Thread: Purgatory: TEC suspended (... maybe?) Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001305
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Little information is coming out of the Primates meeting in Canterbury Cathedral, but some reports are suggesting that the Episcopal Church has been suspended from the Anglican Communion.

Elsewhere the Archbishop of Uganda left the meeting saying "I have left the meeting in Canterbury, but I want to make it clear that we are not leaving the Anglican Communion. Together with our fellow GAFCON Provinces and others in the Global South, we are the Anglican Communion; the future is bright."

I'd advise taking these reports with a grain of salt, but anyone have any thoughts on any of this?

[ 16. May 2016, 08:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
These resolutions only have what moral weight they're attributed. Of course, given the current impairment in relationships, it's impossible for any province to participate "fully" in the "life of the communion" (such as it now is). But the primates can't take away the "vote" from a given province where they have one. But the Archbishops cannot "discipline the American church" and the primates most certainly cannot "direct" them to do so.

I think it's clear that we are going to see a return, for a season, to the original model of the "Anglican Communion": a family of churches with a shared cultural and polity background but no juridical connection, and varying degrees of mutual recognition.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Belated press release from Canterbury
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
So they're suspended for 3 years?
 
Posted by Pseudonym (# 16879) on :
 
"5. In keeping with the consistent position of previous Primates’ meetings such unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity is considered by many of us as a departure from the mutual accountability and interdependence implied through being in relationship with each other in the Anglican Communion."

Contrasted with

"34. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying."
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well it appears that the EC is being asked nicely to withdraw itself from the representing the communion (although when does it actually do that?) for that period. I've been told that the meeting doesn't actually have the authority to remove a member.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
This is very serious news, and having read it, it's making me think very hard about my own position in relation to the Anglican Church.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is very serious news, and having read it, it's making me think very hard about my own position in relation to the Anglican Church.
I've been thinking for a while that one of the pressures on Justin Welby is that the divisions within the global Communion are starkly reflected within the church in England - so there is some pressure to keep the Communion together in order to keep things together in England.

Ironically therefore any succour given to anyone is likely to lead to a walk-out in one direction or the other, if not in the Communion then in a wing of the Church in England.

Beginning of the end, maybe?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Possibly. I think you're right about the worldwide divisions existing on a more micro scale within the Church of England; if this 'core' also splits, then the resultant denominational bodies could call themselves 'Episcopal' but not sure they would be able to use the word 'Anglican' in their title with a straight face.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pseudonym:
"5. In keeping with the consistent position of previous Primates’ meetings such unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity is considered by many of us as a departure from the mutual accountability and interdependence implied through being in relationship with each other in the Anglican Communion."

Contrasted with

"34. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying."
My emphasis
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Meaning?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Possibly. I think you're right about the worldwide divisions existing on a more micro scale within the Church of England; if this 'core' also splits, then the resultant denominational bodies could call themselves 'Episcopal' but not sure they would be able to use the word 'Anglican' in their title with a straight face.
That's never stopped anyone who split before.

I think we're heading for a situation where England has a number of Anglican churches. I can think of a few who would welcome the opportunity to lose some expensive buildings and become more congregational (I know, I know, but there really are some Anglicans who don't give a toss about bishops).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Meaning?
Presumably, that within Anglicanism, you can unilaterally change things that aren't doctrine on a national level, but you can't change doctrine.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
Given the conservative felt able to stay at the negotiating table for so long, the outcome was never going to be any good. Call me cynical, but not surprised.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Meaning?
Presumably, that within Anglicanism, you can unilaterally change things that aren't doctrine on a national level, but you can't change doctrine.
It's irrelevant anyway, because the 39 articles are not binding on all Anglican provinces. The SEC dropped them like a hot rock as soon as it was legally permitted.

On the wider topic I'm thoroughly disgusted by the statement from Primates 2016. I'm disappointed that both the American and Scottish primates felt able to sign up to it.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates can keep the PB and bishops of TEC from participating in Lambeth and the Primates Meeting. The Anglican Consultative Council can keep the TEC representatives from participating as well. I'm not sure what the endgame is here. TEC isn't going repent. The suspension of TEC will not likely deter other provinces from following the same path of TEC.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is very serious news, and having read it, it's making me think very hard about my own position in relation to the Anglican Church.
I've been thinking for a while that one of the pressures on Justin Welby is that the divisions within the global Communion are starkly reflected within the church in England - so there is some pressure to keep the Communion together in order to keep things together in England.

Ironically therefore any succour given to anyone is likely to lead to a walk-out in one direction or the other, if not in the Communion then in a wing of the Church in England.

Beginning of the end, maybe?
For TEC I'm afraid so. I can't see TEC retreating from its positions on ssm and I can't see the the other churches accepting them soooo...

Then there's the little matter of filthy lucre. TEC provides about 30% of the money spent by the Communion. At least that was the amount bandied about a few years ago. I can't see us cutting off charitable ministries to the poor (if the other members of the Communion will still accept them- being provided by dirty hands with tainted money and all), but obviously other expenses for meetings and events will have to be found from other sources if TEC gets the final boot.

What shape the Anglican Communion will settle into, I don't know.

I'm hoping that I'll actually get to speak with one of the primates in a few weeks. Maybe he'll give his take on it all.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Any chance of sending missionaries to found a TEC-in-England?
 
Posted by Pseudonym (# 16879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Pseudonym:
"5. In keeping with the consistent position of previous Primates’ meetings such unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity is considered by many of us as a departure from the mutual accountability and interdependence implied through being in relationship with each other in the Anglican Communion."

Contrasted with

"34. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying."
My emphasis
"25. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

My emphasis.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's irrelevant anyway, because the 39 articles are not binding on all Anglican provinces. The SEC dropped them like a hot rock as soon as it was legally permitted.
The 39 Articles are explicitly named in GAFCON's Jerusalem Statement (2008) as a standard of doctrine to which they intend to remain faithful.

My point is that this 'demotion' is an irrational action, and not consonant with GAFCON's own commitments.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
It's always been a problem with the Church of England that if you don't want to be a part of it any more, you just stop going - and even then the buggers won't accept you've gone. They don't even allow you a good flounce.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Elsewhere, Tobias Haller points out: Re the proposal to suspend TEC from participation in the life of the Anglican Communion: The ACC has its own constitution -- in fact, it is the only legally constituted "instrument" of the whole Communion. As far as I know, the Primates have no authority to remove the representatives of TEC who were elected to that body, short of an action by that body itself through amending the Schedule of Membership. The earlier voluntary withdrawal from participation in the ACC was just that. The Primates Meeting (if this is in fact what it has become, contrary to the ABC's characterization) has no authority to amend the structure and membership of the ACC. In this regard their action is ultra vires.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is very serious news, and having read it, it's making me think very hard about my own position in relation to the Anglican Church.
Yah bollocks. Serious shmerious. Who really gives a flying wossname about the Anglican Communion anyway? Time to pack up the whole shebang. We can be in communion with each other and no more than that, just like we are with the Old Catholics, and them that don't want to be in communion are free to sodd off. There's surely enough to make you doubt, or otherwise, the CofE in what it does or doesn't do internally. But don't bother with TEC (do you really see yourself worshipping using those bizarre bendy poles?). If you really can't stick it, come to Wales. Even if I moved back to England now I'd regard myself as CinW. I think we've even got a couple of parishes just on the other side of the border. Maybe we should have some more- if TEC can have churches in the Bishop of Gibraltar's manor, I don't see why not.

[ 14. January 2016, 17:27: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Even if I moved back to England now I'd regard myself as CinW.
It'd be fascinating if different provinces started having their own parishes in other jurisdictions. I wonder if that will happen.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Time to pack up the whole shebang.
Well, I've been saying that for years. It usually ends with someone shouting at me.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I will shout at you but only to express hearty agreement.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I don't know if this is a Welsh thing but I do have a lot of sympathy here with Albertus.......interesting thing is that the C-i-W has had a debate some time back on gay marriage with a simple majority in favour. It fell short of the two thirds majority and it wasn't a bill - the bishops won't bring in a bill unless they're reasonably sure of success and I think we'd have to petition Parliament for a change in the law perhaps but which way things will go is anybody's guess I suppose

Perhaps a looser federation type structure would be the way to go?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Albertus:
But don't bother with TEC (do you really see yourself worshipping using those bizarre bendy poles?)
I can't see myself worshiping with bizarre bendy poles.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The only question now is if the ACNA will be given full member status.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Even if I moved back to England now I'd regard myself as CinW.
It'd be fascinating if different provinces started having their own parishes in other jurisdictions. I wonder if that will happen.
Many of the congregations who have split from TEC in the United States have affiliated themselves with Provinces such as Rwanda.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I was bitterly disappointed with the acronym. ACNA is too close to acne, and the eye persists in reading it that way. But I suppose a bunch of bishops cannot be sensitive to this...
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Any chance of sending missionaries to found a TEC-in-England?
Ms. Mother Beeswax Altar and I will be happy to serve as a missionaries to England but only if RuthW will agree to be our parish administrator.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I was bitterly disappointed with the acronym.
This non-Anglican is still confused by them. I thought GAFCON was some kind of government regulator or quango, though its influence seems to work more along the lines of SPECTRE.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But don't bother with TEC (do you really see yourself worshipping using those bizarre bendy poles?).
This did make me laugh, but I assure you that most parishes here wouldn’t know a bendy pole from a verger’s wand. Because of the 1979 Prayer Book, most parishes--whatever their “flavor”--are probably a little more Anglo-Catholic in worship than their average English counterpart but you still wouldn’t have to go overboard.

My guess would be that any CofE individual who ended up in the US for some reason--work, emigration, better weather, whatever--is still likely to be most comfortable in TEC. ACNA seems to be neither dying nor thriving, but their geographical presence is much more limited than TEC.

On this board I KNOW someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I also suspect most any member of TEC who had to move to England for a short or long term would be able to find a CofE church where they would be welcomed warmly, and worship in a manner which made them feel at home.

To me, that’s communion. What the Primates are doing looks more like kindergarten.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:

What the Primates are doing looks more like kindergarten.
More like high school bullying to my mind.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The whole thing is rather trite in my view. In the real world we have these wonderful faithful African Anglicans whose countries have failed to address wars with their neighbours, wars within with other Christians in their own countries, genocidal pasts and terror-wars with Islamists. And they focus on sex. Again. Better to replace the Anglican Communion with other things, and it will be more than on thing I think.

What is CinW? Catholic in Waiting? It is the name of a radio station in Canada CINW. GAFCON - I always think of DEFCON which is some nuclear war readiness state. "GAFCON has missals at the ready!"

[ 14. January 2016, 19:04: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:


What is CinW?
The Church in Wales
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I met an ACNA priest for the first time last year. He told me they're doing well in Tennesee and other Bible-belt states, predominantly through receiving refugees from 'non-denom', 'seeker-friendly' churches and so on.

Meanwhile, I'd be delighted to welcome Rev and Mrs Beeswax Altar asvmissionaries ... provided he doesn't bring Texas with him ... [Biased] .

(Joke, joke ... it was a joke ...)
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Of course, it depends on where you live... I just looked at the ACNA website for the Diocese that includes Atlanta. There are about 30 churches and missions in Georgia, at least some of which don’t seem to have their own property yet. Missing from the list was an older, more established REC church that I know of, so I’m not clear what that might be about.

Episcopalians don’t have the presence in Georgia that the Methodists and Baptists do, but we still have more churches than that in the Atlanta area alone. Furthermore, the Diocese of Atlanta has been fairly proactive about planting churches in newer suburbs of late. Some of those have experienced growth that would make a Southern Baptist preacher proud.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Any chance of sending missionaries to found a TEC-in-England?
Ms. Mother Beeswax Altar and I will be happy to serve as a missionaries to England but only if RuthW will agree to be our parish administrator.
Agreed!

My first thought was, Will they suspend taking our money for three years?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
At some point when my husband (the main wage-earner in the family) retires we will move to another state. When we do, we must necessarily seek out a new church. I have resolved in advance that we're going to leave ACNA/TEC and all these boneheaded quarrels behind. Somewhere there must be a church that hasn't been sucked into this black hole.
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
The real story out of the Anglican primates statement is as follows:

1) The ACNA is now a de facto province of the Anglican Communion. The fact that the archbishop of the ACNA, the Most Rev. Foley Beach, was seated and given "voice and vote" means that was treated as an equal Anglican primate. If the archbishop of the ACNA is an Anglican primate then, by extension, the ACNA is an Anglican province. I think this could impact some litigation between the Episcopal Church and departing parishes and dioceses, which can now argue that the ACNA is merely another recognized province of the Anglican Communion and they are free to transfer to it as the Episcopal Church has been suspended.

2) The Episcopal Church was suspended for three years because its polity doesn't allow the presiding bishop to rule it. As such, the primates settled on a suspension until the next sitting of the Episcopal Church's governing General Convention. As most of the conservatives have departed for the ACNA, the real fight is between the liberals like Curry and the more militant left, who are giving a middle-finger to the Anglican primates. It also doesn't help the Episcopal Church moving forward that this year's General Convention instructed the next sitting to begin the process of adopting a new book of common prayer to reflect the theological and liturgical innovations, as conservatives would call them, of the left over the past 20 or so years. I see a scenario where the left of the Episcopal Church says to-hell-with-the-Anglican-Communion and merges with the United Methodists, who are in the midst of their own Anglican-style breakup, and what remains of the Evangelical Lutherans.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I don't know if this is a Welsh thing but I do have a lot of sympathy here with Albertus.......interesting thing is that the C-i-W has had a debate some time back on gay marriage with a simple majority in favour. It fell short of the two thirds majority and it wasn't a bill - the bishops won't bring in a bill unless they're reasonably sure of success and I think we'd have to petition Parliament for a change in the law perhaps but which way things will go is anybody's guess I suppose

Perhaps a looser federation type structure would be the way to go?
The question of our recent vote here did cross my mind after I'd posted. What if it had got the 2/3 majority? What if the CinW had petitioned Parliament to change the law (you're right, we would have to, the Act that introduced SSM in England & Wales says we have to, for reasons that I think I understand)? Would we now be being put out on our ear or at least sent to sit on the naughty step because we think that gay people should live within the discipline of marriage rather than be sent to prison? It's quite an alarming thought. AIUI ++Barry couldn't attend the meeting in canterbury for family reasons.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
If the archbishop of the ACNA is an Anglican primate then, by extension, the ACNA is an Anglican province. I think this could impact some litigation between the Episcopal Church and departing parishes and dioceses, which can now argue that the ACNA is merely another recognized province of the Anglican Communion and they are free to transfer to it as the Episcopal Church has been suspended.
I’d be surprised if this really moved any court. If the Episcopal Church is hierarchical and has set up their canons correctly in light of previous Supreme Court rulings, courts will rule that the property was held in trust for the National Church.

If it is not hierarchical, or the canons are not set up properly (the two main lines of argument ACNA has tried to use so far) then the court has more freedom to rule for the local congregation.

It is interesting that those filing briefs in support of TEC have at times included the Catholic church and the Seventh Day Adventists. Neither body could be called liberal on the question of marriage equality, but they consider the cases to have important ramifications for their own church polity.

As has been pointed out, this particular body has no power to enforce or require these sanctions, which makes the fact they are “imposing” them a bit of a risk. The last time TEC stepped back voluntarily, there were those quick to take advantage and stack the deck to our disadvantage. My guess would be we will not be so quick to acquiesce this time; if we choose to abide by them I suspect we will also be looking for places to spend the money hitherto given to the various Anglican bodies--places more in keeping with the mission of TEC. Some of those places will certainly still be Anglican, but others will have to pick up the expenses of the International bodies.

That’s what it says in this cup of tea leaves, at any rate.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
The holier-than-thou mealy-mouthed tone of all these pronouncements is a bit distasteful. I say this in Christian love, of course, as part of our shared desire to walk together.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
GAFCON sez:

quote:
Author:
Eliud Wabukala and Peter Jensen
Statement by the GAFCON Chairman, The Most Rev. Dr. Eliud Wabukala and The GAFCON General Secretary, The Most Rev. Dr. Peter Jensen

14th January 2016

The Anglican Communion is our spiritual home and the GAFCON Primates travelled to England in the hope that godly faith and order could be restored through renewed obedience to the Bible.

We are pleased that Archbishop Foley Beach of the Anglican Church in North America has played a full part in the Canterbury meeting of Primates and that sanctions have been applied to the Episcopal Church of the United States, (TEC) recognising the need for mutual accountability on matters of doctrine within the family of the Communion.

However, this action must not be seen as an end, but as a beginning. There is much that causes us concern, especially the failure to recognise the fact that the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) has also rejected the collegial mind of the Communion by unilaterally permitting the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of those in active homosexual relationships. We fear that other provinces will do the same.

Since the beginning of the crisis in the Communion brought about by the actions of both TEC and the ACoC, the Anglican instruments of unity have been unable to guard biblical truth and restore godly order. There must therefore be doubt about the effectiveness of the sanctions that have been agreed.

In particular, it must be recognised that the continuing brokenness of the Communion is not the result simply of failed relationships, but is caused by the persistent rejection of biblical and apostolic faith as set out in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. We are therefore disappointed that the Primates’ statement makes no reference to the need for repentance.

The need for the GAFCON movement is being recognised by an ever increasing number of people and we are encouraged in our conviction that God has called us to work for an Anglican Communion which is a truly global family of Churches. We long to see a united, confident and courageous witness to God who by the death and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ has given us an unshakeable hope and assures us of his unfailing love.
What advantage is it to TEC to acquiesce to this exclusion, given it is clear that the end goal is their total expulsion from the Communion and replacement by ACNA?
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
If the archbishop of the ACNA is an Anglican primate then, by extension, the ACNA is an Anglican province. I think this could impact some litigation between the Episcopal Church and departing parishes and dioceses, which can now argue that the ACNA is merely another recognized province of the Anglican Communion and they are free to transfer to it as the Episcopal Church has been suspended.
I’d be surprised if this really moved any court. If the Episcopal Church is hierarchical and has set up their canons correctly in light of previous Supreme Court rulings, courts will rule that the property was held in trust for the National Church.

If it is not hierarchical, or the canons are not set up properly (the two main lines of argument ACNA has tried to use so far) then the court has more freedom to rule for the local congregation.

It is interesting that those filing briefs in support of TEC have at times included the Catholic church and the Seventh Day Adventists. Neither body could be called liberal on the question of marriage equality, but they consider the cases to have important ramifications for their own church polity.

As has been pointed out, this particular body has no power to enforce or require these sanctions, which makes the fact they are “imposing” them a bit of a risk. The last time TEC stepped back voluntarily, there were those quick to take advantage and stack the deck to our disadvantage. My guess would be we will not be so quick to acquiesce this time; if we choose to abide by them I suspect we will also be looking for places to spend the money hitherto given to the various Anglican bodies--places more in keeping with the mission of TEC. Some of those places will certainly still be Anglican, but others will have to pick up the expenses of the International bodies.

That’s what it says in this cup of tea leaves, at any rate.
I'm no lawyer, but I see the lay of the land as follows:

1) The Episcopal Church is no longer a member in good standing of the Anglican Communion, at least for the next three years.

2) Parishes and dioceses affiliated with the Episcopal Church--some like South Carolina of course pre-date the national church, which complicates things--which until now has been part of the broader Anglican Communion.

3) If it's no longer a full member with voice and vote in the Anglican Communion then parishes and dioceses may be able to make an argument that they wish to transfer their allegiance to a province of the Anglican Communion that remains in good standing.

4) While the primates of the Anglican Communion--and the archbishop of Canterbury himself--are not overlords of the Episcopal Church, it isn't a stretch to claim that if the Episcopal Church is a hierarchal organization then somewhere in its heirarchy it presumably recognizes the Anglican Communion and whomever or whatever entity is charging with speaking for the Anglican Communion.

That's just me thinking off my head. It could mean nothing but I think it's certainly an interesting thought to consider.

I was really surprised at what happened. I think judging from the fact that both the left and right factions of the Episcopal Church, ACNA and Anglican Communion writ large are unhappy then what happened is probably for the best. Still, I thought what would happen would be some sort of compromise whereby the Episcopal Church and ACNA mutually recognize each other and cease litigation.

I would, however, argue that the Episcopal Church has recognized ACNA as all reports say that the Most Rev. Foley Beach, the ACNA archbishop, was seated as an equal primate of the Anglican Communion and given full voice and vote without any objections by the Episcopal Church or any other recognized province of the Anglican Communion.

This recognition certainly undercuts the Episcopal Church's longstanding argument that it had the exclusive franchise on the Anglican Communion without the territorial boundaries of the United States.

But that argument in and of itself was always flawed because the Episcopal Church has ceded jurisdiction over American Samoa -- an American territory in the Pacific -- to the Anglican province in New Zealand. That's a significant precedent, in my opinion. Then there's also the precedent in Europe, whereby the Episcopal Church and the Church of England mutually exist in the same countries on the European continent.

[ 14. January 2016, 21:37: Message edited by: Meet and Right So to Do ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
This morning I woke up an Anglican in the Anglican Communion and tonight I will go to me bed as .... well, I'm not actually sure what to be honest. Has the church suddenly become a Global Anglican Church? Where was the authority to do this? I feel completely lost. I certainly do not want to be a part of a Global Anglican Church. I want to be what I was this morning - an Anglican in an Episcopal church in my province, where we were able to have the autonomy to respond to the call of the Gospel in our own culture and situation. It was always held in balance and could even have a prophetic voice from the other members in their own provinces. Tonight, none of that seems to exist anymore. I'm not sure if I'm understanding all of this correctly, but what seems to have been core to the church I love seems to have been completely white washed over to placate a group that want something else but who have lacked the courage to leave it.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
On that last point should it not be the group that wants to change the organisation - and can't get the support - should be be the ones to leave?

Why should the majority view, the oldest view - the founding view indeed - be the one to change to suit the new minority view?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
From our Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry:
quote:
“Our commitment to be an inclusive church is not based on a social theory or capitulation to the ways of the culture, but on our belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all.
More here.

[Overused]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
This morning I woke up an Anglican in the Anglican Communion and tonight I will go to me bed as - well, I'm not actually sure what to be honest...
A valid reaction.

My local friends have a different reaction -- shrug. "Nothing will change at the church I go to." "I sing in the choir, I'll still be singing in the same choir." "They have 3 years to catch up with us on same sex marriage."

One friend said "It means we are no longer part of a global community, but this was predicted 15 years ago when TEC decided homosexuality is not a sin."

The conservatives including many African churches simply cannot accept the liberal TEC as "one of us." Whether or not I agree with them, I admire their refusal to be bought by the 30% of the budget that comes from TEC (as stated above).
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The whole thing is rather trite in my view. In the real world we have these wonderful faithful African Anglicans whose countries have failed to address wars with their neighbours, wars within with other Christians in their own countries, genocidal pasts and terror-wars with Islamists. And they focus on sex. Again. Better to replace the Anglican Communion with other things, and it will be more than on thing I think.
*snip*
We do need to be careful on this one-- many African wars were proxy wars for western powers, and others were financed by interests wishing access to resources. And the history of the 20th century doesn't give the first world a lot of street creds.
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
I wonder what this means for an Episcopalian who moves to the majority of Anglican provinces that voted to suspend the Episcopal Church.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Nothing...absolutely nothing
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nothing...absolutely nothing
Really? I think a more conservative province could refuse to admit said Episcopalian to the table for communion.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nothing...absolutely nothing
Really? I think a more conservative province could refuse to admit said Episcopalian to the table for communion.
Has that been happening in TEC churches that split - did any become closed communion? Open communion churches don't usually quiz visitors or newcomers about their specific beliefs on doctrinal details like the definition of marriage.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nothing...absolutely nothing
Really? I think a more conservative province could refuse to admit said Episcopalian to the table for communion.
No, the person would be a baptized Christian with a similar if not identical understanding of the Eucharist and that is all that matters.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


My local friends have a different reaction -- shrug. "Nothing will change at the church I go to." "I sing in the choir, I'll still be singing in the same choir." "They have 3 years to catch up with us on same sex marriage."

One friend said "It means we are no longer part of a global community, but this was predicted 15 years ago when TEC decided homosexuality is not a sin."
Where I live most churchgoers, including those at Episcopal parishes, are essentially congregationalists. They choose a local church without a lot of regard for denominational affiliation.

quote:
The conservatives including many African churches simply cannot accept the liberal TEC as "one of us." Whether or not I agree with them, I admire their refusal to be bought by the 30% of the budget that comes from TEC (as stated above).
Do we know for sure that the primates have even talked about forgoing the funding from TEC?
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I consider myself a Christian first, a (non-Roman) Catholic second, an Anglican third, and an Episcopalian fourth, even though the last of these looms largest, being local. I find this distressing.

I missed the part about the acne people being admitted as a province. What scuzzy politics were involved in it?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Where I live most churchgoers, including those at Episcopal parishes, are essentially congregationalists. They choose a local church without a lot of regard for denominational affiliation.
Good point. While some people identify with a denomination, a lot just pick a comfortable church - which may be similar in feel to the last one but not necessarily the same denomination.

quote:
The conservatives including many African churches simply cannot accept the liberal TEC as "one of us." Whether or not I agree with them, I admire their refusal to be bought by the 30% of the budget that comes from TEC (as stated above).
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Do we know for sure that the primates have even talked about forgoing the funding from TEC?
Fair enough. And for the next three years I expect nothing may change, but if TEC gets totally kicked out, will they keep financially supporting a group who don't want them?
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Given the stated beliefs of the various parties, what could possibly change in three years?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
That TEC will not even be nominally part of the Anglican Communion, that's what. [Frown]
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
How is it the primates are allowed to derail synodical processes and speak for entire churches just like that? When and how were they ever vested with such immense powers? AFAIK, Abp Justin is simply not in any position to pronounce for the entire Church of England so.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On that last point should it not be the group that wants to change the organisation - and can't get the support - should be be the ones to leave?

Why should the majority view, the oldest view - the founding view indeed - be the one to change to suit the new minority view?
Indeed. The oldest view is that the Anglican Communion is a collective of independent churches, each having authority within its own province. The communion is bound together by the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral, and has no statement of common doctrine beyond that laid out in the creeds. GAFCON have been pushing to make homophobia a shibboleth for membership of the communion, and that is a grotesque innovation and distortion of the tradition of the communion. Fundamental to the nature of Anglicanism is that no primate has authority to interfere with the actions of another province. If provinces object they are free to withdraw from the communion.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I agree. GAFCON is as you might expect being extremely selective. I see that its Secretary is Dr Jensen who IIRC- and Australian shipmates please correct me on this if I'm wrong- supports or supported lay presidency at the Eucharist. Now that is at least as big a breach of Anglican practice as SSM, but that, it seems, is not an issue for GAFCON.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
This is what is actually worrying me. It's as though the Anglican Communion is becoming more 'Roman' - will there be an Anglican magisterium for instance? And that's something which GAFCON might not like in other respects.

Interesting that ++Barry had other commitments Albertus although I do think the 'wanting to spend more time with my family' is a trifle over-worked .......

However it might be true!

