homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely) (Page 14)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

The problem with this on a communion wide level is firstly that TEC is expendable inasmuch as kicking them out will have little effect on the day to day life of the C of E so the opportunities for grandstanding are greater. It's not like waking up one morning and finding that all your Aff Cath parishes are in vacancies and the churchwardens aren't returning your calls because they've resigned in protest.

I'm going to take a few hits for saying this, I know. All the same, here goes: while grandstanding against Those Awful Americans may have seemed to carry fewer consequences with it, the elephant in this room is that the American have funded a good many of the Communion's activities. Their financial contributions would be missed, and no one else at the moment is in a position to take up the slack -- certainly not Sydney.

quote:

Secondly the communion is more polarised than the C of E. A loyal opposition wouldn't be acceptable to GAFCON.

True, but at some point it would be helpful to draw a distinction between Communion conservatives as such, and the minority of conservatives whose anger has been deliberately stoked by ambitious dreams and shadowy "foundation" support, and who will not give up their opposition to TEC as long as it appears to be the pathway to realizing their ambitions. GAFCON falls in the latter category, and its members can't be treated in the same way as the rest of the conservatives in the Communion. ++Rowan's failure to see this fairly elementary political point has been responsible for a good bit of pain.

quote:

Thirdly we don't know what a communion wide shape would look like, whether it would be honoured in more conservative parts of the communion.

I more and more suspect it will look a lot like the Porvoo Agreement.

quote:

Fourthly, after six years of name calling TEC aren't really in a mood for compromise any more. KJS was making those sorts of noises a few years ago but I don't think she can deliver her troops on the ground, any more.

Quite true, I'm afraid.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
That's a personal rather than an institutional loss - bottom line if it came to losing the apostolic succession or some folk having a more sacrificial and difficult life ...

I am not sure how one can make a case that a church with openly gay bishops will lose the apostolic succession without lapsing into the heresy of donatism.

ETA: As a Canadian Anglican immersed in the Diocese of Long Island, one of the larger and arguably, with its huge African and Afro-Caribbean population, one of the TEC's most diverse, gay clergy were a done deal a long time ago.

My parish has an openly gay priest in a relationship. He is the dean of our deanery. The parish to the immediate south of us has two openly gay single (and dating) priests. One of the parishes to the north of me has a lesbian vicar.

Our bishop has a lesbian daughter and "requested" (as bishops do) that gay partnered clergy in this diocese get civil marriages or civil unions and to conduct themselves as straight clergy must.

Lest anyone think this is an anything goes kind of place, anyone who divorces and want to get remarried in the church must wait 2 years, submit to 6 months of weekly counseling (at their own cost), write a spiritual autobiography and list the reasons for the first marriage's breakdown and get the bishop's approval before being remarried in the church.

[ 13. December 2009, 18:40: 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
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
As for congregationalism in TEC--I think you have misread the discussion Spiffy and others were having up-thread. As I read it, they stated that many people in their parishes have a congregational view of their parish--often having come to the Episcopal Church from other congregationally-organized churches. However, I would suggest it takes more than that to actually BE a congregational church.

Actually, I read it as Spiffy saying that, all other things being equal, her inclinations were to congregationalism but she is currently worshipping in an Episcopalian church because it is the only one she has found where she is accepted as she is. I didn't understand her to be talking about anyone other than herself but others gave her words a wider application.

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
"Agree to disagree" isn't really a conclusion, unless you're in a Dave Marshall non-dogmatic type of church. It works for pluralists, but not for anyone else.

If after listening by some set of criteria till you're satisfied there is no realistic likelyhood of agreement, there are two obvious options: agree to disagree, or separate. If neither is desirable, which seems to be the case in most of the Communion, I see no other explanation than that those initial criteria do not in fact reflect what is most valued about the relationship.

Marking time at this point as has been the case pretty much invites power struggles and attempts to impose a solution. But there is a third option: re-frame the process in terms of what makes people want to stay together.

