|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA.
I struggle to see how this makes sense.
I understand that you await the results of the primates' meeting. But in the meantime, you presumably either are, or are not, in communion with the bishops of ECUSA.
No, I think that for many of us we would feel that ECUSA have broken communion by their actions. That means (in the CofE) that the Bishop of New Hampshire was not permitted to undertake liturgical functions when he came to the Diocese of London last year. But we are also committed to the Windsor process, and would not want to jump hastily to the conclusion that ECUSA have excluded themselves. That will be discerned in due course.
That's why the situation is ambiguous.
As for Spong, I imagine that he too would have been unwelcome in the Diocese. But I'm not aware that he asked to come.
I also think that the English HoB will have to come to a mind on the matter. But we have not discussed this per se. So, the answer to your question is that I personally would not see myself as in communion with ECUSA, but would prefer to act and work collectively with the whole English College of Bishops and with the wider Anglican Communion.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
When the Fathers settled on Timothy and Titus to be in the canon of scripture, they didn't have a text which said that parading one's active homosexuality, deserting one's wife for one's boyfriend and being an alcoholic is behaviour which the would-be presbyter should aspire to.
I don't know whether I'm more annoyed with the ECUSA types who seem to be in blissful ignorance of some required personal qualities of a presbyter, or C of E clergy who know perfectly well that these are unacceptable behaviour traits but still think that they have to support their ritualist mates against an orthodox bishop.
And no, the execrable Spong is not OK. That my own archbishop welcomes him under his roof is just one of many points of divergence between us. But Spong is becoming inactive and is more or less a laughing stock, so we don't have to undo his damage any longer.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think the point is that no-one started talking about being out of communion, or finding a new archbishop, or splitting the communion, over Spong, not whether they thought he was "all right" or not; we know they didn't.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
deserting one's wife for one's boyfriend
*sigh* I know there's absolutely no point in wasting my time in posting this, but here we go again - +New Hampshire met his partner years after his divorce from his wife. You know that, I know that, Anglicans across the whole world know that.
I quite agree that electing an alcoholic is neither Scriptural nor sensible, although I don't recall whether he was actually an alcoholic at the time of his election of whether the stress of being branded the official Worst Anglican Ever just got to him.
I'd also point out that if his alcoholism is such a problem, why no protests over the various booze-sozzled CofE bishops who have turned up over the years? Where are the angry Nigerians and Sydneyites and Fort Worthies demanding that +Southwark and half-a-dozen others be sacked or else the CofE be cast out of the Communion? If the supposed epistles of the Blessed Apostle to SS Timothy and Titus are the arbiter, then drunkeness is just as much there as the 'one wife' clause.
Once again, homosexuality is judged under a completely different standard from absolutely anything else you can name.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Pete, I'm a little confused here.
I can understand from the point of view I think you hold - although it's quite likely that I've misunderstood this - that you consider yourself to be out of communion with the bishop of New Hampshire based on his unsuitability for the position according to traditional readings of Scripture. I don't then see how that extends to anyone else in ECUSA unless either
a) you consider yourself out of communion with anyone who either agrees with his attitude to homosexuality or believes he is a suitable bishop, in which case you should surely be also out of communion with many members of the Church of England including perhaps several bishops, or
b) you accept the idea of a corporate identity at the diocesan or provincial level, in which case shouldn't you also be out of communion with national or provincial churches that harbour bishops who have, as been previously mentioned, acted in a scandalous manner?
Please could you explain your thinking? I'm not asking this to score points. I just don't see where you're coming from ecclesiologically or theologically.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
The story of VGR deserting his wife for a bloke is just a better story. Try telling stories to people that aren't memorable. They'll soon forget them. They'll move on. You wouldn't be much of a story teller then, would you?
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
It's about the official position of the church (which is why Spong is irrelevant to this, since he's heterodox by nearly anyone's standards).
Read the Windsor Report, the HoB response to it here, and Repair the Tear which you can access here.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
It still looks to me like it's a case of "ordain people we disagree with and we'll get huffy about it. Ordain a poofter and we'll split".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
deserting one's wife for one's boyfriend
*sigh* I know there's absolutely no point in wasting my time in posting this, but here we go again - +New Hampshire met his partner years after his divorce from his wife. You know that, I know that, Anglicans across the whole world know that.
I quite agree that electing an alcoholic is neither Scriptural nor sensible, although I don't recall whether he was actually an alcoholic at the time of his election of whether the stress of being branded the official Worst Anglican Ever just got to him.