However I'm surprised at the restraint of American shipmates - if I were American I would not be feeling quite so sanguine and would quickly find there are other deserving causes for Episcopal money - and this is over an issue I haven't really got a settled view - or at least I have mixed feelings.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The oldest view is that the Anglican Communion is a collective of independent churches, each having authority within its own province. The communion is bound together by the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral, and has no statement of common doctrine beyond that laid out in the creeds. GAFCON have been pushing to make homophobia a shibboleth for membership....
I watched a similar battle about 20 years ago, when the Southern Baptist Convention, an association of independent churches, got taken over by militant conservatives who demanded their doctrines (including removing women from clergy positions) be imposed on all churches. Many groups of churches left and formed their own associations, SBC ceased being the largest protestant denomination in the USA, and I guess everyone ended up happier because both liberal churches and conservatives ones no longer had to deal with the tensions of living in the same tent.

How conservatives get the power to overrule the way an association of churches has been functioning for ages, I don't know. Maybe they are more intensely focused on a specific clear goal than the liberals?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Dr Jensen was on the radio this morning, and was projecting attitudes I did not find in the least attractive. Not just what he was saying, but his tone (and I was careful to edit out the Australian-ness). I would not want to be in his church - he seemed very self satisfied, and careless of the feelings of the people he was preaching against. Who would be welcomed, but helped. That's "Help" with a capital, and unsought for.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If Beeswax Altar - ably assisted by RuthW - were to come to the UK as a missionary, I'd welcome them both with open arms ... we need all the help we can get ...

However, I suspect (although I might be wrong) that Beeswax Altar in particular might be surprised to find how far many UK Anglicans are from his view of a shared understanding of the Eucharist ...

I can't speak for TEC or ACNA, but the folk I've met from those sort of backgrounds certainly tend to have a more 'developed' view of the Eucharist than some evangelical Anglicans here in the UK who are essentially Baptists in all but name ...

I'm not knocking the Baptists, but one might expect Anglicans to have a - for want of a better word - 'fuller' or more 'developed' view of the Eucharist ...

But I recognise I'm over-simplifying things.

On the ACNA thing, I read somewhere that their head-honcho was allowed to listen and comment but not to vote.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Welby and others would like to have ACNA as another - or an alternative - Anglican province in the USA.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think it would be really interesting if different parishes in England determined that they wanted to have oversight from different Provinces - say Rwanda, but maybe also Wales, ECUSA etc.

That'd totally put a spanner in the works - although the property arrangements would be a real headache to sort out.
 
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :
 
Someone close to me (NOT a Christian) said to me this morning - 'your Church seems to be moving backwards rather than forwards. What is going on?' I could ask the same question. Deep down in my heart though, I know that something dreadful happened yesterday and I can't see how we can get out of it.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:

On that last point should it not be the group that wants to change the organisation - and can't get the support - should be be the ones to leave?

Why should the majority view, the oldest view - the founding view indeed - be the one to change to suit the new minority view?
You would be right based on a complete misunderstanding of what the Anglican Communion is and what it means to be an Anglican/Episcopalian. First and foremost, the Anglican Communion is not a 'confessing church', neither is it the Anglican Communion a Global Anglican Church or a church set in stone that has never experienced doctrinal change or adaptation. It is based on a system of provinces that since its foundation have had the autonomy to respond to the call of the Gospel in its own culture and situation but having the prophetic call and consideration of the wider communion within its remit for consideration. What this primates meeting represents is a dramatic shift away from traditional, foundational Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, whereby the autonomy of a church within a province can find itself restricted by the quams of another province many hundreds of thousands of miles away from it that may also have its own corrupt political system to prop up - yes, I'm looking at you Uganda. It represents the dissolving of the Anglican Communion in favour of a global church and a subversion of the authority of the primates to meet in a consultation and immediately issue an edict for the entire communion for which they had no authority and which as not even in the remit of the meeting (unless we were told prokies and political shenanigans have been going on in the background for some time).

As GAFCON have already announced, this is not the end, but merely the beginning. The placation of those who do not actually wish to be Anglicans in an Anglican communion any longer has just opened a whole can of worms. The next issue will be the suspension of other provinces for ordaining gay and lesbian clergy, quickly followed by a desire to tighten the stance on divorce and the remarriage of divorcees in church, a hope for the reversal of the ordination of women (I accept that not all in the enclave desire this, but a substantial number do) and the push for lay presidency. There are already many hundreds of denominations out there that cater for these tastes. Why do they not have the courage to leave what they know does not suit them? Instead they will try to make a church in their image, governed by an elite hierarchy answerable to no-one and with a system of puppet bishops and synods. It's a very sad day and I can only hope that someone who is able to do so has the nerve to challenge the subverted authority and the backstage politics that has allowed this to occur.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Stephen:
quote:

This is what is actually worrying me. It's as though the Anglican Communion is becoming more 'Roman' - will there be an Anglican magisterium for instance?
That is precisely what has happened. The Primates have made decisions on Anglican polity, ethics, doctrine, faith and practice without any recourse to Bishops or their convened synods. We are now effectively being ruled by an elite answerable to no-one.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I'll say this—security is tight. Employees of the Cathedral can't even get into the area where the primates are meeting.

K.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Interesting that ++Barry had other commitments Albertus although I do think the 'wanting to spend more time with my family' is a trifle over-worked .......
With the news this morning of the death of Abp Barry's wife, I think that may explain his absence.

May she rest in peace.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Oh I'm sorry to hear that Seasick
My bad- I shouldn't have been so unkind.....
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The next issue will be the suspension of other provinces for ordaining gay and lesbian clergy, quickly followed by a desire to tighten the stance on divorce and the remarriage of divorcees in church, a hope for the reversal of the ordination of women
Well at least that would be consistent, as I have observed here...
quote:
the autonomy of a church within a province can find itself restricted by the quams of another province many hundreds of thousands of miles away from it
I didn't realise the Anglican Communion extended to beyond the moon... [Biased]

But seriously, you make a lot of solid points in my view.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
How is it the primates are allowed to derail synodical processes and speak for entire churches just like that? When and how were they ever vested with such immense powers? AFAIK, Abp Justin is simply not in any position to pronounce for the entire Church of England so.
Indeed.

Why bother with a synod at all?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Stephen:
quote:

This is what is actually worrying me. It's as though the Anglican Communion is becoming more 'Roman' - will there be an Anglican magisterium for instance?
That is precisely what has happened. The Primates have made decisions on Anglican polity, ethics, doctrine, faith and practice without any recourse to Bishops or their convened synods. We are now effectively being ruled by an elite answerable to no-one.
Well, they're answerable to God. I wonder what He thinks of them?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:

On that last point should it not be the group that wants to change the organisation - and can't get the support - should be be the ones to leave?

Why should the majority view, the oldest view - the founding view indeed - be the one to change to suit the new minority view?
You would be right based on a complete misunderstanding of what the Anglican Communion is and what it means to be an Anglican/Episcopalian. First and foremost, the Anglican Communion is not a 'confessing church', neither is it the Anglican Communion a Global Anglican Church or a church set in stone that has never experienced doctrinal change or adaptation. It is based on a system of provinces that since its foundation have had the autonomy to respond to the call of the Gospel in its own culture and situation but having the prophetic call and consideration of the wider communion within its remit for consideration. What this primates meeting represents is a dramatic shift away from traditional, foundational Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, whereby the autonomy of a church within a province can find itself restricted by the quams of another province many hundreds of thousands of miles away from it that may also have its own corrupt political system to prop up - yes, I'm looking at you Uganda. It represents the dissolving of the Anglican Communion in favour of a global church and a subversion of the authority of the primates to meet in a consultation and immediately issue an edict for the entire communion for which they had no authority and which as not even in the remit of the meeting (unless we were told prokies and political shenanigans have been going on in the background for some time).

As GAFCON have already announced, this is not the end, but merely the beginning. The placation of those who do not actually wish to be Anglicans in an Anglican communion any longer has just opened a whole can of worms. The next issue will be the suspension of other provinces for ordaining gay and lesbian clergy, quickly followed by a desire to tighten the stance on divorce and the remarriage of divorcees in church, a hope for the reversal of the ordination of women (I accept that not all in the enclave desire this, but a substantial number do) and the push for lay presidency. There are already many hundreds of denominations out there that cater for these tastes. Why do they not have the courage to leave what they know does not suit them? Instead they will try to make a church in their image, governed by an elite hierarchy answerable to no-one and with a system of puppet bishops and synods. It's a very sad day and I can only hope that someone who is able to do so has the nerve to challenge the subverted authority and the backstage politics that has allowed this to occur.
I am learning something here of course. I'm obviously not an Anglican (no dogs in this fight and all that) and I (apparently) come from a 'confessing church' that does have a strong set of doctrines and values.

But really I was referring to this sentence by Fletcher Christian:

quote:
...what seems to have been core to the church I love seems to have been completely white washed over to placate a group that want something else but who have lacked the courage to leave it.
The group that is allegedly being placated is the Africans and the implication of the above sentence is that if they want something different (to TEC) then it is they who should leave.

But as an outsider it seems to me that this implies that TEC and its supporters actually want the whole Anglican communion to agree with them and thereby destroy the thing you say you want to keep, namely a communion that has 'the autonomy to respond to the call of the Gospel in its own culture and situation', by telling the traditionalists to leave so that the 'modern' view of ssm can pervade the whole without let or hindrance.

It also suggests that the Africans are the ones wanting change when in actual fact it's TEC. The African position (shared of course by evangelical Anglicans, conservative Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics from whatever country) are the ones who want things to stay as the majority have wanted for centuries.

From a business point of view, it seems to me that a minority group of share holders has tried to take over the group of companies in a hostile buy-out and have been thwarted. Surely the minority group has not persuaded the majority of their case and have lost the argument.

Therefore, the logical thing to do is not complain that 'the majority don't like us and anyway we don't agree with their decision-making process,' but actually to do what TEC wants the Africans to do and say, 'We can't change the church which no longer suits our divergent position on XYZ, therefore (Anglican style) we'll go and form our own group and leave the majority to sink or swim according to their own convictions.'

[ 15. January 2016, 11:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Its a classic 4th Century (onwards) solution. If you have a dispute in the Church , decide which party is the more influential / shouts loudest and banish the other one.

The problem here, as with Slavery, and Ordination of Women is that BOTH sides can make an argument for their their position from the Bible, although it seems to me that history and tradition have been big factors here too.

With the former there was a decision made which now seems blindingly obvious , and with the latter, an agreement to disagree.

I would have much rather seen the latter strategy followed - like a sensible 21st Century compromise. But it looks like the Ostrich's Time Machine has been used instead.

But I do agree with the last poster as well - the challenger is TEC - so an affirmation of the mainstream position was always a possible outcome.

I just think that where we are now as a society that is actually worse than useless, as a response.

[ 15. January 2016, 12:02: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Question: why three years - what's the significance of that time frame?
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
In TEC their General Convention is supreme and the Presiding Bishop can't bind it. It next meets in 2018 so presumably they intend to come back to the question in the light of what the General Convention does.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:

The group that is allegedly being placated is the Africans and the implication of the above sentence is that if they want something different (to TEC) then it is they who should leave.

But as an outsider it seems to me that this implies that TEC and its supporters actually want the whole Anglican communion to agree with them and thereby destroy the thing you say you want to keep, namely a communion that has 'the autonomy to respond to the call of the Gospel in its own culture and situation', by telling the traditionalists to leave so that the 'modern' view of ssm can pervade the whole without let or hindrance.
I wish it were as simple as you state, but it is far more nuanced and complex. I understand that you are coming from a different tradition, so I will try, as far as possible, to explain some of it.

It isn't the 'African church' or the 'Africans' who are being placated. There are some provinces within Africa, some split away groups like ACNA, a pressure group known as GAFCON which houses a number of Bishops and clergy from various places all with varying axes to grind, part of the Diocese of Sydney and a few other small churches within dioceses around the world. They are all seemingly united on one thing - the ability for one part of the world wide Anglican Communion to be able to dictate to another part of the Anglican Communion as to exactly how they should live the Gospel in their province, culture and situation. This idea strikes at the heart of what Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is and dissolves the original intention of the idea of Communion. Some of these groups have within them pressure groups who see this as a way of consolidating support for their particular axe, corrupt churches and even whole provinces that are known to be in league with corrupt governments and political parties in power to propagate a steady flow of human rights abuses (which aren't all to do with sexuality; in fact many of them aren't about this issue at all and these provinces and churches within dioceses have not been suspended but have had the rest of the Communion put their finger on an issue), some very hard-line fundamentalists, some very conservative (but not fundamentalist), some who long for power for various reasons, some who very genuinely feel aggrieved at what has gone on in other parts of the Anglican Communion and feel changes in one part of the Communion does in fact change it in all, some who feel that TEC and others have moved out of the area of sound doctrine placing themselves in a difficult position of whether or not they should be called 'Christian' and some who genuinely desire to see the dissolving of the concept of an Anglican Communion.

The fact is that what TEC has done may be wrong in the view of others, but there is no requirement whatsoever that everyone else must therefore follow suit and do what TEC does. Those supporting TEC either do so because they see this as an issue that needs to be addressed within their own province or because they feel that TEC should have the autonomy to make its own decisions in this matter in order to protect the integrity of the original concept of the Anglican Communion rather than going down the route of a global Anglican church. Nobody is telling the traditionalists to leave, but there does come a moment when those who find themselves in a church that they are at complete odds with in terms of founding principles and currently working polity must ask themselves if they should remain in it. Some feel that they must not leave it and instead they should change it from within to make it something different. This is a position that personally I disagree with because ultimately it lacks any integrity in faith and practice. If it was the other way around and the majority of the church was ACNA, GAFCON and the like and I was in the minority and working against the church to create an Anglican Communion rather than a global Anglican Church then yes, I would leave it immediately. I can't imagine living with myself if I was in a small enclave wanting to change an entire communion of over 85 million members for my own personal satisfaction. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

As it was, the Anglican Communion had an incredible prophetic opportunity in today's fractious, constantly outraged world where fundamentalism looms larger with each passing day. We could have been a shining light to demonstrate how people of faith could actually learn to live together with all those tensions and difficulties and even profound disagreement. It was something that the world today desperately needs an example of, especially in the church. As it is, a Pimates meeting has just done its darndest to snuff that wick.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If it was the other way around and the majority of the church was ACNA, GAFCON and the like and I was in the minority and working against the church to create an Anglican Communion rather than a global Anglican Church then yes, I would leave it immediately.
Partly out of curiosity, and partly to make sure I've followed your reasoning, does that mean you would not support a lobby within the Catholic church on, say SSM?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
A lobby or a unilateral demand enacted upon?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
A lobby or a unilateral demand enacted upon?
Well one of the things I'm learning from this discussion is the vast breadth of the supposed room for diversity provided for in the Anglican Communion - such that (if I've understood you correctly) one bit of it can universally enact something quite controversial without (it believes) excluding itself. This seems very different from how things would play out in the RCC.

In other words, you seem to be saying that you're (I assume) an Anglican because there is (you think/thought) room for unity in (a lot of) diversity, which is not the case (organisationally) in the RCC.

[ 15. January 2016, 12:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Oh well - we'll just have to alter our parish church's 'All Welcome' board by adding the words 'even members of TEC'.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
More seriously, the three-year period does give time for the saner elements (if any) on both sides to think over the implications of what has been done. That, I guess, is what Justin Welby hopes.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'm not sure you can compare as an example a lobby group in the RC church where the structure, polity and the outworking of faith and practice can be different and in some cases radically different. On that basis I'd have difficulties trying to answer your question.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well one of the things I'm learning from this discussion is the vast breadth of the supposed room for diversity provided for in the Anglican Communion - such that (if I've understood you correctly) one bit of it can universally enact something quite controversial without (it believes) excluding itself. This seems very different from how things would play out in the RCC.
The Anglican Communion is not the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the names and titles are similar, but the Anglican church is not a global church in the same way that the RCC is.

quote:
In other words, you seem to be saying that you're (I assume) an Anglican because there is (you think/thought) room for unity in (a lot of) diversity, which is not the case (organisationally) in the RCC.
I think there is a fair amount of diversity in the RCC actually, but one of the features of the Anglican setup (on various scales) is that the structure allows people to get on with things as they see fit.

Which is why the statements from the Primates in Canterbury are so odd. They shouldn't be able to make these kind of statements because they have no authority to say such things.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not sure you can compare as an example a lobby group in the RC church where the structure, polity and the outworking of faith and practice can be different and in some cases radically different. On that basis I'd have difficulties trying to answer your question.
I'm confused. Your illustration suggested to me that if the minority push was for a "communion" model to replace an existing "global" church, you wouldn't support it, by virtue of it being a minority. Is that what you mean? That basically the minority should always simply leave?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm afraid to say that my brain is insisting on filing all references to primates in the zoology section. Possibly relating to a recent programme in which some were taking away peoples' valuables so that the people ransomed them by giving them what they wanted.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
In which case, why does it matter so much to GAFCON what TEC says and does; and why does TEC care about what GAFCON says and does?

And why, if you're all so independent and able to act under your own authority, do you even bother to meet and discuss stuff?

Why not get on with what you do in the US and let the others get on with what they want to do?

It seems TEC wants to act as it would like and have an opinion about what the others are doing, but doesn't want anyone else to have the freedom to do the same or have an opinion about TEC.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
How is it the primates are allowed to derail synodical processes and speak for entire churches just like that? When and how were they ever vested with such immense powers? AFAIK, Abp Justin is simply not in any position to pronounce for the entire Church of England so.
Remember how the primates, about twenty years ago, declared a number of Rwandan dioceses vacant on account of their bishops having behaved scandalously during the genocide? Perhaps there were protests against their over-reach then, but I cannot recall them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Why not get on with what you do in the US and let the others get on with what they want to do?

Good question. As discussed above, I think the problem is that disintegration in the global communion would lead to complete collapse in England - if, for example, GAFCON left then quite a few English parishes may also want to go, conversely if ECUSA left, it is quite possible many English parishes would also go. In my view this means that the AB of C is always in crisis mode, trying to hold things together globally in order to keep things together locally.

In practice I'm fairly convinced that everyone would be better just biting the bullet and going their own way.

quote:
It seems TEC wants to act as it would like and have an opinion about what the others are doing, but doesn't want anyone else to have the freedom to do the same or have an opinion about TEC.
Well that's an interesting point of view. Others argue that some of the GAFCON provinces are constantly forcing this issue as a smokescreen to avoid talking about other issues - for example the issue of polygamy is tolerated in some provinces (which is ironic given the statements about marriage in yesterday's Canterbury press release). Also one might point to notorious Anglican leaders in some parts of the world who have been able to get away with various alleged human rights abuses - without any kind of comment by the global Anglican Primates.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

Where I live most churchgoers, including those at Episcopal parishes, are essentially congregationalists. They choose a local church without a lot of regard for denominational affiliation.
I've been saying this for a long, long time.

Denominational differences, at least among mainline U.S. protestants, are no longer important for most churchgoers. I doubt any Presbyterians are going to raid the local Episcopal/Anglican church and burn the vestments or tear down the rails in the chancel.

The only real difference between United Methodists, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church are polity and churchmanship. Doctrinal and theological stances are pretty much the same now.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


It seems TEC wants to act as it would like and have an opinion about what the others are doing, but doesn't want anyone else to have the freedom to do the same or have an opinion about TEC.
Replace 'TEC' with 'GAFCON' and I would agree with you. As far as I know, TEC have never tried to kick anyone out of the Communion, or ever said that GAFCON churches have to celebrate SSM.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In which case, why does it matter so much to GAFCON what TEC says and does; and why does TEC care about what GAFCON says and does?

And why, if you're all so independent and able to act under your own authority, do you even bother to meet and discuss stuff?

Why not get on with what you do in the US and let the others get on with what they want to do?

It seems TEC wants to act as it would like and have an opinion about what the others are doing, but doesn't want anyone else to have the freedom to do the same or have an opinion about TEC.
Sure, both/all sides may have an opinion and TEC can deal with that. TEC, however, is not the church suspending those who disagree with it from having an official voice in the Anglican Communion. Your opinion reminds me of those who claim they are oppressed by the fact that others are shaking off their own oppression. If those excluded people finally have a voice, the traditionalists on Dead Horse issues apparently claim that it invalidates the Christian credentials of those who hold fast to their right to suppress people with differing opinions.

Pul-eez.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Well, they're answerable to God. I wonder what He thinks of them? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Steady on, this is Anglicanism we are talking about ...

Everyone knows that the CofE is answerable to the Queen and Parliament that the other Provinces are answerable to who knows who ... ?
[Biased] [Razz]

More seriously, I feel bad even joking about this ... however things pan out it'll be a cause of pain, strain and distress to a great many people.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Euty:
quote:

I'm confused. Your illustration suggested to me that if the minority push was for a "communion" model to replace an existing "global" church, you wouldn't support it, by virtue of it being a minority. Is that what you mean? That basically the minority should always simply leave?
Ah, no, ok sorry that's not what I meant at all. In giving that illustration of a minority push for a communion I was trying to illustrate the situation I personally would find myself in if the roles were reversed.

Posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

In which case, why does it matter so much to GAFCON what TEC says and does; and why does TEC care about what GAFCON says and does?
I'm not sure TEC did care much about what GAFCON et al did to be honest, apart from the concern about the effect it might have on the Communion as a whole. It matters to GAFCON et al what TEC (and others too it must be said) do because they want to restrict that autonomy to create a global Anglican church that allows them to dictate terms to members and have them enacted upon. That, combined with ideas about TEC doing something they consider to be unscriptural and doctrinally un-sound and therefore should face discipline for.

quote:

And why, if you're all so independent and able to act under your own authority, do you even bother to meet and discuss stuff?
Because we are a communion in the sense that we share some things in common; mainly the liturgical tradition, the three-fold orders, shared history, a similar governing system and we work together in areas like mission, social work, elimination of poverty, ecumenical partnerships etc etc etc. To do this work together requires us to be able to come together regardless of difference and work together in a spirit of Christian fraternity. It also helps us - in theory, a theory that has of late collapsed - to work through one another's differences and hopefully understand the approaches and methods of another province that may differ from us and so that we can learn from one another how we appropriate the Gospel in our contexts.....to name but a few things.

quote:

Why not get on with what you do in the US and let the others get on with what they want to do?
Well, I'm actually not in the US, but yes, that would be more or less my stance with an added caveat. I think that a communion can support one another in a particular way. There are times when the persecuted church can have the support of others around the world and greatly benefit from that, there are times when a province might need to make a stand against injustice, corruption and failure within a state and having the backing of the interest of a world wide communion can be extremely beneficial and enabling and equally there are times when a province might do something or be involved in something that the rest of the communion might believe is a wrong direction and can put a finger on it as a point of engagement and something for further consideration, but I don't think suspension (temporary or otherwise) is an effective way of doing that and as I have already extensively pointed out, it only serves to dissolve the ideals of a communion.

quote:

It seems TEC wants to act as it would like and have an opinion about what the others are doing, but doesn't want anyone else to have the freedom to do the same or have an opinion about TEC.
TEC has forced precisely no one in the world wide Anglican communion to do anything in regards their own considerations. they are not asking the rest of the world wide Anglican Communion to do as they do. What they have done certainly raised issues for some clergy and congregations within their own ranks. With hindsight they might have approached things better, but as far as I am aware they did it within the confines and restrictions of their own governing polity. Those who disagreed so strongly as to feel they could not be a part of it any longer at least had the integrity to leave.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Augustine the A:
quote:

Remember how the primates, about twenty years ago, declared a number of Rwandan dioceses vacant on account of their bishops having behaved scandalously during the genocide? Perhaps there were protests against their over-reach then, but I cannot recall them.
I think there was a good bit more to it than that, although I could be wrong in some of the timeline detail, but I do know first hand of their difficulties more recently up to and including 2012/13. I understood that the government had literally usurped the clergy and installed their own corrupt puppets enabling them to elect one of their own as a Primate. As I say, I might be wrong on that front, but I know for sure they did install puppet clergy in order to enact the land and property grabs on behalf of the government which took place up until very recently. It was the same corrupt puppets who were wanting to present themselves as fundamentalists and dismantle their links to the communion so as to have no outside influence in the grab. Many of the 'true' clergy were at pains to let the rest of the world know that the puppets didn't speak for them, neither did they represent the province of Rwanda. It left congregations and clergy having to conduct services in secret in some places or hold services in the open under a tree or in scrub. At no point was the province suspended, but I suspect the reason for that is that it would have provided the government with exactly what it wanted.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Random bit of info from the press conference: Pope, Orthodox and Anglicans meeting with the Coptic Pope to discuss possibility of a fixed date for Easter.

Also Ab Welby appeared to be attempting to row back on the press release from yesterday and the ability of the Primates to do anything about other provinces.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Augustine the A:
quote:

Remember how the primates, about twenty years ago, declared a number of Rwandan dioceses vacant on account of their bishops having behaved scandalously during the genocide? Perhaps there were protests against their over-reach then, but I cannot recall them.
I think there was a good bit more to it than that, although I could be wrong in some of the timeline detail, but I do know first hand of their difficulties more recently up to and including 2012/13. I understood that the government had literally usurped the clergy and installed their own corrupt puppets enabling them to elect one of their own as a Primate. As I say, I might be wrong on that front, but I know for sure they did install puppet clergy in order to enact the land and property grabs on behalf of the government which took place up until very recently. It was the same corrupt puppets who were wanting to present themselves as fundamentalists and dismantle their links to the communion so as to have no outside influence in the grab. Many of the 'true' clergy were at pains to let the rest of the world know that the puppets didn't speak for them, neither did they represent the province of Rwanda. It left congregations and clergy having to conduct services in secret in some places or hold services in the open under a tree or in scrub. At no point was the province suspended, but I suspect the reason for that is that it would have provided the government with exactly what it wanted.
This tangent relates very closely to the authority of the primates and other "instruments of unity" of the Communion, but I think you are referring to a more recent (and regrettable) phenomenon-- one which illustrates how churches are both targets and instruments in dangerously corrupt circumstances.

As idle googlers know, Abp Carey forced the resignation of Primate Augustin Nshamihigo, Archbishop of Kigali, but it is my bad in saying that the primates did the deposing deed. It was the Anglican Consultative Council at its 1996 Panama meeting which declared vacant the sees of Cyangugu, Shyogwe (whose diocesan died awaiting trial at the war crimes tribunal in Nairobi), Kibongo, and Shyria.

Perhaps my point is that a magisterium has developed, and that we have an Anglican mechanism of discipline and restoration in the most extreme circumstances. I have certainly not heard of anyone arguing against the Rwandan depositions of the majority of that independent church's hierarchy, but I would imagine that bishops facilitating genocide falls under most people's breaks-the-rules-entirely perspective.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Demas: GAFCON sez:
Wow, these people are arseholes.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Ah, so they want the Canadians consigned to the Outer Darkness™ too?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I've discovered in recent days that one is well advised not to read the comments on Anglican ink.

If they're going after the ACC then the SEC will be next on the hit list.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
However I'm surprised at the restraint of American shipmates - if I were American I would not be feeling quite so sanguine and would quickly find there are other deserving causes for Episcopal money - and this is over an issue I haven't really got a settled view - or at least I have mixed feelings.
I don't know that I'm sanguine about all this, but we've been taking shit from other provinces in the Anglican Communion over consecrating an openly gay man as bishop since 2003, including being told we are Very Bad at the last Lambeth Conference in 2008, so it's hard to get really excited about this now.

