|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Rather, it's about whether, if I were in the US, I'd automatically seek out an ECUSA church.
If you didn't, where would you go?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Depends what's around. Anywhere biblical and radical. Probably Episcopalian in Washington, because I'm mates with Jim & Joy Wallis. Timberline AOG in Colorado - a bit socially conservative, but again leaders I know and trust. Campolo's tribe in the East. I tend to work with Anglicised Americans!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
That's one way of looking at it... but then, when in Ireland or on the Continent I wouldn't seek out an Anglican church, I'd worship with the RC's or Lutherans or Orthodox or whatever. In the rest of the world - including America -I'd probably worship with either the Anglican or RC church, or possibly a Lutheran or Methodist one, depending on who looked likely to have the jolliest liturgy. But that doesn't mean my Anglicanism is in doubt, surely?
As a further point, why should considerations of
quote:
"does this feel like a church/denomination in which I recognise that the faith once delivered to the saints predominates"?
extend to just Provinces? There are plenty of CofE parishes where I don't feel that's what's being taught - probably the exact opposites to the ones most evangelicals would nominate, incidentally - so I just choose not to go to them.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
+Pete--I guess we are talking about different things, then. When I see "out of communion with," I think of the refusal to share the Eucharist. (And to a lesser extent, the refusal to recognize ordinations.)
And I think that's not an inaccurate assessment, based on the comments by the GS Primates I linked earlier. They are refusing even to sit at the same table as +KJS. They also refused to participate in a Eucharist with +Griswold at the last Primate's meeting.
I can understand choosing a church where one feels comfortable. I did that myself. But how on earth does our thinking about gays and lesbians in the church mean that we don't have the faith as given to the Apostles?!
I've already said:
We believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God who saves us from sin
We preach Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again
We hold to the Nicene Creed and the BCP
AFAIC, that is the faith delivered to the Apostles.
So tell me again why we can't be in communion with one another?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
We believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God who saves us from sin
We preach Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again
We hold to the Nicene Creed and the BCP
AFAIC, that is the faith delivered to the Apostles.
And I thought that I was a Prayer Book fundamentalist. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
And I thought that I was a Prayer Book fundamentalist.
Point taken, my friend. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Okay---neither the Nicene Creed or the BCP was available to the Apostles. But we hold to 'em anyway. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Okay---neither the Nicene Creed or the BCP was available to the Apostles. But we hold to 'em anyway.
Are you suggesting that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother didn't use the Coverdale Psalter? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I tend to work with Anglicised Americans!
I don't blame you. If I were in the UK, I'm sure I would gravitate toward things and people that made me feel more at home. But this comment makes me think your dislike of the Episcopal Church may be rooted in culture as much as in theology. Maybe more.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Are you suggesting that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother didn't use the Coverdale Psalter?
Given that God is outside of time, I am quite certain that the Holy Trinity uses the 1979 BCP and is particularly fond of Rite C.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
No, no, i have been informed that the Trinity uses only the 1928 BCP, KJV (As Jesus spoke you know) and the 1940 hymnal.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
"Out of communion with" is structural.
"Not taking communion with" is personal.
But the two overlap. If ECUSA, by its actions, puts itself out of communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion, it ceases to be part of the same family. We're structurally separated.
There will be occasions (perhaps such as Primates Meetings) where the sharing of table fellowship or the eucharist would carry the implication that there was no fracture, and that everything was hunky-dory between us. The symbolic nature of sharing together would pretend that family relationships were restored, when in fact they weren't. So I can understand why they wouldn't share with Griswold.
There are occasions when we as individuals are unable to break bread together (it's the sort of stuff that's addressed by Jesus in Matthew 5:23ff) and we're told to sort it out. The structural breakdown between ECUSA and the rest of the Communion isn't that easily resolved.
On an individual level, I'd have little difficulty in taking communion with any of you guys - but if the preacher or president were a bishop with whom I had fundamental differences over his teaching, that would be more difficult...