I'd also point out that if his alcoholism is such a problem, why no protests over the various booze-sozzled CofE bishops who have turned up over the years? Where are the angry Nigerians and Sydneyites and Fort Worthies demanding that +Southwark and half-a-dozen others be sacked or else the CofE be cast out of the Communion? If the supposed epistles of the Blessed Apostle to SS Timothy and Titus are the arbiter, then drunkeness is just as much there as the 'one wife' clause.
Once again, homosexuality is judged under a completely different standard from absolutely anything else you can name.
Ah, but I think that all sins should be judged with the same exclusionary standards.
Which promptly casts me out into the Outer Darkness™. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
The annoying part of all of this from my perspective is that I do agree that +VGR was not a good bishop candidate and I still don't know why the good people of NH elected him their bishop. I keep getting hung up on the weird "take back our wedding vows" ceremony the Robinsons held to undo their marriage - bleah!
But, dear Foaming Draught, I'm not sure why he was any less suitable as a priest than any of the thousands of wine-soaked gluttons, skirt chasers and/or queens the CofE have had in holy orders over the years.
I do wish that NH had waited until they had a ferociously upright, extremely psychologically settled gay candidate before shoving one up the nose of the Communion, but they didn't, and now we all have to deal with it. As with Jackie Robinson (may his memory be eternal), when you pick a trailblazer, you want him alas to be as nearly perfect as possible.
[spelling]
[ 23. January 2007, 12:56: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
FWIW, I think we should have protested more strongly about Spong too (and a fair few English bishops), but now things have changed in England (and elsewhere) and theological liberalism is very much in the minority (and getting more so), so those who want to uphold Scriptural, Traditional and Reasonable understandings of church discipline can do so. Part of me doesn't want to think what would have happened if Runcie had been ABC at the time.
Oh, and this week the Church of England Newspaper ran a front page story about KJS not wanting to call Jesus "Saviour" or "Lord" (I can't find it online).
True? False? Distortion? Christian?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Just because Spong shouldn't have been a bishop either doesn't mean that Robinson should have been.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
It still looks to me like it's a case of "ordain people we disagree with and we'll get huffy about it. Ordain a poofter and we'll split".
Except that no-one's split, we're still at the stage of being 'huffy' about it.
But there are other differences. Spong's heterodoxy emerged over a period of about 20 years and during that time there was still plausible deniability that his theology represented that of his Church. In fact, it was clear that while his heterodoxy had significant support across ECUSA (as it was known then) his views did not represent the official view of the American Church. In other words, his view was an extremist one and did not alter the church's teaching one jot. Furthermore, many people criticised him and did not regard him as a fit bishop. Had +Spong been elected Bishop of Newark with his 12 Theses as an election manifesto and gained the necessary consents then that would be scandalous and just as divisive as +Robinson's election and consecration.
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage. And the election of +Robinson (and the later +Spong) officially downgrades the authority of the Bible in favour of culture and experience (or in Spong's case suspicious and outdated scholarship).
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
It still looks to me like it's a case of "ordain people we disagree with and we'll get huffy about it. Ordain a poofter and we'll split".
Except that no-one's split, we're still at the stage of being 'huffy' about it.
True, but the huffiness is far closer to "we'll split" than any huffing done about Spong.
quote:
But there are other differences. Spong's heterodoxy emerged over a period of about 20 years and during that time there was still plausible deniability that his theology represented that of his Church. In fact, it was clear that while his heterodoxy had significant support across ECUSA (as it was known then) his views did not represent the official view of the American Church. In other words, his view was an extremist one and did not alter the church's teaching one jot. Furthermore, many people criticised him and did not regard him as a fit bishop. Had +Spong been elected Bishop of Newark with his 12 Theses as an election manifesto and gained the necessary consents then that would be scandalous and just as divisive as +Robinson's election and consecration.
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage. And the election of +Robinson (and the later +Spong) officially downgrades the authority of the Bible in favour of culture and experience (or in Spong's case suspicious and outdated scholarship).
Erm - did Gene Robinson get elected with his sexuality and beliefs about it specifically as his manifesto? I'm not aware that candidates for bishop have manifestos.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
[Tangent] I have just had this picture come into my head of Gene Robinson dressed up as Dafydd from Little Britain roaming the highways and byways of New Hampshire with a megaphone shouting "Gay rights for gays!"[/tangent]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moveable_type
Shipmate
# 9673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet Spong got appointed. What I'm not sure here is why Spong's appointment was not indicative of an "unacceptable" "position of the church", and why Gene Robinson's does.