If I got to decide what would happen with TEC money going forward, we would continue all charitable giving overseas but not pay anything toward the administration and meetings of the Anglican Communion. If our bishops can't speak or vote, we shouldn't be paying for other people to show up and tell us we're Very Bad.

I wish they'd kick us out so we wouldn't have to keep discussing homosexuality. All this bullshit about "walking together" just means TEC has to have yet more discussion about something that in the US is basically settled. Gay people can legally get married in the US, TEC ordains gay people and offers the rite of marriage to them, and if TEC has to keep discussing this, we will look like retrograde assholes. People in the anti-gay provinces keep blathering about how we're hurting their witness to Christ in their own countries but have no thought about how much it will hurt our ability to witness to Christ in the US if we have to conform to their cultural norms.

[typos]

[ 15. January 2016, 16:00: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The next issue will be the suspension of other provinces for ordaining gay and lesbian clergy, quickly followed by a desire to tighten the stance on divorce and the remarriage of divorcees in church, a hope for the reversal of the ordination of women (I accept that not all in the enclave desire this, but a substantial number do) and the push for lay presidency.
So many evangelicals have divorcees in their own congrgations that they are unlikely to get very far with that issue.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Depends how far the radical conservatives want to go with their 'Talibanisation'.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates can keep the PB and bishops of TEC from participating in Lambeth and the Primates Meeting. The Anglican Consultative Council can keep the TEC representatives from participating as well. I'm not sure what the endgame is here. TEC isn't going repent. The suspension of TEC will not likely deter other provinces from following the same path of TEC.
It's all pro forma so that when the bishops from Africa & the Southern Cone get stroppy +Welby can point to TEC's slap on the wrist and say, "Look, we did something!"

Politics, innit.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
Cranmer's masterful prose and Tallis and Byrd's Mass Settings.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Demas: GAFCON sez:
Wow, these people are arseholes.
I note it uses the word "sanction".
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note it uses the word "sanction".
Someone asked Ab Welby why there were no GAFCON Primates on the platform with him at the Press Conference, and he said they'd all gone home. He was, though, quite insistent that this was not a sanction, but a "consequence" of the actions of the church in the USA.

I couldn't help thinking that whilst GAFCON were gleeful yesterday at the press release, they're going to be much less pleased at the ABoC's approach at the PC.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
There's an article in the Guardian



here

And I see Chris Bryant has left the CofE which might have happened anyway admittedly but we need news like this like a hole in the head

I'm not gay myself but I do know gay people in my church and I'm just a little concerned by the impact this may have on them

( Looks at Albertus) With regard to the Welsh Church Governing Body discussions I obviously have no idea whether the decision is supported widely by the rank and file - however it would be by the populace at large I think and it may be an indication of trends within the C-i-W generally. At one time we were a lot more conservative than the C-of-E but this now seems to be changing?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.

If he really wanted to be fair, along with imposing sanctions on TEC he should sanction Nigeria and Uganda for suppoorting criminalisation of gays.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Stable doors.Horses. Bolted.....
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Please could somebody who knows clarify something for me? From the Communiqué that Mr Cheesy linked to:-
quote:
"The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching."
What actually does the TEC's canon on marriage now say? Does it agree with that statement or has the doctrine been formally changed?

Ecclesiastical councils of all ages and levels of importance have a long history of dealing in weird mixtures of carefully constructed precision and imprecision. This may sound pedantic, but over time, it may prove to be important.

The RCC doesn't recognise divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox churches and most Protestant churches, including the CofE and I suspect most of the Anglican communion have come to a position where they regard divorce and remarriage as an unfortunate thing that happens. It's not the best, but a necessary concession to human imperfection. So scripture, tradition - and for that matter reason, though it's not mentioned above - uphold marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. We'd all rather all couples could achieve that. Not all do, but 'the majority of those gathered' would I am sure unhesitatingly reaffirm that teaching. Indeed, it would be quite interesting to know who actually did not.

Apart from the RCC, most people can see that coming to accommodation with divorce and remarriage is sad, but does not compromise that reaffirmation.

Likewise, polygamy. I suspect that those churches that have accommodated it, have done so on the basis that 'we'd rather you didn't. It goes against our aspiration for the best way. But if you must, we don't want to throw you out, and we certainly aren't willing to let you use that as an excuse to get rid of a wife that you don't want any more'.


My question is this:- What actually, or perhaps implicitly is the TEC's doctrine on marriage? Do its canons still officially reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union and treat SSM as a concession, 'not perhaps the best, but fidelity and commitment are better than their absence'? Or has it actually changed its doctrine to something on the lines of 'marriage is any faithful, lifelong union between any two people'?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Anglican "apologies" on this issue always translate as "We're really sorry we keep punching you. If it's any consolation, it's really starting to hurt our fists now."
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
He made clear it was a personal apology and that he could not speak for anyone else. The subtext was that there were others who would not agree with his apology (and it appeared that even one of the Primates on the panel disagreed with his words..)

quote:
If he really wanted to be fair, along with imposing sanctions on TEC he should sanction Nigeria and Uganda for suppoorting criminalisation of gays.
He was very clear that the media was wrong in calling the exclusion of the ECUSA "sanctions".

He was also clear that he (and the other Primates) had no power to sanction anyone - which still leaves unanswered exactly what happened. Presumably the only explanation can be that the church in the USA is being asked to exclude itself from various offices of the Anglican Communion.

If that's the case, presumably it is free to refuse to.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Why did they choose something with the acronym GAFCON? It seems to be made up from the components of gaff, as in awful mistake, and con, as in confidence trick, and I can't hear it seriously.

Though their self satisfaction does make me feel that even with women priests and bishops now, I am still outside Anglicanism.

It seems like an obsession with what people do with what is between their legs, when what makes us human, what makes us in the image of God, lies above the waist. It is how we use our senses to communicate with others, how we reach out to others with love, that love which we feel with our heads and our hearts (yes, I know that that part of us has not a lot to do with emotion, but it's where we feel it, and has been recognised as that down the centuries). "My true love has my heart, and I have his" wrote Philip Sidney, presumably to another man, in a poem celebrating something wonderfully human. I don't see or hear a recognition of this wonder in GAFCON's pronouncements. I've heard in my head today a phrase I can't place "head, heart, and hand," where the hand is our acting to do God's work, and all three together being tied together in expressing love.

Yet it is those parts we share with the other primates the Primates were concerned with. They are like Hamlet, faced with the piece of work which we are, are not delighted.

I am sorry for their narrow view. And a part of me is also sorry for their wives.

[ 15. January 2016, 17:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He was very clear that the media was wrong in calling the exclusion of the ECUSA "sanctions".
Gafcon did in their press release.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Gafcon did in their press release.
Yes. As I said, I'm not expecting GAFCON to be very pleased with the press conference.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Enoch asks:
quote:
My question is this:- What actually, or perhaps implicitly is the TEC's doctrine on marriage? Do its canons still officially reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union and treat SSM as a concession, 'not perhaps the best, but fidelity and commitment are better than their absence'? Or has it actually changed its doctrine to something on the lines of 'marriage is any faithful, lifelong union between any two people'?
Canon 18.2.b once read: That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong

and, as far as I can figure out from the General Convention 2015, it has been amended by the House of Bishops Resolution, which was concurred with, which made it effective Advent 2015. Perhaps someone for familiar with TEC-speak can confirm this?
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Here's Giles Fraser's take before the communique and the GAFCON release. Loose Canon in the Grauniad

The comments are indeed free. Sometimes of reason.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
Cranmer's masterful prose and Tallis and Byrd's Mass Settings.
Cranmer's prose is nice, but, having made the move to the Lutherans some time ago, I'm more than willing to take Praetorius, Bach, et al. as compensation for the loss of Tallis and Byrd.

I'd have some more things to say about this to members of the Episcopal Church. Namely: You are already in full communion with the largest American Lutheran synod, itself a member of an international body of churches -- so why not pursue, ahem, "ever-closer union" with the ELCA? The Anglican Communion wants to be the church for the British Commonwealth, and that's just not us. Let's move on.

I have to say that I have been made welcome in Lutheran churches -- everywhere, from the Berliner Dom to the Klosterkirche in Neuruppin to the little church I worship at in Florida -- in a way I never felt welcome in any church in the Anglican Communion, whether in the US or Canada or in the UK. Somehow, wherever I was, I felt the Anglican congregations were most concerned with sizing me (personally) up - asking "Is she (really) one of us?"

The Lutherans, on the other hand have all been too busy doing things, living their faith. They want to know what I can do, not whether I am one of them. Maybe it's the lingering Pietism, I don't know. I do find it refreshing.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Church Times sez:

The Primate of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), Dr Foley Beach, was a full, voting participant in the Primates’ gathering in Canterbury.

He said on Friday that he was handed a ballot paper on Thursday to vote on the fate of the Episcopal Church in the United States but declined it.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Question: why three years - what's the significance of that time frame?
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In TEC their General Convention is supreme and the Presiding Bishop can't bind it. It next meets in 2018 so presumably they intend to come back to the question in the light of what the General Convention does.
And it gives time for the Primates to boot out TEC before the next Lambeth Conference in 2020, making it so much nicer.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:


It seems like an obsession with what people do with what is between their legs, when what makes us human, what makes us in the image of God, lies above the waist.
Some people believe that what a person chooses to do with his genitals is trivial and unconnected to the state of his soul. This idea is a fairly novel one among Christians, though, and doesn't seem to be held by most of them.

And therein lies the problem.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates can keep the PB and bishops of TEC from participating in Lambeth and the Primates Meeting. The Anglican Consultative Council can keep the TEC representatives from participating as well. I'm not sure what the endgame is here. TEC isn't going repent. The suspension of TEC will not likely deter other provinces from following the same path of TEC.
It's all pro forma so that when the bishops from Africa & the Southern Cone get stroppy +Welby can point to TEC's slap on the wrist and say, "Look, we did something!"

Politics, innit.
Welby is just delaying the inevitable.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He was also clear that he (and the other Primates) had no power to sanction anyonehat's the case, presumably it is free to refuse to.
But he could have pointed out that the desire of Ugandans and Nigerians to imprison gays is against official Anglican agreements.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:


It seems like an obsession with what people do with what is between their legs, when what makes us human, what makes us in the image of God, lies above the waist.
Some people believe that what a person chooses to do with his genitals is trivial and unconnected to the state of his soul. This idea is a fairly novel one among Christians, though, and doesn't seem to be held by most of them.

And therein lies the problem.
I didn't say it wasn't important. I said there was an obsession with it, to the exclusion of other more important matters. If what is done is regardless of relationships, and abusive, it is clearly relevant to the state of someone's soul, negatively. If it is done in love - real love, not the sort that uses "speaking the truth in love" as spiritual putting down and bullying - it is also relevant to the state of someone's soul, positively. Surely?

Domestic violence and coercion of women into cowed subservience would seem to me to be much worse than two people who love each other doing whatever they do. And yet those things have been not merely allowed, but encouraged in the past. And the present.

And as for the churches' records with regard to what people have chosen to do with their genitals to children - well, they aren't exactly in the best position to complain about the loving consensual relationships of adults, are they?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates can keep the PB and bishops of TEC from participating in Lambeth and the Primates Meeting. The Anglican Consultative Council can keep the TEC representatives from participating as well. I'm not sure what the endgame is here. TEC isn't going repent. The suspension of TEC will not likely deter other provinces from following the same path of TEC.
It's all pro forma so that when the bishops from Africa & the Southern Cone get stroppy +Welby can point to TEC's slap on the wrist and say, "Look, we did something!"

Politics, innit.
Welby is just delaying the inevitable.
I couldn't agree more. +Williams dodged the bullet; I should start laying odds on the (diminishing?) likelihood that +Welby will do the same.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Church Times sez:

The Primate of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), Dr Foley Beach, was a full, voting participant in the Primates’ gathering in Canterbury.

He said on Friday that he was handed a ballot paper on Thursday to vote on the fate of the Episcopal Church in the United States but declined it.
Groan... The trouble with 'informal' and unconstituted bodies like the Primates' Meeting is that there are no rules about proper voting and decision-making, so any old so-called Archbishop can take part if invited. It also means that any method of voting can be used - simple majority, absolute majority, two-thirds, consensus ('black balling' as gentlemen's clubs used to call it). So the majority that decided that TEC is to reflect on its errors for the next three years has as much legitimacy as any other random group of middle-aged men (and one woman) deciding that they don't like what one of them is doing.

If Christianity wasn't about hope, I would despair. But I am, in the words of St Marvin, "feeling very depressed".
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I'm wondering with the Primates meeting of whether or not different national churches in the Communion have radically different approaches to church polity. Yes, Anglicanism is an episcopal denomination with bishops, but Canada, the US, and to some degree the UK have adopted synodical government as a way to bring a democratic spirit into church governance. Other countries may have a more traditional "Bishop is Lord" approach in which little input is given to the laity, or even the clergy.

Bishops/Primates in some countries may not be used to being challenged in terms of theology, by their peers or their colleagues. In which case, conversation or mutual dialogue with TEC might be difficult because while ++Curry may be expected to listen to those who disagree with him, he also expects that others would be willing to listen to him, and thus TEC's position.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
Aka the nuclear option? That sure doesn't sound like the voluntary meeting of autonomous churches that most of the Anglicans here have been describing. Like the other non-A's here, I don't have a dog in this fight. But this statement really struck me. "We are going to change the nature of our communion such that we can tell one of our members what to do whenever they piss us off." Definitely looks like a power grab to this outside observer.
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
A few thoughts:

1) I think the big, unanswered question is the involvement of the archbishop of the Anglican Church in North American, the Most Rev. Foley Beach. By all accounts, he fully participated with voice and vote in the primates' meeting.* Numerous reports have also indicated he was given a ballot to vote on the measure suspending the Episcopal Church's ability to fully participate in the "life and work" of the Anglican Communion for the next three years. This is, however, where it gets murky. Beach, as well as Church Times, claim he recused himself. However, Beach's ACNA bishop for Canada has publicly claimed that Beach and other GAFCON primates walked out when the measure wasn't of their liking. Either way, it's clear that the ACNA is now a de facto province. However, the closing statement issued at the primates' meeting said the ACNA would have to apply for membership. This is very unusual. If the ACNA isn't a province then he shouldn't been given voice and vote. Plain and simple, if you ask me. Regardless, I think ACNA membership is a forgone conclusion.

2) Some of the comments about the conservatives in the Anglican Communion unfairly treating liberals are ill-informed at best and ignorant at worse. The reality is the Episcopal Church has been as heavy-handed, if not worse, than the ACNA and GAFCON. All parties, as the archbishop of Canterbury alluded to in his opening remarks of the primates' meeting, haven't always conducted themselves in the best possible of manner concerning differences of theology and doctrine. For example, the Episcopal Church has more or less made it impossible for any traditional-minded would-be clergyman to be ordained in all but a couple of dioceses -- let alone any new traditional bishops.

3) The reality is the Episcopal Church's general convention will not repent nor reverse course on gay marriage. This is clear by the vast majority of responses issued over the past 24 hours. In fact, only the Episcopal bishop of Springfield, one of the few remaining traditionalists, seems to support what the Anglican Communion did. Many others have essentially flipped the middle-finger to the Anglican Communion and its more conservative provinces. It's therefore probably inevitable -- assuming the political majority of this week's primates' meeting is maintained -- that the Episcopal Church will be subject to further discipline, if not expulsion, in three years time by which point the ACNA will presumably be a full province.

4) A point of personal privilege. I find the position of the left in the Anglican Communion very troubling, as it's neocolonial in that they are appalled that the "provincials" in Africa would dare challenge their theology.

* Supposedly, this was originally called a "gathering" but the Anglican Communion office itself called it a "primates' meeting.:
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
Aka the nuclear option? That sure doesn't sound like the voluntary meeting of autonomous churches that most of the Anglicans here have been describing. Like the other non-A's here, I don't have a dog in this fight. But this statement really struck me. "We are going to change the nature of our communion such that we can tell one of our members what to do whenever they piss us off." Definitely looks like a power grab to this outside observer.
Yes, that's what they want and have been trying to get since Gene Robinson.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
The reality is the Episcopal Church has been as heavy-handed, if not worse, than the ACNA and GAFCON. All parties, as the archbishop of Canterbury alluded to in his opening remarks of the primates' meeting, haven't always conducted themselves in the best possible of manner concerning differences of theology and doctrine. For example, the Episcopal Church has more or less made it impossible for any traditional-minded would-be clergyman to be ordained in all but a couple of dioceses -- let alone any new traditional bishops.
But isn't this apple-and-oranging? You're comparing what the TEC does within its own walls with other provinces trying to make TEC toe the line. Does TEC try to force African churches/dioceses to be liberal? THAT is the comparison. What happens intra TEC, although great for making ad hominem attacks, isn't analogous.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
A point of personal privilege. I find the position of the left in the Anglican Communion very troubling, as it's neocolonial in that they are appalled that the "provincials" in Africa would dare challenge their theology.
Who has called the African Anglicans "provincials"?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
The reality is the Episcopal Church has been as heavy-handed, if not worse, than the ACNA and GAFCON. All parties, as the archbishop of Canterbury alluded to in his opening remarks of the primates' meeting, haven't always conducted themselves in the best possible of manner concerning differences of theology and doctrine. For example, the Episcopal Church has more or less made it impossible for any traditional-minded would-be clergyman to be ordained in all but a couple of dioceses -- let alone any new traditional bishops.
But isn't this apple-and-oranging? You're comparing what the TEC does within its own walls with other provinces trying to make TEC toe the line. Does TEC try to force African churches/dioceses to be liberal? THAT is the comparison. What happens intra TEC, although great for making ad hominem attacks, isn't analogous.
Thank you. You said what I wanted to say, but put it much better than I could have.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
So how many other Anglican churches are likely to endorse same-sex marriage? And if some do, can they still be in Communion with TEC? And if the English Church endorses same-sex marriage will they be ejected from the Communion?
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
With you on this. I left the church 8 years ago, but I am angrier than I can understand about what's happened. Essentially, the bishops are endorsing the state and church-sanctioned murder of gay and lesbian people in Africa.

Whatever one thinks about the TEC, no one was likely to DIE from their stance.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The idea that TEC not electing (and we are talking about election) bigoted Bishops is the same as GAFCON trying to force its bigotry on TEC is ridiculous. A more pertinent question in that comparison would be where are the liberal, LGBT-friendly Bishops in the GAFCON provinces? Or even in the CofE? Either silenced or their appointments avoided. The CofE has been deprived of an excellent Bishop in Jeffrey John to appease these vile views.

The allegation of colonialism against TEC is a bit of a rich one to level at a black descendant of slaves being bullied by an English public school boy.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The idea that TEC not electing (and we are talking about election) bigoted Bishops is the same as GAFCON trying to force its bigotry on TEC is ridiculous. A more pertinent question in that comparison would be where are the liberal, LGBT-friendly Bishops in the GAFCON provinces? Or even in the CofE? Either silenced or their appointments avoided. The CofE has been deprived of an excellent Bishop in Jeffrey John to appease these vile views.

The allegation of colonialism against TEC is a bit of a rich one to level at a black descendant of slaves being bullied by an English public school boy.
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
So, everyone - every single person - who says 'I believe that marriage is a voluntary union between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others,' is as you describe them?

And, as far as the members of GAFCON are concerned, you KNOW that they each subscribe to that view of criminalisaing homosexuals and equating it with paedophilia? Every one, every member and supporter, and all the Bishops from whatever country they come, including Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali?

It's a bit of a blanket judgment, don't you think?

[ 16. January 2016, 09:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
I have come across the first,in Uganda, recently. It used to be the law here as well, though and Russia , which last i say was not Anglican, seems to be headed the same way. Do you have any evidence of the second charge?

[ 16. January 2016, 09:50: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
Having seen the look of him on the news, i think he might end up resigning.

I actually hope not because i don't really think there is really anyone else better qualified to sort this one.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I have come across the first,in Uganda, recently. It used to be the law here as well, though and Russia , which last i say was not Anglican, seems to be headed the same way. Do you have any evidence of the second charge?
Just a couple of weeks ago the head of so-called "Anglican Mainstream" was claiming that the laws passed in Uganda were there to protect children, and Ugandan leaders have said much the same thing. As to whether all of GAFCON supports that, I've certainly not heard them condemn it. The very fact that allowing gay people to marry is deemed more worthy of condemnation than advocating life imprisonment of gay people and accusing them of preying on children tells me enough.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

And want to enforce their view on the TEC which doesn't share it

That's why it's bigotry. It's not just "I believe in Traditional View X", it's "And you must do as well".
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Yes, must, not should.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
Aka the nuclear option? That sure doesn't sound like the voluntary meeting of autonomous churches that most of the Anglicans here have been describing. Like the other non-A's here, I don't have a dog in this fight. But this statement really struck me. "We are going to change the nature of our communion such that we can tell one of our members what to do whenever they piss us off." Definitely looks like a power grab to this outside observer.
Might this also carry the implied warning that this can be turned around and used on the originators of this, somewhere down the road?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Having seen the look of him on the news, i think he might end up resigning.

I actually hope not because i don't really think there is really anyone else better qualified to sort this one.
Gene Robinson?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:

It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.
I'm actually coming increasingly to the conclusion that the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriages and whatever else related is not the issue at all. Instead it is a lynch pin; something to hang an agenda upon. Now I know this might be straying into the realm of paranoia, but we have had over a decade of debates, meetings, convocations, consultations, conversations - you name it, we have done it, and still it comes down to one thing: get TEC out by any means necessary, or have them reverse their decisions they made in good faith and make them publicly repent to the rest of the world wide Anglican Communion. The fact that other provinces are not suspended or asked to publicly repent to the rest of the communion for their corruption, their entanglements with genocide, their polygamy, their insistence upon the use of lay presidency, their lack of liturgy, their silence and complicity with power, their doctrinal errors ...... and the list could go on and on and on....seems a tiny bit strange. Why does this particular issue serve as the the one single issue in all of that to be the one that should enact this response and activity? Might it be because it is easy to detect?

I actually think Mousethief is right; it is an attempt to make a hostile take over and a grab at power and influence so that the Communion can be directed towards a global Anglican church. I think they genuinely believe they can be the ones to keep such a thing together and be the ones to call themselves the 'genuine' Anglicans. I don't believe for one moment that they are capable of keeping it together. I think if they got what they wanted the nature of the beast means they would end up turning on each other. It would be nothing more than the beginning of the end because the issue is not homosexuality of any of its related issues; it is about the core of the Anglican communion and as such is a nothing more than a mirror of what else is going on in the modern world today.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
it is about the core of the Anglican communion and as such is a nothing more than a mirror of what else is going on in the modern world today.
Which is...?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
See every post I've made above regarding the Communion.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
Thanks, Mudfrog. I agree with you. I think that it is important to accept that people are divided on this issue everywhere. Even where SSM is accepted by the majority, there is still a very large majority that does not agree.

I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Sorry, I meant a large minority does not agree. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The idea that TEC not electing (and we are talking about election) bigoted Bishops is the same as GAFCON trying to force its bigotry on TEC is ridiculous. A more pertinent question in that comparison would be where are the liberal, LGBT-friendly Bishops in the GAFCON provinces? Or even in the CofE? Either silenced or their appointments avoided. The CofE has been deprived of an excellent Bishop in Jeffrey John to appease these vile views.

The allegation of colonialism against TEC is a bit of a rich one to level at a black descendant of slaves being bullied by an English public school boy.
What public school boy? And TEC is a large and complex organization, and is more than Bishop Curry (who appears to me to be a more interesting and articulate PB than we've seen in some time)-- we are looking at an encounter between two groups of visions of Anglicanism, complicated by first-third world factors and (unnecessarily, but maybe it's me) by the work of some very negative factions.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Thanks, Mudfrog. I agree with you. I think that it is important to accept that people are divided on this issue everywhere. Even where SSM is accepted by the majority, there is still a very large majority that does not agree.

I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
I have a modest amount of time, though not much, for the view that same sex and opposite sex marriage might be different things and need different names, and such a view can be held honourably (even if it does sound an awful lot like complementarianism). Pretending that calling loving relationships marriage is worse than homophobia is not a credible position whatsoever and can only stand if you think there is something fundamentally wrong with being gay which is a position rooted in bigotry, akin to the curse of Ham.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
o it was rhetoric. I had spent a few minutes looking on the web for something about this. Given that he's not the first Abp of Canterbury who's tried to square the circle, I don't know if I would have personalized it thus. In any case I would have blamed his corporate management background more than his schooling, over which he really didn't have much choice-- and in any case, the public schools of Britain and Ireland have produced quite a variety of products over the year (Elf Aquitaine less so).
At this point, he is likely trying anything which might work.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but I'm pretty sure that the traditional marriage view take the line that it's not what you see that's important but whether you're right. According to most traditionalists, as I understand it, the sincerity with which a view is held is no defence if that view is wrong.
If the proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm, and they are wrong, as they are, then they are doubly condemned.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
o it was rhetoric. I had spent a few minutes looking on the web for something about this. Given that he's not the first Abp of Canterbury who's tried to square the circle, I don't know if I would have personalized it thus. In any case I would have blamed his corporate management background more than his schooling, over which he really didn't have much choice-- and in any case, the public schools of Britain and Ireland have produced quite a variety of products over the year (Elf Aquitaine less so).
At this point, he is likely trying anything which might work.
My issue is less with his methods than with his goals - he clearly thinks it's worth throwing LGBT Anglicans overboard to keep in with GAFCON.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If the proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm, and they are wrong, as they are, then they are doubly condemned.
I see.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
Having seen the look of him on the news, i think he might end up resigning.

I actually hope not because i don't really think there is really anyone else better qualified to sort this one.
With slight reluctance, I agree.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by fletcher christian
quote:
I'm actually coming increasingly to the conclusion that the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriages and whatever else related is not the issue at all. Instead it is a lynch pin; something to hang an agenda upon. Now I know this might be straying into the realm of paranoia, but we have had over a decade of debates, meetings, convocations, consultations, conversations - you name it, we have done it, and still it comes down to one thing: get TEC out by any means necessary, or have them reverse their decisions they made in good faith and make them publicly repent to the rest of the world wide Anglican Communion. The fact that other provinces are not suspended or asked to publicly repent to the rest of the communion for their corruption, their entanglements with genocide, their polygamy, their insistence upon the use of lay presidency, their lack of liturgy, their silence and complicity with power, their doctrinal errors ...... and the list could go on and on and on....seems a tiny bit strange. Why does this particular issue serve as the the one single issue in all of that to be the one that should enact this response and activity? Might it be because it is easy to detect?
[Overused]

Thank you: you have summarised far better than I ever could my feelings about this whole, shameful episode.

The icing on this poisonous cake, of course, is the hypocritical statement from the ABofC about the treatment of LGBTI people by the Church of England which, coming so hot-on-the heels of the grubby treatment of TEC and Canada, seems almost calculated to highlight that in all probability he is speaking tongue-in-cheek with this so-called apology.

