quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I predict that someone on this very thread will accuse the diocese of Los Angeles of electing her just because she's gay.

Zach

---

That'll be me then.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Under the circumstances good, then. It should convince the rest of the Anglican world that the American Church isn't going to change and won't be dictated to.
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
..well spoken middle class men who wear dresses.

---

quote:

---

... elected a lesbian as assistant bishop ...

---

quote:

---

More bad news for the Church of Jesus Christ, lots of media guff and wind, lots of discussion, lots of confused unchurched people wondering what the issue is, but best of all...

[...] challenging the beliefs of most people that the church is dull and irrelevant, run by well spoken middle class men who wear dresses, by electing a partnered gay woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gianbattista:
This just in: The Diocese of Los Angeles yesterday elected Rev. Mo. Mary Glasspool a suffragan bishop. She's still got to be confirmed by the General Convention, but my uneducated guess is that she will be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Under the circumstances good, then. It should convince the rest of the Anglican world that the American Church isn't going to change and won't be dictated to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

---

IIRC she refused to consider making female homosexual activity illegal because she couldn't imagine what two women could get up to in bed.

Which only goes to illustrate just how ignorant and prejudiced so many people were in the dark ages, before Google and internet pornography...
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
++Rowan is now going to succeed in once and for all alienating those members of the American Church who still had any time for him (which wouldn't include me, in any event).
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
++Rowan is now going to succeed in once and for all alienating those members of the American Church who still had any time for him (which wouldn't include me, in any event).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The rampantly homophobic bishops in Uganda and Nigeria are obsessed with gay man - this bishop is only (!) a woman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Whilst an Anglican, I was constantly confused as to why the bedroom activities of Episcopalian bishops were the topic of considerably more debate than the credal orthodoxy of Episcopalian bishops. I am no longer an Anglican, but am still confused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Only if you define Communion as what the most conservative Churches demand. My understanding is that's a recent innovation, one that Rowan Williams and others are attempting to present as normative and 'how it ought to be', but that the Instruments of Communion have no authority (at least, not yet) to impose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If TEC want to 'do their own thing', then fine. I'm puzzled though why they want to continue to regard themselves as part of the Anglican Communion; ISTM that this is a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it. Sorry, but real life don't work like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
What is the purpose of having an Anglican Communion anyway?

---

quote:

---

To me it just seem that Anglicans are trying to keep up with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

---

IIRC she refused to consider making female homosexual activity illegal because she couldn't imagine what two women could get up to in bed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
How much of a brouhaha would it cause if she was not confirmed? How often does that happen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

---

IIRC she refused to consider making female homosexual activity illegal because she couldn't imagine what two women could get up to in bed.

---

Not true. No monarch since Charles I has considered interfering with an act of parliament.

If she had actually refused to consider this legislation there would have been a revolution. It's just another urban myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, two candidates have failed the confirmation vote recently- South Carolina and Northern Michigan. In both instances, there were some pretty grave irregularities in how their elections went down

The confirmation has only ever been a vote affirming that the candidate's election was fair and all in order. It's not an opportunity for the Church, or the Primate of Uganda, to veto a diocese's decision.

Zach

---

As far as I am aware there appear to have been no technical irregularities about this election.

I think you misunderstand the concern of some in sister churches that confirmation will cause further disharmony and enhance what is a de facto schism.

The message to ECUSA from those trying to steer a middle course between them and Sydney et sim seems to translate:
'Do what you want but bear the consequences.'

How simple do you want it?
 

---

Posted by gianbattista (# 3883) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, two candidates have failed the confirmation vote recently- South Carolina and Northern Michigan. In both instances, there were some pretty grave irregularities in how their elections went down

The confirmation has only ever been a vote affirming that the candidate's election was fair and all in order. It's not an opportunity for the Church, or the Primate of Uganda, to veto a diocese's decision.

Zach

---

quote:

---

How simple do you want it?

---

quote:

---

I stand corrected on the first point, and I am sure you are right, in principle, on the second -- but how realistic is it to expect that the opportunity of a confirmation vote won't ever be (mis)used as a means of scotching a diocesan election on political grounds? I don't recall +Gene Robinson's opponents going on about misprinted ballots a la Broward County!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
What is the purpose of having an Anglican Communion anyway?

---

Keeping ties with a shared heritage.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To me it just seem that Anglicans are trying to keep up with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

---

Roman Catholics perhaps. The Orthodox are much better at understanding the concept of bottom line essentials of doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, two candidates have failed the confirmation vote recently- South Carolina and Northern Michigan. In both instances, there were some pretty grave irregularities in how their elections went down

The confirmation has only ever been a vote affirming that the candidate's election was fair and all in order. It's not an opportunity for the Church, or the Primate of Uganda, to veto a diocese's decision.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
The issue is not what TEC believes, but whether they are prepared to show any self-restraint for the sake of the Communion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The election itself was all according to canons in South Carolina, I suppose, but he failed to do any of the post election paperwork necessary to get his confirmation.

I wouldn't be surprised if the confirmation vote had been abused in the past.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
So in Uganda various people including Anglican bishops are suggesting life sentences for people like the gay and lesbian shipmates you all know on these boards, and what has been the Archbishop's response to that? Sssssh! Be vewy vewy qwiet! We are doing top secret diplomacy with the homophobes. We can't possibly say that jailing and executing gay people as part of a witch-hunt and moral panic is a bad thing! What do you think we are? A church that might possibly have something to say about something that immoral?

But a female bishop who might possibly be getting her bits jollied by someone not attached to a penis? Oh the humanity! We cannot have the abomination of lady fingers on an episcopal clitoris! We cannot stay in communion with these people! They climax the wrong way under the duvet!

Words do not even begin to capture how screwed up that is.

L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
So in Uganda various people including Anglican bishops are suggesting life sentences for people like the gay and lesbian shipmates you all know on these boards, and what has been the Archbishop's response to that? Sssssh! Be vewy vewy qwiet! We are doing top secret diplomacy with the homophobes. We can't possibly say that jailing and executing gay people as part of a witch-hunt and moral panic is a bad thing! What do you think we are? A church that might possibly have something to say about something that immoral?

But a female bishop who might possibly be getting her bits jollied by someone not attached to a penis? Oh the humanity! We cannot have the abomination of lady fingers on an episcopal clitoris! We cannot stay in communion with these people! They climax the wrong way under the duvet!

Words do not even begin to capture how screwed up that is.

L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.

But, to then expect dioceses to blatantly refuse to ordain LGBT people would place them in direct contravention with the teaching of the national Church. Wouldn't that be more contrary to the canons than trusting dioceses to make their own choices in regards to episcopal leadership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

The brouhaha seems to be solely based on going through the process openly gay.

---

quote:

---

We ... do not ordain women — that is well known. The ordination of women is a different order of things from the presenting issue. Scripture never suggests an ordained woman is in danger of losing her salvation. The continual practice of greed or immorality is clearly a matter of being inside or outside the kingdom of God. People at GAFCON had different views. The Jerusalem Statement in paragraph 12 speaks of secondary matters and seeking the mind of Christ on issues that divide us. It is time to rethink this matter under the word of God, yet again. We may be wrong, but we need to bring this prayerfully with each other and to reconsider it. Similarly, we may rethink on divorce and remarriage.

---

quote:

---

The Bible is very clear that homosexual practice is sin. But, nowhere in the Bible is being a woman described as a sin. The ordination of women and the ordination of practicing homosexuals cannot be compared. They are not the same issue. People of equally strong evangelical conviction come to different conclusions about the ordination of women, but we in Uganda have understood the Bible to teach that God created men and women in His image and both can be ordained to serve God in His Church.

---

quote:

---

The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?

---

Is this a serious question?

Zach

---

Obviously not
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
I am an Anglican, and I hope I’m not partially feminised! True, my hair is slightly longer than average, but that has probably more to do with my taste in music than wanting to be ‘feminised’. I think the Church of England does seem rather more appealing (for whatever reasons) to women than men at the moment, which needs to be addressed (I am not sure how). I don’t think my (evangelical) C of E church is at all feminised, though!
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Most churches of whatever denomination tend to have greater female attendance and female hangers-on than faithful male disciples. It seems that even during Our Lord's earthly ministry this was likely the case; 'twas ever thus.
 

---

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I am an Anglican, and I hope I’m not partially feminised! True, my hair is slightly longer than average, but that has probably more to do with my taste in music than wanting to be ‘feminised’. I think the Church of England does seem rather more appealing (for whatever reasons) to women than men at the moment, which needs to be addressed (I am not sure how). I don’t think my (evangelical) C of E church is at all feminised, though!

---

It is possible that you represent a small island of testosterone in the sea of female juices that is Modern Anglicanism. The admission of long hair does raise some concerns however.

Do you spend much time watching television property makeover programmes by any chance?
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
No, I prefer quizzes, 'Have I Got News for You', 'Time Team' and David Attenborough-type programmes!

(I uesd to like ABBA a lot, though, but I was 10-11 at the time!)
 

---

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In their view a bishop who came out as gay and was living with a same-sex partner would be in the same situation as a bishop who was found to be unrepentantly guilty of some other sexual sin. They would still be a bishop, but would be a bad bishop. It is hardly earth-shattering news that a bishop can be a sinner.

But "going through the process openly gay" (or rather openly and unrepentantly in a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner) would imply that those who appoint bishops are colluding in ongoing sin. And for elected bishops that means the whole diocese. So canon law is neither here nor there, it seems irrelevant to them. Their problem is not that the Americans elect their bishops, it is that some of them want to elect bishops who they believe to be living in unrepentant sin.

---

I agree absolutely. The consecration of Gene Robinson was no worse than the consecration of any other openly creed-denying alcoholic in an unrepentant extra-marital sexual relationship.

But such a person shouldn't even be ordained, let alone consecrated, and the people who do that should be disciplined appropriately.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I see, and who do you propose do the disciplining? HH Pope Rowan I? And I haven't heard +V Gene Robinson deny any articles of the Creed. He's no longer drinking and I wonder how many active but surreptitious alcoholic bishops are running about the Anglican Communion.
 

---

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
Qoheleth,

My comment on men in dresses wasn't a comment on the issue under discussion, it relates to the usual representatives of churches that we see in the media.

As for the meat of my point, I think it stands, the content of this discussion so far seems to fulfil most of the criteria.


 

---

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
I must as always be the one to point out that +Gene's isn't just like any other unmarried relationship, because in his case that's the only option the Church gives him. Reasserters of course know the disingenuousness of the argument (we've called them out on it enough times) but that doesn't stop them from using it. Classy.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
It is possible that you represent a small island of testosterone in the sea of female juices that is Modern Anglicanism. The admission of long hair does raise some concerns however.

Do you spend much time watching television property makeover programmes by any chance?

---

quote:

---

In theory they ought not to have a problem with a celibate gay bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Most churches of whatever denomination tend to have greater female attendance and female hangers-on than faithful male disciples. It seems that even during Our Lord's earthly ministry this was likely the case; 'twas ever thus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If TEC want to 'do their own thing', then fine. I'm puzzled though why they want to continue to regard themselves as part of the Anglican Communion; ISTM that this is a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it. Sorry, but real life don't work like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.

But, to then expect dioceses to blatantly refuse to ordain LGBT people would place them in direct contravention with the teaching of the national Church. Wouldn't that be more contrary to the canons than trusting dioceses to make their own choices in regards to episcopal leadership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.

That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!

---

And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?



 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I still genuinely don't understand the bile that some people come out with when talking about Rowan Williams. Well, I understand it from the mainstream "serious" British press, because that is how they deal with religion these days, but I don't understand it from some Anglicans. Sometimes it looks as if they are talking about someone imaginary who has very little to do with the actual bishop.

To be honest its hard to imagine how he could have done much better with this mess that's been handed to him that is very little to do with him.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Oh, you can't imagine why many members of the American Church have little time for ++Rowan? Really?
 

---

Posted by caercybi06 (# 15105) on :
 
All that will come of this is 1- a statement from ABC Williams, 2- lots of sniping or worse from the right wing & the african church 3- proplr stop attending of course thats predicatd on her being confirmed ECUSA GC . Maybe saner heads will prevail
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
By now I don't think many of us in TEC really give a rat's ass for the natterings of His Grace, nor certainly at all for what the various African provinces or Southern Coneheads have to say.
 