Will this lead to a pluralist communion? Only as far as existing Communion members have accepted they cannot agree. Alternatively, it might be that the Communion's shared identity is better understood in non-doctrinal ways, perhaps as shared history and shared values, commitment to truth and respect for cultural difference. Theological or ecclesiological difference might not after all relate much to what most people think is important about the Anglican Communion.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
"Agree to disagree" isn't really a conclusion, unless you're in a Dave Marshall non-dogmatic type of church. It works for pluralists, but not for anyone else.

If after listening by some set of criteria till you're satisfied there is no realistic likelyhood of agreement, there are two obvious options: agree to disagree, or separate.
We're talking here about churches, not church. The communion is already quite pluralist in belief.

Agree-to-disagree has worked in past instances that should have been potentially communion-breaking but for some reason were not. It's all a matter of choice.

[ 13. December 2009, 22:03: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even in the 39 Articles there was room for local autonomy:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.


So uniformity across the Communion was never envisaged. The question is what happens when the majority in a national church comes to the conclusion that a Tradition, ceremony or practise isn't repugnant to the Word of God, but this viewpoint isn't shared by the majority of another national church?

Anglicanism never has insisted on a specific interpretation of Scripture, so do national churches have the ability to come to interpretive conclusions that others in other contexts may not share yet be included in the Communion? They do when it comes to women's ordination and the criteria for divorce and remarriage, but not bishops in gay relationships.

--------------------
"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
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
4. Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE [for instance, unlike what appears to be the case in ECUSA, we couldn't have a diversity of official practice on liturgical provision for gay quasi-marriage].

We have never had the same liturgy, canon law or pastoral practice.

quote:
Agree to disagree is, I suspect,only a theoretical possibility in a congregational, non-credal, non-episcopal denomination. Which is why ECUSA hasn't, despite their looser polity, held together. It also makes the covenant increasingly unlikely...

We appear to agree to disagree quite well on the nature of the Eucharist.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been.

I'm just pondering why it all comes down to money - and why that is so important to TEC's relationship to the Anglican Communion? Always the giver, never the receiver. CoE has historically bankrolled the Communion as much if not more than TEC but doesn't have this strong money/funding perception of itself. It strikes me that this aspect of the relationship, TEC as perpetual dispenser of largesse, might also be part of the problem.
And it strikes me that you might misunderstand recurring mentions of money (as we 'Merikans have learned that that's a language that's understood) as something other than is meant). We have to do what we have to do. G-d's pissed off, and it won't do to us to reach a holding agreement.

Sorry.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

 - Posted      Profile for ianjmatt   Author's homepage   Email ianjmatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
After 14 pages this discussion has got me thinking of this:

Duty Calls

--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com

But maybe not

Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
1. Disagree and hide the disagreement by not mentioning it - unlikely

Seems to be what most evangelical churches in practice do. Round here anyway.

--------------------
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      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
The people arguing for change do not see the ordained priests of the status quo as ontologically not priests. Whereas the people arguing for status quo see the potential for lots of ontologically not-priests "pretending" to be actual-priests.

That's not true. They don't think that Robinson is not a priest. They think he is a priest who has not repented of a sin.

Also most evangelicals probably don't give much time to the idea that priests are ontologically different from anyone else (to be honest most of them probably never heard of the notion and those that have likely think its just a Catholic thing), and also they don't often have hangups about the validity of ordinations or sacraments.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622

 - Posted      Profile for pete173   Author's homepage   Email pete173   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
]That's not true. They don't think that Robinson is not a priest. They think he is a priest who has not repented of a sin.

Also most evangelicals probably don't give much time to the idea that priests are ontologically different from anyone else (to be honest most of them probably never heard of the notion and those that have likely think its just a Catholic thing), and also they don't often have hangups about the validity of ordinations or sacraments.

Ken's right. And let's make it clearer. We don't do ontology for orders. We don't do "sacramental assurance". We don't care very much about whether we have bishops or not. These are preoccupations for catholics to worry over (big time when it comes to women bishops). If you're ordained, you're ordained. The "unworthiness of the minister" bit in the Articles is a very Protestant
declaration.

The issue for conservative and other evos is about whether particular persons should continue to exercise their ministry or should be debarred from it by reason of the manner of life (partnered, gay, in this particular instance) they lead. For the majority in ECUSA, this particular manner of life is not one that they see as a bar to priesthood or episcopacy.