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
There will be occasions (perhaps such as Primates Meetings) where the sharing of table fellowship or the eucharist would carry the implication that there was no fracture, and that everything was hunky-dory between us. The symbolic nature of sharing together would pretend that family relationships were restored, when in fact they weren't. So I can understand why they wouldn't share with Griswold.
Forgive me, but...I was under the impression that we knelt to be in communion with God. Not that coming to the table said anything about our relationships with one another.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
On an individual level, I'd have little difficulty in taking communion with any of you guys - but if the preacher or president were a bishop with whom I had fundamental differences over his teaching, that would be more difficult...
This strikes me as Donatism.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
hate to say this, but I have a great deal of trouble with the "ECUSA put itself out of communion bit". Quite frankly, i see it as the Anglican Communion doing the putting out.
We have been more than gracious with the Anglican Communion, taken the Windsor Report seriously, etc.
I find myself remembering Jesus' comments about those who were so eager to fix what was wrong with their brothers (sisters) that they ignored their own sins.
If the Anglican Communion becomes a confessional church (beyond those items named already) I think there will be a split, and maybe it will be for the best.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
"Out of communion with" is structural.
"Not taking communion with" is personal.
The structural breakdown between ECUSA and the rest of the Communion isn't that easily resolved.
You mean parts, admittedly large ones, of the communion, right?.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
I spent three years in one of the dioceses in ECUSA that may want to leave. I had great hopes that we could all live together--mostly conservative parishes, a few liberal ones, but remembering that we are Christians together.
That is not the case. this is all very frightening to me, when differences of belief (that are outside the Nicene Creed for example) become litmus tests.
I agree with +Katharine that the church needs to be about the work of reconciliation, not becoming more exclusionary.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Coming to the table is always about our relationships - with God first, but then with each other. What's 1 Corinthians all about?
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked. Separation takes place in the NT as well - it's not all jolly and inclusive... 2 John and the Pastorals both address those sorts of issues.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
From this side of the pond, and from my vantage point (my own opinion here, although I am not alone in this) in ECUSA, i do not really think the issue in our current struggle is teachings of scripture. I think the issue is power and control--who gets to decide which are the teachings of scripture that should mark the line in the sand, who gets to tell others what to believe.
i do not know at all how this plays out in the CofE.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Coming to the table is always about our relationships - with God first, but then with each other. What's 1 Corinthians all about?
I seem to recall something about "Love bears all things...love is patient, love is kind...if I have not love, I am as a clashing cymbal." Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked.
I really don't mean it as a cheap shot.
Once upon a time, my former parish had an interim rector. On paper, he was as liberal as they come. But I found him personally repugnant. He was divisive and sexist--and I eventually had to leave my much-beloved parish for a time until he was gone, because I simply could not take communion from him.
I did not doubt his ordination. Theologically, he and I agreed on many things. But I could not get past my anger at his behavior---and that meant I was in no fit state to take communion from his hands.
I might have similiar feelings about taking the Eucharist FROM +Akinola, +Duncan, or +Iker. My comment about Donatism is one that I wrestle with myself, although I feel confident that I could take communion WITH any of them.
They, however, do not want to take Communion (or give it, either, I would guess) with me.
+Pete--if a priest or bishop teaches/preaches all those things I listed, but still believes in full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church, does that undercut all the foundational stuff?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked. Separation takes place in the NT as well - it's not all jolly and inclusive... 2 John and the Pastorals both address those sorts of issues.
It all seems pretty random though, to put it politely. Lambeth 98 said homosexuality was a no-no. TEC consecrates a gay bishop. Naughty, naughty. Alarums and excursions. But I seem to recall that Lambeth 98 also committed the Anglican Communion to listening to the voice of gay people. Akinola wants them banged up. Response: a long echoing silence. The leader of the racist kleptocracy in Zimbabwe gets political cover from the Bishop of Harare, who ordains his vice-president as a deacon, despite his pronouncement that white people aren't human, and cancels Divine Worship on his birthday so everyone can come to his party. Again: a long echoing silence.
I can quite see why someone who holds to the traditional view would think that TEC have impaired communion with their actions. What I can't see is how, assuming this is about principles and not about power, why the other stuff doesn't matter. Were the Bishops of the Anglican Communion lying when they said that they would engage with gay people? I seem to recall that St John the Divine mentioned something about liars and a lake of fire. I seem to recall that thieves get a pretty hard time of it in the New Testament. 'Thief' is a pretty accurate description of Mugabe. 'Murderer' isn't far from the mark either. St. Paul tells us that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile but in Zimbabwe a high profile racist can be ordained to the Diaconate. We are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy... enough already. I can quite see why people think +Robinson ought not to have been consecrated to the episcopate. I just wish that this high principle was applied to other provinces of the Anglican Communion. What is sauce for the liberal goose ought to be sauce for the evangelical gander.
The New Testament isn't lovely and inclusive all the time. But neither does one get a free pass for being Sound.
[ 11. January 2007, 18:19: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I really do not understand the reference to Paul and John and the Pastoral epistles... In the epistles we are advised to keep away from people who perverse the gospel of Jesus. Yet, this is not the case here...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It all seems pretty random though, to put it politely.
It is of course not at all random. It follows a very clear pattern. As you show, many evangelicals feel pretty free about casting aspersions upon American liberals (despite not being very clear about what we believe, as in pete173's case), but don't have a word to say about the disgusting abuses of some African evangelicals. It makes charges of American exceptionalism appear baseless.
Not to mention the lunacy that is allowed to go on in Sydney. Spawn went on for quite a while about not liking the American take on the priesthood of all believers, but we aren't pushing for lay presidency, for crying out loud.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
It may be that the Americans and Brits are divided than more than a common lanugage.
When it comes to Jesus being the "only" way and how we define that "only" way, I would suggest reading the words of St. Clives of Oxbridge, Doctor of the Faith, in the last book of his Narnia series, "The Last Battle." Apparently it was possible for the apologist of Mere Christianity to accept that, in some cases, a non-Christian's faith would be accounted as righteous.
All this talk about "accepting Jesus" seems to be a bit oriented towards "works righteousness" to me. To say to someone that they must accept Jesus is to say to that person that they must do something. My Bible is clear that it is nothing that I do that accounts me righteous. Instead, it is what Christ did for me, with the faith that is given to me as a gift of Spirit. It is when I try to do something it messes things up.
Funny, my Bible says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only thing that can't be forgiven. (Note that I am not a Universalist. The option of not following the the Spirit is open to us. It is something that we can do.)
There is another way of looking at "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" that used to be popular in the Colonies among the low church that did not involve seating. It involved tricycles. Scripture was the big wheel, the one that drove things. But, the other two wheels had to be there or you weren't going to go anywhere. The Tricycle View might be closer to +Pete173's point of view, but I cannot speak to that.
(One of the problems of the Tricycle View is that the definition of Scripture [big wheel] is found in Tradition [little wheel]. So, how can a component part be greater than the whole? I guess it proves that all analogies are limited--even S, T, and R.)
+Pete173, if you are receiving in your heart by faith, with thanksgiving, tell me again why your problems in receiving communion with some fellow Anglicans is not a breaking of the Article that says "The worthiness of a minister...". I don't get it.
And, finally, those in the Mother Church need to remember that TEC (PECUSA, ECUSA) has always been a bit heterodox in terms of Anglicanism. Our first bishop comes from the non-juring lines in Scotland. We adopted the epiclesis as a requirement in the Eucharistic Prayer from the get-go. Our "adoption" of the Articles around 1801 (someone check a US BCP for me, please) had weasle words inserted even then (check out what we did to the reading of the Homilies).
We never were 100% in-step with the Mother Church. Why would we be now? But that has never stopped us from fellowship.
+Pete173, I have a modest proposal for you. Could you find a way to do some time working in a US diocese? 6 months to a year? Take some time to meet us and work with us, and take that home with you--and give a US diocese a chance to meet someone from the UK. Maybe something could be worked out with a US bishop as an exchange? (Don't ask me what would have to happen with the canons in both countries to permit such an exchange. That is not my specialty.) I think it is important that sitting bishops do this, not retired ones. It is not that I think of a retired bishop as a lesser bishop, but I know the authority of a retired bishop is being rolled back to getting a voice in the House of Bishops in TEC.