---

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.

That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!

---

And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
By now I don't think many of us in TEC really give a rat's ass for the natterings of His Grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I still genuinely don't understand the bile that some people come out with when talking about Rowan Williams. Well, I understand it from the mainstream "serious" British press, because that is how they deal with religion these days, but I don't understand it from some Anglicans. Sometimes it looks as if they are talking about someone imaginary who has very little to do with the actual bishop.

To be honest its hard to imagine how he could have done much better with this mess that's been handed to him that is very little to do with him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?

Sounds to me as if you want an ABofC that applauds every province's bold autonomous initiatives - unless, of course, they conflict with your own.

Some international arbiter of Anglicanism that would make him.

Really, your claim of "bullying" sounds rather silly from my side of the pond. The "bullying" doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing exactly what you would have done anyway. How precisely is the GAFCON-type pressure holding you guys back in TEC or Canada?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.

---

You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I will say AGAIN: It's the conservatives that won't have us. How is that not bullying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, Zach - can't you see that by that logic you would not be breaking communion with any other province no matter what TEC decreed? It's like saying, "Well sure we voted to rescind three out of four of the items of the historic creeds, but we wanted to be in communion with the Orthodox - and THEY broke with US! The bullies!"?

---

Except we're not breaking with the creeds, so that's irrelevent. The creeds have been declared central to Anglican identity. A wish to stone homosexuals has not.

Zach
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Well we see things quite differently, Spiff, and I doubt my admittedly blinkered view of the situation admits of much more mutual comprehension than we've already got.

But I certainly raise a hearty Caledonian "AMEN" for that proposed kingdom work.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Let's look at the things the witch-doctors and evo-reactionaries specifically object to:

1. Many of them still don't like/really approve of female clergy, especially female bishops; even more especially a female primate -- ++Katherine was treated most rudely by many at the last Lambeth Conf.

2. Granting full inclusion to all persons regardless of sexuality and recognising the possibility for grace and healthiness in faithful same-sex relatioships; acting on this recognition by being willing to ordain homosexual clergy in committed same-sex relationships and indeed being willing to solmenize and bless the vows that such couples make to one another.

None of this affects other provinces, except of course a queer or lesbo bishop could attend the Lambeth Conference and make one feel ever so uncomfortable.
 

---

Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
I thought Bishop Harris of Mass. was lesbian, and that appointment was like ages ago. Have I got that wrong?
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
so ineffectual, so burdened I would imagine with pointless post-colonial guilt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Except we're not breaking with the creeds, so that's irrelevent. The creeds have been declared central to Anglican identity. A wish to stone homosexuals has not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The liberals only want to follow Christ the best they know how, and are happy to be in communion with the conservatives with no expectation that they agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.

That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!

---

And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?

---

Hey, pumpkin, I didn't say word one about being unemotional. I'd prefer that Rowan showed an emotion to his US brethren and sistren in Christ beyond passive-aggressive one of these days, but I ain't holding my breath.

I also didn't say word one about keeping things unbiased, because if there's one thing that I learned from my sojourns in academia, it's that the only truly unbiased source for Truth is a four-year-old child. Who is quite good at speaking the Truth at such a time that it maximizes embarrassment to the adult caregivers of said child.

And of course the comment's selfish, I'm sick and tired of people, including the current Archbishop of Canterbury, whining when things don't go their power-grabbing way. The entire Communion needs to pull up its big girl panties and deal, because we got bigger issues surrounding us right now. When every child on this bright blue world goes to bed in a warm, safe space with a full stomach, then maybe I'll grant we've got some spare time on our hands to kvetch about who is in a consensual relationship with whom.

Maybe.

---

Pumpkin?


So you've been in academia?

I can just get a glimpse of bizarrely twisted logic in your last para.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Fine. But you can't just be "in communion" by fiat...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Wow, do you know how the Anglican Communion works at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We do have official doctines which bind the communion and guess what: no particular stance on teh gays is among them.

---

Says you. Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[An free added "d" in privileged - just because I care. ]
 

---

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Pumpkin?


So you've been in academia?

I can just get a glimpse of bizarrely twisted logic in your last para.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We do have official doctines which bind the communion and guess what: no particular stance on teh gays is among them.

---

Says you. Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Except that, as you very well know, such changes to traditional (i.e., what almost all Anglicans have historically believed) biblical orthodoxy on sexual morality are deal-breaking, communion-impairing issues for tons of evangelical Anglicans (of the non-"stone-'em-to-death!" sort).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:
Why is this decision the one that prompts such communion-shattering argument, and why is unity so important on this issue? Anglicans haven't exactly reached a 100% consensus on the number of sacraments, the Real Presence, the ordination of women, and the role/authority of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:
Why is this decision the one that prompts such communion-shattering argument

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Pumpkin?


So you've been in academia?

I can just get a glimpse of bizarrely twisted logic in your last para.

---

Do you have a rebuttal in there somewhere or are you just being a butt?

---

There's a good joke in your last word, but, seeing you can't dig irony, I won't come down to you.

 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think we should keep in mind that the Anglican Communion is a rather new and artificial invention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The truth is, my genuine bewliderment about the whole affair (which is what my posts here have really been an expression of) probably disqualifies me from further comment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Because so many hetero-males can't deal with their brittlely repressed passive homoerotism, nor with their masochistic tittilation at the thought of two women choosing each other as sex objects and spurning a cock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We do have official doctines which bind the communion and guess what: no particular stance on teh gays is among them.

---

Says you. Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.

---

Why does their interpretation get to trump Zach's? It's all interpretation, it's all through the cultural lenses of the individual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I also am bewildered to as to why the representatives of TEC posting here are quite so angry? Their church has done what it wants knowing what the consequences would be.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
I hope that someone can reassure me that there is diversity elsewhere and, for example, not all Ugandan Anglicans want gays imprisoned or dead.

---

Of course there is and they don't. How could you imagine otherwise?

Unless perhaps your only source of news was right-wing ex-Anglican bloggers in the USA.

From over here a lot of this looks like a very loud argument going on mainly in America, with one side or another using sound-bites from other countries as ammunition. But its not really any direct engagment with those other countries.

Also, as someone else said, its hard to see what some of the Americans are so worked up about. Its not as if they were in any danger of having their churches ripped away from them by invading hordes. They are on the whole big enough to look after themselves. (& in a purely worldly sense far more rich and powerful than those they are yelling about)


Its kind of weird:

1) Americans elect a bishop who some Africans half a world away think ought not to be a bishop. As they are perfectly entitled to.

2) Rowan Williams says quite truthfully that that will make it harder to keep the Anglican Communion together (surely no-one here thinks that he wasn't telling the truth?)

3) Americans on both sides of the argument run around shouting "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

Seems strange.
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Brilliant synopsis ken. If wrote for a parish magazine I publish it as my own.
 

---

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
I hope that someone can reassure me that there is diversity elsewhere and, for example, not all Ugandan Anglicans want gays imprisoned or dead.

---

Of course there is and they don't. How could you imagine otherwise?

---

Well, that's what I hoped and expected, but I get the impression that the Southern provinces are often portrayed as, or assumed to be, monolithic blocks of same-thinking people, whereas the Western provinces are divided. I was sort of making the point that the same characteristically Anglican diversity is found everywhere, and is threatened at every level. However, I genuinely had no knowledge to back that up in relation to Uganda, and had I assumed someone might equally have come in to tell me that, no, in fact they all pretty much believe the same...

Now perhaps those Ugandan Anglicans who don't want all gays to go to prison or be killed should hear some strong words of reassurance and support from Lambeth, over the heads of their Bishops?
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
Also, as Dave Marshall pointed out earlier in the thread, the nature of the Anglican Communion has not ye changed to one where a province can be imposed upon, but clearly some think that change has happened.

---

quote:

---

Just because we've been quiet, doesn't been we've assented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
No-one is proposing that any province can be imposed upon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
Also, as Dave Marshall pointed out earlier in the thread, the nature of the Anglican Communion has not ye changed to one where a province can be imposed upon, but clearly some think that change has happened.

---

No-one is proposing that any province can be imposed upon. The weak proposals in the covenant merely remind all the provinces that actions may have pretty mild consequences for our relationships. This doesn't restrict General Conventions right to act.

quote:

---

Just because we've been quiet, doesn't been we've assented.

---

Yes I've noticed that TEC is a shrinking violet. Such a quiet and well-behaved church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:
Why is this decision the one that prompts such communion-shattering argument, and why is unity so important on this issue? Anglicans haven't exactly reached a 100% consensus on the number of sacraments, the Real Presence, the ordination of women, and the role/authority of scripture.

---

Because so many hetero-males can't deal with their brittlely repressed passive homoerotism, nor with their masochistic tittilation at the thought of two women choosing each other as sex objects and spurning a cock. The best solution seems to be to beat up or kill people who are engaging in activities that unconsciously (or perhaps not so unconsciously) arouse you but which threaten your frail sense of masculine identification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me, or is supporting the proposal law in Uganda not also in violation of the Lambeth Conference resolutions of 1998?

I would like to see some more arguments from the people objecting to the Episcopal Church in the USA saying that the diocese of Uganda knows it is calling its status in the Anglican Communion into question by supporting these laws and should expect the consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me, or is supporting the proposal law in Uganda not also in violation of the Lambeth Conference resolutions of 1998?

I would like to see some more arguments from the people objecting to the Episcopal Church in the USA saying that the diocese of Uganda knows it is calling its status in the Anglican Communion into question by supporting these laws and should expect the consequences.

---

Because the Africans are always to be mollified and the Americans villified. That's what it says in Master Williams's little black book of Anglican Papacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
You are talking cock again!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Because the Africans are always to be mollified and the Americans villified. That's what it says in Master Williams's little black book of Anglican Papacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
...These same Far-Right players in the US then exported their agenda to the rest of the Anglican Communion (see under Martyn Minns, a former Nigerian oil executive, who knows very well how things are done in that country). Thus we suddenly had the "Global South."

The Archbishop of Canterbury took all their cynical propaganda at face value (was it that post-colonial guilt?) and threw the game to them. His reward: the same tactics this group used to undermine the Episcopal Church in the US are now being used against his own Church, while liberal/moderate Church of England members are quitting in disgust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
There's a lot of it on this thread from people who have little or no knowledge of the history of the communion

---

quote:

---

no understanding of cultural differences

---

quote:

---

and absolutely no idea of what an angry, hostile and prejudiced image they're presenting of their own church.

---

Yeah. Let's all politely object and trust the Instruments of Communion to listen as they define the anglican way.
 

---

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
Can someone explain to me how the reaction to ECUSAs latest antics is an example of anti-americanism when a substantial portion of ECUSA's membership has already broken away in disgust?

Are these self-hating Americans?
 

---

Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on :
 
I'm one of the (pretty numerous, in my experience) Anglicans who are puzzled by ABp Rowan's treatment of recent events - i.e. the critical tone taken of the diocese of L.A., and the soft-pedalling of the frankly hateful legislation being proposed in Uganda. I have faith in ABp Rowan, but not his current standpoint. And as a side point, I do not see how the Ugandan legislation can be approved of by even conservative Christians, as that proposed law goes a whole lot further even than a conservative interpretation of the Bible's teaching on sexuality.


And for what it's worth, if it was up to me, I'd be a whole lot happier to remain in communion with Los Angeles than with Uganda
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Túathalán:
...the critical tone taken of the diocese of L.A.

---

quote:

---

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Which is not so much critical as very, very, bland. In the sort of "Yes Minister" English bureacrat non-committal house style.

---

I agree entirely that it is a 'Yes Minister'-type of statement. However, as someone who has had to get to grips with the CofE's rather, erm, subtle use of language over the past few years, I am fairly sure that a disapproving tone was meant.


Now, I'd be delighted if ABp Rowan was to make a subsequent statement clearly distancing himself from disapproval of the new Bishop's election
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Can someone explain to me how the reaction to ECUSAs latest antics is an example of anti-americanism when a substantial portion of ECUSA's membership has already broken away in disgust?

Are these self-hating Americans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Can someone explain to me how the reaction to ECUSAs latest antics is an example of anti-americanism when a substantial portion of ECUSA's membership has already broken away in disgust?