I've been CofE all my life, and I've devoted (still do) hours of my time to its music: I'll continue to do the latter but as for considering it 'my' church, forget it. Welby, Sentamu and the other grubby apologists for institutional homophobia don't represent me and, IMO, only bring the CofE I grew up with into disrepute with this shabby behaviour.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What public school boy?
Archbishop Justin, who permitted and facilitated this travesty of justice, including inviting a schismatic sect to join the meeting as a full participant.
o it was rhetoric. I had spent a few minutes looking on the web for something about this. Given that he's not the first Abp of Canterbury who's tried to square the circle, I don't know if I would have personalized it thus. In any case I would have blamed his corporate management background more than his schooling, over which he really didn't have much choice-- and in any case, the public schools of Britain and Ireland have produced quite a variety of products over the year (Elf Aquitaine less so).
At this point, he is likely trying anything which might work.
My issue is less with his methods than with his goals - he clearly thinks it's worth throwing LGBT Anglicans overboard to keep in with GAFCON.
Ah. My reading of it is different. I thought that he was trying to emulate what happened in Canada, keeping the subject on the table long enough, avoiding a firm conclusion as discussion continued as the surrounding society shifted its views, so that it come to an inevitable resolution. This was an untidy and sometimes painful process- those who know me IRL are aware of my experience with this (I still think of having been denounced at Vestry as a Tool of Satan is perhaps something I should put in my curriculum vitae). Continuing face-to-face discussion makes it difficult for the more traditionally-minded to walk out, as it makes it more difficult for the other side to play its own politics. The regrettable absence of the African bishops at Lambeth (the most serious Bad Thing which I ascribe to Gafcon) retarded the process considerably.

I hadn't seen Abp Welby's statement as throwing LG&c Xians overboard, but a (possibly necessary unpleasant) political manoeuvre as part of this approach. Whether or not it's a theologically supportable approach is another thread, likely in Dead Horses.

It's a delicate balance between moving carefully with a view to engaging one's opposition or pushing to a resolution which crystallizes a long-standing divide. My analysis might be considered too optimistic or too cynical, but I worked on the fringes of political life for a while and this has perhaps warped my perspective.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
hypocritical...condemned...shameful...shabby...grubby apologists...public schoolboy...

You see, you just can't argue your position without personal attacks on people who have been placed in leadership and who hold (or may hold) a different view to you.

Bigotry, rudeness and hate-speech, work both ways you know...
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Mudfrog: Bigotry, rudeness and hate-speech, work both ways you know...
Yet in Canterbury, only one side excluded the other side.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I saw Welby's apology as stating that he was terribly sorry for all the hurt that the church caused and that the church really did condemn homophobia and gays and lesbians shouldn't be criminalised, treated differently, persecuted or be left out of church life.......and then I thought, wait he forgot a bit: ....but you can't be ordained and we'd really rather you just went away somewhere else.

But hey, let's be real, that's just a tangent to to the real show.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
hypocritical...condemned...shameful...shabby...grubby apologists...public schoolboy...

You see, you just can't argue your position without personal attacks on people who have been placed in leadership and who hold (or may hold) a different view to you.

Bigotry, rudeness and hate-speech, work both ways you know...
Oh yes, it's terrible how we're so intolerant of bigots. Bullshit. Jesus had no problem with stern rhetoric for oppressors in positions of religious authority.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.
Well I don't think this - it is entirely possible to believe something about the nature of marriage without going on to believe that homosexuals should therefore be imprisoned and murdered.

Just as it is entirely possible to believe that only ordained Priests should administer the Eucharist without at the same time believing that all other Christian groups who remember the Lord's Supper in a different ways should be imprisoned and murdered.

The point here is that some of the Anglican Primates have in the past expressed support for draconian laws against homosexuals. And the Anglican church in many countries has a poor record for standing against oppression of minorities including homosexuals.

Understandably, I think, homosexuals and minorities have experienced being left out by their church see it in terms of oppression and discrimination. I think they're entitled to do that without other in a privileged position (often outside the church under discussion) engaging in unhelpful "hitting down" of those people who genuinely feel the church has made them feel second-class Christians.

See what I did there, Mudfrog? I don't agree with SSM in church, I'm in the Anglican church, but I still see the validity of another argument without resorting to vindictive counter-claims that the excluded are being oppressive.

quote:
Mudfrog continued in another thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
So, everyone - every single person - who says 'I believe that marriage is a voluntary union between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others,' is as you describe them?
This was a particularly odd thing to write, particularly as a response some saying that those who want to murder and imprison homosexuals are bigots. You might like to consider whether you are actually responding to the words written or only the ones that appear in your head.

quote:
And, as far as the members of GAFCON are concerned, you KNOW that they each subscribe to that view of criminalisaing homosexuals and equating it with paedophilia? Every one, every member and supporter, and all the Bishops from whatever country they come, including Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali?
I have nothing kind to say about Michael Nazir-Ali, however I did once meet Bishop Mouneer Anis, the Anglican Primate for the Middle East. I did not get the sense that he subscribes to the criminalisation of homosexuality, although I suspect he might believe in equating it with paedophilia.

I genuinely found Bishop Anis to be a nice person. I don't know if that answers your question.

quote:
It's a bit of a blanket judgment, don't you think?
I think one can be judged by the company you keep. So if you decide to voluntarily associate with people who think it is acceptable to make vicious comments about minorities, then it isn't a great surprise when people associate you with them.

In Bishop Anis' case I think that's unfortunate - although I also think he is a difficult (and rather stupid) position within the Anglican Communion hierarchy. In contrast, I think Michael Nazir-Ali is a complete arse who nobody should give the time of day to.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

And want to enforce their view on the TEC which doesn't share it

That's why it's bigotry. It's not just "I believe in Traditional View X", it's "And you must do as well".
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, so they want the Canadians consigned to the Outer Darkness™ too?
So sayeth the CBC. Warned we are.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
From ignorance and insensitivity, I came understood the issue as one of human rights and the core of Christian love. Inescapable. I had introduced a motion at a vestry meeting almost a decade ago, spoke to it at the annual general meeting, and we voted, exact wording not remembered, which declared our unequivocal support, deploring discrimination and desire for marital equality. I believe this sort of behaviour is why we might be on warning. I am happy to be on warning.

The question arises how to cultivate a Christian response when others condemn us so thoroughly. I am at the point in my thinking (have been for a years years) where I think we might be better by disengaging. Along the lines ignoring the bad behaviour of misbehaving child, and only paying attention if they stop their tantrums.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Looking again at the statement by this kangaroo court, sorry, Primates' Meeting, it is actually about as weak as it could possibly be while still putting some sanctions on TEC. They're suspended from representing the Communion and from its decision making for the next three years- but how much of that would they actually be doing in that period? I don't know. It left out the ACC and generally didn't go far enough for the Archbishop of (no discussing)Uganda(with other men, please)or some of the other GAFCON crowd.
But then, you ask, why do it at all? Exactly. The classic compromiser's attempt to do only a little bit of injustice, which leaves everybody unsatisfied.
Did Welby go along with this? I'd have thought so, from what I know of him (nothing that's not in the public domain). But of course we don't know for sure how he voted, do we, and if he had voted against, would he actually have been able to stop it? He's not a Pope. His past form is what we should assess him on.
I find myself coming back to something I believe +Pete said on these boards once, to the effect that 'I'm not an Anglican; I'm CofE'. I suspect for different reasons, I have come more and more to see myself as primarily CinW (CofE formerly). It's nice to be in communion with other churches of a CofE ancestry and I'd certainly be saddened if the CinW and the CofE fell out with each other. But what do we need an Anglican Communion for? Would the bottom fall out of my spiritual and ecclesiastical world if the Church of Uganda - or for that matter TEC- went its own way? Nope.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
I must have missed the part in the Canterbury Communique where the "ignorant Third World former colonies" were told that they had to go away and repent for three years before they'll be able to return as full members of the Anglican Communion. Maybe you can point me to it?
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
I must have missed the part in the Canterbury Communique where the "ignorant Third World former colonies" were told that they had to go away and repent for three years before they'll be able to return as full members of the Anglican Communion. Maybe you can point me to it?
I must have missed the bit where TEC were told to go away and 'repent'.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's why it's bigotry. It's not just "I believe in Traditional View X", it's "And you must do as well".
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
And when, pray tell, did TEC say that?

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Might this also carry the implied warning that this can be turned around and used on the originators of this, somewhere down the road?
At the risk of introducing a tangent, this also doesn't seem to occur to the theocrats in the United States who wish to break down the wall of separation between church and state. Today you're on the up side. But the whole nation is turning areligious, and karma is a bitch.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why does this particular issue serve as the the one single issue in all of that to be the one that should enact this response and activity? Might it be because it is easy to detect?
Worldwide religious Zeitgeist. It's the shibboleth of the moment. The moment will pass, but not before it does a lot of damage to a lot of lives.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
One word: suicide.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended. They've got three years to reflect on their choices, then they'll be permanently planked. If you're a member of an organization, and majority of members have decided on a certain policy, then you basically have two choices.

Neither are TEC trying to 'force' Uganda and Nigeria to change their policies. But neither do I see TEC acknowledging their right to determine their own cultural policies, or indeed their right to maintain a traditional doctrinal position.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.
What rules? Who came up with these rules? When did TEC or anyone else agree to be bound by them? As for the claim that nobody is trying to force TEC to do anything, what exactly would trying to force them look like if this wasn't it? Archespicopal stormtroopers assaulting Washington National Cathedral?
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
Just to clarify this point, my comment relates to the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC, against which I'm suggesting that it is a matter of the kettle calling the pot black, and that the actions and words of the 'progressives' might possibly be construed as cultural imperialism on the part of America and her allies.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Once again, this whole question is reduced to doctrinal abstraction, as if those of inconvenient sexuality were a creation of TEC's policies, and had been unjustly wished on the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Tell me this: how many people will be actually harmed by TEC's approach to sexuality? And how many by the support of the Ugandan and Nigerian churches for the policies of their governments, which would wish to erase homosexuality and those of that sexuality from the face of the earth?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC
Bigotry is the expression in action of determined prejudice, i.e. decision in advance of, or in the absence of, evidence. Traditionalists condemn themselves all the time from their own mouths, by their determined lack of love. That is bigotry.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Just to clarify this point, my comment relates to the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC, against which I'm suggesting that it is a matter of the kettle calling the pot black, and that the actions and words of the 'progressives' might possibly be construed as cultural imperialism on the part of America and her allies.
Whereas the apologism for the bigotry of some Africans might well be construed as patronising cultural relativism.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.
What rules? Who came up with these rules? When did TEC or anyone else agree to be bound by them? As for the claim that nobody is trying to force TEC to do anything, what exactly would trying to force them look like if this wasn't it? Archespicopal stormtroopers assaulting Washington National Cathedral?
Nobody is trying to force TEC to change, because nobody has any real expectation that they will. And as to the membership rules, you'll have to ask the Abp - presumably, they are more in the nature of an implicit understanding, rather than a written declaration. But they do seem to exist, otherwise TEC wouldn't have been excluded.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.
What rules? Who came up with these rules? When did TEC or anyone else agree to be bound by them?
Herein lies the problem. Those rules were just this week invented.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whereas the apologism for the bigotry of some Africans might well be construed as patronising cultural relativism.
It's only patronizing when you think you automatically know best.
 
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :
 
Cynic that I am I trust none of the churches which pressed for the US Episcopalians to be excluded or punished will ask that same church for financial aid over the next three years?

On a more elevated level as someone from another tradition engaged in formal dialogue with Anglicans I wonder how this will impact on the ecumenical scene.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
I know, it's disgraceful the way Peter Jensen wants to lecture Desmond Tutu about how homosexual relations are sinful. A clear example of white privilege.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whereas the apologism for the bigotry of some Africans might well be construed as patronising cultural relativism.
It's only patronizing when you think you automatically know best.
Interesting* how you slipped the adverb in there. Your evidence that TEC thinks it automatically knows best would be?

_______
*where by "interesting" I mean "straw man" and/or "moving the goalposts."

[ 16. January 2016, 17:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to force TEC to change, because nobody has any real expectation that they will. And as to the membership rules, you'll have to ask the Abp - presumably, they are more in the nature of an implicit understanding, rather than a written declaration. But they do seem to exist, otherwise TEC wouldn't have been excluded.
That doesn't follow in the slightest. If the rules exist, why did GAFCON try to create them a few years ago when they demanded an Anglican Covenant (which even the CofE rejected)? I've seen a lot of commentary that says the Primates can't force TEC to withdraw from e.g. the Anglican Consultative Council, they simply don't have that authority. The ABC is trying to create rules and structures on the hoof in the hope that nobody will spot they're a paper tiger.

And just because GAFCON won't succeed in forcing TEC to fall into line with them doesn't mean they're not trying. Why all the demands and threats if they're not trying to force a change?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tell me this: how many people will be actually harmed by TEC's approach to sexuality?
I would think that anyone would know the conservative answer to this. You don't have to agree with a point of view to understand it.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I think the best idea for the Anglican Church in Canada would be to not wait and leave now with our American cousins. There is no going back.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.
Has TEC been suspended by anyone who actually has the power to suspend? Where is that power and the ways to do it spelled out in the governing principles of the Anglican communion?

Way upthread I got the impression this meeting had no actual authority to do anything binding on anyone, and the voting procedures were ad hoc invented at the meeting, and the whole thing is a bunch of people trying to usurp power to impose their doctrine on other, independent, churches.

See the demise of the Southern Baptist Convention 20 years ago for a strong parallel - it was an association of independent church that had doctrinal differences but a similar overall style and emphasis on evangelism. Conservatives decided to destroy the association, make it instead a centralized organization with new strong powers never before held by Southern Baptist presidents. All member churches (and professors in their universities, whether or not their topic was religion) were newly subject to narrow doctrinal tests that had never been universally agreed! After a long battle, churches split and communities of churches broke off as regional associations. The rulers of the new centralized denomination are proud of their victory in destroying the concept of association of churches.

Same will happen here if the conservatives are allowed to declare new rules for meetings and new powers for themselves, in the hope of appeasing them. Power seekers won't honestly "look for ways to get along together somehow" if their goal is to remake the Anglican Communion in their own image with them dictating required beliefs far outside the creed.

Stop thinking compromise can keeps us all together with all our disagreements. If some primates want a wholly different association of churches that runs on wholly different principles than the longstanding Anglican Communion, let them go build their own, not destroy this one just to keep them coming to our meetings.
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Same will happen here if the conservatives are allowed to declare new rules for meetings and new powers for themselves, in the hope of appeasing them. Power seekers won't honestly "look for ways to get along together somehow" if their goal is to remake the Anglican Communion in their own image with them dictating required beliefs far outside the creed.
Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed". It´s not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". It´s obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesn´t believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but it´s even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". It´s obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesn´t believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but it´s even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.
[Cool] [Angel] [Cool]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". It´s obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesn´t believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but it´s even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.
[Cool] [Angel] [Cool]
And where in this is the argument, as opposed to feebly sarcastic abuse?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed". It´s not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". It´s obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesn´t believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but it´s even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.
You'll be able to demonstrate that the General Convention has repudiated the creeds, then? Or do you simply mean that TEC chooses not to discipline people for expressing heterodox views? Last I checked the CofE had priests who denied the resurrection too, and failed to discipline them. Besides which GAFCON and co have made it abundantly clear that their real issue is sexuality, which is why all their concrete demands focus on that. They're not calling for Spong to be expelled from TEC's house of Bishops, for example (though I might have some sympathy for that).
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed".
Or do you simply mean that TEC chooses not to discipline people for expressing heterodox views? Last I checked the CofE had priests who denied the resurrection too, and failed to discipline them. They're not calling for Spong to be expelled from TEC's house of Bishops, for example (though I might have some sympathy for that).
Where in the Nicene creed does it talk about sexuality? Is that really an essential doctrine of Christianity?

In the 60s, Bishop Pike was considered by many to be in heresy for such things as questioning the virgin birth and trinity (and seances to try to contact his dead son), but the church decided not to do a heresy trial. How is sexuality more central to what it means to be Anglican than trinity?

There's a long history of allowing very diverse beliefs even at high levels. Suddenly one item never mentioned in the creeds as what matters most?

I understand that morality is important. I also understand that churches get it wrong, and that people have strong differences of belief, and that churches in the past have endorsed or shrugged things we now think immoral - slavery, abuse of women, "just wars", conquest and forced conversion (think the Americas). Shouldn't the many examples of churches getting it wrong on important moral issues be a major caution about making a moral issue a central test of Christianity?
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
Before this increasingly mean-spirited thread is dragged off to the knacker's yard, could we please acknowledge that - whatever your position might be - this is kind of sad?

The Anglican Communion has been a communion of people who could share communion at the same table. It has never been the Anglican Theological Agreement Association. The clue is in the name. True, a certain amount of theological agreement was probably expected or assumed among those who gathered at the table. But this form of breaking fellowship over theological difference is sad.

It reminds me of a family who traditionally eat a festive dinner together, but among whom one or two members are not living in accordance with other family members' ideals of sexual ethics. Asking them to leave the table and not come back is an occasion for lots of mutual finger-pointing and shouting; it is also a sad occasion.

I don't think TEC is either surprised or broken-hearted by these developments, and neither will be the Anglican Church of Canada when it gets the boot too.

Altogether it's like watching one of those illustrations of Pangaea, with some land masses drifting apart and others drawing closer together. The church world is being reshaped. But it's always a bit sad to see the previous landscapes parting definitively.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think it is sad, and it makes me angry because it's so utterly unnecessary as well as profoundly wrong. We've been lectured at length about how we should "disagree well" and it turns out that there was never going to be a good disagreement, only punishment for perceived wrongdoing.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I watched a similar battle about 20 years ago, when the Southern Baptist Convention, an association of independent churches, got taken over by militant conservatives who demanded their doctrines (including removing women from clergy positions) be imposed on all churches. Many groups of churches left and formed their own associations, SBC ceased being the largest protestant denomination in the USA, and I guess everyone ended up happier because both liberal churches and conservatives ones no longer had to deal with the tensions of living in the same tent.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
See the demise of the Southern Baptist Convention 20 years ago for a strong parallel. . . .
[Confused]

The conservative take-over of the Southern Baptist Concention was certainly ugly and did result in the loss of congregations and the formation of some new associations (and seminaries). But far from having met its demise, the SBC is still the largest Protestant denomination in the US. It's almost twice the size of the next largest Protrstant denomination, the United Methodist Church. If all the nondenominational, independent churches were counted together as one denomination, it would be the second largest, but the SBC would still be bigger.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Well at least you are not splitting over chrome bumpers vs non-chromed bumpers on your black cars.

I agree though. This is all so very very humanly done and so so sad.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Belle, they STILL preach 'just war'. They never stopped. Blessing it. Blessing 'our' side. They fell off the arc of the moral universe 1600 years ago. So how could they possibly embrace a point on the trajectory sixteen hundred years above them?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Same will happen here if the conservatives are allowed to declare new rules for meetings and new powers for themselves, in the hope of appeasing them. Power seekers won't honestly "look for ways to get along together somehow" if their goal is to remake the Anglican Communion in their own image with them dictating required beliefs far outside the creed.
Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed". It´s not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". It´s obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesn´t believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but it´s even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.
This may be so, but why then was the focus then not on the various heresies? I could certainly understand an international effort to discipline TEC over Bishop Spong but there seems to have been little interest in so doing. And there has been no GAFCON discontent on the several US and Canadian divorcés who have been consecrated bishops, against which there is a clear scriptural argument. I have told several of my local (Ottawa-area) interlocutors that it all smells a bit too much like cultural politics for them to count on me. I get a squirm as a response, but this is all very unhappy.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I've been feeling rather sad for those who may be of a 'traditionalist' view in TEC. I know that term is loaded and not entirely helpful, but rather than write paragraphs hopefully I can run with it. I've been feeling sad because they - if there are any - probably feel that they've been very unfairly treated in all of this. I imagine they might feel that they have held to a line and been faithful to what they believe, but now an entire province has been tarred with the same brush and the 'punishment' falls on everyone indiscriminately.

If I was to compare it with the church province I am in (the Church of Ireland), there have been gay and lesbian clergy in the past, I'm sure there are today, there have been gay and lesbian couples who have had their marriages blessed in churches and there will very likely be a lot more in light of recent events. However we haven't made any official changes as a church. But if the scope of suspension were widened to include us it would feel deeply unjust, especially to those who haven't done this, shouldn't do this and those who feel they must not. It's like everyone in an entire country being branded in the same way and tarred with the same brush. It's just plain bizarre.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
That would be under a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement, would it (in the COI)?
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.
And you know what, there are plenty of LGBT people in same-gender marriages throughout the Anglican Communion who are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles.

There are also plenty of LGBT people throughout the Anglican Communion who are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - who are also horribly tortured and murdered for being LGBT (it is not just gay people but bi and trans people too).

If your Nice Conservative Straight People were really so fucking God-fearing they'd put a stop to it instead of either endorsing it explicitly (because the people torturing and murdering are of the opinion that they are just nice God-fearing folk doing what God wants) or endorsing it by not saying anything. One conservative murdering gay people is one too many - has it not occurred to you that 'well it's not ALL conservatives murdering and torturing and correctively raping LGBT people, so it's fine!' is perhaps not a great defence of conservative Christianity? I know many conservative Christians who are real supporters of LGBT people even if they disagree with SSM - that support does not consist of telling LGBT people how mean they are for suggesting all conservatives murder gay people when it's only some of them.

Next time you want to spout off about Poor Oppressed Conservatives, walk a mile in the shoes of LGBT people in Uganda et al and see what real martyrdom looks like.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".
Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
Just to clarify this point, my comment relates to the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC, against which I'm suggesting that it is a matter of the kettle calling the pot black, and that the actions and words of the 'progressives' might possibly be construed as cultural imperialism on the part of America and her allies.
FWIW there are more liberal churches in Africa too, and GAFCON is partly headed up by the archbishop of that noted 'third-world' city, Sydney in Australia.

I have absolutely no interest in forcing anywhere to adopt a particular policy on marriage. I DO want LGBT people (including LGBT Christians) in Uganda and Nigeria and Jamaica and everywhere else to not die (whether by suicide or murder) because they are LGBT. Heck I want that for LGBT Christians in GAFCON-supporting churches in the UK too. I think 'not dying' is quite a reasonable thing to want without being accused of cultural imperialism.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
I cannot help but wonder whether the Columba Declaration is part of preparation in the Church of England (or its current leaders) for a Scottish partner if/when the Scottish Episcopal CHurch moves in the direction the US Episcopal CHurch has and (I hope) the Anglican CHurch of Canada does.

GIven the recent vote in the CinWales, where a majority (though not a sufficient majority) voted in favour of asking for the right to marry same-sex couples (my memory fails...was it just blessing same-sex marriages?), I'd think Justin might be feeling a little exposed.

It's clear to me that Justin planned this all along. We'll see on Monday what the Canadian Primate has to say in full, but before he went to Canterbury, what he said about what Justin said means Justin deliberately misled him about what was planned -- to be as polite as I can be. Giving a ballot to the ACNA leader had to be a deliberate act, and one that specifically broke a promise Justin made before the meeting.

ANd I'm afraid my reading of Justin's comments about LGBT issues since -- like the comments in the communique -- fill me with nausea: "Gee, we're sorry what we've done in the past has hurt you, but we're just going to keep on doing it. And we're certainly not going to call the homophobic churches who campaign to criminalize and imprison gays to account, contrary to what they promised in that famous Lambeth resolution."

You in the CofE have a big problem with your leader, though I grant you that you have no easy way of saying something that he or his pals will care about.

John
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The Kirk General Assembly voted to allow people in same-sex marriages to enter into, or continue in, the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. So the Kirk is in the same boat the TEC, the ACCcan and the UCCan are in. There is nothing to be gained for the CoE that way.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Actually Justin's official communique DOES mention challenging homophobic violence in conservative jurisdictions. TEC's suspension was a majority vote and not something he had any power to stop, he's not an Anglican Pope. I have met him and spoken with him as an LGBT Christian and discussed that issue - as an LGBT Anglican I understand what a fraught and difficult thing holding the Communion together must be for him, and I have every sympathy for him. I may disagree with him and his actions, but I do think he cares and I do want him as primate of my church. I hope I can be gracious and prayerful towards him in unpleasant circumstances.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
In some ways, TEC is actually quite conservative in their adherence to their 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Liturgically I have noticed that American Episcopalians tend to be sticklers for sticking to their book, compared to the CofE where apparently, there are some clergy who create all sorts of liturgies that would not past muster in the United States.

TEC is always a whipping boy for Spong and Pike, but I understand that the vast majority of worship services still recite the Creed every Sunday. The American book, I understand still mandates a weekly recitation of the Nicene or Apostles' Creed whereas my own Canadian Book of Alternative Services allows the Creeds to be periodically omitted on a Sunday. This so shocked one of my friends from TEC, who while complaining about the general "liberalism" of her American church, nevertheless did not understand why the Canadian book allows the Creed to be omitted.

Of course, one can recite the Creed and have a heterodox interpretation of it, such as people who say that they understand the Virgin Birth metaphorically, not literally. But I think it has always been the case in Christendom that there are people with varying degrees of doubt and interpretation. I don't think it is fair or Christian to dismiss people who genuinely struggle to understand and wrestle with their faith.

To make one's views of sexuality as a litmus taste for orthodoxy is very, very problematic. Much of Christian history until modern times presumed a very patriarchal worldview of sexuality and gender relations. Yes, same-sex genital activity was condemned (though not necessarily, same-sex love as evidenced by the almost romantic letters by St Aelred and his fellow monks). But some of our church fathers, beloved as they are, also had nasty things to say about women and Jews. We can still be faithful to Christian tradition, in the sense of holding on to the essentials: that Christ is Savior, and that God is Triune and One, while accepting that some of their views on sexuality are contingent and do not fit our worldview today. I love for example, St Augustine and think he is a theological genius. But at the same time, I disagree with his rather dark and pessimistic view of human sexuality.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
FWIW there are more liberal churches in Africa too, and GAFCON is partly headed up by the archbishop of that noted 'third-world' city, Sydney in Australia.


Of course, Peter Jensen, the Secretary of GAFCON, is no longer ABP of Sydney, having reached the retirement age of 70 some 2 1/2 years ago. Abp Glenn is nowhere near as strong a supporter as his predecessor.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In some ways, TEC is actually quite conservative in their adherence to their 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Liturgically I have noticed that American Episcopalians tend to be sticklers for sticking to their book, compared to the CofE where apparently, there are some clergy who create all sorts of liturgies that would not past muster in the United States.
While no longer an Episcopalian, I still have a very warm spot in my heart for the 1979 BCP. It is the book that taught me liturgical worship. I owe it a lot, or at least the people who crafted it. I used it for many years in my daily prayers. I still have at least one, and I think maybe two copies (there are a lot of books in this house).

I would love to see another thread on what it means to say that the virgin birth is a metaphor. Maybe I'll start one.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If I was to compare it with the church province I am in (the Church of Ireland), there have been gay and lesbian clergy in the past, I'm sure there are today, there have been gay and lesbian couples who have had their marriages blessed in churches and there will very likely be a lot more in light of recent events. However we haven't made any official changes as a church.
APW asks if this is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a question I am also interested in and which to my mind would push this thread definitively over the line into Dead Horses.

(Indeed, it was the phrase that came to my mind when, over in DH, Pomona said this, if you want to join the conversation on that thread...)

Back in the context of this thread, it brings me back to why I was asking you, Fletcher, how you'd approach this if you were a Catholic.