There are plenty of validly ordained priests in the CofE who don't hold the bishop's licence or exercise public ministry. They're still priests, but they're not holding office in the Church.

So we're not talking Donatism here. We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.

--------------------
Pete

Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We're probably not going to get it for the reasons I explained above.

Perhaps people in the UK fail to realize how integrated gay and lesbian laity and clergy are in many Episcopal dioceses. In the most populous dioceses in the country (New York, Long Island, Boston, California, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, etc.) there really isn't a distinction between gay and straight clergy. Openly gay clergy in relationships don't get a second look anymore. The novelty has worn off. They are as banal as everyone else.

So many American Episcopalians won't understand how a gay person's "manner of life" can be disruptive to others, particularly when hardly a fuss is raised over other "manners of life" like divorced and remarried clergy and bishops.

You can keep trying to explain it, but actions speak louder than words. And in the American context, the reality of gay and lesbian laity and clergy is going to speak loudest.

--------------------
"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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
That's a personal rather than an institutional loss - bottom line if it came to losing the apostolic succession or some folk having a more sacrificial and difficult life

Are you assuming that NOT being partnered is sacrificial? Marriage and partnership requires considerable sacrifice.

Why not ask 'straight' bishops if they'd be prepared to give up their wives as part of the sacrifice required of their calling?

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So many American Episcopalians won't understand how a gay person's "manner of life" can be disruptive to others, particularly when hardly a fuss is raised over other "manners of life" like divorced and remarried clergy and bishops.

Strongly agreed with everything ToujoursDan said. But also, anyone who believes that this exclusion is against God's will must not be persuaded no matter how much disruption is caused. The Kingdom is not a convenient thing!

(United Methodist here not Episcopalian, but we have the same issues in our church)

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. (my italic)

Yes. People are only talking about what they believe. What's needed is a willingness to consider the grounds for those beliefs, and whether the weight of evidence for them justifies deal-breaking positions being taken.

That's likely to be as unpallatable to catholics as to evangelicals - different objects of belief, same kind of non-rational attachments. But if agreeing to disagree is unacceptable, and relationship breakdown is undesirable, I don't see any other non-destructive way forward.

Unless of course it's possible to let go of right-believing orthodoxy as the only possible basis for a covenant.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry my mistake on the ontological thing then. But you still have the asymetry - one side ends up with ordained priests (and potentially bishops) they consider by definition unrepentent sinners (before they even open their mouths) the other doesn't.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Even in the 39 Articles there was room for local autonomy:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.


So uniformity across the Communion was never envisaged. The question is what happens when the majority in a national church comes to the conclusion that a Tradition, ceremony or practise isn't repugnant to the Word of God, but this viewpoint isn't shared by the majority of another national church?

Anglicanism never has insisted on a specific interpretation of Scripture, so do national churches have the ability to come to interpretive conclusions that others in other contexts may not share yet be included in the Communion? They do when it comes to women's ordination and the criteria for divorce and remarriage, but not bishops in gay relationships.

I'm a bit confused. Article 34 has nothing to do with changing theological interpretations or emphases; it specifically refers to rites and ceremonies. I don't think it can bear the weight of the point you're trying to make on it here.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We aren't talking about theological interpretations. We are talking about the criteria for consecration and the Blessing of Same Sex unions. These are creedal or theological matters. They are about the creation of rites and ceremonies and which people are eligible for them.

--------------------
"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
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
We aren't talking about theological interpretations. We are talking about the criteria for consecration and the Blessing of Same Sex unions. These are creedal or theological matters. They are about the creation of rites and ceremonies and which people are eligible for them.

Which people are eligible for those rites and ceremonies is very much a matter of theology.

[ 14. December 2009, 23:37: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

[ 15. December 2009, 01:16: 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
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315

 - Posted      Profile for rugasaw   Email rugasaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.

Some of us get that. Some of us also wonder why each province can't decide for themselves which manner of life is compatible and which manner of life is incompatible with public ministry within their province. Or maybe its just me.

--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown

Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So many American Episcopalians won't understand how a gay person's "manner of life" can be disruptive to others, particularly when hardly a fuss is raised over other "manners of life" like divorced and remarried clergy and bishops.