Are these self-hating Americans?

---

A substantial portion of TEC's membership HAVE NOT broken away. TEC has given birth to a number of schisms since the 1960s, none of which has amounted to anything. Four freaking retrograde dioceses left more recently and I addressed that history in a lengthy post above in which I described the peculiar history of one those dioceses, Fort Worth. If it weren't for the news media most people in TEC in most of the country wouldn't be aware of any secession at all. In the diocese in which I currently live there has been no splitting and the only "continuing Anglican" church in the diocese dates from the post-1976 schism over OoW -- they're tiny and pretty well invisible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Túathalán:
...the critical tone taken of the diocese of L.A.

---

The official statement was:

quote:

---

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole

---

Which is not so much critical as very, very, bland. In the sort of "Yes Minister" English bureacrat non-committal house style. But it is also pretty obviously literally true - if it wasn't there wouldn't be so many people getting worked up about it here.

And that was the only thing so far said publically about the LA election that has Rowan Williams's name on it as far as I know.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that the statement goes on to suggest that her election should not receive consent from the bishops and standing committees of a the American Church and that the election be rejected. CRAP! INTERFERENCE IN OUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS. Time for the nattering old lady with the bushy eyebrows to exit the stage.

---

Waaah Waaah Waaah

Just because he doesn't wholeheartedly support your position you're reduced to petty name-calling of a thoughtful and intelligent pastor.


Just sad
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

[ 08. December 2009, 14:07: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
aumbrey, we have 110 dioceses. The four that left we cases that amounted to ecclesiastical coup d'etat after their renegade bishops gradually packed the ranks of their clergy and lay activitists with sycophants. Fort Worth is such a good example, where the first bishop seems to have been in the process of losing his mind and totally changing what had always been his character at the time he took over the diocese just shy of his retirement, followed by launching a schismatic church. Then the unfortunate diocese elected a very confused and unhappy man who couldn't decide if he wanted to be a bishop of the Episcopal Church or a Roman Catholic -- clearly a disturbed and dysfunctional guy who didn't last long. Then they got the terribly narcissistic Jack Iker, who ultimately manipulated the diocese to secede, but couldn't even get all of the people and parishes to come along. As elsewhere, he lost some of his most important parishes and others were split, with a "rump" that stayed in TEC. As the legal processes play out the secessionists will almost certainly lose their properties, as all case law has supported the Episcopal Church and one previous case (St Mary's, Denver) has gone all the way to the US Supreme Court, with the parish losing its case.
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Mary Glasspool has stated the following reason why she should be consecrated bishop: "Simply... it's time."

Now, that - to me - sounds like a direct reference to her sexual orientation. I'd be interested to know if I should be reading it another way. For example, is it a reference to her gender, or perhaps politics, or her churchmanship. I think she is saying that her consecration should go forward on the basis that it's time that there was a lesbian bishop. Bizarre.

I'm searching my ordinal and - quite honestly - I can't find that particular reason anywhere. Not surprising really.

[ 08. December 2009, 14:34: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 

---

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
aumbrey, we have 110 dioceses. The four that left we cases that amounted to ecclesiastical coup d'etat after their renegade bishops gradually packed the ranks of their clergy and lay activitists with sycophants. Fort Worth is such a good example, where the first bishop seems to have been in the process of losing his mind and totally changing what had always been his character at the time he took over the diocese just shy of his retirement, followed by launching a schismatic church. Then the unfortunate diocese elected a very confused and unhappy man who couldn't decide if he wanted to be a bishop of the Episcopal Church or a Roman Catholic -- clearly a disturbed and dysfunctional guy who didn't last long. Then they got the terribly narcissistic Jack Iker, who ultimately manipulated the diocese to secede, but couldn't even get all of the people and parishes to come along. As elsewhere, he lost some of his most important parishes and others were split, with a "rump" that stayed in TEC. As the legal processes play out the secessionists will almost certainly lose their properties, as all case law has supported the Episcopal Church and one previous case (St Mary's, Denver) has gone all the way to the US Supreme Court, with the parish losing its case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
We must all understand that we are part of the same church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

---

Indeed I am sure the position in property law is all sown up - that is always the way with the materialistically minded.

That ECUSA would rather claim its property rights than see these churches continue with their traditional flocks says it all.

A shame that as a Church they cannot see the immorality of such actions.

---

Look, in the Diocese of Fort Worth the secession displaced many faithful episcopalians from their own churches in those cases where they didn't comprise a solid majority of the voting membership. Those people are now having to worship in whatever space they can find. They need to get back to their accustomed places under secure TEC title. In cases in which there are no displaced persons (if any such instances exist)it might be possible for the reconstituted TEC diocese to rent the property to the secessionists, as was done for a very nominal amount in the case of St Mary's, Denver.

[ 08. December 2009, 15:11: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

---

Are you here for rational debate or would you prefer to call names?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

---

Are you here for rational debate or would you prefer to call names?

---

Unlike all the name-calling by those whining about ++Rowan
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
If being a Christian means telling the gays and lesbians in my parish that they are not full and equal members of the body of Christ, then I'd rather not be a Christian.
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If being a Christian means telling the gays and lesbians in my parish that they are not full and equal members of the body of Christ, then I'd rather not be a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

---

Okay then! We'll also be taking the checkbook with us. According to the 2010-2012 budget (PDF), that's 3.49M USD.

Using the calculations I learned at the Food Pantry at my parish, one dollar buys five pounds of food, and a meal is about 1.3lbs of food... *does the math*

Thirteen million, four hundred twenty-three thousand, and seventy-six meals for hungry children of God.

Can't talk! Busy! We got people to feed!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Okay then! We'll also be taking the checkbook with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:


I am just a simple woman,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:


I don't know much about the "continuing Anglican" defectors from ECUSA, other than what I've read on this Ship to be honest, but from what I read here I suspect they won't, in the end, get much joy out of the likes of Sydney or Uganda or Nigeria either. There is perhaps a large cultural divide that agreement on this one issue won't bridge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Hey, Spawn, what you and Numpty seem to be missing from my posts is I really, really, REALLY hate hierarchy. Blame my congregationalist roots. I think we should kick them all to the curb, from Rowan right on down to the last deacon getting a stipend.

I am just a simple woman, I'm no theological giant nor political maven. I think that when Jesus fed those 5,000 people on the hillside with just a little bit of food, that was pretty cool. So I always wonder why, when Jesus pulled that off 2,000 years ago, 35 million people in my own country are going hungry.

I've got my soapbox. It's full of food I'm trying to give away.

Your soapbox seems to be full of bitter gall that you keep trying to pass off to me.

I'd rather have peanut butter and cans of tuna than political wrangling. We always have problems maintaining stocks of shelf-stable proteins at the pantry, but especially at this time of year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Okay then! We'll also be taking the checkbook with us.

---

It's all about money and property with you people isn't it?

I have pointed out many times that the CoE has always paid more into the inter-Anglican budget than TEC. Your money and arrogance may not be missed as much as you think. That is if your leaders have the same temper tantrum as Spiffy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
ianjmatt, you seem to be confused. I don't give a flying figgy pudding about the Anglican Communion.

I only barely care about TEC.

Congregationalist, remember? Not quite sure what a bishop's good for, but others seem to like them. I like mine just fine as long as he's not being a nosy nellie and trying to tell this laywoman what she should or shouldn't be doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
ianjmatt, you seem to be confused. I don't give a flying figgy pudding about the Anglican Communion.

I only barely care about TEC.

Congregationalist, remember? Not quite sure what a bishop's good for, but others seem to like them. I like mine just fine as long as he's not being a nosy nellie and trying to tell this laywoman what she should or shouldn't be doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:


I don't know much about the "continuing Anglican" defectors from ECUSA, other than what I've read on this Ship to be honest, but from what I read here I suspect they won't, in the end, get much joy out of the likes of Sydney or Uganda or Nigeria either. There is perhaps a large cultural divide that agreement on this one issue won't bridge.

---

At least with the first wave of continuers (St Louis Affirmation, Chambers consecrations) the issue was more one of churchmanship. The Chambers jurisdictions were made up of intransigent old-style Anglo-Catholics in the late 1970s; not a good fit with the Evangelical styles of ++Akinola et al.

The current second wave of continuers has more in common with the African primates, at least in terms of how they see Anglicanism working. As I'm sure you know, there are a few prelates who oversee missionary dioceses in the US, and then there are all the bewildering interlocking para-ecclesial organizations like AMiA, GAFCON, and ACNA...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Mary Glasspool has stated the following reason why she should be consecrated bishop: "Simply... it's time."

Now, that - to me - sounds like a direct reference to her sexual orientation. I'd be interested to know if I should be reading it another way. For example, is it a reference to her gender, or perhaps politics, or her churchmanship. I think she is saying that her consecration should go forward on the basis that it's time that there was a lesbian bishop. Bizarre.

I'm searching my ordinal and - quite honestly - I can't find that particular reason anywhere. Not surprising really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

---

That's pretty much been the tenor of the debate: "There is no place in the Anglican Communion for those that disagree with a narrow set of views on one particular issue!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At least with the first wave of continuers (St Louis Affirmation, Chambers consecrations) the issue was more one of churchmanship. The Chambers jurisdictions were made up of intransigent old-style Anglo-Catholics in the late 1970s; not a good fit with the Evangelical styles of ++Akinola et al.

---

I must beg to disagree with your characterisation of the post-1976 crop of continuers: it was always a bad marriage between a few Anglo-Catholics (mostly clergy) and those who wanted to keep 1928 Morning Prayer (a lot of the laity).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Lord knows our commitment to Christ is questioned day after day, but Lord forbid we accuse the conservatives of any negative motivations- that's being unfair and unreasonable!

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullshit-- what we have NEVER done is expect the conservative Provinces to do everything our way. It's been the other way around. For GAFCON, it's our way or the highway. If the Anglican Communion has no place for the liberals, then it has forsaken the Via Media that has defined it for so long.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Amazing, but I can agree with Numpty and Zach - I must be truly "Anglican" in my breadth...

Wait! That was the old Anglicanism wasn't it?

---

quote:

---

I'm just super-duper annoyed that because I insist God loves all her children, I have to put up with liberal fluffy-bunny pseudo-pagan theology a lot of the time. Since those parishes who are more my theological style would punt my queer ass out on the street.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

---

Indeed I am sure the position in property law is all sown up - that is always the way with the materialistically minded.

That ECUSA would rather claim its property rights than see these churches continue with their traditional flocks says it all.

A shame that as a Church they cannot see the immorality of such actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Amazing, but I can agree with Numpty and Zach - I must be truly "Anglican" in my breadth...

Wait! That was the old Anglicanism wasn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Hey, Spawn, what you and Numpty seem to be missing from my posts is I really, really, REALLY hate hierarchy. Blame my congregationalist roots. I think we should kick them all to the curb, from Rowan right on down to the last deacon getting a stipend.

I am just a simple woman, I'm no theological giant nor political maven. I think that when Jesus fed those 5,000 people on the hillside with just a little bit of food, that was pretty cool. So I always wonder why, when Jesus pulled that off 2,000 years ago, 35 million people in my own country are going hungry.

I've got my soapbox. It's full of food I'm trying to give away.

Your soapbox seems to be full of bitter gall that you keep trying to pass off to me.

I'd rather have peanut butter and cans of tuna than political wrangling. We always have problems maintaining stocks of shelf-stable proteins at the pantry, but especially at this time of year.

---

You seem to be confusing two things:

1. The relationship of TEC with the rest of the Anglican Communion expressed through the instruments of unity

2. The need to feed the poor in your own country.

They are not mutually exclusive, but that is how it is reading. Perhaps if you seperate these two out what you're saying will seem an awful lot clearer.

---

quote:

---

No, we're not (except of course in the sense of an invisible universal church). This is the fallacy that is being perpetrated. Until a covenant is agreed, the Anglican Communion is a family of autonomous Churches that have in the past recognised each each other's orders and allowed members to take communion at each other's services. Implicit in that is respect for theological and eccesiological differences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneviève:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
That ECUSA would rather claim its property rights than see these churches continue with their traditional flocks says it all.

A shame that as a Church they cannot see the immorality of such actions.