It seems to me that the practice you outline above is a very Catholic way of going about things - the ability for pockets of the church to engage in practices and indeed beliefs that run quite contrary to the official line.

(As Graham Greene puts it in Travels with my Aunt, "of course I'm a Catholic, dear, it's just that I don't believe everything the Catholics do").

While Protestants here are currently tying themselves in knots and leaving federations over the issue of SSM, which I agree is a really stupid litmus test for orthodoxy, I have heard tell of a Catholic parish in Paris that quietly performs them.

As a non-conformist protestant the idea of affirming one belief whilst engaging in a contrary practice is very foreign to my way of theological thinking, but it does seem to offer the advantage of allowing a Church to make a certain number of accommodations.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
Thanks, Mudfrog. I agree with you. I think that it is important to accept that people are divided on this issue everywhere. Even where SSM is accepted by the majority, there is still a very large majority that does not agree.

I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.
But they are not merely 'proponents of traditional marriage'. That's the latest re-branding to escape charges of bigotry. That have been opposed to absolutely all extensions of our civil rights and liberties, from decriminalisation (at least for a solid number of them) onwards.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Before this increasingly mean-spirited thread is dragged off to the knacker's yard,
In the light of this and other posts, including the most recent one, let me offer a little hostly direction.

This thread can probably stay here if it relates first and foremost to the doings of the Anglican Communion, doings that just happen to relate to the Dead Horse issue of homosexuality. That will obviously involve discussing the latter, but the prevailing topic is Anglicans.

If, as I hinted in my non-host post above, people start talking about homosexuality and same-sex marriage with no reference to Anglicanism, then a thread move can be expected. There are a couple of lively and relevant threads on this topic down in Dead Horses. Posters inclined to discuss the above issues with only tangential mention of Anglicanism are invited to join one or start their own down there.

As someone who's been engaged on the thread, I'll be consulting with my fellow hosts about this. We'll be watching how this thread progresses backstage and act accordingly.

/hosting

[ 17. January 2016, 06:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
The "suspension" blurs the issues. TEC is suspended, not removed: if there's no agreement now, there won't be in 3 years time. Delaying the real decision by any length of time won't reduce the likelihood of division - it will only enhance it as people from both sides of the discussion lose patience with vacillitating leaders.

You know what? How about we

- repent for persecuting LGBT Christians throughout the church and the world
- stop persecuting LGBT believers everywhere and discipline those who continue to do it
- accept SSM allowing any church to provide it but also permit churches to opt out (actively have to do this)
- step back and watch every denomination divide (to a greater or lessor extent)
- get on with life

[ 17. January 2016, 06:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Arabella:
quote:

That would be under a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement, would it (in the COI)?
There is certainly no 'official' line of such a policy. There have been in the past and there are today some clergy who are gay or lesbian and those who are in civil partnerships. For them there is a pain of not being able to celebrate that in the church in the same way as other couples. There are also clergy who have openly admitted to blessing same sex unions in the church. It's been discussed at our synods and diocesan synods, convocations, conversations and all the usual stuff the Communion has been asked to engage in many times with courage and openness by both clergy and lay people. There are some who feel that clergy who bless same sex unions in church should be disciplined in some way and those who shout loudly that gay and lesbian clergy should have their licences revoked and that gay and lesbian lay people should not be receiving the sacraments and should not be able to hold church appointments. That has led to the House of Bishops requesting that same sex blessings not be carried out in churches. I'm not sure that amounts to a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, but perhaps it does.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Euty:
quote:

Back in the context of this thread, it brings me back to why I was asking you, Fletcher, how you'd approach this if you were a Catholic.

It seems to me that the practice you outline above is a very Catholic way of going about things - the ability for pockets of the church to engage in practices and indeed beliefs that run quite contrary to the official line.
Yes, I understand why you are asking me this, but I think it's because you are misunderstanding the core nature of what it means to be in an Anglican Communion and why I suggested reading all of my posts above. I will admit I'm not always as clear as I could be in explaining things, but I think I've managed it in those posts. That is why I can't compare with how I would act if I were a Roman Catholic because it isn't comparing like with like. Its to do with the threat to the autonomy of provinces in Anglicanism and a pressure group that has united forces with others to have a greater influence than they should be given and who hold aims and objectives that - like the Primates meeting - have not got through the test of Lambeth or the Provinces with their respective Bishops and convened synods. They are running rough shod over those they disagree with who have followed due process in their own provinces and who flag false problems and spew factual error to enact their aims; like, for instance, the notion that what TEC does means everyone must do the same - a notion that has appeared more than once on this thread, but one that is entirely incorrect.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.
And you know what, there are plenty of LGBT people in same-gender marriages throughout the Anglican Communion who are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles.
Yes, I said that.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
No, I think I understand that. The TEC, it is argued, should be allowed to adopt its own practices and not be dictated to (or sanctioned) by the rest of the Anglican Communion, any more than it should dictate its practices to them.

What I'm speculating is that within protestantism (and more particularly non-conformism), there is largely an implicit assumption that everyone toes the party line.

Within catholicism, I increasingly see an implicit assumption that everyone must have the same dogma but is also allowed a lot of licence in how they live out their faith.

(So where the CoI is coming from sounds quite "catholic" to my way of thinking. I might be wrong, of course.)

From my non-conformist, protestant worldview I used to think of this as hypocrisy, whereas I have come to see that for some at least, holding two simultaneous and contradictory ideas seems to be possible in all good conscience, and within a Church, actually offers a mechanism allowing for both upholding a party line and accommodation.

Whether I'm right or wrong about the broad protestant/catholic divide as to this mindset, I would imagine that it's entirely foreign to the likes of GAFCON.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

You know what? How about we

- repent for persecuting LGBT Christians throughout the church and the world
- stop persecuting LGBT believers everywhere and discipline those who continue to do it
- accept SSM allowing any church to provide it but also permit churches to opt out (actively have to do this)
- step back and watch every denomination divide (to a greater or lessor extent)
- get on with life
If we can have the first 3 without the 4th, that would be good, but justice has to come ahead of institutional unity. Otherwise completely agreed.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... justice has to come ahead of institutional unity.
This.

How can unity come before people?

" The Labour shadow cabinet minister Chris Bryant has declared he has given up on the Church of England, saying its stance on homosexuality would one day look as wrong as supporting slavery."

It will.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Euty:
quote:

What I'm speculating is that within protestantism (and more particularly non-conformism), there is largely an implicit assumption that everyone toes the party line.

Within catholicism, I increasingly see an implicit assumption that everyone must have the same dogma but is also allowed a lot of licence in how they live out their faith.

(So where the CoI is coming from sounds quite "catholic" to my way of thinking. I might be wrong, of course.)
I think you are right that there is an general unwritten rule among 'Protestant' and 'Reformed' churches that you toe the party line. I think there is definitely an element of this too in Anglicanism but probably not to the same extent as others.

I can't speak for Catholicism in the rest of the world, but in Ireland Catholicism both north and south has travelled through a long history of sectarianism followed by the scandal of abuse cases so it has a somewhat 'batten down the hatches' mentality. The result of that would appear from the outside to be a very strongly conservative streak in the majority, so the 'toe the line' attitude is very powerfully felt, which I think possibly may account for more losses than everything else it has come through, but that's a tangent for another thread.

The CofI is coming from the perspective of concern for the Anglican Communion. We are a small church on a small island on the very edge of Europe - isolation and the power of being part of something much larger is more keenly felt. It also serves to heighten the difficulties with those who have aligned themselves with GAFCON which has made a lot more people think a lot more about what an Anglican Communion is. I don't believe before this (but I could be wrong) that the CofI actually thought too deeply about what it meant to be part of the Anglican Communion, but in recent years it has become much more important as we have moved through various debates.
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I cannot help but wonder whether the Columba Declaration is part of preparation in the Church of England (or its current leaders) for a Scottish partner if/when the Scottish Episcopal CHurch moves in the direction the US Episcopal CHurch has and (I hope) the Anglican CHurch of Canada does.
It really really isn't.

We are having our own internal debates over same-sex relationships that have followed a different trajectory to those in the CofE. In some aspects we are more conservative, in others more liberal. Currently, a tiny space has been carved out for ministers in civil partnerships, and the decision will be made at the General Assembly this year whether to extend that to same-sex marriages. (Presbyteries have voted 25-19 to extend the provision to same-sex marriages, but it has still to get through the GA.) There is no celibacy requirement here as in the CofE.

However, we are a long way off allowing ministers to conduct same sex marriages. No rule has been made re. blessing civil partnerships or marriages.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I understand that there are evangelicals, liberals,MoTR types and much else besides within North American Anglicanism ... both TEC and the Canadian Anglicans ...

Both TEC and ACNA (I don't know enough about the Canadians) seem to hold strongly to the Prayer Book and to liturgy etc - so I can understand Mousethief's point.

I do feel uncomfortable with Welby inviting ACNA - because it seems to be going back on an earlier promise and also looks suspiciously like he's got his next move planned ... but that might be uncharitable.

I don't have the same sense of outrage at ACNA being a 'schismatic sect' - as described upthread - as I think it ill-behoves Anglicans of any stripe to throw the 's' words around when, from RC and Orthodox perspectives that's what the Anglican communion is itself - a collection of schismatic sects ...

Spong et al worry me - but then,so do the Jensens and some of the Nigerians and Ugandans ...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(As Graham Greene puts it in Travels with my Aunt, "of course I'm a Catholic, dear, it's just that I don't believe everything the Catholics do").
Or, to quote Pres. Bartlett from "West Wing": "I don't believe in God, and I believe that Mary is His mother".

And Stephen Colbert in a conversation with atheist Bill Maher:

B--"I thought you were a practicing Catholic?"

S--"I am--I'm just not very good at it!"
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I don't have the same sense of outrage at ACNA being a 'schismatic sect' - as described upthread - as I think it ill-behoves Anglicans of any stripe to throw the 's' words around when, from RC and Orthodox perspectives that's what the Anglican communion is itself - a collection of schismatic sects ...
I think it would be a fair charge to level at Henry VIII and his advisers were they still alive. Even the RCC recognises a difference between those responsible for a schism and those raised in the resulting "ecclesial communities". Also, nobody excommunicated ACNA (unlike Henry or Elizabeth, or indeed Martin Luther), they left of their own accord, which is the act of a schismatic.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Or, to quote Pres. Bartlett from "West Wing": "I don't believe in God, and I believe that Mary is His mother".
I'm pretty sure that's not a West Wing quote.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I poked around, and it seems to be a quote from Martin Sheen *himself*, rather than Bartlett. Very Bartlettesque, though, IMHO.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I poked around, and it seems to be a quote from Martin Sheen *himself*, rather than Bartlett. Very Bartlettesque, though, IMHO.
Thank you! As a huge West Wing fan I was racking my poor brain trying to think of when Jeb said it. While the ironic twist sounds a bit Bartlett-ian, it doesn't fit well with other faith statements he makes, so was trying to figure out the context. Makes much more sense from Sheen.

*end tangent*
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I have trouble comprehending the concept of tolerance if it allows freedom to intolerance.

I also have have difficulty with the prodigal son type narrative (perhaps not conscious) as applied to this.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
The recipe I've seen so far is:
  1. Bully someone
  2. Wait until someone in exasperation says a nasty word
  3. "See? Both sides are doing it."
Fuck that. (That's a nasty word.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have trouble comprehending the concept of tolerance if it allows freedom to intolerance.
Right, the oft quoted "we tolerate anything except intolerance". I guess for me the problem is that I'm not a great measure as to what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable". And I recognise that I'm not fully tolerant.

So I guess I rationalise and think that we're better off trying to tolerate a multitude of faith positions, including those I find disgusting/offensive/stupid/ridiculous. Mostly on the basis that someone somewhere likely finds me/my views disgusting too.

quote:
I also have have difficulty with the prodigal son type narrative (perhaps not conscious) as applied to this.
Can you unpack this?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have trouble comprehending the concept of tolerance if it allows freedom to intolerance.
Right, the oft quoted "we tolerate anything except intolerance". I guess for me the problem is that I'm not a great measure as to what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable". And I recognise that I'm not fully tolerant.

So I guess I rationalise and think that we're better off trying to tolerate a multitude of faith positions, including those I find disgusting/offensive/stupid/ridiculous. Mostly on the basis that someone somewhere likely finds me/my views disgusting too.
Tolerate a variety of views, certainly. It's the actions that stem from those views that cannot always be tolerated. Ultimately the right to swing your fist stops at your neighbour's nose.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Tolerate a variety of views, certainly. It's the actions that stem from those views that cannot always be tolerated. Ultimately the right to swing your fist stops at your neighbour's nose.
Right, and the merging of the personal theology and the general societal ethic seems like a widespread problem.

It seems very unusual to hear anyone today saying "I believe x, but recognise the rights of other to do y".
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems very unusual to hear anyone today saying "I believe x, but recognise the rights of other to do y".
I hear it quite a lot in relation to abortion, indeed it reflects my own position. Heck, it also reflect my views on drug use, polygamy and a host of other things I have moral qualms about but don't think should be illegal.

[ 17. January 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems very unusual to hear anyone today saying "I believe x, but recognise the rights of other to do y".
I hear it quite a lot in relation to abortion, indeed it reflects my own position. Heck, it also reflect my views on drug use, polygamy and a host of other things I have moral qualms about but don't think should be illegal.
I agree on most of those, and I'd say that for that reason I don't discuss them. I don't think it would be right for me to x, and I don't want to stop you, so I'm not going to push my views about Xing on you.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think you are right that there is an general unwritten rule among 'Protestant' and 'Reformed' churches that you toe the party line. I think there is definitely an element of this too in Anglicanism but probably not to the same extent as others.
I think this is explained by the nature of Protestantism as being based on ideas, and the glue that holds Protestant churches together is agreeing on ideas. While everyone believes the glue of their church(es) is the Holy Spirit, on the practical level it looks quite different. The Catholics see themselves primarily as bound together by the sacraments and their shared history. (Orthodoxen the same.) Protestants see themselves as bound together by shared doctrine, and the splits one sees in Protestantism are very often if not most often based on disagreements in doctrine.

Not that the historic churches haven't seen a fair bit of splitting in their time. But there is also a lot of room for people to hold their private opinions -- theologoumena, we call them in Orthodoxy -- about non-dogmatic matters. The age of the great splits has long passed, and even then the church saw those who left as leaving the mother ship, not cleaving it in twain. Flakes from the great rock, which remains the great rock.

And what keeps the great rock together isn't minutiæ of doctrine but the sacraments and the continuity of clergy and worship. If all the Orthodox on the face of the earth died off next week, somebody couldn't come along a year later and re-start the thing using the same beliefs, the same vestments, the same services. It would be gone and irretrievable. (And, by the way, proof that it wasn't really the church after all.) I assume that my Catholic brothers and sisters here would say much the same. And that's a huge difference in self-understanding between our churches and the Protestants.

So "toeing the party line" is really the bottom line in Protestantism. Once you throw off the centrality of the sacraments, and apostolic succession, and the other common understandings of a universal church, it's what's left.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Sounds to me like Scottish Episcopalianism and Orthodoxy have a lot in common.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So "toeing the party line" is really the bottom line in Protestantism. Once you throw off the centrality of the sacraments, and apostolic succession, and the other common understandings of a universal church, it's what's left.
Very interesting MT. I never heard that before.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So "toeing the party line" is really the bottom line in Protestantism. Once you throw off the centrality of the sacraments, and apostolic succession, and the other common understandings of a universal church, it's what's left.
For all protestantism's faults, thank you for reminding me once again, free of charge, why I could never become Orthodox.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems very unusual to hear anyone today saying "I believe x, but recognise the rights of other to do y".
I hear it quite a lot in relation to abortion, indeed it reflects my own position. Heck, it also reflect my views on drug use, polygamy and a host of other things I have moral qualms about but don't think should be illegal.
That's not quite the same thing, I think. Youi can think thats something is wrong and indeed sinful but not think it shoudl nbe illegal- that's not so much respecting the rights of someone else to do the thing, as thinking that the criminal law ought not to be the means of stopping them doing it. That was, I think, more or less the position of ++Fisher when he, to the surprise of some people, supported the decriminalisation of (male) homosexual acts in the 1950s.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
But we could very much think that a thing is wrong, but not want to stop others from doing it. It's their business not ours, perhaps.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's not quite the same thing, I think. Youi can think thats something is wrong and indeed sinful but not think it shoudl nbe illegal- that's not so much respecting the rights of someone else to do the thing, as thinking that the criminal law ought not to be the means of stopping them doing it. That was, I think, more or less the position of ++Fisher when he, to the surprise of some people, supported the decriminalisation of (male) homosexual acts in the 1950s.
I recognise the distinction there, but I would draw a tighter line, between persuasion and coercion. It's entirely appropriate to try to persuade people to do the right thing, even if they have the legal right not to. The more grey area is what steps you can take beyond persuasion. The lady in the US who has been giving money to women seeking abortion if they choose to continue with the pregnancy, for example. That, to me, seems reasonable. But other measures, "disfellowshipping" being an obvious one, very quickly cross the line into abusive coercion. I think as soon as you start deliberately using social punishments to try to control the behaviour of others you're walking a pretty dangerous road.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
In principle I'd agree, but it's difficult, isn't it? I'd imagine that many organisations might have some point at which they would sy that certain kinds of behaviour are not compatible with continuing in membership. But where is that point in each case?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So "toeing the party line" is really the bottom line in Protestantism. Once you throw off the centrality of the sacraments, and apostolic succession, and the other common understandings of a universal church, it's what's left.
For all protestantism's faults, thank you for reminding me once again, free of charge, why I could never become Orthodox.
And I'm pretty sure it's nonsense too. See Patriarch Cyril Lucaris, or the Jesuits, or the Thomists, or the Franciscans. There is a whole boatload of theology in both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches that is certainly NOT negotiable.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
quote:

I also have have difficulty with the prodigal son type narrative (perhaps not conscious) as applied to this.
Can you unpack this?
Clearly I'm not no prophet, but since the mention of the prodigal son rang some bells with me too, I'll leap in uninvited.

I think one can see the AC seeing themselves as the Father of the story - ECUSA have taken themselves off away from the true way, and the father, and must have their time in the pig poo, until they come to their senses and repent, change their ways, and then be welcomed back into the fold with great rejoicing. It's certainly clear from the GAFCON statement, which explicitly asks for repentance from the EC and a return to the gospel etc etc (since this is clearly a gospel issue
[Roll Eyes] ) that that's how GAFCON see things.

Perhaps np has a more nuanced and enlightened understanding, but that's how I would interpret it.

[ 17. January 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think this is explained by the nature of Protestantism as being based on ideas, and the glue that holds Protestant churches together is agreeing on ideas. While everyone believes the glue of their church(es) is the Holy Spirit, on the practical level it looks quite different. The Catholics see themselves primarily as bound together by the sacraments and their shared history. (Orthodoxen the same.) Protestants see themselves as bound together by shared doctrine, and the splits one sees in Protestantism are very often if not most often based on disagreements in doctrine.

Not that the historic churches haven't seen a fair bit of splitting in their time. But there is also a lot of room for people to hold their private opinions -- theologoumena, we call them in Orthodoxy -- about non-dogmatic matters. The age of the great splits has long passed, and even then the church saw those who left as leaving the mother ship, not cleaving it in twain. Flakes from the great rock, which remains the great rock.

And what keeps the great rock together isn't minutiæ of doctrine but the sacraments and the continuity of clergy and worship. If all the Orthodox on the face of the earth died off next week, somebody couldn't come along a year later and re-start the thing using the same beliefs, the same vestments, the same services. It would be gone and irretrievable. (And, by the way, proof that it wasn't really the church after all.) I assume that my Catholic brothers and sisters here would say much the same. And that's a huge difference in self-understanding between our churches and the Protestants.

So "toeing the party line" is really the bottom line in Protestantism. Once you throw off the centrality of the sacraments, and apostolic succession, and the other common understandings of a universal church, it's what's left.
Funnily (strangely?) enough, I had a discussion with an Orthodox priest who said almost the same thing this last week ...

Perhaps he was toeing the party line ...
[Biased] [Razz]

Seriously, I've heard a number of Orthodox clergy from Protestant backgrounds say that they feel far more 'liberated' and free to express their views on this, that and the other than they ever did when they were in one or t'other of the Protestant churches.

They spent their first few tentative years in Orthodoxy thinking that they were going to step on toes and be thrown out ... but found that when they did step on a toe it didn't necessarily get the reaction they'd feared.

The argument runs that it's a big tent ... and that what the 'main things' are as far as the Orthodox are concerned are the big issues - the whopping big Creedal ones.

Sure, you get people obsessed with rubrics and liturgical minutiae, but their accounts ring true to me - despite my cynicism and suspicions that there's some post-hoc rationalisation going on ... which of course, there will be too.

I get the impression that there are plenty of fist-fights and even gouging going on within Orthodoxy - but by and large there's a fair bit of live-and-let-live too ... family spats rather than big rifts.

I'm not sure whether this equally applies to Catholicism ... there do seem to be rather more non-negotiables there than there is in Orthodoxy ... at least to this outside observer.

Ok, I know I'm something of an Orthophile, but even from my fence-sitting position I can see that they don't quite have the same level of in-fighting over ideas and doctrines that Protestants have ... that said, they have plenty of issues and problems of their own to contend with too ...

I suppose it all boils down to whether we see established boundaries as a framework or a strait-jacket.

[fixed UBB code]

[ 17. January 2016, 17:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I don't have much objection to any of that.

What I was objecting to is how mousethief attempted to turn my observation of different approaches to dissent into a hubristic characterisation of protestantism as Christianity with absolutely all the best bits left out.

Which is just the sort of brotherly spirit of mutual acknowledgement we currently see at work in the Anglican Communion, is it not? [Disappointed]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
quote:
quote:

I also have have difficulty with the prodigal son type narrative (perhaps not conscious) as applied to this.
Can you unpack this?
Clearly I'm not no prophet, but since the mention of the prodigal son rang some bells with me too, I'll leap in uninvited.

I think one can see the AC seeing themselves as the Father of the story - ECUSA have taken themselves off away from the true way, and the father, and must have their time in the pig poo, until they come to their senses and repent, change their ways, and then be welcomed back into the fold with great rejoicing. It's certainly clear from the GAFCON statement, which explicitly asks for repentance from the EC and a return to the gospel etc etc (since this is clearly a gospel issue
[Roll Eyes] ) that that's how GAFCON see things.

Perhaps np has a more nuanced and enlightened understanding, but that's how I would interpret it.
Nope, you did an excellent job with this discussion better than I could have done!

I think better stories as applied to this situation are old testament prophets challenging various kings about the errors of their ways. Encouraging them to cast down either their misguided beliefs and practices, or statues of idols. Which might be something like this (link to picture of partly destroyed ancient Roman giant phallus statue, wikipedia, some may consider NSFW. Preoccupation with sex seems to have an ancient lineage)
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, yes, I get that ... but it's not how I read Mousethief's post ... I didn't take it as some kind of 'attack' on Protestantism as such.

In some ways, I'd suggest that the Orthodox and RCs are at least honest about believing themselves to have a monopoly on the TruthTM ...

And yes, some independent evangelical groups make similar claims but in a different kind of way.

The Anglican Communion doesn't - and sees this as a source of strength ... but then it gets itself tied up in knots through this approach too - and one could argue that the current argy-bargy with the suspension of the TEC is a reflection of that.

At least with the Orthodox or the RCs you know what you are signing up for. If you've got an issue with the Papacy then you're hardly likely to convert to Roman Catholicism ... if you have a problem with Apostolic Succession, the historic Creeds and particular views of the Eucharist and the invocation of Mary and the Saints then you're hardly likely to cross the Bosphorus either ...

As for the Dead Horse issues ... I don't know how these things work ... I've come across an Orthodoxen online who is in a SSM ... presumably not one conducted by an Orthodox priest. He doesn't appear to have been excommunicated.

I really don't know whether the Orthodox would handle the kind of spat that's going on in the Anglican Communion any better or worse than the Anglicans are ...

Mousethief appears to be sympathetic towards the TEC - perhaps as a former Episcopalian himself, I don't know ... but I can see lots of other reasons why he might be - even if he'd never been an Episcopalian in his life - and he's articulated his concerns and questions well on this thread, I think.

I'd be interested in his views on how the Orthodox would resolve an issue like this, though. It's not as though the Orthodox are known for exceptionally cordial relations between its various Jurisdictions ... I've seen exchanges between Russian and Greek Orthodox on-line that would make you think we were talking about separate religions rather than different Jurisdictions within the same Church ...
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I'm now trying to formulate a reply that contains "no prophet - thank you. I'm glad I was thinking along the same lines as you. Now that is a phallus."...

But however I phrase it, it looks very wrong. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But isn't this apple-and-oranging? You're comparing what the TEC does within its own walls with other provinces trying to make TEC toe the line. Does TEC try to force African churches/dioceses to be liberal? THAT is the comparison. What happens intra TEC, although great for making ad hominem attacks, isn't analogous.
[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
For all protestantism's faults, thank you for reminding me once again, free of charge, why I could never become Orthodox.
Because what really matters to you is toeing the party line?

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
There is a whole boatload of theology in both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches that is certainly NOT negotiable.
Show me where I said otherwise. This is a straw man.

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I think one can see the AC seeing themselves as the Father of the story - ECUSA have taken themselves off away from the true way, and the father, and must have their time in the pig poo, until they come to their senses and repent, change their ways, and then be welcomed back into the fold with great rejoicing.
The point of disanology, of course, is that the Father doesn't force the son to remain in the pig poo, or rub his nose in it for 3 years.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, I know I'm something of an Orthophile, but even from my fence-sitting position I can see that they don't quite have the same level of in-fighting over ideas and doctrines that Protestants have ... that said, they have plenty of issues and problems of their own to contend with too ...
No need to tell me that! [Help]

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I was objecting to is how mousethief attempted to turn my observation of different approaches to dissent into a hubristic characterisation of protestantism as Christianity with absolutely all the best bits left out.
So you're saying apostolic succession and the sacraments are the "best bits"? There are a hell of a lot of Protestants who would not agree with you there.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mousethief appears to be sympathetic towards the TEC - perhaps as a former Episcopalian himself, I don't know
Yes and yes. I have made no secret of my sojourn in TEC, nor have I ever said I regretted it. I have been at pains to point out I did not leave TEC because of anything they did that was bad, but because I believed what I found in Orthodoxy was something better. I even posted at some length on this very thread my admiration for the 1979 BCP. (Don't tell my bishop but I rather side with TEC on SSM. I think the EOC will come around but it will be decades if not a century.) The only thing I have criticized TEC about publicly is for not censuring Spong.

quote:
I'd be interested in his views on how the Orthodox would resolve an issue like this, though. It's not as though the Orthodox are known for exceptionally cordial relations between its various Jurisdictions ... I've seen exchanges between Russian and Greek Orthodox on-line that would make you think we were talking about separate religions rather than different Jurisdictions within the same Church ...
That's a really interesting question. I think probably if (say) the OCA started performing SSMs, the other jurisdictions would sever intercommunion -- stop memorializing our bishops on their altars, stop serving with our clergy, and disallow our faithful to communicate in their churches and vice versa.