Strongly agreed with everything ToujoursDan said. But also, anyone who believes that this exclusion is against God's will must not be persuaded no matter how much disruption is caused. The Kingdom is not a convenient thing!

(United Methodist here not Episcopalian, but we have the same issues in our church)

Good example too. The UMC has a Rodney Dangerfield of a northern cousin, the United Church of Canada. We proceeded with LGBT ordinations in 1988. Grandpa Preacher was a Commissioner to that General Council. It didn't impair our relations with world Methodism. The UCCan and the UMC have since set up joint ministries, among which is a UMC outpost in British Columbia which uses a United Church minister and support.

See, the world didn't come to a crashing end, and we're still family.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.
Trust me, we get it. Somewhere in the world there is an Anglican absolutely mortified that there is a gay priest somewhere else in the world. It is quite clear, and so there is really no point in trying to explain it any more. Thank you.

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.

Some of us get that. Some of us also wonder why each province can't decide for themselves which manner of life is compatible and which manner of life is incompatible with public ministry within their province. Or maybe its just me.
To my mind, this thread has for me exposed rifts in the fabric of Anglicanism far deeper than issues of human sexuality but far more to do with what it means to be Anglican. There are those, for example, like Numpty and myself, who believe that Anglicanism is a form of Reformed Catholicism and that documents like the 39 Arts are pretty normative and foundational to the concept of an Anglican Communion and without which there's not much of a 'communion' to speak of...and then there's a heck of a lot of people on this thread who think otherwise...

This, to me, is the real issue at stake.

--------------------
"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
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion". Many of the said articles are directed against the anabaptists, who were the fashionable perceived menace of the day. The Articles are very much an artifact of their time. The only people in the American Church BTW for whom the Articles were especially important left back in the 1870s (the Reformed Episcopal Church with its virtually invisible presence).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There are those, for example, like Numpty and myself, who believe that Anglicanism is a form of Reformed Catholicism and that documents like the 39 Arts are pretty normative and foundational to the concept of an Anglican Communion and without which there's not much of a 'communion' to speak of...and then there's a heck of a lot of people on this thread who think otherwise...

I think that's a fair summary. The question is, are you and Numpty correct in your belief about what Anglicanism is. The evidence of this thread, a straw poll of the actual outcome of history, suggests not. Neither the evangelical nor the catholic interpretation represents any kind of Communion-wide consensus, and there is no independent adjudicator.

But this is only an issue if the Communion is understood as an orthodoxy-defining Church-like body. As far as I'm aware, that has only ever been a role concocted by those attempting to gain influence for their own particular position.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

 - Posted      Profile for ianjmatt   Author's homepage   Email ianjmatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There are those, for example, like Numpty and myself, who believe that Anglicanism is a form of Reformed Catholicism and that documents like the 39 Arts are pretty normative and foundational to the concept of an Anglican Communion and without which there's not much of a 'communion' to speak of...and then there's a heck of a lot of people on this thread who think otherwise...

I think that's a fair summary. The question is, are you and Numpty correct in your belief about what Anglicanism is. The evidence of this thread, a straw poll of the actual outcome of history, suggests not. Neither the evangelical nor the catholic interpretation represents any kind of Communion-wide consensus, and there is no independent adjudicator.

But this is only an issue if the Communion is understood as an orthodoxy-defining Church-like body. As far as I'm aware, that has only ever been a role concocted by those attempting to gain influence for their own particular position.

According to the website, the Anglican communion is:

quote:
The ministry of Anglican Communion at international level can be approached through the ongoing programmes of the various official commissions and networks and the work of the "Instruments of Communion"
The Instruments of communion, as discussed earlier are ABC, Lambeth, Primates meeting and ACC. See here.

My understanding is that the official line is thaty to be in the Anglican communion a member church needs to subscribe to all four instruments of communion. Whether that is historically justifiable or consensually correect I'm not sure.

--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com

But maybe not

Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.
Trust me, we get it. Somewhere in the world there is an Anglican absolutely mortified that there is a gay priest somewhere else in the world. It is quite clear, and so there is really no point in trying to explain it any more. Thank you.