---

It is a shame that the clergy who have violated their ordination vows and then lied about it cannot see the immorality of their actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:


I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:


I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.

---

Oh, I'd believe, it's the unbelieveability of the shenanigans that eventually ran me out of the UMC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Amazing, but I can agree with Numpty and Zach - I must be truly "Anglican" in my breadth...

Wait! That was the old Anglicanism wasn't it?

---

I am arguing that there can be One Church for both liberals and conservatives, and Numpty is arguing that there can only be a Church for conservatives. How is it you can agree with both views?

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullshit-- what we have NEVER done is expect the conservative Provinces to do everything our way. It's been the other way around. For GAFCON, it's our way or the highway. If the Anglican Communion has no place for the liberals, then it has forsaken the Via Media that has defined it for so long.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

---

Are you here for rational debate or would you prefer to call names?

---

Unlike all the name-calling by those whining about ++Rowan

---

quote:

---

The second thing is simply to say that it’s time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The so-called 'Via Media' or middle way is a liberal fiction and it always has been.

---

quote:

---

I guess the idea that Anglicanism was somehow in between Rome and the "real" Protestants was a 19th century thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The so-called 'Via Media' or middle way is a liberal fiction and it always has been.

---

It was probably originally used in Anglican circles in the 16th century to describe a middle way between Calvinist and Zwinglian views of the Eucharist.

I guess the idea that Anglicanism was somehow in between Rome and the "real" Protestants was a 19th century thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

---

No, I'd be an Anglican in the States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Some sort of schismatic Anglican I expect. I don't know anyone in TEC like you. Finding you in an authentically Anglican Church would be about like discovering bird shit inside a cuckoo-clock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
"Middle" my arse, you're on the edges and you know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

---

No, I'd be an Anglican in the States.

---

Some sort of schismatic Anglican I expect. I don't know anyone in TEC like you. Finding you in an authentically Anglican Church would be about like discovering bird shit inside a cuckoo-clock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

---

No, I'd be an Anglican in the States.

---

Some sort of schismatic Anglican I expect. I don't know anyone in TEC like you. Finding you in an authentically Anglican Church would be about like discovering bird shit inside a cuckoo-clock.

---

The only people you, Spiffy and Zach are ultimately crapping on is yourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
... why did we end up losing Baxter et. al. to the Presbies?

---

quote:

---

(1) We must lay deep in our minds and inculcate in our hearers the common fundamental truth and duty, that love is the second great commandment like the first, that it is the fulfilling of the law, love is the second great commandment like the first, that it is the fulfilling of the law, that he that dwells in love dwells in God and God in him; that he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, loveth not God whom he never saw [...]

(2) We must acknowledge and commend all that is good among them, and must truly understand in what we are agreed.

(3) We must not deny what good use God hath made of Rome's grandeur, unity and concord [...]

(4) We must not, by scandals of some persons or fraternities, be drawn to think that the rest are like them, nor to deny but such men as Bernard, Gerson, and the abundance of friars and nuns, though zealous for the Roman concord, were godly excellent persons/ Even in the dark ages of the Church, what abundance of most learned school doctors had they, in which much piety also appeared (as in Bonaventura, Sales etc); and in the Oratory and many most learned Jesuits. All this we must candidly confess and honour.

(5) I think we should hurt no Papist in body or goods any further than it is necessary to our own defence, or the defence of the truth and souls of men and the Kingdom's safety; but win them by love.

(6) And (though the unlearned have safer and better books enough to read) I think it will do much to rectify men's judgments that are inclined to extremes, and to mellow and sweeten their hearts into Christian love, if the learned would read the devotional, pious writings of Papists ...[followed by a discussion of some Catholic devotional books Baxter foumd useful]...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

Spiffy's grandstanding aside,

---

Grandstanding? I don't rate that high on the set list. This bein' the Internet, I'm just another woman on her own private soapbox somewhere down the end of an alley, shoulder to shoulder with other folks on soapboxes tryin' to shout over each other.

Which I keep in mind, at least. A lot of other folks on the Internet seem to think they pride of place up front and center when one person deigns to notice them.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I stand by my characterization of your posts on this thread.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
If that's high-church evangelicalism I'm all for it.

Angloid (low-church anglo-catholic)

[tangential reply to ken interrupted by above two - non-tangential - posts]

[ 08. December 2009, 19:56: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 

---

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I stand by my characterization of your posts on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Aren't there a lot of gay people in the Church of England? That has been my impression every time I have visited since 1972. The Church of England probably comprises about the same percentage of gay people as TEC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Aren't there a lot of gay people in the Church of England? That has been my impression every time I have visited since 1972. The Church of England probably comprises about the same percentage of gay people as TEC.

---

Indeed. As Gene Robinson said in 2003, the real "h" word we're talking about is "honesty."

---

That's not the start of 'interfering in our affairs' is it???
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
"Middle" my arse, you're on the edges and you know it.

---

Numpty, you're in the Church of England, aren't you? Aren't there a lot of gay people in the Church of England? That has been my impression every time I have visited since 1972. The Church of England probably comprises about the same percentage of gay people as TEC.

In England as well as in the U.S., gay people are less and less "on the edges", i.e. marginal, and increasingly accepted in mainstream society. The U.S. is, if anything, rather laggard in this regard, considering how many civilized countries now provide either marriage or robust domestic partnerships without a second thought.

As they can hold their heads high in other areas of life to an extent almost undreamed of just forty years ago, naturally they will be increasingly impatient with second-class citizenship in the church. Maybe you imagine that if they all left, went on strike, or were raptured, you could say good riddance; but I doubt it. The church would lose valuable and outstandingly devoted members, if not grind quickly to a halt.

But once the Archbishop of Canterbury has insulted them enough with his obeisances to the right wing on another continent, that is what his own province may eventually get. Why should their patience and masochism in supporting an organization intent on denigrating them be unlimited? Who or what will be left even more "on the edges" then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
"Middle" my arse, you're on the edges and you know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Do those who say "to hell with this Anglican Communion nonsense" care about being "Authentic Anglicans"? If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

---

quote:

---

If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Others, such as me, believe that the Anglican Communion is a symbolic union of independent provinces that share a common history and form of church governance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm one very confused RC at this point. On the one hand, some of those who are supporters of Rev. Glasspool seem to be saying, "to hell with all this 'Anglican Communion' nonsense; we're essentially congregationalists anyway," while others are throwing around terms like "schismatic" and "authentic Anglican" etc. Am I correct in seeing (at least) two quite different ecclesiologies at work here? Does "schism" make any sense if one is basically a congregationalist? Do those who say "to hell with this Anglican Communion nonsense" care about being "Authentic Anglicans"? If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

Could someone help me sort out the various positions in play here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm one very confused RC at this point. On the one hand, some of those who are supporters of Rev. Glasspool seem to be saying, "to hell with all this 'Anglican Communion' nonsense; we're essentially congregationalists anyway," while others are throwing around terms like "schismatic" and "authentic Anglican" etc. Am I correct in seeing (at least) two quite different ecclesiologies at work here? Does "schism" make any sense if one is basically a congregationalist? Do those who say "to hell with this Anglican Communion nonsense" care about being "Authentic Anglicans"? If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

Could someone help me sort out the various positions in play here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Actually, as some C17 controversialist wrote, Anglicanism is perched atop the perfect pinnacle, midway between the meretricious gaudiness of the Church of Rome and the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle. From atop that perfect pinnacle, I myself lean out toward the meritricious gaudiness of Rome, whilst I'll leave you to guess who amongst the Anglican posters here is closer to the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle side of things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Actually, as some C17 controversialist wrote, Anglicanism is perched atop the perfect pinnacle, midway between the meretricious gaudiness of the Church of Rome and the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle. From atop that perfect pinnacle, I myself lean out toward the meritricious gaudiness of Rome, whilst I'll leave you to guess who amongst the Anglican posters here is closer to the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle side of things.

---

I'm not sure whether those you consider coming from that nasty place would deign to even speak to ECUSA. Certainly Sydney and Nigeria have basically gone their own way. No one from Nigeria has, as far as I'm aware, ever posted on these boards and I think any 'Sydney Anglican' from Sydney would steer well clear of this thread.

The English Evangelical position - where many who argue against you come from - is actually as normal and valid as the Anglo-Catholic one. Ken, Spawn et sim are no weird kooks from outer space but quite normal CofE members.

Alogon is also quite correct: there are quite a few gay clergy in England as there are in Australia.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone here has argued that gays are inherently evil nor proposed 'the Nigerian solution'.


I think the gist of the disagreement lies in the conception of what Christian sex ethics in practice should be.

I'll avoid the question 'whose business is that' for the moment.

The concept of what Christian sex ethics in practice should be obviously effects what sort of ethics someone called to the ministry or episcopate should have.

There is disagreement on this between ECUSA and others in the Communion, not necessarily extremists such as Sydney nor Nigeria.

As far as I am aware the statements from ++ Canterbury and Canon Glasspool have been extremely diplomatic. They still appear to be communicating.

If I understand the likes of RuthW and Zach they wish to remain in Communion and to keep communicating.

I suspect that a sort of impaired Communion - with mutual doubts and suspicion from each side still talking - will continue.
 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

If I understand the likes of RuthW and Zach they wish to remain in Communion and to keep communicating.

I suspect that a sort of impaired Communion - with mutual doubts and suspicion from each side still talking - will continue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

If I understand the likes of RuthW and Zach they wish to remain in Communion and to keep communicating.

I suspect that a sort of impaired Communion - with mutual doubts and suspicion from each side still talking - will continue.

---

Still talking -- yes, but not often, and they'll be short conversations: wave, smile, "Hi, how ya doin'." Not much else left to say, really.

...

---

Good point. 'Mutual misunderstanding at 100 yards'.

It might take a while to start talking meaningfully again.

ECUSA is very American (Surprise! Surprise!
) So I'm not surprised it talks to other American churches.

The future is fluid.

The American (and possibly Canadian to a lesser extent) mindset and the way that expresses itself is very different from the English and other British (which vary) as well as the Australian.

Watch this space...
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Well, I'm not surprised that the thread was at five pages before I had a chance to catch up...

I don't think most American Episcopalians are particularly surprised that the Diocese of L.A. would elect an honestly-gay bishop. Nor are they surprised at the consternation this would cause elsewhere. I think the particular anger at ++Rowan's generally bland tut-tutting response, however, is just how quickly it was made--when no amount of increasing pressure internationally or from those in his own province has brought him to make any statements about the involvement of the Church of Uganda in pushing the draconian legislation there.

I would also have to say that the best responses--and some of the harshest words--that I have read on the topic outside of the Ship are by people who are NOT on my side of the pond (Louise's new signature comes to mind).

I would have been happier with our own PB if she had spoken out a little sooner, but I suspect that anything we have to say will just push Uganda harder in the opposite direction...what with us being apostate, and all.

I think it is possible that the "gracious restraint" urged might have had a chance of holding longer if there had ever been the least sign that ALL the gracious restraints asked for were important.

I don't think Americans would have blamed him for being unable to stop Nigeria and Uganda from poaching US congregations. They do blame him for not seeming to care. The perception--even among the convincible moderates--was that the only church for whom "Thou shalt not..." was important was TEC. It isn't just the rabid liberals that ++Rowan lost in the US (and in all fairness he never had them). He has lost the much larger middle who might have been able to prevent the confirmation of another gay bishop.

Most Americans still have a lot of respect for the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They aren't wasting any time over the pronouncements of the current holder of that See, however. They would be sorry to see the Anglican Communion change, but have begun to recognize the Communion as envisioned by ++Rowan is a change from its history.

Many Americans are also well aware that there are other Provinces in Britain who will be proud to remain in FULL communion with TEC.
 

---

Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
I don't give a toss for impaired communion. In for a penny, in for a pound. If impaired communion is all that is on offer, I'd just as soon have no association with the Anglican Communion.

That said, I imagine in this situation the establishment of a number of inter communion relationships resulting with a number of national churches currently in the Anglican Communion.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
TEC is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of American (ELCA) and several other bodies more disposed to show goodwill toward us than the Church of England evangelicals. There is much talk of our simply choosing to unite with our brothers and sisters in these churches, with whom we also have historic ties. That sounds like a very good solution to the Communion problem to me, FWIW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Many Americans are also well aware that there are other Provinces in Britain who will be proud to remain in FULL communion with TEC.