Spong became bishop because he was elected by Episcopalians in Newark diocese (many of whom, no doubt, repented at leisure). I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Posts: 1062 | From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Well, my point was that they elected him knowing some at least of his views. I'm trying to figure out why Spong's election doesn't mean that TEC were a bunch of evil liberals then, but GR's does. Spawn's answer seemed to me to take a great many words to say "it's just different".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Custard:
quote:
Oh, and this week the Church of England Newspaper ran a front page story about KJS not wanting to call Jesus "Saviour" or "Lord" (I can't find it online).
True? False? Distortion? Christian?
Does anyone want to produce any actual evidence? Or is the default anti-TECCIE position now that we'll just assume TECCIES are heterodox when there is no evidence and tell lies when there is (e.g. the well documented case of Robinson not leaving his wife for a bloke.)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, my point was that they elected him knowing some at least of his views. I'm trying to figure out why Spong's election doesn't mean that TEC were a bunch of evil liberals then, but GR's does. Spawn's answer seemed to me to take a great many words to say "it's just different".
Why it is different in as few words as possible:
+Robinson's election, and consecration says to the whole world that The Episcopal Church has changed its teaching on sexuality and marriage in spite of what the rest of the Communion warned would happen. +Spong's election didn't have the same ramifications because it didn't change the official teaching of ECUSA on anything because he was unrepresentative, and his views weren't known and developed before he was elected(*).
* I've got his autobiography sitting round somewhere. According to my memory he was known as a theological liberal when he was elected, was known as a civil rights activist (a good thing), and was open to dialogue with Jews (another good thing). According to people I have spoken to he was thought of as being homophobic in the early years of his episcopate and was a relatively late convert to the gay cause after other bishops had already taken it up.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I suppose - not wishing to concede that Spawn has a point - one could argue that the election of Spong could be construed as misfortune and the election of Robinson looks like carelessness.
Mind you, I'm not sure that a church whose episcopate has been graced by, among others, +Barnes, +l'autre Robinson and +Jenkins is really in a position to wrap itself in the chasuble of Saint Athanasius.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage.
I really don't see why... It means that a majority of NH Anglicans (or maybe just the largest minority, I don't know exactly what the election results in NH were) don't see that particular sin as being a barrier to episcopal office in the same way that they don't see the usual gamut of pride or gluttony or whatever as being such a barrier.
Whether a majority of NH Anglicans don't think that his lifestyle is sinful at all is not something that can be assessed from the result, any more than the continued support for my Lord of Southwark means that the CofE does not consider drunkenness a sin, or the former ++Jorvik's 'gray area' declaration means that we no longer believe in letting our 'yes' be 'yes' and our 'no' be 'no'.
Such a judgement would be justified if General Convention or whatever other relevant authority permitted same-sex blessings, for example, but can't currently be made.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Karl Liberal Backslider noted:
quote:
I'm not aware that candidates for bishop have manifestos.
I haven't delved back on to the WWW's past to see what it was that Gene Robinson said before his election to NH, but his partnered-outness was definitely an aspect of what was known to NH electors. While I would criticize him for allowing his name to go forward, he cannot be faulted (as Spong might conceivably be) for not having been open.
More to the point, candidates for bishops do have manifestos. Most US episcopal election websites post candidates' answers to a range of questions, many designed by the committee responsible for the election, and some submitted from the diocese. Reading them, I have found most revealing those which relate to candidates' vocation, and to their recreations-- their responses about why they feel themselves suited for the Sacred Purple often make me ill with an overdose of their inarticulate false humility, but that's me-- perhaps I have diabetic tendencies I don't know about. These days, most dioceses take care to put a great deal of information about nominated candidates on the web.
In some places, candidates have insufficiently (I think) blocked the circulation of pamphlets with photos of their smiling, gender-balanced, respectable families. Candidates, however, are finding that their past statements, essays, bloggings and sermons, so easily retrieved from the WWW, are also be food for electors' meditation. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
In many places, candidates (and spouses) go to regionally-based townhalls for electors or to more informal walkabouts, to answer questions. I've not spoken with anyone who goes to these things, so do not know if they are worshipful press conferences, or vigorous pursuits of follow-up to the questionnaires. Perhaps other shipmates can enlighten us with their experiences??
