Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Matt, everything is always about the US.

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

Get with the programme and repeat after me:

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



--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that!

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

[cp with Seeker963]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

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

---

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

Thurible

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

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

- Chris.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

---