---

quote:

---

Is it possible for the CofE to be out of communion with TEC, but for the Scottish Episcopal Church to be in communion with both the CofE and the TEC, but not say, with Uganda?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
...I don't know much about how Anglicanism works.

...

---

Nor do many Anglicans! It sometimes seems to be 'a work in progress' as far as the worldwide situation goes.

I believe Samuel Seabury - the first post-revolutionary American bishop - had to be ordained by the (then officially outlawed, post-Culloden) Scottish Episcopal Church because of the political situation at the time. For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.

As far as I can work out, the 'provenance' of the Scottish Episcopal Church is historically from bishops who were consecrated at the behest of a Stuart sovereign in an attempt to change the course the kirk had taken.

ECUSA is not, I believe, in communion with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod who are quite conservative on certain matters.

As Ken says, there is the possibility of a range of being in communion (or not) for various branches of the still extant Anglican Communion.

I am reminded of that Goon Show adage: 'The plot thins.'

For a shaft of light.




 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Seabury was consecrated by Scottish non-jurors because he couldn't take the oath of alleigance that consecration by English bishops would have imposed. Parliament rectified this problem quite quickly after Seabury's consecration. TEC is indeed not in communion with the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is not itself in communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. In fact the LC-MS don't even consider the ELCA to be proper Lutherans.
 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Speaking of impaired communion, I think the CoEers should give some serious thought to what Akinola and gang will think of your province once he doesn't have the ECUSA to pitch a fit about.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex. The African churches didn't cut ties with the American Episcopalian Church over Bush's imperialist foreign policy, nor did it threaten to cut ties over our North American churches' failure to speak out about the negative effects of globalization. I definitely don't think our North American churches are perfect. I know quite a few left-wing people who complain that our mainline churches still refuse to seriously take our prophetic role and speak truth to power.

Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?

---

TBH - this is a bit of worn out accusation. (Sort of: "yah boo. Look at them getting obsessed about willies and stuff just because we are changing what people can do with their willies and stuff ... ). It seems to be something that everyone is obsessed with.

To properly answer your question, I think that the problem some people have (please note the 3rd person here) is that American policy on global warming, imperialism etc is not generally the policy of TEC, whereas this is. The concern seems to be with what is happening within the Anglican Communion, not what is happening in the country (or other churches withing that country) that concerns other parts of the AC.

That's how I see it anyway.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.

---

quote:

---

Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments

---

quote:

---

...and won't let the bishop in the door (sound familiar?).

---

quote:

---

The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.

---

Could have, but didn't. Dundee tourist board really should think of adopting "For some reason it happened in Dundee" as a strapline, though.

Actually, for some reason it happened in Aberdeen.

---

OMG! Accepted!
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Well, I'm not surprised that the thread was at five pages before I had a chance to catch up...

I don't think most American Episcopalians are particularly surprised that the Diocese of L.A. would elect an honestly-gay bishop. Nor are they surprised at the consternation this would cause elsewhere. I think the particular anger at ++Rowan's generally bland tut-tutting response, however, is just how quickly it was made--when no amount of increasing pressure internationally or from those in his own province has brought him to make any statements about the involvement of the Church of Uganda in pushing the draconian legislation there.

I would also have to say that the best responses--and some of the harshest words--that I have read on the topic outside of the Ship are by people who are NOT on my side of the pond (Louise's new signature comes to mind).

I would have been happier with our own PB if she had spoken out a little sooner, but I suspect that anything we have to say will just push Uganda harder in the opposite direction...what with us being apostate, and all.

I think it is possible that the "gracious restraint" urged might have had a chance of holding longer if there had ever been the least sign that ALL the gracious restraints asked for were important.

I don't think Americans would have blamed him for being unable to stop Nigeria and Uganda from poaching US congregations. They do blame him for not seeming to care. The perception--even among the convincible moderates--was that the only church for whom "Thou shalt not..." was important was TEC. It isn't just the rabid liberals that ++Rowan lost in the US (and in all fairness he never had them). He has lost the much larger middle who might have been able to prevent the confirmation of another gay bishop.

Most Americans still have a lot of respect for the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They aren't wasting any time over the pronouncements of the current holder of that See, however. They would be sorry to see the Anglican Communion change, but have begun to recognize the Communion as envisioned by ++Rowan is a change from its history.

Many Americans are also well aware that there are other Provinces in Britain who will be proud to remain in FULL communion with TEC.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican." I realize that this is one of the things that is at issue on this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing what people mean by this term. If it is not membership in the Anglican Communion, then what is it?

It looks to me as if both Continuers and (increasingly) Episcopalians are arguing that one need not be a part of the Anglican Communion in order to be "Authentically Anglican." Yet they do not consider each other to be Authentically Anglican," so there must be some other criterion at work.

Maybe I'm just bringing a RC mindset to this situation, which is keeping me from seeing something that is blindingly obvious to others.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Anglican_Brat asked -

quote:

---

Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?

---

Probably it's because outside the USA these are not issues that divide us. To be sure there are contrary voices to be found, but if you were to go into an average evangelical and then a MOTR, then an A-C parish in the UK, you would get a pretty similar set of answers on issues like global warming and most social justice issues.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments

---

I don't believe that is true. You'd have to give us names to persuade me that its not just a made-up rumour. The usual impression we get round here - and I haven't seen the numbers - is that on the whole evangelical parishes pay more of their share than the distinctively Anglo-Cathloic parishes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.

---

That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

---

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Our sexuality is part of identity

---

quote:

---

and incredibly important to who we are

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican." I realize that this is one of the things that is at issue on this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing what people mean by this term. If it is not membership in the Anglican Communion, then what is it?

It looks to me as if both Continuers and (increasingly) Episcopalians are arguing that one need not be a part of the Anglican Communion in order to be "Authentically Anglican." Yet they do not consider each other to be Authentically Anglican," so there must be some other criterion at work.

Maybe I'm just bringing a RC mindset to this situation, which is keeping me from seeing something that is blindingly obvious to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?

---

quote:

---

In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns.
[...]
You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.

---

quote:

---

I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.

---

Being pedantic, surely it could only be considered 'retrograde' if they held 'view a', changed to a new view, and then returned to 'view a' again. 'View a' would then be considered retrograde. Holding a position that seems out of date or not the latest opinion on something is not 'retrograde'.

Anyway ...
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.

---

 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

---

It's quite likely for a UK evangelical to be conservative about homosexuality and abortion but have a totally different attitude to other social justice issues - e.g. fair trade or the environment. AFAIK there's no fundamental reason that political conservatism and social conservatism should closely correspond.

Also, because we're more secular, homosexuality and abortion aren't strong party political issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???

---

Fulcrum

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
If any social group was traditionally conservative about matters to do with homosexuality it was the British working class which was also traditionally the bedrock of Labour's vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
aumbrey, what party did the last PM who launched a major legislative assault on gay rights represent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.

---

---

Numpty, perhaps what confuses is you is that we could agree the Holy Scripture contains all things generally necessary to salvation? Of course, Scripture contains much else that isn't edifying or relevant to life either in the Christian dispensation generally or in present day social reality. So the approach to Scripture might be problematic for you. But I daresay that's likewise a problem you would encounter with your co-religionists in other wings of the CoE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Kenneth Leech spoke at my parish a while back, and the most memorable (to me, at any rate) thing he said was that in the future the various denominations of Christianity will be relatively meaningless, and there will really only be two kinds of Christians: those who believe that the Kingdom of God is the province of the next life and those who believe it is up to us to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.

---

That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone.

---

You would make out a much better case for your side if you did not invalidate the experience of your opponents. Don't tell us what to feel. We do know what we have suffered in the Episcopal Church from the depradations of ambitious breakaway movements, and we do know they have been supported by C of E evangelical movements such as Anglican Mainstream and Reform. "Ravaged" is a reasonable word for what they have done to our church. Yes, we have feelings about it. That's a major factor in our willingness to go our separate ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Kenneth Leech spoke at my parish a while back, and the most memorable (to me, at any rate) thing he said was that in the future the various denominations of Christianity will be relatively meaningless, and there will really only be two kinds of Christians: those who believe that the Kingdom of God is the province of the next life and those who believe it is up to us to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.

---

Surprisingly for him, Ken Leech is less than true to scripture or tradition than he should be here (though I know what he means). But it's a truism that the Kingdom is already/not yet. Or both/and.
And this thread shows that the issue is not about the dilemma Ken points up. It's about what the Kingdom is. And how we give content to justice and inclusion is a part of that debate.

But that's a theological tangent to the thread!

---

quote:

---

ISTM that the opposition to gay rights is drawn from roughly the same social groupings in the US and the UK. In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

Granted, the UK is much more secular than the US, but the small percentage of your society that still attends church is attending a church that is vocally opposed to gay rights and claims an exception to the anti-discrimination laws for itself. So how different can the constituencies really be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
That would be the same Fulcrum that criticised the formation of both ACNA and CANA for not waiting for the 'glacial' processes of the Anglican Communion to unfold?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Resurgam:
Our small-town parish lost several of its most involved families after 2003. They felt they were the ones whose views and beliefs were ravaged by the national church. It wasn't depredations of ambitious breakaway movements that caused them to leave, but the actions of the national leadership itself. There's victimology on both sides of the issue, or as Basil Fawlty asked, "Do I detect the stench of burning martyr?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Our sexuality is part of identity

---

Agreed

quote:

---

and incredibly important to who we are

---

Well now, that depends, doesn't it?

I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background. That might be because I'm part of that privileged white, male, straight, British cohort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.

Zach

---

Well, you know, a few conservative priests-- including Fr. Moyer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy?

---

quote:

---

Much of scripture is given to humanity so that - by obedience - we may avoid ungodly social realities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

---

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

---

I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

---

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

---

I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

---

You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.

They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Alogon, didn't Good Shep., Rosemont basically leave the diocese?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

---

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

---

I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

---

You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.

They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."

---

That's more a product of American Christian culture I suppose and will make for interesting interaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Alogon, didn't Good Shep., Rosemont basically leave the diocese?

---

Not according to the diocese's web site. However, the name "Moyer" does not come up among people. Yes, he is a bishop, also he is rector.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy?

---

The reasons are, of course, psychological. In Republican Gomorrah, Max Blumenthal sheds light on the seamy side of those who build their careers on sex-negativism, and especially homophobia. Time and again these individuals are themselves outed, whereupon their houses of cards collapse in the tender mercies those whose support they have cultivated for years. I heartily recommend this book especially to those of like mind here: get to know your new friends. Just don't read it around mealtime. IMHO, these are seriously screwed-up people. But chacun a son gout...

---

Alogon - thanks for the link. The rise of the religious right into American politics has been a bit of a closed book to me, and maybe that book might help the process of illumination. I'll order it. Is it reasonably comprehensive - any other titles that might help?

Though just to demonstrate my ability to annoy on an even-handed basis (not you Alogon - just generally), if we are talking about seriously screwed up people, there's been some recent work at Harvard which points towards higher than average levels of repressed homophobia amongst people who like to identify as "gay-friendly" (in the words of the Scientific American review, not mine). Personally I reckon 'twas ever thus. We probably all give away more about ourselves than any external light we shed. I don't worry about it too much until it starts involving badmouthing other people (i.e. transference). That's the danger sign.
 

---

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Having wasted many hours peering over the Internet offerings of the Anglican/Episcopal blogosphere in the US, I can say without cavil that the conservative "reasserter" side tend to be quite conservative on American political issues, while the liberal "reappraiser" side tend to be quite liberal. If you read, for example, the reasserter blog "Stand Firm," you will find posters scoffing at global warming and if you read reappraiser blogs (like "An Inch at a Time") last November you would have seen hosannas raised at the election of Barack Obama. So, please, no more "just because they are orthodox in religion doesn't mean they are conservative in politics" comments regarding Americans. Just ain't so.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 


Which post was that LADave? The comments I made related to applying that POV outside the US situation. I did comment on the apparently regular alignment in the USA.
 

---

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
I wasn't addressing your post, Honest Ron, but rather the notion, that I have often seen from UK or other non-American posters, that conservatives in church can be, and are often, progressives in politics. While there are exceptions to any rule, in the colonies, the term "Religious Right" is accurate in both a political and theological sense.
 