While Canadian elections have not gone this way in the past, I suspect that, more and more, we will be following the US route. Our politicking has tended to be behind the scenes, and has relied overmuch on rumour, nudges and winks. ECUSA's approach, while objectionable in some ways, is likely an improvement on our traditions...
By the by, can we relegate Bp. Robinson's leaving his wife for his partner to the same embarrassing place as the polygamous African bishops stories? They are offensive, inaccurate, and detract from our ability to address real issues (and real peripheral issues).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
This is because it would endorse Spong's heterodox teaching in the same way the election of +Gene Robinson changes the official view of The Episcopal Church on human sexuality and marriage.
I really don't see why... It means that a majority of NH Anglicans (or maybe just the largest minority, I don't know exactly what the election results in NH were) don't see that particular sin as being a barrier to episcopal office in the same way that they don't see the usual gamut of pride or gluttony or whatever as being such a barrier.
It's not just New Hampshire. All the Dioceses have a role in consenting to such elections and the Province through its Primate consecrates a bishop for the whole Church (the part of it that accepts Anglican orders).
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
ECUSA's support for him is sufficient by itself for that sect to be put beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Whereas, say, Jack Shelby Spong was OK.
It is faintly ridiculous to claim that the issue in the Robinson case is one of 'orthodoxy'. Which fundamental dogma has he denied?
He was on NPR's Fresh Air around the time of the '03 GC. With Spong ("not my hero" is an understatement here) in mind, I was listening between the lines. He's an ex-con evo who got a scholarship to Sewanee. He sounds "sound" to my ex-con-evo ears.
I was thinking that the complainers about ECUSA (as we then were) should be happy that a diocese elected themselves a bishop who's totally signed up with the Nicene Creed. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I, too, am waiting for a credible explanation as to why this is worse than, say, Zimbabwe, or the stories I keep hearing about polygamous presbyters in parts of Africa. Sometimes it seems to me that there's been a choice to emphasize one and not the other because the African church is growing and they would be more likely to pick up their toys and go home.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Ooops, read Augustine's message after the edit window had passed. If he says the polygamy thing is merely a nasty rumor, I trust his judgement, and withdraw that part of my post.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I seem to remember from various discussions on this topic that the polygamy rumour arises because in some parts of Africa new converts arrive with multiple spouses and it is thought better to permit this to continue rather than to require all but one wife to be abandoned. They are certainly not permitted to take multiple spouses after becoming Christians, and I rather doubt that a person with multiple spouses from their pre-baptismal days would be permitted to be ordained.
So no, it's a myth.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Mind you, I'm not sure that a church whose episcopate has been graced by, among others, +Barnes, +l'autre Robinson and +Jenkins is really in a position to wrap itself in the chasuble of Saint Athanasius.
I don't remember anything about Barnes, but JAT Robinson and David Jenkins weren't any mroe liberal than an awful lot of earlier and later bishops. They just got popularly known for it. And neither went anywhere near the non-realist & to be honest non-Christian views of Spong.
Jenkins, I suspect, was more orthodox than a great many bishops now serving in both England and the USA. He just had this trick of talking like an old "progressive" academic in a way that made people think him less orthodox than he was. (Much the same might be true of Rowan Williams)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
A couple of years ago while in Rajahmundry A.P. India they were having elections for a bishop for local Lutheran (?) church. There was a dispute between 2 of the candidates, which resulted in an interesting outcome.
One of candidates was addressing a meeting when the other crept up behind him a chopped his head off with a machete. One way to settle a dispute.
Considering the bigoted arguments being offered up by all sides it could only be a matter time for something similar to happen within the peaceful confines of Anglicanism.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
In defense of the good people of New Jersey, (and I'm happy to be corrected here) I don't think Spong's Unitarianism was known at the time of his election. His most upsetting writings (from an orthodox perspective) came much further down his career road. Without a mindreading device or a time machine, there'd be no way the Diocese of NJ could have known how ... courageous (in the Yes, Minister sense) his later theological statements would be.
[ 23. January 2007, 16:20: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Oh, by the way, pace ken: I don't think the US Church should keep saying: "Well, NH elected him and we were stuck with him". The Convention could have rejected him and didn't. That would have been a big deal, and a rare event, but not impossible. In this case, the majority of Convention delegates approved the election, and so TEC should have he courage of its convictions and just say "we did it", not act like we would have loved to do differently but gosh golly jeepers our hands were tied. We did it.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
By the by, can we relegate Bp. Robinson's leaving his wife for his partner to the same embarrassing place as the polygamous African bishops stories? They are offensive, inaccurate, and detract from our ability to address real issues (and real peripheral issues).