Zach

Actually, Zach82, there are some of us for whom that is quite irrelevant. The real issue is how changes and decisions are made and accepted as much as the reasons for the decision and, as well, how dissenters from decisions get to be treated. Indeed, the more I have seen the Issue dealt with, the less I see this as being about the Issue itself.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

Somebody might correct me, but if I'm not mistaken it was Ramsey's predecessor Geoffrey Fisher who made that remark. Which is perhaps relevant because, unlike Ramsey, there is no way he could have been dismissed as an Anglo-Catholic.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

So? Why not go over to Rome, then? I think there's more to Anglicanism than 'Catholicism minus the Pope'; if I'm guilty of looking at the Anglican Church through the eyes of the third quarter of the 16th Century, perhaps you are equally guilty of viewing it via the second quarter (the Henrician 'Reformation')
quote:
Many of the said articles are directed against the anabaptists, who were the fashionable perceived menace of the day.
And Roman Catholicism; the Articles were an endeavour to chart a middle course between those two extremes and also to articulate what an Episcopal Catholic Apostolic Church might look like in a Reformed soteriological context.
quote:
The Articles are very much an artifact of their time.
So? So's the Nicene Creed; perhaps Anglicanism should ditch that too. Personally, I have no problem in believing either.]

[ 15. December 2009, 14:24: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible
I think this comment is more significant than its brevity might suggest. The Bible is the ultimate standard of faith for Anglicans. All validly Anglican theology must originate with the Scriptures (authority) and end with the Scriptures (ultimacy; the final fact or principle).

If a theological innovation can be shown to have originated in a challenge to the authority of Scripture or to have resulted in a challenge to the ultimacy of Scripture it can be safely rejected as unAnglican, and in actual fact unChristian.

[ 15. December 2009, 14:25: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

Somebody might correct me, but if I'm not mistaken it was Ramsey's predecessor Geoffrey Fisher who made that remark. Which is perhaps relevant because, unlike Ramsey, there is no way he could have been dismissed as an Anglo-Catholic.
And as the CofE website says, Anglicans uphold the ultimacy of the scripture and the sufficiency of the creeds, and recognise the congruity of the 39 Articles with the preceding two.

[ 15. December 2009, 14:40: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible
Really? The concept of sexual orientation was defined some 1800 years after the compilation of the Bible. Please provide a reference (chapter and verse, please) to support your extraordinary claim.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And as the CofE website says, Anglicans uphold the ultimacy of the scripture and the sufficiency of the creeds, and recognise the congruity of the 39 Articles with the preceding two.

One last time, Numpty: the C of E is not "Anglicans," and your frantic repetition of this point won't make it true. In some provinces, the Articles have no authoritative standing whatsoever.

[ 15. December 2009, 14:45: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aye, there's the rub...

--------------------
"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
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

Somebody might correct me, but if I'm not mistaken it was Ramsey's predecessor Geoffrey Fisher who made that remark. Which is perhaps relevant because, unlike Ramsey, there is no way he could have been dismissed as an Anglo-Catholic.
Yes, I think you're correct. It would have been so much better ascribed to ++Ramsey. But actually when I was a teenager I used to have a little wallet-sized card (purchased at a parish gift shop at a church in West Texas) with this quote from Dr Fisher on it. It's been much repeated in the American Church. I do think that I've actually seen the misattribution to ++Ramsey in print, so that's another interesting sort of revisionist legend in TEC.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible
Really? The concept of sexual orientation was defined some 1800 years after the compilation of the Bible. Please provide a reference (chapter and verse, please) to support your extraordinary claim.
This has never been only about orientation though, has it?

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, but neither can we remove orientation from the equation as reasserters would like to do, because once you admit orientation into the evidence, it's much harder to defend a straightforward reading of the relevant texts.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Really, it's about a split that has been running through Christianity - at least Western Christianity - since the publication of On the Origin of Species. The split is in some ways livelier in protestant Christianity than in the RCC, due to the relative lack of central authority within protestantism. The bones of contention have changed over time for some of the participants. Darwin is no longer the bugaboo amongst English Evangelicals, though he still is amongst loads of American Evo-fundies. However, issues of sexuality have moved to the fore for many denominations in the past 35 years. Now our old friend Ingo would probably say this is the way protestantism was destined to go. I wouldn't agree. However, I do think Christianity has been experiencing something akin to a second Reformation, a long, drawn-out process that is associated with changes in society at large that are taking place with different degrees of speed in different places.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
One last time, Numpty: the C of E is not "Anglicans," and your frantic repetition of this point won't make it true.