Of course we are not a single hierarchical structure like those guys in Rome. We are a collection of intercommuning supposedly autocephalous churches. But again, who you (as a church as a whole, say the ROC or the EP) intercommune with is also your autocephalous decision.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because what really matters to you is toeing the party line? (...) you're saying apostolic succession and the sacraments are the "best bits"?
No, I'm saying that not many protestants would agree with you that toeing the party line is the ultimate defining characteristic ("bottom line") of protestantism.

[ 18. January 2016, 05:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Which party's line am I supposed to toe?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As ever, I can see both/ands in this one ...

I actually agree with MT that a lot of 'toeing the party line' goes on within Protestantism ... and indeed that's precisely how Protestants define or recognise each other. They ask questions to find out if the other party is 'born again' or whether they are Calvinist or Arminian.

A friend of mine once spent the greater party of his time at a wedding being quizzed by the minister who seemed hell-bent on pinning him down on whether he was pre-, post or a-millenial in his views on eschatology.

I also remember Jengie Jon telling us all on these Boards how her father didn't propose to her mother until she'd filled in some kind of form or questionnaire to demonstrate that she held to a Reformed soteriology.

At my university we used to joke about having a 'sound-o-meter' - a geiga-counter style device we ought to have to measure the doctrinal 'soundness' of any professing Christian we met ...

Reddit-a-dit...reddit-a-dit...REeeEeeEeeeGggh!!!

It's not that MT claims that Protestants are in thrall to party-line ecclesial authorities, so much as bound and self-defined by adherence to particular ideas, doctrines and viewpoints that vary across the piece ...

I think that's incontrovertible.

We all do it.

However, what continues to puzzle me isn't so much MT's sympathy with TEC in this particular case - and no, I wasn't saying he'd made any great 'secret' of it - but how he squares that with an Orthodox approach to an errant Jurisdiction that might perform SSM that goes way beyond any sanctions or discipline applied by the Anglican primates against TEC.

Had TEC been an Orthodox autocephalous Church it would have had its neck wrung, its head cut off and its priests and people cast into outer darkness long before now.

Whilst I can understand MT's sympathy for TEC it feels odd given that Orthodox reactions in a case like this would make GAFCON look like a Teddy Bear's picnic.

Or am I missing something?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I think that for most Protestants the bottom line is the Bible and a high view of its divine authorship and authority, even if not seen as infallible.

I think that one needs to understand the difficulty that evangelicals have. They are for the most part sincere, loving and devout people. It's not easy, or even possible, for them to read their Bibles in the way they do - with trust and commitment, but when they come to moral issues such as the one we are discussing in relation to the Anglican Church and throw aside their way of reading Scripture. To do so would require inconsistency and a 'pick and choose' attitude of Biblical interpretation that goes against everything that Protestants believe in. They are, after all, Protestants because their founders and forefathers made the Bible their foundational document, and not Church teaching and Tradition.

So, Protestants in general and specifically the evangelicals and conservatives in the Anglican Communion are in a difficult place over this; NOT because they are horrible, bigoted, unloving straight people who hate gay people, but because they are being asked to basically change their view of the Bible and how to interpret it.

That would be the mission of groups like GAFCON, I guess - to preserve the Scripture as the only source document for Christian faith and practice. They see this whole issue as being clearly seen in the Bible as not in the will of God for his people - like a lot of other behaviours - and so have difficulty in reconciling the open acceptance of homosexuality with the Scriptural teaching they see and have committed to.

In other words, what is happening is that the conservatives are not being asked to be 'loving' and 'accepting'; they are not merely being asked to accept 'diversity', they are being asked to throw aside their whole approach to Scripture and faith.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I actually agree with MT that a lot of 'toeing the party line' goes on within Protestantism ... and indeed that's precisely how Protestants define or recognise each other.
There is no doubt about the fact that most given protestant groups self-define by a doctrinal line.

What I take exception to is the assertion that this characteristic is the "bottom line" for protestants in the same way that apostolic continuity or the sacraments are for historic churches (and the implicit assumption that we are nothing but errant schismatics).
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Except that, as has been pointed out on many occasions, conservative evangelicals are able to find a lot of wiggle room in scripture when it comes to the remarriage of divorcees and outside of the hardline headship crowd can find plenty of wiggle room for the ministry of women. There are also plenty of people, evangelicals included, who have considered the New Testament passages that (apparently) condemn homosexuality and do not see the blanket condemnation of loving relationships that you claim. The Bible-believing vs accepting dichotomy you propose is convenient but false.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Except that, as has been pointed out on many occasions, conservative evangelicals are able to find a lot of wiggle room in scripture when it comes to the remarriage of divorcees and outside of the hardline headship crowd can find plenty of wiggle room for the ministry of women. There are also plenty of people, evangelicals included, who have considered the New Testament passages that (apparently) condemn homosexuality and do not see the blanket condemnation of loving relationships that you claim. The Bible-believing vs accepting dichotomy you propose is convenient but false.
So because some former evangelicals (Chalke)accept ssm, all must?

[ 18. January 2016, 07:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Eutychus: There is no doubt about the fact that most given protestant groups self-define by a doctrinal line.
I don't think this is in the case with mainline protestantism in the Netherlands, and by extension, most of Northern Europe. You're in a certain protestant group because your father was there, and his father, and his father … Which group you belong to tells a lot about your family, not much about doctrine. In fact, most people don't even know very well what the doctrinal line of their group is.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think we basically have a marketplace of ideas which one chooses to take on - or remain within. So I don't think it really makes any sense to claim that there is a qualitative difference between any church and any other. For most of us, if we don't like what is on offer (for a range of reasons) we can move somewhere else.

And for Protestants, I guess, we're a bit more likely to move than others. But I don't really recognise this "toeing the line" comment, unless what is meant is that one chooses to stay or go dependent on whether one continues to accept the faith claims made by that individual church, denomination or congregation. If so, I don't see any difference between someone moving between Protestant churches, crossing to Orthodoxy, to Rome, back again or any other permutation.

The muddle, I think, is that many churches across Protestant churches have strong (or sometimes stronger) relations with extra-denominational groups than their denominational title - which might not happen in Orthodoxy, I have no idea.

So for me the only difference here is that some might see other Christians as Christian if they're doing certain things (let's say for example baptism and Communion) in vaguely the right way, others reject/accept the Christianity of others based on (apparently arbitary, as seen from the outside) sets of theological red lines.

Is that what you meant, Mousethief?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Circular reasoning much, Muddy (longer post deleted to avoid hostly concerns about dead horse jurisdictions)
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Eutychus -- yes, I can see that. The trouble is - the reality of it is - that if one does see one's own Church as The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - as RCs and Orthodox do - then it's inevitable that anyone else is going to be an 'arrant schismatic' - irrespective of how good, bad or indifferent they otherwise are - or how congruent their views are with one's own at various points.

I don't see any way for the RC or Orthodox to get around that one, without giving up being RC or Orthodox.

On Mudfrog's point, I think RCs and Orthodox would also say that the Bible is divine in authorship and authority - both of them have a 'high' view of scripture. It's not as if they're saying that scripture isn't normative or has some kind of lower role ... rather they'd argue that scripture and Tradition go hand in hand.

Evangelicals aren't the only ones to hold to a high view of scripture.

I think we all understand the difficulty that evangelicals have with the Dead Horse issues that we're considering here ... and indeed traditional RCs and Orthodox share similar concerns (albeit from a somewhat different direction).

The issue here isn't whether evangelicals are 'sincere, loving and devout' - no-one doubts that, 'for the most part' they are.

The issue here is whether the rest of the Anglican primates have the 'right' to take the kind of action they've taken against the TEC ...

Heck, I'm suggesting it could have been a lot worse. That chap from Uganda was rather hoping it would be a lot worse - hence him walking out and leaving early because he wanted more than a three-year moratorium on the TEC - he wanted them booting out plain and simple.

And as MT seems to have indicated, had OCA acted like the TEC that's what would have happened in their case. They'd have been dismissed and table-fellowship would have been removed.

On the issue of Biblical interpretation ... I keep coming back to this just as much as I come back to my both/and not either/or mantra ...

We none of us take a 'plain-reading of scripture' approach ... not one of us. We all of us read the scriptures in the context of an interpretative framework - be it various forms of Protestant frameworks, be it an RC one, be it an Orthodox one - be it an atheist or agnostic one ... or whatever else.

All of us pick and choose.

One could argue that the Reformers didn't make 'the Bible their foundational document and not Church teaching and Tradition' - but the Bible interpreted through the lenses of the new traditions and teachings they were developing - and claiming to have noticed for the first time ...

Luther and his followers gave rise to Lutheranism - a church and tradition. Calvin and those who followed him developed another tradition - Calvinism in its various forms. Later on, Wesley the same ...

There's no such thing as the Bible in isolation. There is no such thing as the Bible without tradition of some form.

That's not the way these things work.

With my both/and not either/or hat on, I'd also suggest that it is possible to have a concern about what's happening here without stereotyping evangelicals as loveless, Pharisaical kill-joys.

I quite understand that groups like GAFCON aren't necessarily motivated by homophobia and hate.

But to assert that they are out to defend the Bible as the only 'source-document' misses the mark completely. The Bible isn't the only 'source-document' for any of us ... not GAFCON, not the Salvation Army, not the RCC, not anyone.

What GAFCON and others - rightly or wrongly - are out to protect is their own particular view of how the scriptures are to be interpreted. Arguably, the Anglicans have never taken a completely Sola Scriptura approach - and I'd question whether Sola Scriptura is practical and possible at any rate - at least how it is popularly understood.

No, the Anglican 'way' has always been 'scripture, reason and tradition' ... Bishop Hooker's famous three-legged stool.

The issue here, of course, is that GAFCON would claim to be arguing in a way that is consonant with all three - and yet those who oppose them would also make the same argument ... that there are contextual, rational and 'traditional' reasons (the latter in terms of the ongoing development of tradition) that call the traditional understanding into question.

Rock, meet Hard Place.

Irresistible Force, meet Immoveable Object.

Something has got to give.

It's an intractable situation. Yes, the conservatives are being asked to 'give' - to give ground on the way they have always understood these things. It'll be pointed out to them, no doubt, that they can be pretty selective in the way they 'pick and choose' themselves as to which scriptural injunctions they choose to accept, to modify or to ignore.

I can see their point of view ... and yes, they are being asked to throw aside their particular conservative understanding and faith ... a big ask.

How to resolve this? I have no idea.

I suspect everyone of the conservative side hopes that TEC simply walks away and forms its own liberal Episcopalian set-up outwith the Anglican Communion. Arguably, that's been on the horizon for some time ... not purely and simply over the SSM and gay bishops issue but over a whole range and raft of issues ... even from a mild-mannered CofE perspective, the TEC has always seemed quite 'out there' in various respects ... Spong, Pike, all sorts of touchy-feely new-agey things going on ...

Sure, there're pockets and elements of that in the CofE too - as well as 'unitarian' clergy and plenty of people who don't seem to believe anything at all but like the liturgy and so on ...

There probably ain't anything going on within TEC that can't be found anywhere else in the Anglican Communion - so I do sympathise with them for feeling somewhat 'got at' ...

There are more blind-eyes turned and eye-patches deployed within the CofE than Nelson ever did at the Battle of Copenhagen ...

For all this, I do have a fundamental question as to what the Anglican Communion is actually FOR ... what do the various provinces have in common?

I mean, there are various confederations of Reformed Churches and so on - which'll be almost if not equally as diverse ...

But other than a legacy of particular colonial and post-colonial circumstances I'm not really that sure. Ok, there are outriders such as the Anglican Church of Cuba and that Spanish Anglican church that resulted from a handful of former RC priests applying to Canterbury in the 19th century ...

But beyond that ... ?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Eutychus: There is no doubt about the fact that most given protestant groups self-define by a doctrinal line.
I don't think this is in the case with mainline protestantism in the Netherlands, and by extension, most of Northern Europe. You're in a certain protestant group because your father was there, and his father, and his father … Which group you belong to tells a lot about your family, not much about doctrine. In fact, most people don't even know very well what the doctrinal line of their group is.
Around here, most protestants identify as members of a specific church rather than of the denomination itself. They decide where to worship based on which church does things the way they like them, and whether it's Anglican, Baptist, Methodist or whatever tends to be a secondary concern at best.

The leaders of the denominations can define them to whatever standards of doctrinal purity they like, but most of the parishioners they claim to be serving couldn't give two figs.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Except that, as has been pointed out on many occasions, conservative evangelicals are able to find a lot of wiggle room in scripture when it comes to the remarriage of divorcees and outside of the hardline headship crowd can find plenty of wiggle room for the ministry of women. There are also plenty of people, evangelicals included, who have considered the New Testament passages that (apparently) condemn homosexuality and do not see the blanket condemnation of loving relationships that you claim. The Bible-believing vs accepting dichotomy you propose is convenient but false.
So because some former evangelicals (Chalke)accept ssm, all must?
Not must but may.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that for most Protestants the bottom line is the Bible and a high view of its divine authorship and authority, even if not seen as infallible.

I think that one needs to understand the difficulty that evangelicals have. They are for the most part sincere, loving and devout people. It's not easy, or even possible, for them to read their Bibles in the way they do - with trust and commitment, but when they come to moral issues such as the one we are discussing in relation to the Anglican Church and throw aside their way of reading Scripture. To do so would require inconsistency and a 'pick and choose' attitude of Biblical interpretation that goes against everything that Protestants believe in. They are, after all, Protestants because their founders and forefathers made the Bible their foundational document, and not Church teaching and Tradition.

So, Protestants in general and specifically the evangelicals and conservatives in the Anglican Communion are in a difficult place over this; NOT because they are horrible, bigoted, unloving straight people who hate gay people, but because they are being asked to basically change their view of the Bible and how to interpret it.

That would be the mission of groups like GAFCON, I guess - to preserve the Scripture as the only source document for Christian faith and practice. They see this whole issue as being clearly seen in the Bible as not in the will of God for his people - like a lot of other behaviours - and so have difficulty in reconciling the open acceptance of homosexuality with the Scriptural teaching they see and have committed to.

In other words, what is happening is that the conservatives are not being asked to be 'loving' and 'accepting'; they are not merely being asked to accept 'diversity', they are being asked to throw aside their whole approach to Scripture and faith.
No, they are not. They are being asked not to piss on TEC. Really, I don't care what other people believe, until they start wanting to piss on me for not agreeing with them.

Or in the case of the Church in some parts of Africa, unfortunately, siding with the government to actively prosecute people for not following their particular religious beliefs.

[ 18. January 2016, 09:45: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
As well as they high regard placed on scripture, from my days as an evangelical, I also remember a high value placed on personal holiness. What are the sins I must confess? How well am I doing with loving God with all my heart, and how does that manifest in my life? The stuff that's often mocked as being "holding short accounts with God", but comes from an earnest desire for personal holiness. There's an emphasis on taking responsibility for my own actions, whilst always relying on Christ as saviour, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

And that it seems to me, is what is out of balance here. As Matt Black points out, some ex- (I would add, perhaps and) indeed current evangelicals may accept SSM, and the appointments of gay bishops. That's their short account to keep with God. The actions of the AC seem to me to be rather less about personal holiness, and a lot more about enforcing the "holiness" of others.

[ 18. January 2016, 09:51: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Jemima the 9th: As well as they high regard placed on scripture, from my days as an evangelical, I also remember a high value placed on personal holiness.
I do think there is a North Sea gap here (for lack of a better name), and that Protestantism is experienced differently in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia … than in Anglo-Saxon countries (and also in countries like France where Protestants are a minority).
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Can you elaborate?
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Except that, as has been pointed out on many occasions, conservative evangelicals are able to find a lot of wiggle room in scripture when it comes to the remarriage of divorcees and outside of the hardline headship crowd can find plenty of wiggle room for the ministry of women. There are also plenty of people, evangelicals included, who have considered the New Testament passages that (apparently) condemn homosexuality and do not see the blanket condemnation of loving relationships that you claim. The Bible-believing vs accepting dichotomy you propose is convenient but false.
So because some former evangelicals (Chalke)accept ssm, all must?
I think that's just GAFCONs argument in reverse. Because some members do not accept SSM then no other members should.

I don't think Steve Chalke would consider himself a former evangelical.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Le Roc is right ... Anglophone Protestantism was influenced by Puritanism a lot more than its continental counterparts.

I'm not saying there's never been a puritanical streak in Dutch, German, French, Scandinavian or central-European Protestantism - but I get the impression that Protestantism in continental Europe is a different beast to what we see in Anglophone or Anglophone influenced countries.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Matt Black: Can you elaborate?
I already did that a bit here. Answering what Jemima said, I don't think that the Bebbington Quadrilateral defines a lot of what mainline Protestantism is about in Northern Europe.

I also feel that there isn't a lot of switching between denominations going on. Sure, a group of people switched from mainline Protestant to Evangelical, mostly in the eighties and nineties, but that's about it. From what I hear from Evangelicals, I don't have the feeling that they switch a lot between their denominations either. So, I find it rather interesting to read Shipmates telling about the Christian denominations they've been in during their life. That isn't really part of my experience.

Another thing I've already talked about is that people usually don't know a lot about doctrine. My late grandfather was a hard-line member of the Dutch Reformed Church, which officially has Calvinist roots. Once, I talked a bit with him about double predestination and he was like: "What on earth are you on about?"


[ETA: Cross-posted with Gamaliel, whom I agree with.]

[ 18. January 2016, 12:03: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There is this really disgusting concept called "conversion", which nearly everyone forgot that it is no one time event.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
There are some letters in the Guardian today. I don't quite understand the third one down from the Human Dignity Trust, which seems to see something good about last week.

Guardian letters 18th Jan 2016

[ 18. January 2016, 13:24: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In some ways, TEC is actually quite conservative in their adherence to their 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Liturgically I have noticed that American Episcopalians tend to be sticklers for sticking to their book, compared to the CofE where apparently, there are some clergy who create all sorts of liturgies that would not past muster in the United States.
The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer is horrible. Both conservatives and the left equally hate it.

While it's used, it may not be used much longer. The next Episcopal General Convention is to begin the prayer book revision process. I understand it takes two successive sittings of the General Convention for a new book to be issued. So that's 2021.

I've been to enough Episcopal parishes and cathedrals to know that many a congregation tosses out bits of the 1979 liturgy for homebrew prayers of some sort or another. Some draw upon many of the supplemental liturgies approved since 1979. Others are literally homebrew. Some are "Star Wars"-esque prayers. Others are papist from the Roman missal.

I've never seen the creed omitted, but I've been to a handful of parishes where a confession is dropped and so much of the printed Rite II liturgy is swamped for whatever the celebrant is reading that even opening the book is pointless.

Personally, I always find it ironic when the liturgy uses traditional language for the Lord's Prayer but contemporary for everything else. I'm a traditionalist but I accept that liturgies with "thee" and "thou" aren't understandable or relatable today.

I guess above all else I just want a well-done liturgy--whether traditional (Rite I of 1979, 1928, 1662--whatever) or contemporary (Rite II, Common Worship). Nothing irks me more than something poorly done.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
I've been to enough Episcopal parishes and cathedrals to know that many a congregation tosses out bits of the 1979 liturgy for homebrew prayers of some sort or another. Some draw upon many of the supplemental liturgies approved since 1979. Others are literally homebrew. Some are "Star Wars"-esque prayers. Others are papist from the Roman missal.
Usually "Star Trek" not "Star Wars". Which strikes as a less than "joyful slip"** towards combat.


**Joy being "freude" in German.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In some ways, TEC is actually quite conservative in their adherence to their 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Liturgically I have noticed that American Episcopalians tend to be sticklers for sticking to their book, compared to the CofE where apparently, there are some clergy who create all sorts of liturgies that would not past muster in the United States.
The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer is horrible. Both conservatives and the left equally hate it.
Glad to read this. I have recently attended several Episcopal services locally here and was surprised at this aspect of them.

Oddly, the form of service gave the impression of a very conservative, traditional organization from the 19th century.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
While it's used, it may not be used much longer. The next Episcopal General Convention is to begin the prayer book revision process. I understand it takes two successive sittings of the General Convention for a new book to be issued. So that's 2021.
I think 2021 is a bit optimistic. Prayer Book revision on our current BCP started in 1967 (though I assume the actual work began before that) with "The Liturgy of the Lord's Supper." Then we had the Green Book, the Zebra Book, the Blue Book (aka the Groundhog Book), followed by the Draft Proposed Book of Common Prayer, and finally the 1979 BCP. (I'm working from memory here, so I might have the chronological order of the books wrong.) That's more than 12 years.

The 1979 BCP was a transitional, compromise book to get away from Cranmer's 16th century language and start praying in 20th century American English. It kept the Rite I services for those who preferred the older language. Because it was a compromise, some thought it went too far in modernization and others thought it didn't go far enough. I don't think it was ever expected to last as long as it has.
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In some ways, TEC is actually quite conservative in their adherence to their 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Liturgically I have noticed that American Episcopalians tend to be sticklers for sticking to their book, compared to the CofE where apparently, there are some clergy who create all sorts of liturgies that would not past muster in the United States.
The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer is horrible. Both conservatives and the left equally hate it.
Glad to read this. I have recently attended several Episcopal services locally here and was surprised at this aspect of them.

Oddly, the form of service gave the impression of a very conservative, traditional organization from the 19th century.
For conservatives--the few that remain in the Episcopal Church--the next prayer book will be really, really bad. The real internal Episcopalian split now is between liberals and militant left-wingers.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There are some letters in the Guardian today. I don't quite understand the third one down from the Human Dignity Trust, which seems to see something good about last week.

Guardian letters 18th Jan 2016
It would seem to me that he values the formal push against the criminalization of homosexual behaviour which still features in a number of post-imperial African states, and the success of this would be important for the daily life of gays in sub-Saharan Africa. From this perspective, the closing statement could be productive.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Meet and Right So To Do:
quote:
The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer is horrible.
A dissenting view here: I have liked it. Not all of it, mind, but enough to be happy about participating in the liturgy. And my church only tweaks it a tiny bit.

[ 18. January 2016, 15:40: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Apologies for the herculean post. I wanted to answer as many people's objections as I could. If this is overwhelming people can perhaps skip down to the part that answers their posts. I tried to shorten my quotes to prevent an even longer post; if I left out part of your post, it was not to try to avoid it, but to give enough context to my response to make it meaningful or at least placeable. Thanks to everyone who responded. I hope it is evident that if I didn't consider people other than Orthodox to be Christian, I wouldn't even be here on the Ship. I have not ever tried to convert anybody, only to present what I understand as the Orthodox position, and to clearly distinguish it from my personal opinions, which are not always the same.

At some point I wonder if this thread doesn't belong in Ecclesiantics?

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, I'm saying that not many protestants would agree with you that toeing the party line is the ultimate defining characteristic ("bottom line") of protestantism.
Of course they wouldn't. They'd say the defining characteristic is [fill in your bottom line here]. On this thread it's already been done: the defining characteristic of Protestantism is a certain way of approaching Scripture. Which from the outside looks an awful lot like a bottom line. More on which anon.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Which party's line am I supposed to toe?
Whichever one you ask, they will tell you theirs.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Had TEC been an Orthodox autocephalous Church it would have had its neck wrung, its head cut off and its priests and people cast into outer darkness long before now.

Whilst I can understand MT's sympathy for TEC it feels odd given that Orthodox reactions in a case like this would make GAFCON look like a Teddy Bear's picnic.

Or am I missing something?
The fact that the Anglican Communion isn't organized the way the Orthodox Church is. The fact that intercommunion is not the be-all and end-all of Anglican inter-church relations. Could even Peter Jensen (were he still in power) forbid his priests to commune TEC members? It's a different world, and such comparisons just don't hold.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that for most Protestants the bottom line is the Bible and a high view of its divine authorship and authority, even if not seen as infallible.
That is the claim, yes. And that is the sincere belief of many, perhaps most, Evangelicals. But the way it plays out too often is: the bottom line is the conclusions WE (OUR GROUP) reach when we read the Scriptures in just the RIGHT way. Including and right now especially as regards abortion and homosexuality. Few Evangelicals these days are shunned and othered for accepting divorce. Nobody tosses their son out of the family for dating a girl whose parents are divorced, or (if older) getting a divorce or dating a divorcée. Yet the Bible is quite clear and unambiguous on divorce. Heartbreaking numbers of sons are disinherited for being gay, and told they cannot both be gay and Christian. Doesn't that sound like a bottom line? Are the Scriptures really acting as bottom line here? I can't see how that can be defended. Even people who don't toss out family members still believe you can't be both gay and Christian.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't think this is in the case with mainline protestantism in the Netherlands, and by extension, most of Northern Europe. You're in a certain protestant group because your father was there, and his father, and his father … Which group you belong to tells a lot about your family, not much about doctrine. In fact, most people don't even know very well what the doctrinal line of their group is.
So they are not defined doctrinally, and prove the exception to my rule. I admit I was thinking mostly of American Evangelical groups operating in the 21st century. One might say these Northern European groups have "grown out of" the type of bottom line I am describing; certainly their great^n grandfathers were not ignorant of their doctrinal positions. Thus my rough claim lacks nuance, particularly historical nuance. Do these Northern European churches have a bottom line? What would cause a person to be tossed out or shunned?

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think we basically have a marketplace of ideas which one chooses to take on - or remain within. So I don't think it really makes any sense to claim that there is a qualitative difference between any church and any other. For most of us, if we don't like what is on offer (for a range of reasons) we can move somewhere else.
I think this is an essentially Protestant understanding of what the Church is, and it is not shared by the Catholics or Orthodoxen.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So for me the only difference here is that some might see other Christians as Christian if they're doing certain things (let's say for example baptism and Communion) in vaguely the right way, others reject/accept the Christianity of others based on (apparently arbitary, as seen from the outside) sets of theological red lines.

Is that what you meant, Mousethief?
I think it's much stronger than that, as I have laid out throughout this post.

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
The actions of the AC seem to me to be rather less about personal holiness, and a lot more about enforcing the "holiness" of others.
Which is what I see in the actions of various Evangelicals (and their allies) in the US as regards homosexuality, abortion, birth control -- the shibboleths of the day. They want, through the auspices of the state via criminal law and regulation, to enforce their morality on others.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is this really disgusting concept called "conversion", which nearly everyone forgot that it is no one time event.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or straightforward here. Certainly in American Evangelicalism, a personal conversion "story" plays a large part in self-identity and belonging. Even little children are expected to have a "come to Jesus" moment, eventually, at which point they switch over from being pre-Christian to being "saved."

Nevertheless we have read here on the ship of people growing up in the church who never considered themselves NOT Christian, and who feel they cannot fit themselves into that mold. Some people *pretend* to have a conversion experience, or self-deludedly invent one (I am paraphrasing them, not editorializing), in order to fit in. I think it is part and parcel of the way one defines the Faith and the Church (for most Protestants the two are indistinguishable -- the "invisible Church" doctrine).

In the Orthodox Church, baptism makes you a member, full stop. Infant baptism then becomes an acknowledgement that our children are part of the Family, part of the Body of Christ, and don't need to have a personal epiphany -- or even later "confirmation" -- to be fully one of us. And it's why we commune infants from the day they're baptized. Baptism is, for us, part of the "bottom line" the way it cannot be (and is honestly reported NOT to be) by people who believe it to not be efficacious of anything, but merely an obedience, or an outward sign of something that has already taken place inside.