That sounds fair to me.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
That means (in the CofE) that the Bishop of New Hampshire was not permitted to undertake liturgical functions when he came to the Diocese of London last year.
Would the following be allowed to undertake liturgical functions in the diocese of London currently:-
(a) A (male) bishop of ECUSA who considers himself in communion with Gene Robinson.
(b) Any other male bishop in communion with the see of Canterbury who considers himself in communion with Gene Robinson. The bishop of Chelmsford, for example.
(c) A priest ordained by and/ or holding the license of bishops of type (a).
(d) ditto, type (b).
If so, I'd love to know the eccesiology informing the decisions. It seems me that the concept of 'communion' at play here is one being made up on the hoof. '
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Ultimately you would have to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, since it is he who decides whether a priest or bishop from overseas can officiate in the Province of Canterbury. (You'll be aware that, for other reasons, women bishops from overseas are not permitted to exercise episcopal functions here).
I suspect that while the jury is still out on ECUSA, there would be some question about any ECUSA bishop exercising a ministry here. It's not about the Bishop of New Hampshire, it's about the decisions of ECUSA as a Church. So it would be equally unlikely that anyone in category (a) would be able to exercise episcopal ministry in Chelmsford either...
(b), (c) and (d) are not relevant to the issue.
[ 23. January 2007, 17:01: Message edited by: pete173 ]
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It's about the official position of the church (which is why Spong is irrelevant to this, since he's heterodox by nearly anyone's standards).
Read the Windsor Report, the HoB response to it here, and Repair the Tear which you can access here.
Yet, to some of us, Anglican bishops currently seem more worried about 'the official position of the church', understood as a document of the House of Bishops, than they do with the 'official position of the Church', in the form of the Catholic Creeds.
There are first-order issues, and then there are the sex lives of bishops. And orthodoxy entails having a sense of proportion about the two, more than it does thinking the right things about the latter. Get wound up about the Spongs. Worry about the unusual baptismal formulae in use in parts of the Communion. Get concerned about whether the Overseer of Sydney is an Arian. And if you have any energy left after that, by all means, write a strongly worded letter to the Bishop of New Hampshire.
[ 23. January 2007, 17:06: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
Would a woman bishop be able to exercise the functions of a priest in the CofE? Cantuar permitting.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
Don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's "some Imperialist hangup about democracy." To me the problem is that when we've said again and again that our bishops are elected, not appointed, and people still persist in referring to the appointment of bishops in the Episcopal Church, I can't help but wonder what else they're not reading in our posts and how deep their (mis)understanding of our polity goes.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
(b), (c) and (d) are not relevant to the issue.
Surely they are. Communion is not about the Bishop of Willesden not liking the Bishop of New Hampshire. Communion is a corporate ecclesial relationship between churches, understood as fellowships of bishops, their presbyters and the baptised faithful.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To me the problem is that when we've said again and again that our bishops are elected, not appointed, and people still persist in referring to the appointment of bishops in the Episcopal Church, I can't help but wonder what else they're not reading in our posts and how deep their (mis)understanding of our polity goes.
Works the other way round too, Ruth. See Laura's last post.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
It's not (for the 499th time) about "not liking the Bishop of New Hampshire". Read Windsor. That's what it's about. ECUSA has taken a step that makes its communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful. That's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of a large number (I'm not playing the numbers game here) of Provinces. Until that matter is resolved, there must remain an element of doubt tending towards impairment. If it isn't resolved, then your other categories become relevant. At present, they aren't.
In response to "who is allowed to minister?", try this legal opinion. (if you can stand it!)
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ECUSA has taken a step that makes its communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful. That's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of a large number (I'm not playing the numbers game here) of Provinces.
You see, I find the post-Windsor position rather baffling.
We are to believe that the consecration of an out gay man is an 'action which makes... communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful'. Before now provinces have consecrated women, in spite of other provinces not believing that the people thereby consecrated are bishops. Provinces have consecrated people (Spong, for one) who depart from credal Christianity on fundamental issues of orthodoxy. Provinces have consecrated people (++Sydney) whose commitment to catholic order as Anglicanism has received it is profoundly doubtful. What is it about the Robinson case which, uniquely, means that his consecration represents a severing of communion?
I would argue that questions around the validity of orders, credal orthodoxy and fundamental ecclesiology are more important than the ethical issues at play in the Robinson case. And, if we're playing the numbers game, I hazard a guess that the greater part of universal Christendom, current and past, agrees with me.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
DoD I agree with you entirely. We seem to be going round in circles now though.
Pete173 said:
quote:
It's not (for the 499th time) about "not liking the Bishop of New Hampshire". Read Windsor. That's what it's about. ECUSA has taken a step that makes its communion with the rest of Anglicanism doubtful. That's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of a large number (I'm not playing the numbers game here) of Provinces.
That TEC has offended many isn't really the issue any more. It's why must such unprecedented action be taken over this issue and why only against TEC. Why not Akinola? Why not, for other reasons, the bishop of Harare?
Is there another issue on which this kind of action might be taken and if so what?
Without answers to these kinds of questions it's hard not to view this carnival with a cynical, if not despairing eye.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
AG, if I'm not mistaken, that vile wolf/bishop of Zimbabwe is being disciplined. He's not exactly in good standing with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Excellent news, if true, St. Punk. Thank you most kindly for the update!
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Ahem. Obviously reading for comprehension isn't the strong suit on this thread.
Read this.
I'm sure Karl is well aware of how ECUSA bishops are elected.
People keep asking "why this and not something else?" The long answer involves a whole lot of explanations from different angles. But to cut that short, the real reason that there is so much incomprehension going on is that the answers being given are being fed into a totally different POV/worldview/paradigm. The analytical engine grinds and just throws out a "cannot compute" message.
Understanding should not be confused with agreeing. But if you want to understand, you need to be far more radical in reviewing the rigour of your own presuppositions and that goes for both sides in this argument. There is so much that is unexamined and disagreed on, that the best a thread like this can do (in the absence of such radical self-appraisal) is to serve as an exchange of views. Been there, done that.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Agreed. I think we've done this thread.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moveable_type
Shipmate
# 9673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
Was trying to get through replying before the baby woke up; this didn't really work. His second nap is longer, so here goes:
The point is that if a central authority appoints someone with a known set of views, or a known pattern of behavior, we can infer something useful about the central authority's views from that. If, for example, the Vatican were to name an out gay man living in a relationship to the episcopate, then we could assume that the Vatican's views of sexuality had shifted. We can also infer a lot from -Jeffery John's story about the Church of England hiearchy's views about sexuality.
What we can't do, on the other hand, is look at the election of a diocesan bishop in the ECUSA, or in the Anglican churches in the former Dominions, and infer anything about the views of the national churches from that. The place where serious, meaningful church authority lies in Canada and the United States is at the diocesan level, and our churches are best seen as loose confederations of dioceses as anything else.
Posts: 1062 | From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
In response to "who is allowed to minister?", try this legal opinion. (if you can stand it!)
Now I have a headache...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pete173:
In response to "who is allowed to minister?", try this legal opinion. (if you can stand it!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I have a headache...
We now know what man consider a legal opinion (?), would it not be a good time to ask Jesus for an opinion. It is His church or has things changed in 2,000 years.
Last time I suggested a day of pray to find out what Jesus and God wanted for a church, matey Pete told me to keep pushing it and I end up with more flack then some get on Hell thread. It might be worth it this time though
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
And when is Nigeria and the vast majority of Anglicanism going to be held accountable for its failings in the Windsor Report AND Lambeth 1.10?
Lambeth 1.10 says:
We commit ourselves to:
listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
And the Windsor Report calls for similar dialogue and affirmation of our "full" membership.
Well gee. I lived in the Diocese of Dallas for several years and never heard anyone tell me that. In fact, the Bishop made it very clear that I was not a full member of the Body of Christ at a Confirmation service I attended. And NO one ask to listen to my, or anyone else's experience. The Bishop never invited Integrity or any other gay group in town to discuss our experience. The only groups that got play were ex-gay groups (a couple whose poster children came out as ex-ex-gay later.)
Heck I once even had a dream that I was in church and was trying to yell but no sound came out, which pretty much summed up how I felt.
Now, the Church of Nigeria is supporting legislation that will make a crime to even say "I am a homosexual", for gay people to gather or for someone to show support for gay people. Even GW Bush's State Department is concerned about the possible human rights violations at stake.
I hear a lot about the supposed failings of the TEC in implementing the Windsor Report but where is the repentance on the other side? Why are so many people so willing to talk ABOUT us but not TO us? Why do I always feel like an issue instead of a person?
[ 23. January 2007, 20:19: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