---

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LA Dave:
the notion, that I have often seen from UK or other non-American posters, that conservatives in church can be, and are often, progressives in politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Grammatica,

You appear to assume that, if the Anglican Communion, splits the CofE will all fall behind Rowan. I do not believe that; I have no idea what proportion of the laity would choose to remain in communion with Uganda rather than TEC (or what proportion does not care), but a significant chunk would rebel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???

---

Fulcrum

---

Fulcrum?! Since when did Fulcrum do "their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA" do anything, never mind "ravage the Episcopal Church."? And lets be honest they are hardly a big hitter in terms of international ecclesiastical or evangelical politics. (*) Its really hard to imagine them ravaging North American Anglicanism. Or anything else much tougher than a pizza. I mean seriously. These guys aren't Fred Phelps.

And their published statements are opposed to the ACNA, GAFCON, CANA and so on. For example Graham Kings defining four possible positions on the future of global Anglicanism
[http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=310] and discussing more recent developments using them[/url] and making it clear that he thinks that Fulcrum (& their friends such as Tom Wright & Michael Poon) are in a different quadrant from ACNA. He is also by and large critical of GAFCON and of Martin Minns part in it.

And Tom Wright, here

Yes, you can some find very bigoted comments on their web forum, and some support for GAFCON and ACNA, and a lot of it from a few of the same people, but that's a web forum. All sorts of loonies say stuff on web forums. Its not the position of

(*) As a declaration of interest, of the various CofE pressure groups they are the one I guess I am likely to be closest to on most things. (Durham in the 1970s, CMS, Grove booklets, Anvil, the usual suspects) And our parish recently had a clergyperson who was on its committee - but that is not neccessarily an indication of an official position as we have also got one who is on the committee of "Inclusive Church". But I suspect if Tom Wright wasn't associated with them no-one outside the small world of English Open Evangelicalism would have heard of them.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background. That might be because I'm part of that privileged white, male, straight, British cohort.

---

Yep.

<snip>

And by people treating me thusly, it's typically white males telling me they don't treat me differently, instantaneously invalidating my experiences because it doesn't fit well into your happy little world view.

I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LA Dave:
Hiro's Leap: Yes, this claim has been made here and often.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Fulcrum?! Since when did Fulcrum do "their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA" do anything, never mind "ravage the Episcopal Church."? [....]
And their published statements are opposed to the ACNA, GAFCON, CANA and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
[qb]I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.

---

quote:

---

So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality? Merely because one or two of them on this board threaten to get out the big stick if I don't believe them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
I asked for statements by Reform and Anglican Mainstream that demonstrated support for liberal and progressive positions. I was told there would be none because(apparently) both are single-issue pressure groups, and not in the least concerned with environmental issues, poverty, global warming, and so forth.

---

quote:

---

So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Alogon - thanks for the link. The rise of the religious right into American politics has been a bit of a closed book to me, and maybe that book might help the process of illumination. I'll order it. Is it reasonably comprehensive - any other titles that might help?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

So perhaps his pandering to GAFCON and gang is more about preventing a schism in his own province than even bothering to find a fair settlement in the Communion, or calling the conservatives to task in how they've fallen short of the Gospel themselves.

Zach

---

quote:

---

This isn't about GAFCON or any other acronym. I think it is about the ABC refusing to the allow extremes of the debate dictate the centre. And, when viewing Anglicanism as a whole, both GAFCON and TEC are on the extremes. In the middle there are many people of differing opinions and convictions trying to walk through with grace

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I call shenanigans: How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

I do not know how much influence Inclusive Church has in the Church of England, however.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
but my Give-a-damn-o-meter™ is barely flickering.

---

Ummh, posting on this thread shows that you do care.

This is not rocket science. ECUSA has overthrown the traditional stance of the Anglican Communion on homosexuality. Whether they were right to do so or not gets us into the territory of a DH. But that they have done so is simply a matter of fact.

If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

One of the absurd (just one, there are many) aspects to this debate is how many people get so uptight over something they don't care about.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
They're only the same thing, ian. What you think the moratorium is? How is it not giving the conservatives precisely what they wanted? Name a single scrap that Williams has given the liberals this whole time.

Zach

---

Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I meant "It wouldn't be" of course.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?

---

I wouldn't be, but who the fuck did that? Not the Archbishop of Canterbury. I still don't see where you all are getting this shit from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

---

Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

I do not know how much influence Inclusive Church has in the Church of England, however.

---

So you finally admit that you know very little about the groups within the CofE? Hallelujah!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
There is an American perception (among the few who bother to think about it) that the only thing holding the various elements of the C. of E. together is Establishment.

That may be a misperception on the part of Americans, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting them. Certainly, Americans are aware that there are those in England who greeted the news of this election with a joy as great as that of the Diocese of L.A.

So when we hear talk of disestablishment, we tend to wonder what parts of the Church of England would remain in communion with each other...

On the other hand, I've never been thrilled with the term "in communion" anyway--the fact remains that if Spawn or Matt Black or Ken or Aumbry or any other Shipmate on ANY side of the question presented themselves at the altar of any TEC church for communion, they would be served with gladness. As a gay man I probably wouldn't find a welcome in Matt's or Spawn's church, but I could certainly find C. of E. congregations which would be happy to have me there. I don't see that that will change.

Any of the former Episcopalians in the break-away churches who came for communion would be welcome in TEC. I have no doubt I would be welcome in their churches if I was willing to be closeted again--there ARE gays in their churches, just as there are (probably) gays in every Evangelical church of any size in the UK (though many in the congregations probably don't realize it).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.

---

... and how is a complete moratorium on ordaining gay bishops not giving the conservatives their way?

Zach

---

quote:

---

Well ... I would hazard a guess that the clue is in the word moratorium (blah blah blah...). A time to wait, pray, talk and consider. That is not what the extreme wings of the conservatives want. They don't want to listen (or think!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
but my Give-a-damn-o-meter™ is barely flickering.

---

Ummh, posting on this thread shows that you do care.

---

quote:

---

This is not rocket science. ECUSA has overthrown the traditional stance of the Anglican Communion on homosexuality. Whether they were right to do so or not gets us into the territory of a DH. But that they have done so is simply a matter of fact.

---

quote:

---

If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

---

quote:

---

One of the absurd (just one, there are many) aspects to this debate is how many people get so uptight over something they don't care about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Grammatica - you may also want to check out the writings of John Stott, who has for many years been seen as one of the doyens of English Evangelicalism of a distinctly conservative theological bent.

(for example this one)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

---

Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend.

---

Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

---

Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend.

---

Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently?

---

Don't think so. Are you thinking of the Ang Mainstream/CMS/Greenbelt controversy? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship."

---

I think his view on headship was a bit more nuanced than you give credit for. He was after all in favour of women's ordination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
So perhaps there are still some in the religious organizations who see themselves as socially progressive, while continuing to hold very retrogressive views of women's abilities and capacities.

---

• No sex outside marriage.
• Homosexual sex is always sinful.
• New Labour isn't socialist enough.
• Headship restricts women from some church roles, but this shouldn't apply to wider society at all.
• Urgent government action is required on climate change.
• We're far too materialistic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Grammatica writes:

quote:

---

ISTM that the opposition to gay rights is drawn from roughly the same social groupings in the US and the UK. In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

Granted, the UK is much more secular than the US, but the small percentage of your society that still attends church is attending a church that is vocally opposed to gay rights and claims an exception to the anti-discrimination laws for itself. So how different can the constituencies really be?

---

Thankfully, we are far more confused than this in Canada. The majority church is fairly leftwing in its politics, but is opposed to gay marriage rights, although most of its attendees support gay marriage rights, even if not in church.

Supporters of the centre and sort-of-sometimes-leftwing Liberals support gay marriage rights, unless they are visible minority immigrants, in which case they tend to oppose them (Conservative activists are beginning to take advantage of this).

Most New Democrats, as far as I can figure out, are strong supporters of gay rights, aside from many of the Muslism supporters.

The Conservatives would rather oppose gay marriage rights and even tried, half-heartedly, to revoke them a few years ago. This gang is the only place where the US culture wars and evangelical=rightwing happens. Even so, many of the Tories' evangelical supporters are strong supporters of 3d-world aid and socially progressive measures for aborginal Canadians.

Churchgoing Anglicans are a fairly small percentage and, with an Erastian past, are generally happy/resigned to support gay marriage rights because Parliament has said so. Most of the separating group (Anglican Network in Canada, but I think they have a new name now), many of whom I know, are diverse in their politics. Some take the line that gay marriage is fine, but not in Anglican churches.

Attempts at achieving a coherent connexion between belief and politics is not very easy for Christians in Canada. I think it is simpler for Muslims but I don't think that my Shi'ite or Sunni friends spend a lot of time thinking about the Archbishop of Canterbury's position on the topic. I hope that this hasn't been too much of a tangent, but I wanted to note that Grammatica's equation is not universally valid.

---

Eh? Whose the "Majority Church"?

If you mean the Roman Catholics, then their doctrine and teaching on homosexuality is clear. While the laity may and do hold contrary views, this is irrelevant to the official position. Of course, this movie is seen worldwide.

Next down the size list, the position of the United Church of Canada is also clear. Per the 32nd General Council in 1988, homosexuality is not a bar to membership or ordination in the United Church. Local congregations are completely free to not call an openly gay minister, and this does happen. Our polity requires no special structure for this.

The Anglican Church of Canada's position is up in the air right now, though I would note that since the 1988 decision in the United Church many of our anti-gay party left for other churches, including the Anglicans. This reinforced the ACC's anti-gay party. I was informed of this by an Anglican priest who is a friend of mine.

Since Canada has such a small number of mainline churches, church affiliation does not map onto party affiliation.
 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
All right, I'm going to try this one more time, though I got absolutely nowhere with my previous queries.

I want to make it clear that I am simply testing a hypothesis about conservative evangelicals in the UK. Just evaluate it please. No defensiveness needed; I want to see where the chips fall.

ISTM that it was quite possible, forty or fifty years ago, to be progressive in politics but still hold views that today would be considered extremely retrograde, with respect to the position of women and certainly with respect to gay and lesbian persons. Many a committed Marxist of that time believed in some version of complementarity, even in separate spheres for men and women. When contemporary second-wave feminism began to appear in the late 1960s, many a committed Marxist viewed it as a distraction from the real struggle; a bourgeois preoccupation or worse.

This sort of view, however, would now be considered very retrogressive. I'm not saying there aren't (still) many otherwise progressive men who don't "get" feminism, but few progressives now would be willing openly to oppose it. Likewise, while even twenty years ago many progressives would have scoffed at gay rights, that also has changed, and changed dramatically.

However, these changes have not taken place among British evangellicals, who hold on to the viewpoints of the progressives of forty or fifty years ago. I wonder why, but I do have a theory:

As I am beginning to understand British conservative evangelicals, their thinking seems to me to resemble very closely the British Marxists and New Leftists of the previous generation. It isn't the same as the thinking of an American biblical literalist. Evangelicals, like Marxists, can be literate and sophisticated in their thinking. But both groups have a need to pull everything that might possibly be proposed, learned, discovered, thought, back to a pre-existing, fixed, and fully authoritative body of scripture.

Whatever the proposition is, if if it can't be clearly expounded out of a place in Marx, Engels, or Lenin, then, whatever it is, it has to be discarded, no matter how much experience and reason might seem to speak for it. If it can't be tied in securely with that pre-existing body of authoritative writings, then it would be opportunistic or worse to accept it. There were not a few, especially in New Left circles years ago, who would have wanted to see women's issues become a matter of concern, but to the committed Marxist, if feminism couldn't be tied back into Marx, then, with whatever regrets, feminism would have to be left off the agenda.

Now this does seem to me to be very much the conservative evangelical approach, with (of course) the Bible taking the place of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

[ 10. December 2009, 01:37: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I care that some of my fellow Christians get their knickers in a twist over it, and are prepared to act like loons. That Mary Glasspool is a lesbian? Not bothered.

---

In which case I'm struggling to read your response in any way that says the AC has any meaning to you at all?

I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Overthrown is overstating the case. Doing in the open what the CofE (and probably other Anglican churches) have been doing on the quiet for years, if not centuries - I agree.