You might find out that we do have Evangelicals, even though we don't use that word like you do.
You might find out that most of us are just quietly doing the work God has given us to do. Maybe some of less quiet about it than others, but the point holds.
If people from the US and UK can't agree on the meaning of a simple sentence like "the man over there wearing a vest has khaki pants," how can we even begin to understand our differences in a word-bound medium such as this thread?
And, Spawn, thank you very much for your kind words about the way we operate in General Convention and a few other things. We are not perfect in TEC, but we at least try to be a witness to the Love God to the world.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I'm trying to keep this out of the realm of the Dead Horse. What I'm seeking to establish is:
1. that there are principles in the NT for not receiving another person's teaching, and therefore not being able to share eucharistic fellowship with them. Promoting apartheid as Christian might be an example. Teaching that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh (ie that he wasn't God incarnate) is a more obvious one.
2. that it isn't about "doubting his/her ordination" or "sacramental assurance" - I don't hold to those concepts, which are RC in origin. I'm happy to accept the orders and sacraments of any Trinitarian church (but that's another thread!). It's about whether there is sufficient agreement between us on matters of faith for us to share in the sacrament together. Normally, that's not a question you need to ask, but these are abnormal times.
3. that, if there are circumstances in which both individuals and denominations have to make judgements about whether they are "in communion" with each other (and the NT does seems to imply that there are - 1 Corinthians 13 isn't an override button, it's about how we exercise our gifts and ministries in the body once we have sorted our differences as a body - 1 Cor 5 - 10 precede all this, and Paul has moved on to teach how they should work together as a reconciled community - but the reconciliation has to take place, and the sin addressed, first).
4. that there is a range of issues that might well be considered communion breaking. I've been involved with the treatment of my priests who has been nominated to be a bishop in Malawi, so I'm very well familiar with double standards and double dealing. The questions that have to be addressed (by the Communion) are "what acts and teachings constitute a break in communion?" This is precisely the question I have posed to those conservative evangelicals who have been promoting their "covenant" - if you are or consider yourself to be out of fellowship with your bishop, what is it that he has done to make that a reality? What criteria do we use to judge that? What is "first order" (and thus communion breaking) and what is "second order" (and thus a matter indifferent)?
[ 11. January 2007, 18:41: Message edited by: pete173 ]
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jerusalemcross
Shipmate
# 12179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
Donatism is a cheap shot, often used in this debate. If I believe that someone's teaching is contrary to scripture, that's not about the unworthiness of the minister not hindering the sacrament, it's about word and sacrament being inextricably linked. Separation takes place in the NT as well - it's not all jolly and inclusive... 2 John and the Pastorals both address those sorts of issues.
It all seems pretty random though, to put it politely. Lambeth 98 said homosexuality was a no-no. TEC consecrates a gay bishop. Naughty, naughty. Alarums and excursions. But I seem to recall that Lambeth 98 also committed the Anglican Communion to listening to the voice of gay people. Akinola wants them banged up. Response: a long echoing silence. The leader of the racist kleptocracy in Zimbabwe gets political cover from the Bishop of Harare, who ordains his vice-president as a deacon, despite his pronouncement that white people aren't human, and cancels Divine Worship on his birthday so everyone can come to his party. Again: a long echoing silence.
I can quite see why someone who holds to the traditional view would think that TEC have impaired communion with their actions. What I can't see is how, assuming this is about principles and not about power, why the other stuff doesn't matter. Were the Bishops of the Anglican Communion lying when they said that they would engage with gay people? I seem to recall that St John the Divine mentioned something about liars and a lake of fire. I seem to recall that thieves get a pretty hard time of it in the New Testament. 'Thief' is a pretty accurate description of Mugabe. 'Murderer' isn't far from the mark either. St. Paul tells us that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile but in Zimbabwe a high profile racist can be ordained to the Diaconate. We are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy... enough already. I can quite see why people think +Robinson ought not to have been consecrated to the episcopate. I just wish that this high principle was applied to other provinces of the Anglican Communion. What is sauce for the liberal goose ought to be sauce for the evangelical gander.