Ultimately that's a different understanding of Church from that of the Orthodoxen or the Catholics. And why you will hear former Catholics complain that the RCC believes "once a Catholic, always a Catholic."
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thanks for taking the time to respond so comprehensively to so many different voices, Mousethief.

For my own part, I find myself nodding along to some aspects of what you've posted - because it fits what I've heard others say from within the Orthodox tradition - but on another level I find myself a tad perplexed ...

In the issue of the Anglican Communion vs TEC, you seem to be suggesting that it would be ok for the rest of the Orthodox Church to press the nuclear button on the OCA, say, if it had introduced SSM - but not for for the Anglican Communion to sideline the TEC for 3 years (about as hard a tap on the wrist as it gets within Anglicanism) because the Anglican Communion isn't Orthodox and shouldn't act as if it is ...

[Paranoid]

Or is that not what you are saying?

It's as if you're saying, 'It's wrong for the Anglican Communion to act that way towards one of its provinces because ... because well, it's un-Anglican. But if the other Orthodox jurisdictions acted that way - or worse - towards the OCA or another jurisdiction then that'd be fine because Orthodoxy is a different world and we do things differently here ...'

Would that be a fair approximation of your position?

I'm not knocking it necessarily - it'd be a bit like saying, 'Well, it's alright for the Pope to issue an infallible ex-cathedra statement because he's the Pope and the RCC believes that he is entitled and empowered to do that ... but it wouldn't be ok for the Archbishop of Canterbury of Canterbury to do so or for the Ecumenical Patriarch to do so because their churches don't see things that way ...'

Which would be fair enough.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, I'm saying that not many protestants would agree with you that toeing the party line is the ultimate defining characteristic ("bottom line") of protestantism.
Of course they wouldn't. They'd say the defining characteristic is [fill in your bottom line here]. On this thread it's already been done: the defining characteristic of Protestantism is a certain way of approaching Scripture. Which from the outside looks an awful lot like a bottom line.
Well, there is a world of difference between a "high view of Scripture" and "toeing the party line" as a "bottom line".

Not only that, there is a difference between a congregation-wide uniform interpretation of Scripture and a congregation having a high view of Scripture that allows for legitimately differing interpretations.

Perhaps my "coherent vs. divergent"-minded divide is actually between non-conformists and established churches whether protestant or catholic (I don't have any insights to speak of into the mind of orthodox congregations).

However, of the Christians I know, I still think there's more headspace for Catholics to simultaneously affirm two contradictory things than there is for protestants.

(The anecdote which sticks in my mind in this respect was a Catholic infant baptism I attended in which the priest went to great lengths to explain that this baptism didn't mean the child belonged to God, that they needed to grow into a relationship with him, the rite was just a symbol, etc. etc. - followed immediately by the liturgy saying basically exactly the opposite and the congregation singing "you have become a child of God and brother of Jesus, hallelujah").
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the issue of the Anglican Communion vs TEC, you seem to be suggesting that it would be ok for the rest of the Orthodox Church to press the nuclear button on the OCA, say, if it had introduced SSM
Foul. You didn't ask if I thought it would be okay. You asked what I thought would happen. This is a straw man, or a goal-post moving, or something. At any rate it's not acceptable to argue that way.

quote:
- but not for for the Anglican Communion to sideline the TEC for 3 years (about as hard a tap on the wrist as it gets within Anglicanism) because the Anglican Communion isn't Orthodox and shouldn't act as if it is ...

[Paranoid]

Or is that not what you are saying?
On the question of what this group of primates should or should not do, I am merely parroting what is being said here by real flesh-and-blood Anglicans/Episcopalians. According to them, that's not the way the AC works, and it constitutes a usurpation of power by GAFCON and their allies. Am I wrong in reading that from what people have said here? Why do you insist on me either remaking the EOC along these lines, or remaking the AC along EOC lines? I don't understand why you think I think they should be the same.

quote:
I'm not knocking it necessarily - it'd be a bit like saying, 'Well, it's alright for the Pope to issue an infallible ex-cathedra statement because he's the Pope and the RCC believes that he is entitled and empowered to do that ... but it wouldn't be ok for the Archbishop of Canterbury of Canterbury to do so or for the Ecumenical Patriarch to do so because their churches don't see things that way ...'

Which would be fair enough.
Shouldn't we allow people to be faithful to their own professed beliefs? If I said, "you Catholics shouldn't listen to your Pope's ex cathedra statements because it's not the Orthodox thing to do" you'd think I was mad, or at greatly confused.

That's essentially what I've been condemning in Evangelicals who are trying to force other people to kowtow to the Evangelical moral compass. It's why the Hobby Lobby case was a Very Bad Thing. Because one group of people restricting other people's freedoms by enforcing their personal views on contraception on an entire nation through the courts is wrong.

There would be a massive hue and cry if the Catholics rammed through a court case not allowing the state to recognize remarriage when the original spouse was still alive. And rightly so.

I don't understand this "you should want everybody to do exactly as you do, even though they're not a part of your group" straitjacket you are trying to force me into. Or rather I understand the straitjacket, just not the attempted forcing.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, there is a world of difference between a "high view of Scripture" and "toeing the party line" as a "bottom line".
Not when having a high view of Scripture is tacitly defined as agreeing with what the group derives from its high view of scripture.

quote:
Not only that, there is a difference between a congregation-wide uniform interpretation of Scripture and a congregation having a high view of Scripture that allows for legitimately differing interpretations.
Except on certain shibboleths. You can agree to disagree (in some places) on whether the Parousia is pre-trib or post-trib or pre-millenial or post-millenial. But not whether or not homosexuality is a sin. If you think it isn't, you either shut your mouth or risk disfellowshipping.

Or this:

My first wife and I personally knew a couple in Evanston, Illinois, (the manager of the apartment complex we lived in and his wife) who are in just such a position. The wife had had an abortion because their child was anacephalic (the foetus had no brain) and for other reasons it was dangerous for her to to be pregnant at all. Adding these two together, there was no reason to bring the condemned-to-immediate-death-upon-birth infant to term, and many reasons not to. So they had had an abortion.

They were in great anguish of soul about it -- it was a difficult and heartbreaking position to be in, and a difficult and heartbreaking decision to have to make. But they couldn't talk to it about anybody in their church or they would be instantly disfellowshipped. So their anguish could not be consoled by the very people they would seek consolation from for any other anguish.

As a result they opened their souls to us, because we weren't in their church, and they had reason to believe (rightly) that we would not condemn them.

This is what I am talking about with the "bottom line."

Of course that's just two examples. As has already been said on this thread, in another setting it might be the post-trib that will get you the cold shoulder.

quote:
Perhaps my "coherent vs. divergent"-minded divide is actually between non-conformists and established churches whether protestant or catholic (I don't have any insights to speak of into the mind of orthodox congregations).
Of course the established-vs-non-conformist divide doesn't even exist in the States.

quote:
However, of the Christians I know, I still think there's more headspace for Catholics to simultaneously affirm two contradictory things than there is for protestants.
This rather supports my position. (your anecdote by the way gives me the horrors)
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not cheating - so I don't accept the cry of 'foul' - I'm simply trying to understand your point of view - and being somewhat mischievous along the way ...

You've actually clarified it for me quite well, thank you.

No, if anything I was thinking allowed and doing play-dough or 'sandpit' stuff (to borrow some awful corporate speak for a moment) to see if I could fit what you were saying into the kind of moulds used by Protestant and RC Christians ...

[Big Grin]

And no, it doesn't fit ... but I knew that anyway ...

I'm not sure Eutychus has understood your bottom-line point ... I didn't take that to mean that all Protestant congregations have a single bottom-line to which everyone must adhere ... rather I understood it as some kind of bottom-line tends to be how Protestants define themselves ...

You don't have to go very far in the Protestant world to come up against shibboleths, be it:

Are you born-again?

Are you a pre/a/post or pan-millenialist (pan - 'see how it all pans out ...' )

Do you speak in tongues?

Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

Are you a paedo or a credo baptist?

And so on and on and on and on and on ...

I agree with Eutychus about more 'Catholic' Christians having a greater ability than certain types of Protestant Christian to hold things in tension and apparently contradictory aspects together at one and the same time ...

Without toppling into Dead Horse territory on the baptism issue, I was once party to a conversation between an Anglican vicar, a former Baptist - and an Orthodox priest. The Anglican said how horrified he was to receive an email from the parents of a child he'd christened which said, 'Thank you for making our child a Christian ...'

The Orthodox priest grunted in approval. 'That would have annoyed me too. Even our theology doesn't hold that ...'

He proceded to relate the story of how he'd come close to tears of frustration when baptising the baby of a Romanian couple. No sooner had he dunked the baby three times according to the custom, than the parents and wider family had scooped up the infant and were cooing over it before he'd finished the prayers ...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, if anything I was thinking allowed
No thinking allowed.

quote:
and doing play-dough or 'sandpit' stuff (to borrow some awful corporate speak for a moment)
I have absolutely no idea what that means.

quote:
to see if I could fit what you were saying into the kind of moulds used by Protestant and RC Christians ...

[Big Grin]

And no, it doesn't fit ... but I knew that anyway ...
[Roll Eyes] [Disappointed] [brick wall]

quote:
I'm not sure Eutychus has understood your bottom-line point ... I didn't take that to mean that all Protestant congregations have a single bottom-line to which everyone must adhere ... rather I understood it as some kind of bottom-line tends to be how Protestants define themselves ...
Precisely.

[ 18. January 2016, 16:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And no, it doesn't fit ... but I knew that anyway ...
So you were merely being disingenuous? That makes it all better. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
[Big Grin] No, I wasn't being disingenuous. Mischievous to an extent ... rhetorical perhaps ...

But no, I wasn't deliberately out to fox or bamboozle you. I probably typed clumsily again ... my fingers type more quickly than my brain works ...

If anything, I was probably closer to your position on this one than it looked at first sight.

I was testing a hypothesis. Hence the reference to playing in sand-pits and messing with play-dough - to see what we came up with.

It was a reference to awful corporate workshop speak. Not only do we get, 'We workshopped that ...' we now get, 'Let's sand-pit it ...'

[Ultra confused]

As in mess around as in a child's sandpit to see what we can develop.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure Eutychus has understood your bottom-line point ... I didn't take that to mean that all Protestant congregations have a single bottom-line to which everyone must adhere ... rather I understood it as some kind of bottom-line tends to be how Protestants define themselves ...
Precisely.
I still feel that the Anglo-Saxon experience is held as the standard here, and that this doesn't hold for continental Protestantism (which is where Protestantism originated and where still a lot of Protestants live).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, sure, we get that Le Roc.

I've acknowledged that continental European Protestantism is different to the Anglo-phone versions most of us here are used to ...

If I'm framing things in an Anglocentric way it's not because I don't recognise that there are alternatives ... it's simply because that's my cultural and linguistic background.

If I were from Holland or Germany, Denmark or Sweden I'd see things rather differently - for sure.

I don't know a great deal about Protestantism in Scandinavia or other parts of northern Europe - but what you say about it chimes with me ... in terms of what I do know and from what I have heard.

I know a bit about the national church in Sweden and that seems very much like a 'spiritual National Health Service' ... and more of a cultural/family and collective thing rather than the more individualistic UK/US and Australian forms of Anglophone Christianity that we're more used to ...

Mousethief has already acknowledged that continental Northern Europe is the exception that proves the rule.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gamaliel: Mousethief has already acknowledged that continental Northern Europe is the exception that proves the rule.
Hmm, if Anglo-Saxon Protestantism is the 'rule' and we are the 'exception', that still doesn't taste right to me. I think there are a lot of continental Europeans who would object to this way of phrasing it. Again, continental Europe is where Protestantism started. Why would we be considered the exception?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, there is a world of difference between a "high view of Scripture" and "toeing the party line" as a "bottom line".
Not when having a high view of Scripture is tacitly defined as agreeing with what the group derives from its high view of scripture.
Agreed, but that is a very distinct subset of the former view. Whether it wins out is I think somehow related to what this thread is all about (especially for those who think SSM is a symptom and not a cause).

quote:
You can agree to disagree (in some places) on whether the Parousia is pre-trib or post-trib or pre-millenial or post-millenial. But not whether or not homosexuality is a sin. If you think it isn't, you either shut your mouth or risk disfellowshipping.
Again, this is true in some protestant congregations (and round here, more evangelical ones) but by no means all. I think your experience might possibly be pond-influenced.

In some twelve years of existence, the church I help lead has so far managed to avoid adopting a confession of faith at all. I'm pretty sure opinions are divided on homosexuality; we work hard to keep our priorities right (if you want to find out where I stand on this these days, you'll have to visit Dead Horses). As to abortion, my wife and I took a position very similar to yours for someone in our church in, as it happens, a far less extreme situation.

There is certainly an evangelical constituency where I am that acts much as you describe, but I think it is confined a) to certain denominations and b) to certain levels of hierarchy. I think that on most DH issues, such churches are out of step with the majority of under-35s in their congregations.

With regard to the subject of this thread, this contributes to my suspicion that the leaders of GAFCON and their ilk are not necessarily representative of their flocks. Most sheep on both sides of the debate just want somewhere shibboleth-free to graze safely; it's the bad shepherds that muddy the waters [Frown]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Again, continental Europe is where Protestantism started. Why would we be considered the exception?
LeRoc, as stated above I think that if it's true at all, my speculation is truer for nonconformists than historic/established protestant churches.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Eutychus:LeRoc, as stated above I think that if it's true at all, my speculation is truer for nonconformists than historic/established protestant churches.
Yes, I think your experience is interesting. I know that you work in France; but is it in a nonconformist Protestant setting? Like I said before, another thing is that Protestants are a minority in that country, and surely that is going to make a difference too.

Look, I'm not trying to start a North Sea War here (we need a better term for this, analogous to 'Pond War' [Smile] ) I realise that this is an English-speaking forum, so obviously people are going to be talking from an Anglo-Saxon perspective. And I don't mind reading generalistic statements from time to time; these help to focus our thoughts sometimes. But I also think it's clear that when mousethief talks about Protestantism, he may have an idea in mind that is very different from my image of Protestantism.

There are obviously differences between Anglo-Saxon and Continental Protestantism (by which I roughly mean mainline Protestantism in the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia). Which of the two is the 'standard' and which is the 'exception'? I think that for a lot of Continentals, setting the Anglo-Saxon experience as the 'standard' would feel wrong.

(This difference is one of the reasons why it's interesting for me to be on the Ship. Sometimes I say something here that is perfectly acceptable in mainline European Protestantism. Something we don't even talk about because everyone excepts it. But when I say it here rather innocently, people go: "What the fuck are you on about??" It's interesting to get this feedback sometimes.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
LeRoc, the founders of these Northern European denominations were hardly the milquetoast "anything goes" types you are painting today. They had effing WARS about these things. Or at least using these things as excuses for wars, which couldn't be done if these things didn't mean something to somebody, more than which brand of biscuits we're going to have during fellowship hour.

I believe I asked before but you haven't answered. What would it take to be disfellowshiped from one of these undogmatic Norther churches? Is it at all possible? Is it "anything goes"? No position or behavior is too out there?

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In some twelve years of existence, the church I help lead has so far managed to avoid adopting a confession of faith at all.
So what makes you different from the Catholics? Why evangelize in a Christian country at all, one that has an indigenous church? What sets you apart?

[ 18. January 2016, 17:53: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can't speak for MT but when I use the term 'the exception that proves the rule' I'm not necessarily implying any value judgement on the 'exception' nor even suggesting that it's a literal 'exception' or out-rider ...

I suspect MT didn't mean it that way either, though.

What I think we were both saying is that 'unlike' non-Anglophone northern European Protestantism, the Protestantism we encounter and are most familiar with is pretty much defined by shibboleths and party-lines ...

How does this fit in, though, with what I once heard a Dutch evangelist say in a sermon, 'If you get three Dutch pastors together you get five opinions ...'

[Biased]

I've met a number of Dutch and German evangelicals in my time - as well as French, Spanish and one or two Italian ones. The Dutch and Germans were recognisably 'different' to UK evangelicals but did have strong UK and US influences.

The French and Spanish evangelicals felt more like UK or US imports ...

I don't know enough about Italian evangelicals - or Greek evangelicals ... or ...

A friend who studied Russian at university and who used to work in Russia with evangelical missions (she's now Orthodox) tells me that Russian evangelicals tend to be a heck of a lot more fundamentalist then UK evangelicals ... and very much defined by shibboleths.

So it very much depends on the churchmanship and tradition as much as anything else.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
mousethief: LeRoc, the founders of these Northern European denominations were hardly the milquetoast "anything goes" types you are painting today. They had effing WARS about these things. Or at least using these things as excuses for wars, which couldn't be done if these things didn't mean something to somebody, more than which brand of biscuits we're going to have during fellowship hour.
I guess a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Most present-day members of these churches that went to war a couple of centuries ago would struggle to name a theological difference between their churches.

quote:
mousethief: I believe I asked before but you haven't answered. What would it take to be disfellowshiped from one of these undogmatic Norther churches? Is it at all possible? Is it "anything goes"? No position or behavior is too out there?
If I didn't answer you before, it wasn't on purpose. If I look at the very MotR Protestant church that my parents attend in the Netherlands (I'm not even talking about the experimental alt-worshippy group I go to), I can't remember anyone being dismembered from that church. I'm not sure if there is a procedure for that, and can't think of any position of behaviour why someone would be.

[ 18. January 2016, 18:07: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If I look at the very MotR Protestant church that my parents attend in the Netherlands (I'm not even talking about the experimental alt-worshippy group I go to), I can't remember anyone being dismembered from that church. I'm not sure if there is a procedure for that, and can't think of any position of behaviour why someone would be.
So do they not have any doctrinal content at all? Nothing that really matters or that distinguishes them from non-Christians in any perceptible way? I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. Surely they must believe something distinguishes Christians from non-Christians? Or is it just that they don't care what you believe, as long as your parents went here, and you make the coffee when your name comes up on the rota?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
mousethief: So do they not have any doctrinal content at all?
Of course they do (although I guess to some Shipmates it may feel quite undogmatic). But when you preach a certain doctrine from the pulpit, there can be degrees in which you require everyone in your church to follow that doctrine (and in the actions you take if they don't).

[ 18. January 2016, 18:19: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure Eutychus has understood your bottom-line point ... I didn't take that to mean that all Protestant congregations have a single bottom-line to which everyone must adhere ... rather I understood it as some kind of bottom-line tends to be how Protestants define themselves ...
Precisely.
I think there is certainly truth to this, but I wonder if it misses the point somewhat.

There is no question that divisions about doctrine and order pervade Christian history. The Great Schism and the Reformation are but the two biggest examples, and Protestant history is full of other examples. More recent examples aren't limited to Protestantism, though.

It seems to me that the key lies in a different sense of how Catholics, Orthodoxen and Protestants "define" themselves. The Catholic and Orthodox understanding is that they are the true church. That's what I understood being "bound together" by the sacraments and apostolic succession to mean—only within the true church with valid apostolic succession can one be sure of receiving true sacraments that in turn form the church into what it is. With this understanding, anyone who separates because of doctrinal disputes is schismatic, heretical, anathema, excommunicated, or some combination thereof. This encourages, I think, perhaps some leeway in keeping everyone in the tent and simultaneously in not wandering too far from the tent.

Most Protestants do not have an understanding of being the "true church" to the exclusion of other churches. That being so, separation over doctrinal issues, doesn't result in a split from the church in the same way it would in an Orthodox or Catholic understanding. Leaving a denomination is not, in Protestant understanding, leaving The Church.

It's not just a matter of how Protestant groups define themselves, then. It's also how they define "the Church."
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why evangelize in a Christian country at all, one that has an indigenous church?
When I came to France over 30 years ago we were told that even the Catholic church described France as a mission field, and I don't think France has become more "Christian" in the meantime. We get a lot of people who either have no church background at all or feel completely disenfranchised from the historic Church. I'd like to think we equip people to get to grips themselves with what the Bible means for them.

30 years has changed both me and the environment. Certainly more Catholics open their Bibles than did than. And today, at various levels, I'm involved in ecumenical and even interfaith initiatives. Tomorrow night I'll be up the front at the local Week of Prayer for Christian Unity event with the Catholics, Orthodox and fellow Protestant representatives.

quote:

So what makes you different from the Catholics?
At one level I have just as good fellowship with some fellow Catholics as I do with some fellow evangelicals, just as I can come out twitching from meetings with both. The official Catholic view of ecumenical efforts is basically "a day out at the zoo" - even the local ecumenical group gets referred to as the diocesan ecumenical group, which nearly gave my Orthodox brother apoplexy. I just can't hack that "Mary & Saints" stuff; but for many Catholics it seems to fall into the "all Catholics believe it but of course I don't".

Our church is made up, broadly, of believers, i.e. people who are involved out of conviction more than out of habit and tradition. And yes, we get not a few people looking for others who actually study their Bibles (also a good source of new recruits for the JWs by the way).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I get what you're saying, Eutychus, although I'm still not quite ready to buy that there is nothing that distinguishes you between the Catholics and Orthodoxen on your local diocesan ecumenical group.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd like to think we equip people to get to grips themselves with what the Bible means for them.
There's a real difference between the Orthodox and Protestant view, I think: for you it all comes down to people's relationship with the Bible. I can't imagine any Orthodox (or Catholic) would make this their bottom line or ultimate goal.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It seems to me that the key lies in a different sense of how Catholics, Orthodoxen and Protestants "define" themselves.
I've been trying to say something very like this throughout this conversation. I don't think we're that far apart; maybe seeing the same elephant from different sides.

[ 18. January 2016, 19:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've been trying to say something very like this throughout this conversation. I don't think we're that far apart; maybe seeing the same elephant from different sides.
Yes. I was just hoping that describing the elephant from the other side might help.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I haven't been able to participate much on this thread over the weekend. But I have a few more thoughts.

Given what GAFCON believes, working to get TEC expelled from the Anglican Communion and replaced by ACNA makes perfect sense. If I believed what GAFCON believes, I would refuse to stay in communion with TEC even if it mean the dissolution of the Anglican Communion and the loss of Western/Northern/White financial support. GAFCON watched how TEC treated conservatives who wanted to leave TEC but remain part of the Anglican Communion. They might have noticed what happened to Christian bakers, florists, and pizza makers who didn't want to participate in gay weddings. No, I think if I believed what GAFCON believes I would be taking a page out of the National Rifle Association's playbook and say no to everything. I don't believe what GAFCON believes (but I try to understand the Other and what not). However, in retrospect, I don't think the years and years of court battles over church property was worth it. I wish TEC would have been more gracious and humble in how they treated conservatives who wanted to leave.

What GAFCON wants is a change in the understanding of the Anglican Communion. When push comes to shove, a majority of Anglican provinces will not permit that to happen. See the failed attempt at getting an Anglican Covenant in place. Nobody wants to give the primates of the Global South that much influence over their churches. I predict we will see a split between the provinces with most of the money and the provinces with most of the people. In other words, the Anglican Communion will split along the same lines as the Republican Party.

The GAFCON primates are hypocrites. TEC rejected the part of Lambeth 1998 we didn't like. Some provinces of GAFCON rejected the parts they didn't like. If I believed what the typical person likely to get appointed Archbishop of Canterbury believes, I would be in quite the moral pickle. How dare I sit in judgment of those in the Global South? It's colonialism all over again and I still feel guilty over colonialism. At the same time, you can't get more homophobic than imprisoning and potentially executing gays and lesbians. It would be one thing if the people doing the persecuting of gays and lesbians were Muslim like in Saudi Arabia and Iran but these are Christians and in many cases Anglicans at that. And, hell, I'm the fucking Archbishop of Canterbury so this is my circus and those are my trapeze artists (saying monkeys or clowns would be construed as racist) so everybody expects me to say something worthy of the person holding the same office as Thomas Becket but the best I can come up with is milquetoast ecclesiastical corparatese. Of course, I don't believe what the typical person likely to be Archbishop of Canterbury believes (but I try to understand the Other and what not).

The average person in TEC doesn't care about the Anglican Communion. Hell, most Episcopalians want their diocese to leave them alone. They could care less that they won't get to vote for people who vote for people who vote for the people who actually participate in the Instruments of Unity that they couldn't name to save their lives. They can name the married gay could who faithfully sit in the pew in front of them every Sunday and the very competent and orthodox married lesbian who would make a better bishop than most of the straight males that get elected based at least partially on the fact they look like a bishop.

This is how the communion ends not with a bang but a whimper.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm still not quite ready to buy that there is nothing that distinguishes you between the Catholics and Orthodoxen on your local diocesan ecumenical group.
I never claimed there wasn't! There's a verse in Ephesians that talks about the Church being the multi-faceted wisdom of God. I'm happy to accept that we're all facets of that without passing judgement on precisely who is in and who is out.

And as Nick Tamen points out of protestants, I don't equate belonging to any particular church with belonging to The Church™

quote:
for you it all comes down to people's relationship with the Bible.
That's not what I said either. How can you have a relationship with a book? The Bible itself tells us you can't (2 Corinthians 3 notably)!

If I really must say what I think "it all comes down to", at present I'd say it comes down to whether the Holy Spirit dwells in us.

I think the Bible is useful to the ministry of the Spirit to the extent that it's illuminated by the Spirit. The gathered church also plays a part in the work of the Spirit. But at the end of the day, yes, I think God's aim is for each to know him, independently of any other human teacher or intermediary.

That's how I understand the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:31 [Angel]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Protestantism [is] based on ideas, and the glue that holds Protestant churches together is agreeing on ideas. .. The Catholics see themselves primarily as bound together by the sacraments and their shared history. (Orthodoxen the same.)

... what keeps the great rock [of RCC or Orthodox church] together isn't minutiæ of doctrine but the sacraments and the continuity of clergy and worship.
I appreciate this comment for making me think.

The contrast between a gathering being based on agreed ritual vs based on agreed theology may have merit (even if not so strongly either/or, but we are writing brief posts, not detailed articles).

But what intrigues me is the "middle ground" of groups of churches that don't agree on points some think important, and yet gladly associate with each other. That's what the Anglican communion has been like, (and what the Southern Baptist Convention was like before the power battle to destroy that broad welcome and impose beliefs that had been optional, like 6 day creation) - a large gathering of independent churches that disagreed on many points of theology but embraced each other as fellow churches that share a mutual unity at a level deeper than the disagreements.

That third way is what died in SBC a couple decades ago (which is why I think awareness of goals and tactics from the SBC takeover may be instructive) and what seems to be at risk now in the Anglican Communion.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Eutychus: ...protestant groups self-define by a doctrinal line.
I don't think this is in the case with mainline protestantism in...most of Northern Europe. You're in a certain protestant group because your father was there, and his father,
In USA mainliners often identify with a denominational label by habit of family history but really don't care what the local clergy person thinks and haven't a clue what the denomination teaches.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That would be the mission of groups like GAFCON, I guess - to preserve the Scripture as the only source document for Christian faith and practice.