---

As an argument that is weak - the church has turned a blind eye to many things in the past (e.g. slavery), that is hardly a reason (in and of itself) to overthrow a traditional stance on morality. All it shows is that the church is full of hypocrites ... rather like the rest of humanity.

But as an argument to conservatives it is especially weak - the traditionalists case is built on a desire to remove hypocrisy in the first place. Saying things like, "I wish conservatives were as bothered by ... divorce / doctrinal orthodoxy etc." is actually playing into their hands. The only response you'll get is ... "Now you mention it ..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The thing is, you're confusing caring about whether gays get to wear the pointy hat with caring about what happens to the Anglican Communion. I care about the latter much more than I care about the former. Now, it might be that the AC is broken beyond anyone's ability to repair it, simply because there are enough others who put their priorities the other way up.

But for me, I like being in the CofE, and I like that I'm part of an international network of loosely-federated autonomous national churches. I think it brings more to the table than just a different range of snacks at parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

---

No - I think you are still being somewhat simplistic.

Firstly, what you mean by conservatives. Do you mean the Church Society/English CHurchman tyoe? Or, going slightly broader the Reform/UCCF sort? Or perhaps all evanglicals who would hold to biblical innerancy would be considered 'conservative' which would then also stretch to groups such as Anglican Mainstream, New Wine, (perhaps) Fulcrum etc.

I am thinking you mean the latter of these, but aplogies if you don't. In this case you are still being too simplistic. You will find, in an average congregation of average size (which is, if I recall the research, about 120) a mixture of opinions. E.g. some will be Marxist, some 'wet' Tory, some 'dry' Tory, some Lib Dem centre-left, some New Labour centre-right, some will be what Philip Blond recently labelled 'red tory' (not the same as the Canadian thing) - which is really Distributist on the right and anarcho-syndicalist on the left.

You will find some wanting greater state-aid for development, some wanting more church income sent, some wanting all buildings sold, some wanting all buildings used for social activities, some more sacramentalist about buildings.

You will find most churches will be Fairtrade in policy, most members will be the same at home. Environmental action will be considered essential. Stop the Traffik and other initiatives against people trafficking, exploitative working conditions and bonded labour will be stringly supported, as was Drop the Debt (on developing world debt) and Make Poverty History before them. Many members will be strongly involved in their local community (such as School Governors, scout/guide leaders, homeless shelters, help the aged, after school clubs, breakfast clubs etc) not to convert people but to 'make a difference'.

Con Evos as defined above will be both diverse and socially progressive. Many will see Shaftesbury, Wilberforce et al as their spiritual and social forebears. But I don't think they can be defined through some sort of psycological explanation for their religious conviction. I may not agree with them on everything, but I don't think them flawed for the way they think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
All right, I'm going to try this one more time, though I got absolutely nowhere with my previous queries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

---

It depends how you define "orthodox"; the concept of a Bishop in the USA who is responsible for a clutch of geographically dispersed parishes and who in turn is supervised by a primate in another continent and NOT by the primate in the area where he is based (although there is one there, in communion with the ABC) does not fit what I would call "orthodox Anglicanism".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I can kinda see why Rowan has taken the conservative side time after time. The US Church has far less to worry about in terms of an internal schism. Sure, a few dioceses have split away, but all in all I really doubt more than a tiny fraction will leave. So we have time to worry about external schism. The English Church does not have that situation. An internal schism, a huge one, is looming over Rowan's head. While the liberals are quite used to sucking it up, the conservatives literally pour over his every word looking for things to split over.

So perhaps his pandering to GAFCON and gang is more about preventing a schism in his own province than even bothering to find a fair settlement in the Communion, or calling the conservatives to task in how they've fallen short of the Gospel themselves.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians.

---

I'm not an Anglican, so it is quite possible that I've missed something here, but I don't see how conservatives are unbothered by Lambeth I.10.

I thought conservatives were asking ECUSA to uphold Lambeth I.10?
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.

---

quote:

---

As an argument that is weak - the church has turned a blind eye to many things in the past (e.g. slavery), that is hardly a reason (in and of itself) to overthrow a traditional stance on morality. All it shows is that the church is full of hypocrites ... rather like the rest of humanity.

---

quote:

---

Then, again, you seem to have a very individualistic notion of the AC. Your involvement seems to be entirely on your terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

---

It depends how you define "orthodox"; the concept of a Bishop in the USA who is responsible for a clutch of geographically dispersed parishes and who in turn is supervised by a primate in another continent and NOT by the primate in the area where he is based (although there is one there, in communion with the ABC) does not fit what I would call "orthodox Anglicanism".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending) this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians.

---

I'm not an Anglican, so it is quite possible that I've missed something here, but I don't see how conservatives are unbothered by Lambeth I.10.

I thought conservatives were asking ECUSA to uphold Lambeth I.10?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
BTW, I do now recall the Tearfund controversy over an association with ++Desmond Tutu. You must try to understand that only a small grouping were involved in this controversy - the majority of us continue to support the work of Tearfund.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
On the wider issue, I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand why ++Rowan and ++Sentamu have not spoken openly against the Ugandan bill.* I gather that it would be seen in Uganda as proof of the corruption of the west, but they think that anyway and it would go a long way to reassure many of us in the West. I'm with the Rt Revd Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol on this one. He said at a recent diocesan synod, “Whatever view we take of the issues on the human-sexuality de­bate, this piece of legislation is so pernicious and so unpleasant, that I hope that Chris­tians on both sides of the debate would stand as one and say that this is unacceptable.”

---

quote:

---

As I am beginning to understand British conservative evangelicals, their thinking seems to me to resemble very closely the British Marxists and New Leftists of the previous generation. It isn't the same as the thinking of an American biblical literalist. Evangelicals, like Marxists, can be literate and sophisticated in their thinking. But both groups have a need to pull everything that might possibly be proposed, learned, discovered, thought, back to a pre-existing, fixed, and fully authoritative body of scripture.

---

quote:

---

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Why isn't it?

---

quote:

---

There are, what, thirty eight provinces in the Anglican communion. I guess that Canada, South Africa, one of the Latin American provinces, Scotland and Wales would be reasonably comfortable with the consecration of +Robinson and +Glasspool (pending). That leaves thirty two provinces that are less than ecstatic about the whole thing.

But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending)this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

Do you have any idea how up yourselves you are all beginning to sound

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Matt, are you really saying that, with agreement on nearly all other points of theology... about the trinity, Christology, salvation, and all that... with similar power structures in our hierarchy and a common history... after centuries of cooperation... that a different understanding on sexuality amongst some of your province's members and some of my province's members really means we have no consensus whatsoever?

Zach

---

quote:

---

Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Grammatica -

I'm afraid you completely missed my point in citing John Stott. I am neither con. nor evo. I chose him precisely as someone who might fill that description, yet who is passionately committed to international justice and the environment (just to cite two things). You read right past that and went for your selected tick-box item. It's difficult to progress any further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.

---

L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.

---

The analogy/similarity is between the Third Reich's racial purity laws and the perpetration of the Shoah on the one hand, and the scapegoating of homosexual persons by Ugandan demogogues - and the pending witch-hunt and holocaust againt Ugandan homosexuals - on the other. That's obvious enough. You apologists for discrimination simply don't want to hear it.

[ 10. December 2009, 12:34: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Ugh, can we please rewind the thread to before the conservatives were accused of being nazis?

Zach
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.

---

L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Spawn, I reject your equation of quiet, behind the scenes work in long term political processes such as Northern Ireland and Palestine with the proper response to the type of Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.

---

quote:

---

Places like Zimbabwe and Uganda call for an entirely different form of massive public international condemnation and pressurization of the international community of governments to make it clear to the offending state that there will be unpleasant consequences if they insist on pursuing a particular course of action (and then indeed carrying out punishment of the target state if it should persist in its unacceptable aims).

---

quote:

---

The Archbp of Canterbury has a moral obligation to speak out, loud and clear on this matter.

---

quote:

---

Working behind the scenes in this sort of context will not achieve desired aims and amounts to no more than complicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.

---

I see know reason to think that is so, since the definition of sin does not hinge on sexuality. For me any way, I can't speak for you.

Which still leaves completely valid my point that there is still lots of consensus between our provinces either way.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Spawn, High view of Scripture + Calvinism = (more or less) Con Evo.
[...]
If it can't be expounded out of a place in one of the Writings, it can't be held as true

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Spawn, High view of Scripture + Calvinism = (more or less) Con Evo.

There are so many varieties of Calvinism it's difficult to be more precise, but the view of Scripture is AFAIK very close to the view committed Marxists take of the writings of Marx/Engels/Lenin. If it can't be expounded out of a place in one of the Writings, it can't be held as true, no matter how much experience and reason may claim for its truth, or sentiment may wish to believe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

I can assure you that for me it is about theology and nothing else. But the fact that this is a theological concern is dismissed. In fact, I don't see a theological argument coming from the other side at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I think the point about our theological differences is well-made by Grammatica, for whom it is all about 'power'. Canon Mary Glasspool makes the same point in today's Times that the opposition to her appoiintment is all about 'power and authority'.

I can assure you that for me it is about theology and nothing else. But the fact that this is a theological concern is dismissed. In fact, I don't see a theological argument coming from the other side at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Possibly relevant here is a shift that has occurred in the American Church with respect to how the figurative three-legged Anglican stool is conceived. These days, rather than hearing talk so much of "scripture, tradition, and reason", the contemporary formula is often framed as "scripture, tradition, and lived experience". This latter is certainly relevant to the description of the emotional and pragmatic style that Grammatica referred to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

I can assure you that for me it is about theology and nothing else. But the fact that this is a theological concern is dismissed. In fact, I don't see a theological argument coming from the other side at all.

---

As I said earlier, there is a theological argument -- centering around Jesus' inclusion of those who were seen in his day as outcasts and sinners; verses such as those in Colossians and Galations about 'In Christ, there is no x no y'; 'those who live in love live in God and God lives in them'; and questions as to exactly what is aim of passages such as Romans 3 and how they relate to faithful monogamous homosexual relationships as we know them today -- but that the inclusive side all to often does not make it.

I can see where the accusations of it all being about power come from too though. And in the Ugandan situation there seems to be a streak of anti-colonialism.

The conservatives accuse the liberals in American of changing (their reading of) to suit their culture, but as far as I can tell much of the debate in African is strongly influenced by cultural and political issues there.

This is why I wish we could listen to each rather than just claiming victim status for our side.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think this is really the crux of it: we disagree on first principles when it comes to the role and interpretation of Scripture. This also tends to imply different POVs regarding inspiration, the nature of the collection of canonical books, etc; and the degree to which the Canon is subject to historical criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

Into this state of affairs marched, at some point in early 90's, a delegation from ECUSA as-was, headed by Frank Griswold, and accompanied by Louie Crew of Integrity. The Ugandans treated them graciously I understand, but asked in what capacity exactly they were supposed to understand the presence of LC. This has been followed up on several occasions by stated intentions to establish "Integrity Uganda" - you can read about what happened here (link).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
And into this maelstrom you suggest that +Rowan should stand up and exercise megaphone diplomacy? Are you mad? It is clear that +Rowan should indeed do something, but for goodness sakes expecting that public finger-wagging will ever achieve anything other than more grief for the gay community in the short and medium term.

---

quote:

---

Please give evidence for your dating. What I can see indicates that there was some sort of controversial visit and report by Louie Crew in 2001. I cant see anything for 'the early 1990s' as you claim. The date is important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Please give evidence for your dating. What I can see indicates that there was some sort of controversial visit and report by Louie Crew in 2001. I cant see anything for 'the early 1990s' as you claim. The date is important.

L.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone calling for Rowan Williams to do megaphone diplomacy. I would have thought most people would agree it's an unhelpful approach, whether directed at TEC, African Churches, or anyone else. What he is failing to do is express a position that many people in the Church of England can identify with. Instead it's left to the likes of Inclusive Church to have to apologise for what he has said and speak for its constituency - no finger-wagging required.

The idea that it's acceptable to "let it be known" he's working behind to scenes but refuse to "officially" say on what basis is nonsense. Does he think comments from his office don't find their way to Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.