The New Testament isn't lovely and inclusive all the time. But neither does one get a free pass for being Sound.
Well said. Ecclesiastical hypocrisy (again).And why aren't you a Bishop in order to add a voice of sanity to the AC.
--------------------
What's the difference between an organist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Posts: 305 | From: somewhere west of Eden | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What criteria do we use to judge that? What is "first order" (and thus communion breaking) and what is "second order" (and thus a matter indifferent)?
So, the African abuses of which Callan speaks are second order? But having a gay bishop is first order?
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I haven't said that. I have said very little about the Dead Horse topic. I was trying to point out that we all make these sorts of distinctions. If you or I decide that we are not in fellowship with the Bishop of Harare (a judgement to which I would certainly be inclined), we have made a judgement that his behaviour and support for Mugabe undermine his credibility as a bishop and teacher. Seems a reasonable call to me.
If you agree, then you have established the principle that it is not Donatist to refuse to be in fellowship or communion with a person because of his/her words or actions.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Is there biblical basis for saying simultaneously that I do not want to be in fellowship with N. because of his teachings / actions and saying that N. and his flock are part of the Church? Because the way I read the scriptures they seem to say that only when the gospel of Jesus is perverted we are to break fellowship with those who do such thing. In other cases, we are to sort it out, because it is our pride that goes in the way between ourselves and our brothers and sisters.
What is the scriptural basis for this discussion? Can we have a closer look at the scriptures themselves?
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I haven't said that. I have said very little about the Dead Horse topic. I was trying to point out that we all make these sorts of distinctions. If you or I decide that we are not in fellowship with the Bishop of Harare (a judgement to which I would certainly be inclined), we have made a judgement that his behaviour and support for Mugabe undermine his credibility as a bishop and teacher. Seems a reasonable call to me.
If you agree, then you have established the principle that it is not Donatist to refuse to be in fellowship or communion with a person because of his/her words or actions.
The prayers of the Bishop of Harare are no more or less effective than yours. That is not to say which of you I would rather prefer as my bishop.
Since all have sinned, I refuse at this point to get into the game of trying to decide who has sinned enough to break fellowship with in the Church. I don't think I have been named to a jury in a court case trying the Bishop of Harare to see if there is enough evidence to convict him of being a Christian.
His actions, though, are more in the realm to be judged. As is all our actions.
I suspect I hold a fairly Anglican point of view on this, or else I would hear about priests and bishops using the disciplinary rubrics about refusing communion to someone more often.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Andreas - I agree with you. The problem is that issues that may not warrant action build up until there comes a tipping point. I'm not sure that pointing at single issues is going to give an explanation of the whole story.
Bede's American Successor wrote: quote:
+Pete173, I have a modest proposal for you. Could you find a way to do some time working in a US diocese? 6 months to a year? Take some time to meet us and work with us, and take that home with you--and give a US diocese a chance to meet someone from the UK. Maybe something could be worked out with a US bishop as an exchange? (Don't ask me what would have to happen with the canons in both countries to permit such an exchange. That is not my specialty.) I think it is important that sitting bishops do this, not retired ones. It is not that I think of a retired bishop as a lesser bishop, but I know the authority of a retired bishop is being rolled back to getting a voice in the House of Bishops in TEC.
There's nothing like meeting the facts in their context to help see more clearly. But it carries a risk too. If you cast your mind back, years ago +Akinola was actually supportive of ECUSA generally. Frank Griswold issued a "come and see" invitation to overseas primates, and Akinola was one of those who took him up. It was on his return that he went apeshit. I would dearly love to know why but neither side is letting on. Maybe it was coincidence, but I doubt it.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Well, you see, I'm trying to push this inclusiveness of ECUSA to its limits. So there's no reason to break fellowship with the Bishop of Harare. It doesn't seem to me that I hear you being prepared to break fellowship with anybody, not even a person who denied the incarnation. Yet the New Testament clearly make such distinctions.
(And, as an aside, some bishops in ECUSA seem to have a habit of declaring all kinds of conservative Anglicans to have broken fellowship with them and turfing them out of their church buildings - which, despite previous huffings and puffings on this thread, English bishops have no power to do).
So come on guys, are you all so inclusive that there is nobody you'd consider you weren't in fellowship with?
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Frank Griswold issued a "come and see" invitation to overseas primates, and Akinola was one of those who took him up. It was on his return that he went apeshit. I would dearly love to know why but neither side is letting on. Maybe it was coincidence, but I doubt it.
This is very interesting and enlightening... I think that we should have made that discussion on sexuality and the gospel a long time ago. An open discussion that embraces the wholeness of Christendom. As far as I can see, there are many who recycle the same old stuff about sexuality. No real all-embracing dialog. And that's a pity. It seems that some justly take the lead and make steps over the void. But it would be a lot better if all churches from their primates to the lay people engaged with these issues in a communal way.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Pete: I think you have it backwards.
Some conservatives have declared themselves the "real Christians", the ECUSA as the "anti Christ", declared themselves independent Anglicans or under other bishops in Nigeria, etc., and THEN been turfed out of their buildings by their ECUSA Diocesian bishop.
I am pretty sure that if a British parish tried to do the same thing they would lose their property too.
[ 11. January 2007, 20:39: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It doesn't seem to me that I hear you being prepared to break fellowship with anybody, not even a person who denied the incarnation.
Denied or redefined?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
The question I asked has nothing to do with any Dead Horse, except very peripherally. As Callan noted in the Styx, it's rather tiresome to have people constrantly assuming things to be Dead Horses b ecause they have some distant relation to a Dead Horse issue. We are not in the business of expanding DH beyond the very narrow topics that belong there.
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Pete: I think you have it backwards.
Some conservatives have declared themselves the "real Christians", the ECUSA as the "anti Christ", declared themselves independent Anglicans or under other bishops in Nigeria, etc., and THEN been turfed out of their buildings by their ECUSA Diocesian bishop.
I am pretty sure that if a British parish tried to do the same thing they would lose their property too.
Please understand that the freehold of office does not allow any incumbent in the CofE to be turfed out. Bishops simply haven't got that power.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
(And, as an aside, some bishops in ECUSA seem to have a habit of declaring all kinds of conservative Anglicans to have broken fellowship with them and turfing them out of their church buildings - which, despite previous huffings and puffings on this thread, English bishops have no power to do).
A very dear friend of mine, now sadly departed this earth, wrote to the Church Times in defence of bishop Eric Kemp when he deposed one of his clergy (quite rightly) for coming out as a non-realist. English bishops are not all that impotent.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
What's a non-realist?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It doesn't seem to me that I hear you being prepared to break fellowship with anybody, not even a person who denied the incarnation.
Denied or redefined?
This is getting to be a one person inquisition. Andreas, I'm not playing. Denied will do as an example. It's what the NT talks about.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Andreas1984:
quote:
What's a non-realist?
Someone who holds that God does not really exist but is a human convention or belief which somehow gives meaning to life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
I think some of Bishop Pete's assertions about the ECUSA are of the same, but reverse nature as this colonial sentiment
quote:
THe CofE is an otiose and ineffectual remnant of class and empire
I think Pete's confusion is more marked by churchmanship than culture, but just in case, let's remember that:
US Episcopalians represent about 2% of the US population. Despite the impression given on the Ship that almost all Americans are also Anglicans, Anglicanism in the US exists in an extreme minority.
Let's also remember that in the US churchgoing is normal. Lots of people go to church, and hardly anyone thinks it's odd if he discovers one goes to church. In England hardly anyone goes to church and almost everyone thinks it's odd that anyone does go.
Of all those Americans who go to church, most of them go to some brand of conservative evangelical/ fundamental congregation. The dominant culture of Christianity in the United States is, in fact, of the conservative variety with which Pete would (according to his posts on this thread) feel right at home. The small minority of US Episcopalians quite naturally define themselves within and against the context of this reality.
In the same way that English Anglicans (and Christians generally) define themselves within and against the context of post-imperialism and Secularism.
What's astonishing is that Pete (and others) think it is so important to quibble amongst ourselves about who is in communion with whom and how grave or not butt-sex is. No wonder the secular world regards us as raving fanatics or bumblings anachronisms or both!
A question about the Anglican Communion: it seems to me that all these Anglican churches got on perfectly well before we had a sense of a "communion". If Pete had traveled to the United States in the C19 before there was such a thing as the "Anglican Communion" -- where would he have gone to church?
And a question about lex orandi &tc: The biggest outward difference between the CofE and the ECUSA is that in ECUSA the overwhelming majority of parishes use one of the authorised liturgies in the 1979 BCP. Almost without exception. We all know the BCP is not normative in the CofE, and the attempt to provide an acceptable variety of authorised texts in "Common Worship" has resulted in a worship that is anything but common, even where CW obtains.
Anglicanism never used to be about a set of dogmas. It was about a shared practice. It's unfortunate that, frightened into our several niches by the onslaught of secularism and skepticism, we've resorted to dogmatism and mutual suspicion.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Your Eminence: The NT talks about people thinking Jesus was a phantom. We know that gnosticism and the groups that come from it, predate Christianity. As far as I can tell, nobody says today that Jesus was a phantom, a figment of our imagination...
Dear Callan: Thanks. I see. I am not really comfortable with those who say that God exists as if His existence is something we can speak about in terms we can understand... Anyway.
[ 11. January 2007, 20:50: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
OK - I'll try to answer what's being asked, and shut up.
Nobody seems to want to say that there are limits to inclusiveness. You are willing to accept fellowship with anyone. That appears to be a given in ECUSA.
That's not how it is elsewhere. There are conservative evangelicals and others in the CofE and throughout the Communion who wish us to draw all kinds of lines as to who is in fellowship with us and who isn't. I spend a lot of my time, believe it or not, on this side of the Pond opposing them for not being inclusive enough. I am not an ultra conservative evangelical, and we are in deep dialogue with a group who would like to declare UDI from their diocesan bishops.
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed. I happen to believe that there are, that the Christian faith has always accepted that proposition, and that the NT and the Creeds are precisely examples of the way in which those limits were drawn.
The first order/second order debate in the Anglican Communion will continue. It's clearly not one that I hear ECUSA being all that interested in (for obvious reasons - your values of inclusivism, self-determination and tolerance of diversity will not lead you to wish to self-define in this way).
For many in the Anglican Communion, the Windsor Report represents a helpful attempt to tease out those distinctions between core beliefs and adiaphora. You will know that the judgments of Windsor are not accepted in totality by ECUSA, but Windsor does at least provide us with a framework within which we can (if we want to) address those issues.
I hope that the Primates' Meeting makes some progress on this. But it may be doomed to failure. The differences between us will not go away. And they will include making different calls about what is a first order issue and what is not.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
THe CofE is an otiose and ineffectual remnant of class and empire
I
Of all those Americans who go to church, most of them go to some brand of conservative evangelical/ fundamental congregation. The dominant culture of Christianity in the United States is, in fact, of the conservative variety with which Pete would (according to his posts on this thread) feel right at home. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Hmm what about Roman Catholicism? There are 63 million Roman Catholics, it's the biggest religious denomination in the US.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Your Eminence,
it's a pity that the discussion we have puts a heavy burden on you, with all the questions directed at you.
Yet, I think that your contribution is important as we try to understand each other.
I hope you do not mind me making another comment:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed. I happen to believe that there are, that the Christian faith has always accepted that proposition, and that the NT and the Creeds are precisely examples of the way in which those limits were drawn.
I will say again that the NT and the Creeds remove from fellowship people whose teachings and lives lead away from the Kingdom, people who have not known God and do not follow Jesus' gospel.
This is not what happens here.
Diversity and pluralism are according to God's will, as evident by the amazing strangeness of the creation. To value these things is one thing, and to become a wall that obstructs the people who want to follow Jesus is another. The first can and indeed should have a place in the church, the latter shouldn't.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Didn't we kick the bishop of Harare out of the Anglican Communion? Or at least do a General Synod motion saying he was a very naughty boy?
If we didn't, we certainly should have done.
Oh, and my views on communion seem to be much the same as +Pete's. I happily receive communion at Pusey House and with Zwinglian Baptists, and I'd be happy receiving it with RC, Orthodox, etc if they'd let me.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Nobody seems to want to say that there are limits to inclusiveness. You are willing to accept fellowship with anyone. That appears to be a given in ECUSA.
Hang on for a while. It's only been an hour since you posted the question, and I've never really thought of it that way. As you note, we're not usually looking around for people to exclude, and vicious bishops aren't exactly thick on the ground here. Whether I'd exclude one or not isn't something I have to decide, so considering the hypothetical could take a while. Perhaps you'd care to hold off on the judgements?
quote:
My attempt to provoke posters here to say that there are limits to diversity failed.
If that's what you were trying to do, I missed it entirely. I thought you were just bad-mouthing liberals, which is pretty tired.
quote:
The first order/second order debate in the Anglican Communion will continue. It's clearly not one that I hear ECUSA being all that interested in (for obvious reasons - your values of inclusivism, self-determination and tolerance of diversity will not lead you to wish to self-define in this way).
Hear where? Where on earth do you get these idea about us? We have been going round and round about whether this is a first order or second order issue for years. Parishes and whole dioceses are attempting to leave because they think it's a first-order issue, where the majority seems to think it's a second-order issue.
I begin to think you don't know Thing One about the Episcopal Church, and aren't really interested in learning, either.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not to mention the lunacy that is allowed to go on in Sydney. Spawn went on for quite a while about not liking the American take on the priesthood of all believers, but we aren't pushing for lay presidency, for crying out loud.
I don't know what you're talking about as far as the American take on the priesthood of all believers. I've simply said that your polity might be partly responsible for the Bishops reneging on one vital part of their episcope - their teaching ministry.
However, if Sydney proceeds to lay presidency in spite of plenty of warnings from the rest of the communion, they will have crossed the line. They will be effectively walking away from the Communion and I have no doubt that their departure will be formalised.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't know what you're talking about as far as the American take on the priesthood of all believers.
I was referring to what you said about the importance we place on the baptismal covenant -- and your misunderstanding of it.
quote:
However, if Sydney proceeds to lay presidency in spite of plenty of warnings from the rest of the communion, they will have crossed the line. They will be effectively walking away from the Communion and I have no doubt that their departure will be formalised.
Why do you have no doubt? Because I don't hear anyone yelling and screaming about lay presidency the way I hear them yelling about our openly gay bishop.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
Hmm what about Roman Catholicism? There are 63 million Roman Catholics, it's the biggest religious denomination in the US.
Indeed, but in the US and abroad it would be ludicrous to posit that RC-style Christianity in any way dominates the cultural imagination. Furthermore, RC may be the biggest single denomination, but Protestants as a group still outnumber RCs in the United States. And even though Mr Bush tempers his evangie-speechification to include pro-life RCs with phrases like "culture of life", no one says "neocon" and thinks "ah -- conservative Roman Catholic!" "Religious Right" in the US refers almost exclusively (at least in the popular imagination and the press) to conservative/ evangelical/ fundamental protestants.
quote:
originally posted by Bishop Pete
You are willing to accept fellowship with anyone. That appears to be a given in ECUSA.
That's not how it is elsewhere. There are conservative evangelicals and others in the CofE and throughout the Communion who wish us to draw all kinds of lines as to who is in fellowship with us and who isn't.
Bishop Pete is obviously aware that there are such people in America as well.
He must also be aware that most Episcopalians wish ardently to define themselves against "conservative evangelicals", which reek of the (many would say ignorant, judgmental or bigoted) culture of popular Christianty in the United States.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