In other words, what is happening is that the conservatives are not being asked to be 'loving' and 'accepting';... they are being asked to throw aside their whole approach to Scripture and faith.
No, they are not. They are being asked not to piss on TEC. Really, I don't care what other people believe, until they start wanting to piss on me for not agreeing with them.
I thought Anglicans historically have said the Bible is NOT the sole basis, but also tradition and reason. Am I wrong or is a goal of narrowing it to only the Bible a goal to change Anglicanism?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
So, where next, Beeswax Altar?

It looks like we could have a situation where TEC becomes the new ACNA with ACNA becoming the official Anglican church in the USA and TEC occupying the position formerly held by ACNA ... that or rebel or schismatic Anglicans ...

It depends how important Anglican identity is - I suppose - as opposed to a more general Episcopalian one ...

I've come across TEC priests on-line who are obsessed with the Royal Family and with English manners and customs in a way that would embarrass many English - and other British people - more generally.

Indeed, the young ACNA priest I met last year was a big real ale enthusiast - good man - and although clearly not 'English' -culturally obviously very much an Anglophile.

Ok - I recognise that there's more to it than tea and scones, cask ale or London Gin ...

But what is it that holds the thing together ... it's not as if we've all got Byrd and Cramner ...?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Eutychus ... so you're looking to work yourself out if a job and make yourself redundant then?

At what point do we know or tell when human intermediaries or structures are no longer required and we can cast them off like bicycle stabilisers?

Sounds all very good and Quaker-ish but it could easily head towards Illuminism without nasty human intermediaries and structures of some kind.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Eutychus ... so you're looking to work yourself out if a job and make yourself redundant then?
As I said, I believe that the gathered church has a role to play in mediating the Spirit to the believer, and that requires a minimum of leadership and organisation.

While I do ultimately hold to what I just quoted in Jeremiah, I was being a bit provocative, as indeed I think the text is. I do however think it's important that spiritual leaders teach people to think for themselves, and empower rather than control them. I think my role is largely about creating a safe space for people to grow into spiritual maturity.

Our church runs almost no programmes of its own, but its members are massively involved in other programmes of all sorts across Christianity and beyond, and I like to think this is an outworking of that stance.

I have been actively considering how to hand over leadership of the church for a little while now. Far less than ticking doctrinal boxes, and even than a checklist regarding DH issues (either way), I'm looking for people who I think share the same sort of outlook. A mix of Bible knowledge, grace (something I took, in terms of teaching if not in practice, from NFI), openness to the Spirit, open-handedness, and a pastoral heart.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I think though, that it depends on the local community....do you think, Eutychus, that being in a majority-Catholic country (well as far as France can be a religious country!) impacts the way it plays out in your church? Equally there will be communities where a more involved church activity programme will be needed to have that safe space for people to spiritually mature in.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think though, that it depends on the local community....do you think, Eutychus, that being in a majority-Catholic country (well as far as France can be a religious country!) impacts the way it plays out in your church?
I just noticed LeRoc asked me this question (or something very like it) and I never answered - sorry!

I have indeed long observed that in "Christian" countries, there are myriad differences in both protestantism and catholicism depending on which one is the majority religion.

By way of anecdote, some years ago at a European prison chaplains' conference I befriended a Roman Catholic priest working as a chaplain... in Greece. Here in France RC chaplains are the vast and overwhelming majority and we protestants are the minority - not exactly oppressed so much as squashed by sheer weight of numbers (at an organisational level). At the hands of the Greek Orthodox on their home turf, my new friend shared my experiences, if not my doctrine, exactly. It was fraternal, funny, and an invaluable lesson.

So yes, the environment definitely makes a difference. A long time ago I read a survey which said the majority of members of France's historic protestant church were so first and foremost "for the freedom of thought it allows".

[ETA mousethief, that came way above any doctrinal assertions!]

That's as resounding an echo as you could wish for of the 19th-century "war for the schools" in which protestants joined forces with anti-clericals to wrest education from the sole preserve of the Catholics and establish the beginnings of secularity (laïcité).

All that said, I don't think our current church is very typical. We're protestant in belief and evangelical in piety, but after that it gets complicated. One member describes it as "full of zebras".

[ 18. January 2016, 20:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've come across TEC priests on-line who are obsessed with the Royal Family and with English manners and customs in a way that would embarrass many English - and other British people - more generally.
I would say the number of unabashed royalists and Anglophiles ordained by the Episcopal Church that I've come across online is nearly on par with the number of faux Catholic clergy. Sometimes they're more papist than the Roman priests down the street!
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
An interesting response from the Episcopal bishop of Springfield, who is Anglo-Catholic:

[removed extensive quote due to fair use considerations: readers can refer to the link]

http://www.episcopalspringfield.org/living-in-the-bonds-of-tough-love/

[ 19. January 2016, 06:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
We were touched and amused, some years ago, to see a plaque in one of the big TEC churches in New York (can't remember which but some shipmate will know) marking the spot where the Queen stood on a visit to the church in 1977 and solemnly noting that 'His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh stood two paces behind her' (or words to that effect).
But then New York was pretty loyal during the unpleasantness of 1776-83, wasn't it?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What would it take to be disfellowshiped from one of these undogmatic Norther churches? Is it at all possible? Is it "anything goes"? No position or behavior is too out there?
You have asked this and some other questions, which I gather you have conclusions about. I haven't found the originals of all your posts, but have followed the discussion of them.

Respectfully, the question of "is there a position or behaviour is too out there" and similar: I think these are the wrong questions (other Anglicans may disagree, this is the western Canadian expression). The question is how to people come together to worship, in a faithful way, but also recognizing several important things about humans. That none of us have the answers, that we are better to be part of the world than to not be part of it, that we should open our doors to any who would come in and seek, and we should not reject people who want to come in.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Are there any signs of reactions domestically in England to the purge? I would assume that both sides of the dead horse splits might think that now is the time to take action rather than fudge..
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've been trying to say something very like this throughout this conversation. I don't think we're that far apart; maybe seeing the same elephant from different sides.
Yes. I was just hoping that describing the elephant from the other side might help.
Excellent, I hoped that was the case.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But what intrigues me is the "middle ground" of groups of churches that don't agree on points some think important, and yet gladly associate with each other. That's what the Anglican communion has been like, (and what the Southern Baptist Convention was like before the power battle to destroy that broad welcome and impose beliefs that had been optional, like 6 day creation) - a large gathering of independent churches that disagreed on many points of theology but embraced each other as fellow churches that share a mutual unity at a level deeper than the disagreements.
It seems to me that the Anglican Communion has been more type 1 (linked by common worship and ancestry) and GAFCON et al. want to make it type 2 (linked by doctrinal statements).

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have been actively considering how to hand over leadership of the church for a little while now. Far less than ticking doctrinal boxes, and even than a checklist regarding DH issues (either way), I'm looking for people who I think share the same sort of outlook. A mix of Bible knowledge, grace (something I took, in terms of teaching if not in practice, from NFI), openness to the Spirit, open-handedness, and a pastoral heart.
So you're looking for people who think like you, just not along doctrinal lines but along attitude/approach lines.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What would it take to be disfellowshiped from one of these undogmatic Norther churches? Is it at all possible? Is it "anything goes"? No position or behavior is too out there?
You have asked this and some other questions, which I gather you have conclusions about.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you think I think I have all the answers and am only asking questions to provoke people or confirm my preexisting ideas? I can assure you this is not the case. I am floating a theory and asking people who dislike my theory questions to see if they are really exceptions, or if we're just using words differently, or seeing from different angles.

quote:
Respectfully, the question of "is there a position or behaviour is too out there" and similar: I think these are the wrong questions (other Anglicans may disagree, this is the western Canadian expression). The question is how to people come together to worship, in a faithful way, but also recognizing several important things about humans. That none of us have the answers, that we are better to be part of the world than to not be part of it, that we should open our doors to any who would come in and seek, and we should not reject people who want to come in.
See, that puts you in type 1 (ecclesial unity) rather than type 2 (doctrinal unity). This still falls neatly into my simple-minded two-compartment box, just not in the compartment I have prejudicially labeled "The Protestant bottom line."

[ 19. January 2016, 03:34: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Meet and Right So To Do:
quote:
The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer is horrible.
A dissenting view here: I have liked it. Not all of it, mind, but enough to be happy about participating in the liturgy. And my church only tweaks it a tiny bit.
Our shack is pretty much by-the-book. I don't think it's horrible, either. There are some bits that are desperately twee (hello, prayer C) and bits where I might prefer different language, but it's OK.

I'm a little scared of a new one - not because I think it will import bad theology, but because I suspect it will be so much set in its time that it'll sound outdated in a few months.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What sort of 'domestic' reactions are you interested in Palimpsest?

There's been coverage in the news, of course - fairly extensively in the quality press and on the BBC - but there's no major ground-swell of interest other than among people like us who like to debate things on Ship-of-Fools or clergy who have a strong view one way or t'other.

It wasn't even mentioned in our parish church on Sunday.I can't speak for anyone else though.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What sort of 'domestic' reactions are you interested in Palimpsest?

There's been coverage in the news, of course - fairly extensively in the quality press and on the BBC - but there's no major ground-swell of interest other than among people like us who like to debate things on Ship-of-Fools or clergy who have a strong view one way or t'other.

It wasn't even mentioned in our parish church on Sunday.I can't speak for anyone else though.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
It was mentioned in my place on Sunday, along the following lines:

1. We prayed for the meeting in Canterbury.
2. Then for tolerance towards those sometimes marginalised by societies, particularly churches.
3. Specific prayers for the leaders of our fellow Anglicans in Africa and Asia.
4. Prayed for the ABofC in his role as head of the CofE.

I think that makes it pretty clear where our P-in-C stands.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
An interesting response from the Episcopal bishop of Springfield, who is Anglo-Catholic:

[removed extensive quote due to fair use considerations: readers can refer to the link]

http://www.episcopalspringfield.org/living-in-the-bonds-of-tough-love/
Meet and Right So to Do

Welcome to the Ship. The editing of your post may well have puzzled you, but fair use of quotes is restricted here to just a few lines (about half a dozen normally), both for copyright purposes and also because of the alternative use of links, which does not run any copyright risk.

If you want to refer to a particular segment of a link, just direct Shipmates to the start and finish lines, or heading reference, or paragraph number (if available).

Barnabaas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What sort of 'domestic' reactions are you interested in Palimpsest?

There's been coverage in the news, of course - fairly extensively in the quality press and on the BBC - but there's no major ground-swell of interest other than among people like us who like to debate things on Ship-of-Fools or clergy who have a strong view one way or t'other.

It wasn't even mentioned in our parish church on Sunday.I can't speak for anyone else though.
No mention at all with us - I'd be surprised if half the congregation had any clue there'd been a Primates Meeting.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I'd imagine most Anglicans here would think that Primates are those big hairy things with silver-backs which strut around on their knuckles and beat their chests to show who is in charge ...

Oh, wait ...
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
The monthly CofE leaflet for pew fodder was published yesterday without mentioning even that the ABC was hosting a Big Thing. [Confused]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
It looks like we could have a situation where TEC becomes the new ACNA with ACNA becoming the official Anglican church in the USA and TEC occupying the position formerly held by ACNA ... that or rebel or schismatic Anglicans ...
Yes, TEC will occupy the position formerly held by ACNA. ACNA claimed to be Anglican because their theology was more in line with the traditional theology of the Church of England. TEC can't and won't do that. Instead, we will change our understanding of Anglican Communion and claim that the Anglican Communion can never kick us out of the Anglican Communion because whatever we are being kicked out of is not really the Anglican Communion. That TEC has laughed at Continuing Anglican churches for a couple of decades now will be forgotten.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've come across TEC priests on-line who are obsessed with the Royal Family and with English manners and customs in a way that would embarrass many English - and other British people - more generally.
Americans can be obsessed with all of that and not care one whit about the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. All the old ladies in every parish I've ever served remember a time when High Tea was quite the to do at the parish. Most of them could care less about the Anglican Communion. We are in love with Merry Old England and the UK as it existed from say 1816-1945. After Churchill, the whole thing went to shit. [Razz]

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed, the young ACNA priest I met last year was a big real ale enthusiast - good man - and although clearly not 'English' -culturally obviously very much an Anglophile.
Real ale is having a moment in the US but it isn't directly connected to being an anglophile.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what is it that holds the thing together ... it's not as if we've all got Byrd and Cramner ...?
We all have them now.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Beeswax Altar posts:
quote:
Americans can be obsessed with all of that and not care one whit about the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. All the old ladies in every parish I've ever served remember a time when High Tea was quite the to do at the parish. Most of them could care less about the Anglican Communion. We are in love with Merry Old England and the UK as it existed from say 1816-1945. After Churchill, the whole thing went to shit.
I think that the post-1945 miscomprehension of the UK stems from a lack of costumed PBS dramas on that period (some episodes of Foyle's War excepted) which were a formative part of that perception. Most anglophiles are only vaguely aware that Churchill had an existence after the end of the war.

Canadians have an influential but aging cohort of English-immigrant Anglicans, and there are many parishes where war brides were (and still are) an influential and active cohort. They, however, have a more realistic if dated image of Britain. Their memories of the Queen are of a young ATS driver as much as they are of Helen Mirren.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Half my friends are members of Changing Attitude and the other half are on General Synod (and indeed sometimes are both), so although there is a great deal of comment from my friends, it's not really an average group of Anglicans.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Indeed it does have to do with a lack of PBS costume dramas set after World War II. We see nothing special in the PBS comedies set in the present day UK. I am impressed with Geraldine Grangers ability to fill St. Barnabas Dibley every Sunday.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
What does PBS stand for in this context please?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Public Broadcasting Service
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What does PBS stand for in this context please?
The Public Broadcasting Service, which is where most Americans encounter British TV shows.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thank you.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The US discovery of cask ale and indeed its own indigeneous craft beer revolution (even though most of it isn't cask-conditioned) may not be connected with Anglophilia - although cask ale is a British phenomenon, but perhaps some kond of residual folk memory ... a harking back to a time when beer actually tasted of something ... and wasn't over-chilled fizzy liquid ...

A yearning for some culture and class ... [Big Grin]

Bob Hoskins nailed it in 'The Long Good Friday'. That speech about a country that has made a bigger contribution to world culture than 'just a hamburger ...'

As one critic said at the time of the film's release, 'It makes you proud of British crime ...'

[Biased]

Anyhow, if the UK went to the dogs after Labour came to power in 1945 and introduced the Welfare State, I wonder when the US went down the tubes? 1783 perhaps? Or maybe with the passing of the 2nd Amendment - or later even, when the US annexed Texas?

[Razz] [Biased]

Seriously, of course, I wouldn't necessarily expect Anglicans in the US, Papua New Guinea, Peru or Cuba to be particularly Anglophile - nor US Episcopalians necessarily ... but one would expect something 'Anglo' about it in some way - the clue is in the title after all.

I mean, there's something Dutch about the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa ...

More seriously again, I'm still wondering what the Anglican Communion actually 'means' and what's holding it together.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Do the Dutch "go Dutch"? Do the English "put English" on a ball? Do Yankees "yank"? (I'll get my snow suit.)
 
Posted by Meet and Right So to Do (# 18532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
An interesting response from the Episcopal bishop of Springfield, who is Anglo-Catholic:

[removed extensive quote due to fair use considerations: readers can refer to the link]

http://www.episcopalspringfield.org/living-in-the-bonds-of-tough-love/
Meet and Right So to Do

Welcome to the Ship. The editing of your post may well have puzzled you, but fair use of quotes is restricted here to just a few lines (about half a dozen normally), both for copyright purposes and also because of the alternative use of links, which does not run any copyright risk.

If you want to refer to a particular segment of a link, just direct Shipmates to the start and finish lines, or heading reference, or paragraph number (if available).

Barnabaas62
Purgatory Host
With all due respect, it's a press statement and hardly subject to any fair use claims.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
With all due respect, it's a press statement and hardly subject to any fair use claims.
A press statement that begins "Beloved in Christ" and is signed "+Daniel Springfield"?

It's a pastoral letter, not a press statement.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Several people asked what I was asking about. It seems to me that the TEC consequences might amplify the tensions in the Anglican church. If adopting same-sex marriage gets the Anglican church sanctioned out of the communion, it's going to make it harder to continue the dither and fudge.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Meet and Right So to Do

Feel free to raise the issue of fair use in the Styx. That's the proper place to discuss the policy, rather than here in this thread. That's another policy, designed to prevent discussions getting side tracked by consideration of guidelines and other questions of how the Ship is run.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What would it take to be disfellowshiped from one of these undogmatic Norther churches? Is it at all possible? Is it "anything goes"? No position or behavior is too out there?
You have asked this and some other questions, which I gather you have conclusions about.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you think I think I have all the answers and am only asking questions to provoke people or confirm my preexisting ideas? I can assure you this is not the case. I am floating a theory and asking people who dislike my theory questions to see if they are really exceptions, or if we're just using words differently, or seeing from different angles.

quote:
Respectfully, the question of "is there a position or behaviour is too out there" and similar: I think these are the wrong questions (other Anglicans may disagree, this is the western Canadian expression). The question is how to people come together to worship, in a faithful way, but also recognizing several important things about humans. That none of us have the answers, that we are better to be part of the world than to not be part of it, that we should open our doors to any who would come in and seek, and we should not reject people who want to come in.
See, that puts you in type 1 (ecclesial unity) rather than type 2 (doctrinal unity). This still falls neatly into my simple-minded two-compartment box, just not in the compartment I have prejudicially labeled "The Protestant bottom line."
I've read this a few times, and see a disconnect with the denial in the first and then being told I'm "type 1 (ecclesial unity)".
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I've read this a few times, and see a disconnect with the denial in the first and then being told I'm "type 1 (ecclesial unity)".
I'm floating a theory, that there are 2 types. Somebody says "I'm not type two, so you're wrong" but in fact they fit nicely under type 1. If you have a problem with the theory, what is it? If you think there's a third type, what is it? If you think you're not REALLY type 1, how come?
 
Posted by georgiafella (# 12476) on :
 
While I'm certain there are serious theological implications to the rulings of the archbishops, the really serious concern is the lost revenue from the lack of American clergy visitors for the next 3 years. Clearly we must pray for the B&B operators of the Canterbury area who are probably wondering why they are being punished because of the Episcopal church's acceptance of gays. God once again moves in mysterious ways.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
This week's editorial from Anglicans Online is interesting and the conclusion encouraging. All the links you need are available via the Sites new to AO button - don't stop at the news centre, as more are linked in the Worth Noting section.

How it all works out over the next 3 years will also be interesting. My suspicion is that some sort of observer status will be given to TEC representatives, and that there will be little fuss from the African primates to that. So the hospitality trade in Canterbury will continue unabated. There will also be a very Anglican fudge after the 3 years are up - a continuation - or perhaps even a lifting of the present suspension - until the next Lambeth Conference in 2020 would be a relatively straight-forward way out.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by georgiafella:
While I'm certain there are serious theological implications to the rulings of the archbishops, the really serious concern is the lost revenue from the lack of American clergy visitors for the next 3 years. Clearly we must pray for the B&B operators of the Canterbury area who are probably wondering why they are being punished because of the Episcopal church's acceptance of gays. God once again moves in mysterious ways.
I don't think this so-called "suspension" is going to keep American clergy or lay people from visiting Canterbury. I'm a layperson, and I'd already booked a stay at the Canterbury Lodge for this summer. I love Canterbury, I consider it "my" Cathedral (and I consider myself an Anglican), and the opinion of a bunch of Primates, who have no real legal authority to decide anything, are not going to ruin it for me. I know other Americans who feel the same way.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
If Americans are not considered to be part of the Anglican Communion, I guess ++Justin will have to have this removed from Canterbury Cathedral. Canon West was not only an American Episcopalian, but (gasp!) reputed to be gay.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by georgiafella:
While I'm certain there are serious theological implications to the rulings of the archbishops, the really serious concern is the lost revenue from the lack of American clergy visitors for the next 3 years. Clearly we must pray for the B&B operators of the Canterbury area
I think it is pretty unlikely that the B&B operators of the Canterbury area need prayer as a result of reduced American clergy visitors. Most/many clergy visitors stay in hotels or in the (Cathedral owned) lodge, and I think it is pretty unlikely that these will notice a significant drop in visits.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
If Americans are not considered to be part of the Anglican Communion, I guess ++Justin will have to have this removed from Canterbury Cathedral. Canon West was not only an American Episcopalian, but (gasp!) reputed to be gay.
For information, the Archbishop has no say in the fabric and/or addition/removal of objects from Canterbury Cathedral.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For information, the Archbishop has no say in the fabric and/or addition/removal of objects from Canterbury Cathedral.
I do realize that, and was speaking tongue-in-cheek. (Just as the Primates meeting and GAFCON have no say in whether I'm an Anglican.)
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
A yearning for some culture and class ... [Big Grin]
Exactly! Some of us also like bourbon, scotch, and classic cocktails as well. The nostalgia is for a different time not necessarily a different place. England just happened to be more important during the time in question.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyhow, if the UK went to the dogs after Labour came to power in 1945 and introduced the Welfare State, I wonder when the US went down the tubes? 1783 perhaps? Or maybe with the passing of the 2nd Amendment - or later even, when the US annexed Texas?
Some would say 1783. Others would say 1787. Still, others would make a case for other years such as 1865, 1913, 1929, 1963, and 1980.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
More seriously again, I'm still wondering what the Anglican Communion actually 'means' and what's holding it together.
And that is a question with no satisfactory answer. As I said earlier, some in TEC have already started to redefine the meaning of Anglican Communion in such a way that makes it impossible for TEC ever to not be part of the Anglican Communion. After all, TEC will always share a history and tradition with all of the other Anglican provinces. GAFCON can't change the past. For most Episcopalians, this new understanding of communion will suffice for most of us who care even though we rejected it when offered by Continuing Anglicans.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, that all makes sense, Beeswax Altar - but for all the talk of heritage and cachet, it's still the case that cask conditioned ale that continues to ferment in the barrel unlike filtered, pasteurised beer-substitutes like Budweiser and Miller and such on your side of the Pond and Carling on ours, is the real deal.

Beware of substitutes - Continuing or otherwise.

I don't give a flying fart who's a real Anglican or not as long as I can get a proper, decent hand-pulled pint.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't give a flying fart who's a real Anglican or not as long as I can get a proper, decent hand-pulled pint.
You've caught on to the real reason I'm heading across the Pond again this summer.
[Biased]

(However, the last time I was in Canterbury one pub tried to serve me Budweiser!)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't give a flying fart who's a real Anglican or not as long as I can get a proper, decent hand-pulled pint.
Perhaps that's why I'm a Baptist: I just don't like beer!

What I do like is decent wine: the stuff they served at the Parish Church's Harvest Lunch was disgusting (mind you, we only serve soft drinks at ours [Frown] ).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You probably went into the wrong pub, Pidwigeon ...

Or they thought, 'Ah, an American, he'll want to drink this piss ...'

@Baptist Trainfan, drinking beer isn't a 'sign' of being an Anglican. Oh my dear no, if one wished to be a High Anglican then it has to be gin ...

[Biased]

Besides, many Baptists I know are as fond of their ale as I am.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I think most of us tend to assume foreigners won't 'get' our beer.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
There might be the possibility that when Pigwidgeon comes to Canterbury, some UK Shipmates may be willing to 'get' some beers with him [Smile]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Hmmm what about cider then? The proper still cloudy kind, not the fizzy sweet stuff.

I have noticed some inclinations towards Anglophilia amongst TEC but Britophilia (especially for Scottish things) amongst Mainline denominations generally in the US. Huge Call the Midwife following amongst my TEC friends for instance.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There might be the possibility that when Pigwidgeon comes to Canterbury, some UK Shipmates may be willing to 'get' some beers with him [Smile]
I'm actually hoping to do this closer to the date.

BTW, it's Ms. Pigwidgeon [Biased]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The beer analogy is interesting. There are national brands and international brands, most of which are bland, inoffensive, not notable, not usually worth it. If an international brand is any good, it is usually expensive and can't be enjoyed very often. Locally produced beers are quite variable, some are excellent and some awful. But generally affordable.

Does this hold for international Anglicanism? Could it? Inoffensive, unnotable, hardly worth it. National perhaps more attuned to local palates but maybe also marketted by people with an agenda. With locally brewed religion much more satisfying.

I'm also wondering about the other important drink: tea. Which can be enjoyed as tea or not so much, as teabag. Or maybe international Anglicanism is like that coffee that is eaten and then pooed out of a cat in Indonesia. Very expensive.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I went to a pub in London where the barman earnestly recommended to me a tasty new imported craft beer. It was from Brooklyn, NY. I said that as an American I had to drink only British beer in Britain.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Good for you, Brenda. There is a taste for US craft beer here - particularly in trendy bars rather than your average 'local' ...

And yes, US styles have influenced UK microbrewers and vice-versa. That's as things should be.

There is a difference, though, between 'craft' beer and cask-conditioned beer - although I notice that on some hand-pumps now the beer-clips (the clip-on name badge things) often say 'craft beer' or 'craft ale' ... which confuses the issue to some extent.

That doesn't mean that US 'craft beers' are inferior to cask-conditioned ales necessarily - simply that they aren't the same thing unless they are brewed in the same way that cask-conditioned ales are ...

And yes, there are non-cask-conditioned British 'craft beers' too.

There's a theological/philosophical battle going on about this within CAMRA (Campaign for More Real Ale) which echoes/mirrors in some ways (although not in terms of content of course) the theological debates raging over SSM and other issues within the churches ...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I said that as an American I had to drink only British beer in Britain.
[Overused]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Pigwidgeon: BTW, it's Ms. Pigwidgeon [Biased]
Ooops! Apologies [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Pigwidgeon: BTW, it's Ms. Pigwidgeon [Biased]
Ooops! Apologies [Hot and Hormonal]
If we meet up in England you can buy me a pint.
[Biased]

(Gamaliel called me a "he" as well. A lot of Shipmates -- even one who had met me! -- assume I'm male.)
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

There's a theological/philosophical battle going on about this within CAMRA (Campaign for More Real Ale) which echoes/mirrors in some ways (although not in terms of content of course) the theological debates raging over SSM and other issues within the churches ...
Or in the political sphere, what ultimately ends up as SNP or UKIP - or which gets into endless debate whether the bolts on the rear end of that preserved Castle's valve chest ever saw Swindon.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Pigwidgeon: If we meet up in England you can buy me a pint.
[Biased]
It will be my honour.


(And now I'll stop because I can feel the Hosts' breath in my neck wanting to send me to All Saints [Biased] )
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

There's a theological/philosophical battle going on about this within CAMRA (Campaign for More Real Ale) which echoes/mirrors in some ways (although not in terms of content of course) the theological debates raging over SSM and other issues within the churches ...
Or in the political sphere, what ultimately ends up as SNP or UKIP - or which gets into endless debate whether the bolts on the rear end of that preserved Castle's valve chest ever saw Swindon.
That would be a steam engine enthusiasts' difference of opinion, I surmise.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
That puts it mildly, but yes. Anyone who puts a non-Swindon part onto any GWR loco runs the risk of a slow and agonising death involving chants of churchward ho! and suchlike, the application of a fireman's shovel etc at the hands of the faithful.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
What's this thread about, again?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Funny you should ask that, mousethief. Normally when a thread moves into party-mode, that means it's done for serious discussion. Exactly what Hosts were discussing.

Thread locked. It can be re-opened on request by PM if Shipmates have any further serious points to make.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0