---

L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You've a very rigid view of what constitutes Anglicanism and it seems clear that as an overall church TEC doesn't fit within Numpty Brand Anglicanism (Deo Gratias).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In confirmation classes he emphasised that the scriptures were completely subordinate to the Church and not the other way round. <snip> I don't think the basic point of his teaching was especially an aberration in the Episcopal Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Anglicans also believe that the 39 Articles of Religion bear witness to that Christian faith.

---

Outside of (some members of) the Prayer Book Society, I can't think of any Anglicans I know who believe that.

[ 10. December 2009, 15:45: Message edited by: LQ ]
 

---

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Gildas: I've no idea if your post was accurate, but it was a delight to read.
 

---

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I think that the 39 Articles bear witness to the Christian faith. I also think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church bears witness to the Christian faith, as does the Westminster Confession, +Kallistos' handy Vade Mecum on the Orthodox Church and the Methodist Worship Book.

Bearing witness to the Christian faith need not entailing being absolutely correct about everything.
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
LQ

Do you not know any English Anglicans? From the Preface to the Declaration of Assent :

quote:

---

Led by the Holy Spirit, [the CofE] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.

---

Sure. But unless you have a system like that in California where people get to vote on single issues, in practice they tend to line up with political liberals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It seems very, very difficult to get the message through that the American way is not the universal way. It may of course become that way if you persist hard enough, though if it does you will have succeeded in re-exporting your unique form of puritanism back, centuries after we thought we had got rid of it. Sigh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Does General Synod of the CoE get to define what constitutes Anglicanism? Don't think so; maybe for your two provinces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But the Episcopal Church here is not trying to make our way in this matter the universal way

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
[qb] All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.

---

Sure. But unless you have a system like that in California where people get to vote on single issues, in practice they tend to line up with political liberals.

---

We do have such a system -- the ballot initiative process. We vote on a variety of single-issue propositions in every state-wide election. Last November black people in California turned out to vote for Obama and went 7 out of 10 against gay marriage (Washington Post story here).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm assuming that Honest Ron meant the noughties.

I think he's right in general terms in saying that both sides have to take some responsibility for the spillover of the US culture wars. It is undoubtedly true that US conservatives wooed the so-called 'global south' church leaders for their support on the issue of homosexuality at least as early as the mid-1990s. US liberals were not far behind - in fact they may have been in front of the conservatives.

Of course, traditional Christian beliefs generally play better in Africa both for theological and cultural reasons.

Yes it has to be said that there are elements of a power struggle in the Anglican Communion - there are some pretty ugly nationalisms at play on both sides.

And there is also theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Basically that's it, Hiro's Leap. RuthW - I'm just debating with Grammatica how best to see things from a different perspective that will allow her to see how evangelicals outside the USA should not be conflated with those within. Clearly there are overlaps but many differences too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Like many of us I would be absolutely gratified if Rowan were to ascend the pulpit at Canterbury Cathedral and denounce Archbishop Orombi as a homophobic cunt but the guys at the Department of Getting Shit Done assure me that this may not be the most effective way of winning hearts and minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
My question might be: What do British Evangelicals hope to gain in this situation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
It's a cause of grief not gain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
LQ

Do you not know any English Anglicans? From the Preface to the Declaration of Assent :

quote:

---

Led by the Holy Spirit, [the CofE] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

---

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Louise wrote:-

quote:

---

Please give evidence for your dating. What I can see indicates that there was some sort of controversial visit and report by Louie Crew in 2001. I cant see anything for 'the early 1990s' as you claim. The date is important.

---

Apologies - you are quite right - I got the wrong decade there.

---

quote:

---

However, if you start thinking about what you need in a scapegoat class, then male homosexuality looks like one of the obvious bets. Firstly, you need a relatively tiny number of people within the group (as with Jews, lepers and heretics), but not so few that you can’t find some handy to persecute (like Muslims in most of Europe or necrophiliacs). You then need a readily available discourse of how these people are evil and threaten society. (It’s for this reason that I think persecution of ‘Sodomites’ won out over persecution of those committing bestiality. The Bible condemns bestiality, but it hasn’t got a graphic story about their destruction).

That combination in itself is enough to produce an out-group, but I think in persecuting sodomites there are two additional advantages. One, paradoxically, is the ‘invisibility’ of gays as compared to Jews and lepers, an invisibility that they share with heretics. This means that you can never run out of them as a target (whereas you can with Jews, as in England after 1290). When anything goes wrong in society, you can always blame the lurking heretics and/or sodomites who are hidden among the normal and who must therefore be rooted out and punished. It’s the perfect make work scheme for persecutors.

The other useful thing when you’re deciding to persecute someone is to do it for something you’re never likely to want to do yourself.

---

quote:

---

Once sodomy as accusation had revealed its effectiveness, of course, it could be picked up and used for other political purposes. Hugh of Langres in 1049 was accused of simony, homicide, sodomy and torture, while Peter Damian insisted that it was the opponents of the Gregorian reformers who were sodomites. Celibate monks could claim that secular courts were full of sodomites, probably in an attempt to turn finger-pointing away from their own monasteries.... And so on, and so on. My impression is that from the eleventh century there is a continuous tradition of such accusations down to the present day (although people better informed on the eighteenth and nineteenth century than me might be able to correct me on this).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Matt, are you really saying that, with agreement on nearly all other points of theology... about the trinity, Christology, salvation, and all that... with similar power structures in our hierarchy and a common history... after centuries of cooperation... that a different understanding on sexuality amongst some of your province's members and some of my province's members really means we have no consensus whatsoever?

Zach

---

My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
We in the US church have been saying that, yes, we are now departing the Anglican Communion. We welcome openly gay and lesbian persons and allow them to serve in church positions. You in the Church of England will not tolerate that and do not wish to be in communion with us unless we change our ways. Well, we are not going to, so we are departing.

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Why isn't it?

---

Grammatica,

To repeat Ken's question, to which you have not yet responded:

quote:

---

Who is "you" here?

---

quote:

---

Well, from our perspective, you've redefined what sexual sin is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
It's a cause of grief not gain.

---

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Conservatives don't want to fight to keep gay couples in other churches from being blessed, but the poor souls battle on selflessly anyway? If they're not gaining anything, then why not just leave gay people be, which is all we're asking for? Who had a gun to Geoff Chapman's head?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard:
a refusal on the grounds of practice is logically distinct from one on the grounds of desire, which is what orientation is about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:


Grammatica,

To repeat Ken's question, to which you have not yet responded:

quote:

---

Who is "you" here?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
It's a cause of grief not gain.

---

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Conservatives don't want to fight to keep gay couples in other churches from being blessed, but the poor souls battle on selflessly anyway? If they're not gaining anything, then why not just leave gay people be, which is all we're asking for? Who had a gun to Geoff Chapman's head?

---

This is a pretty stupid post by any standards. First, I'm told that my theological objections are all about power, and now I have this telling me that what other Anglicans do/believe/say is none of my concern.

(BTW, who is Geoff Chapman anyway?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Well, that would be pretty stupid, if I had said that. I await a response to my actual post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard:
a refusal on the grounds of practice is logically distinct from one on the grounds of desire, which is what orientation is about.

---

But we don't know her practice, do we? For that matter, how much do we know of anyone else's practice?

Furthermore, I don't recall what the Bible has to say against Lesbian practice. Could you refresh my memory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Grammatica. I don't think it is feigning ignorance. It is a genuine question. Various posters have shown the political diversity of evanglical Anglicanism in England, and that trying to line things up on a US-centric politico-religious matrix just doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

Thank you. At that point Grammatica had not made it clear that she(?) was only discussing evangelical Anglicanism in England. In the paragraphs that I quoted, she appeared from context to be referring to the whole CofE but what she said bore no relationship to my experience as a member of the church for the last 30+ years. Hence, as you said, I was not feigning ignorance; I was genuinely bemused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

Thank you. At that point Grammatica had not made it clear that she(?) was only discussing evangelical Anglicanism in England. In the paragraphs that I quoted, she appeared from context to be referring to the whole CofE but what she said bore no relationship to my experience as a member of the church for the last 30+ years. Hence, as you said, I was not feigning ignorance; I was genuinely bemused.

---

I am glad to hear that there are some members of the Church of England who don't want to break Communion with TEC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
As another example from the other side, you will find rural parishes in England who will be politically VERY conservative (hunt ball, countryside alliance etc) but who will embrace women or gay clergy as their parish priest as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:


Grammatica,

To repeat Ken's question, to which you have not yet responded:

quote:

---

Who is "you" here?

---

---

When someone feigns ignorance to score a rhetorical point, I do not feel compelled to answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Whatever their views on the environment may be, British Evangelicals are in tight alliance with the US Religious Right in their war against TEC.

---

And the moon is made of green cheese. There is something almost obtuse about this. Almost a refusal to imagine that anyone can really not be American at heart. As if the whole rest of the world was just the people who live in your town pretending to be different for some strange reason. So the only way to relate to them is to fit them into categories that you made from up in America.

quote:

---

My question might be: What do British Evangelicals hope to gain in this situation?

---

quote:

---

I assume their goal throughout has been to consolidate their control of the Church of England.

---

What control of the Church of England? How can they - we - "consolidate" what we don't have?

At the most three or four of the bishops - I mean of all the bishops, suffragans as well as diocesans - are out and proud theologically conservative evangelicals of the sort who might associate with the "Reform" pressure group in England or with the Diocese of Sydney and GAFCON abroad. In terms of numbers in pews the "Charismatic Evangelicals" are perhaps a larger group, and everyone always suggests that they are growing as a proportion of the CofE if not in absolute numbers, but they too have few bishops or other senior clergy. Yes, and some of them are rather obsessed by homosexuality as well. And no, I don't understand why.

As a proportion of the number of worshippers in the COfE such people are unlikely to be more than about ten to twenty percent of the whole, and I suspect probably much less. It is hard to be at all sure because of course there is no such thing as a census of churchmanship and many evangelicals attend non-evangelical churches and vice-versa (which from the comments I've seen here might be another difference between England and the USA). Although evangelical churches are disproportionately likely to be well-attended, so the ratio of clergy to lay people is probably less than in other kinds of parish, few of these churches are large by US standards - the average number of worshippers in evangelical parishes is nearer to fifty then a hundred, so that isn't the main reason for the relative lack of evangelicals in Synod or among the bishops.

Another ten percent of the CoE might be considered to be among the so-called "Open Evangelicals" but they mostly have no desire to fall out of communion with the Americans (any more than most of them want to see Forward in Faith and so on leave the CofE) and they really don't fit your Americanised description of evangelicals at all. They are rather better represented among the Bishops and on Synod.

But all put together all those evangelicals are perhaps a third of the Sunday attendance of the CofE (give or take ten percent) and maybe a fifth of its bishops and General Synod members. And those bishops and so on are disproportionately from the "open" end of things, least likely to side with GAFCON and friends. That is influence but it is a long way from control. The largest party in both General Synod and the House of Bishops is almost certainly what you might call "liberal catholic" though they are far from a majority. No one grouping in the CofE is a majority, and none is likely to be in the near future.

quote:

---

To engineer the expulsion of the liberal American church from the Communion in 2003 might have been just the "shock and awe" needed to force a complete collapse of liberals in the C of E.

---

That isn't even wrong.

To be honest, just as in every other country, most people here don't pay that much attention to what goes on in other countries. If every single theologically conservative iAnglian in America tossed a coin tomorrow and went off to join either the Roman Catholics or the Baptists depending on the way it came up, and if the remaining 100% theologically liberal churches pulled up stumps and declared themselves to be mo longer Anglicans an no longer in communion with Canterbury, I doubt if it would have any noticeable effect on the internal politicking of the Church of England at all - or any other Anglican body outside the Americas.

And what this all has got to do with either the elections of bishops in California, or proposed bad laws in Uganda, I don't know.

Oh, and what Gildas said about Rowan Williams and the Ugandan thing.

On a better note, Rick Warren, who I suppose most definitely is a right-wing American evangelical (well, he is an evangelical, he is American, and he is a hell of a lot more right wing than me or most people I know) seems to have come out on the side of the angels on the Ugandan law, and a copy of his statement is linked to here with approval on Maggi Dawn's very wonderful blog - and she is about as far from being a right-wing homophobic bigot as anyone you could imagine.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :