes of this:

quote:

---

The following week, the Episcopal Church in America is expected to endorse liturgies for single sex marriage and allow more homosexuals to be made bishops.

---

from the article: how accurate is it and, if it is accurate, to what extent does that give the lie to her claim that TEC has backed off?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Grammatica,

Wanting to remain the same is conservative, intransigent, and perhaps even intolerant depending on your perspective, but schismatic it ain't. Departing from the faith as we have received it is schismatic. Refusing to leave the church after having doctrinally departed from it is the ecclesiastical equivalent of squatting. At the moment the progressive leadership of TEC is trying to evict the doctrinal home-owners, when it is they who have theologically left the building.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Will you start using such phrases if others do?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Grammatica,

Wanting to remain the same is conservative, intransigent, and perhaps even intolerant depending on your perspective, but schismatic it ain't. Departing from the faith as we have received it is schismatic. Refusing to leave the church after having doctrinally departed from it is the ecclesiastical equivalent of squatting. At the moment the progressive leadership of TEC is trying to evict the doctrinal home-owners, when it is they who have theologically left the building.

---

The above paragraph makes much more sense if each of its sentences is prefixed by "In my private judgment."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks! I wonder then what Grammatica makes of this:

quote:

---

The following week, the Episcopal Church in America is expected to endorse liturgies for single sex marriage and allow more homosexuals to be made bishops.

---

from the article: how accurate is it and, if it is accurate, to what extent does that give the lie to her claim that TEC has backed off?

---

Hi Matt. Just more of the same wild exaggerations and fear-mongering from the usual suspects, I'm afraid. Note the passive voice: "the Episcopal Church in America is expected..." -- by whom? I'd like to know.

We do have a General Convention coming up and there are people unhappy with B033, especially in the House of Deputies.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0