Neither, in case it needs saying, is Numpty the C of E.

[ 15. December 2009, 15:37: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Really, it's about a split that has been running through Christianity - at least Western Christianity - since the publication of On the Origin of Species. The split is in some ways livelier in protestant Christianity than in the RCC, due to the relative lack of central authority within protestantism. The bones of contention have changed over time for some of the participants. Darwin is no longer the bugaboo amongst English Evangelicals, though he still is amongst loads of American Evo-fundies. However, issues of sexuality have moved to the fore for many denominations in the past 35 years. Now our old friend Ingo would probably say this is the way protestantism was destined to go. I wouldn't agree. However, I do think Christianity has been experiencing something akin to a second Reformation, a long, drawn-out process that is associated with changes in society at large that are taking place with different degrees of speed in different places.

How'd you get so smart?...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And as the CofE website says, Anglicans uphold the ultimacy of the scripture and the sufficiency of the creeds, and recognise the congruity of the 39 Articles with the preceding two.

One last time, Numpty: the C of E is not "Anglicans," and your frantic repetition of this point won't make it true. In some provinces, the Articles have no authoritative standing whatsoever.
What about the creed as a sufficient synopsis, and the bible as the ultimate standard, of the Ancient Catholic faith?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As Dead Horses shows, that would far from sort out the argument in this case.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
My understanding is that the official line is thaty to be in the Anglican communion a member church needs to subscribe to all four instruments of communion.

I'm not sure what that means. How do you subscribe to the Archbishop of Canterbury? Before recent attempts to use the Communion as a weapon of theological warfare I can't imagine any Church 'asking to join' - they would simply be included if they were one of the family. What we are seeing now is either family tensions or a family feud, depending on which family member you talk to or when you come into the room.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

 - Posted      Profile for ianjmatt   Author's homepage   Email ianjmatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
My understanding is that the official line is thaty to be in the Anglican communion a member church needs to subscribe to all four instruments of communion.

I'm not sure what that means. How do you subscribe to the Archbishop of Canterbury? Before recent attempts to use the Communion as a weapon of theological warfare I can't imagine any Church 'asking to join' - they would simply be included if they were one of the family. What we are seeing now is either family tensions or a family feud, depending on which family member you talk to or when you come into the room.
You're right, my language was sloppy. I think it would be true to say that if a church were to reject one of the four instruments of communion they would be placing themselves outside of the communion though.

--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com

But maybe not

Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think it would be true to say that if a church were to reject one of the four instruments of communion they would be placing themselves outside of the communion though.

I think the family analogy works better. If, say, the Nigerian Church fell out with the US Church because they didn't like the way the US Church played, they might stop talking. They're still both anglican Churches. Either would only need to be excluded from family gatherings if they insisted on shouting obscenities across the meal table or some other parallel for disrupting normal family life.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible
I think this comment is more significant than its brevity might suggest. The Bible is the ultimate standard of faith for Anglicans.
So you state, but with no substantiation from either of you as to its bearing on this topic. Since it is out-of-scope of Purgatory to go into details, I initiated the thread "Lesbians and the Bible" in Dead Horses to discuss it. Neither of you have yet weighed in. From the look of it, those who argue for a connection need your expert support.

Whether sexual orientation is mentioned in the Bible I gainsay: please provide citations. Whether it says much about Lesbianism is also doubtful.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My embryonic view is that the four instruments of communion are simply four distinct means by which the Anglican church should seek to order itself according to Scripture. Firstly, it is incumbent upon the ABC to be in submission to Christ and his word in accordance with his vows of consecration. Secondly, the Lambeth Conference should seek to worship, study, and converse in submission to the will of God as revealed in his word. Thirdly, the Primates are obliged to conduct themselves in a way that befits their vows of consecration. Finally, the ACC is committed to the centrality of bible study at it's meetings.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools