|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Fine. But you can't just be "in communion" by fiat...
Wow, do you know how the Anglican Communion works at all? Honestly, your post betrays so little knowledge of the matter at hand you'd swear this was the internet or something.
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Wow, do you know how the Anglican Communion works at all?
Well, Zach, since you seem to think the Anglican Communion ought to be able to hold together just fine with different provinces taking whatever radical doctrine-changing decisions they see fit - and since the AC is not noticeably in such fine shape as a result - I could pose the same question to you.
[ 07. December 2009, 22:37: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
We do have official doctines which bind the communion and guess what: no particular stance on teh gays is among them.
The Anglican Communion is bound together by its history. If it was lockstep agreement on every doctrine that bound us together, we'd be Catholics. If you will recall, this is called the "Via Media," in which we believe we have on Church for all people that believe in Christ.
Zach
[ 07. December 2009, 22:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We do have official doctines which bind the communion and guess what: no particular stance on teh gays is among them.
Says you. Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[An free added "d" in privileged - just because I care. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Pumpkin?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
So you've been in academia?
I can just get a glimpse of bizarrely twisted logic in your last para.
Do you have a rebuttal in there somewhere or are you just being a butt?
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Why is this decision the one that prompts such communion-shattering argument, and why is unity so important on this issue? Anglicans haven't exactly reached a 100% consensus on the number of sacraments, the Real Presence, the ordination of women, and the role/authority of scripture.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We do have official doctines which bind the communion and guess what: no particular stance on teh gays is among them.
Says you. Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.
Why does their interpretation get to trump Zach's? It's all interpretation, it's all through the cultural lenses of the individual.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Except that, as you very well know, such changes to traditional (i.e., what almost all Anglicans have historically believed) biblical orthodoxy on sexual morality are deal-breaking, communion-impairing issues for tons of evangelical Anglicans (of the non-"stone-'em-to-death!" sort).
You mean like divorce and remarriage? Or does that not count because we're straight?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.
But if they are willing to brook disagreement on the ordination of women, then I believe that their priorities, doctrinally speaking, are laughably incoherent. How in the world can one overlook an ordination that one believes to be totally invalid, while making a stink about a valid ordination just because the ordinand has a problem in his personal life?
Given this reality, when an atheist accuses the church of "having nothing to with 'truth' and everything to do with social control," how would you reply?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why is this decision the one that prompts such communion-shattering argument, and why is unity so important on this issue? Anglicans haven't exactly reached a 100% consensus on the number of sacraments, the Real Presence, the ordination of women, and the role/authority of scripture.
Because so many hetero-males can't deal with their brittlely repressed passive homoerotism, nor with their masochistic tittilation at the thought of two women choosing each other as sex objects and spurning a cock. The best solution seems to be to beat up or kill people who are engaging in activities that unconsciously (or perhaps not so unconsciously) arouse you but which threaten your frail sense of masculine identification.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
The truth is, my genuine bewliderment about the whole affair (which is what my posts here have really been an expression of) probably disqualifies me from further comment.
I have no dog whatever in this fight, being a very contentedly line-toeing Roman Catholic, but the weirdness of the current state of the Anglican project baffles me more now than it ever did when I was an Anglican myself.
Pax et bonum all round.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I think we should keep in mind that the Anglican Communion is a rather new and artificial invention. We started out in the C19 with Lambeth conferences, the first of which was apparently called in order to try to muster some support for dealing with the Colenso matter in South Africa. Initially the whole idea seems to have been pretty much limited to the 10-yearly conferences and to the gathered bishops issuing and encyclical -- not so much about the ABC, except being He who issued invitations and provided a venue. With the post-modern and post-colonial eras, efforts to make the Anglican Communion into more of an institutional reality with frequent primates' meetings got underway, even as post-colonialism and Western post-modernism made inter-provincial relations increasinly frayed and fraught. I'm not even sure why some of the oldest national churches should particularly care about the project. The CoE certainly doesn't "need" the AC and the ABC has plenty to do in England without taking on responsibilities of trying to be an Anglican pope. The Scottish Church likewise predates all the colonialism, and the American Church has been independent since the Revolution. Scale back the AC project, turn it into an explicit confederacy of autonomous churches who may not all be in communion with one another (like the Lutheran World Federation) or scrap it altogether. TEC was on its own for a century before the first Lambeth Conference was convened. I doubt that we'll leave on our own, but I don't care if we get kicked out. As someone else said, we'll emphasise relationships with new ecumenical partners.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why is this decision the one that prompts such communion-shattering argument
For most of the conservative evangelicals, its for these reasons I already described on the previous page.
Which is why attempts to compare or conflate these issues with that of the ordination of women simply get no-where, they fall on deaf ears, they have no purchase in the argument. Which is also why, I suspect, there will ultimately be no mileage in any kind of alliance between these evangelicals and the anglo-catholic opponents of women priests and bishops - something that Forward in Faith seem to have been trying and mostly failing to start for years. Its not a simple traditionalist vs liberal split. (and as I've said a dozen times here it certainly isn't a political conservative vs liberal split - by US standards neither Sydney nor most of the African Anglicans are particularly right-wing)
I don't know much about the "continuing Anglican" defectors from ECUSA, other than what I've read on this Ship to be honest, but from what I read here I suspect they won't, in the end, get much joy out of the likes of Sydney or Uganda or Nigeria either. There is perhaps a large cultural divide that agreement on this one issue won't bridge.
Not that anyone can know of course.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Pumpkin?
So you've been in academia?
I can just get a glimpse of bizarrely twisted logic in your last para.
Do you have a rebuttal in there somewhere or are you just being a butt?
There's a good joke in your last word, but, seeing you can't dig irony, I won't come down to you.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think we should keep in mind that the Anglican Communion is a rather new and artificial invention.
When I was growing up in 1970s NZ, we were very proud to be part of a church that allowed each province to develop in its own way. NZ went down the Three Tikanga route, with independent Anglican churches for Maori, Polynesian and Pakeha congregations. Each tikanga developed in its own way without anybody getting particularly knotted up about it, even though I know there were some definite doctrinal challenges.
I remember my dad telling me that being an Anglican meant not having complete conformity between provinces (in comparison with Roman Catholicism, specifically), and that the Archbishop of Canterbury, good as he might be, had no jurisdiction over NZ Anglicans. This was also a common theme in the church I belonged to during my university years.
What I'm reading now suggests quite the opposite.
Sad.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The truth is, my genuine bewliderment about the whole affair (which is what my posts here have really been an expression of) probably disqualifies me from further comment.
Your bewilderment is entirely understandable. I also am bewildered to as to why the representatives of TEC posting here are quite so angry? Their church has done what it wants knowing what the consequences would be. Now they are throwing insults and ad hominems around. They've used the word 'English' as an insult to a Welshman and we've even heard the term 'witch-doctors'.
There are some ugly nationalisms and exceptionalisms around in the contemporary Anglican Communion and not solely from North America. But I just wish these people could have the insight and the wit to see themselves for what they are.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Because so many hetero-males can't deal with their brittlely repressed passive homoerotism, nor with their masochistic tittilation at the thought of two women choosing each other as sex objects and spurning a cock.
That's the C of E for you.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
And the hierarchy of the RCC while you're at it....
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
Our provinces are not monolithic bastions of one particular form of churchmanship, at least not in the West. I hope that someone can reassure me that there is diversity elsewhere and, for example, not all Ugandan Anglicans want gays imprisoned or dead.
True, some dioceses are particularly strong one way or the other, but they have their exceptions; Christ Church St Laurence and St James King Street in Sydney being nearby examples.
The logical conclusion to fracturing of the communion is fracturing of the provinces, dioceses and individual congregations. I know that has been experienced in some places already, including TEC. If A can't abide having people like B in the same communion, how can they bear them in the next pew?
If TEC gets thrown out of the communion, or downgraded in some way, I'm really not sure what I'd do. I'm not sure I'd be able to stay.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We do have official doctines which bind the communion and guess what: no particular stance on teh gays is among them.
Says you. Other Anglicans certainly seem to consider traditional biblical interpretation and a nearly 2000-year deposit of tradional teaching on sexuality as being implicit in the instruments of unity binding the Communion. I don't see why your interpretation of what constitutes "essential Anglicanism" gets to be priviledged over theirs.
Why does their interpretation get to trump Zach's? It's all interpretation, it's all through the cultural lenses of the individual.
How did you reach that conclusion? Because it sounds as if you are saying that all interpretation is culturally and even personally relative. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that the wider culture - and even individuals within culture - are somehow at liberty to decide what's right and wrong and then expect Christians rework scripture in such as way as it doesn't contradict the norms and values of the prevailing culture. That, to me, sounds very much like relativistic totalitarianism.
[ 08. December 2009, 09:45: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I also am bewildered to as to why the representatives of TEC posting here are quite so angry? Their church has done what it wants knowing what the consequences would be.'
I don't think that TEC members and supporters are surprised at the reaction. But we are deeply dismayed and, yes, angry, that such a rapid public statement should come from Lambeth given the lack of statements over the Ugandan Bishops' support for such virulent anti-gay legislation.
Also, as Dave Marshall pointed out earlier in the thread, the nature of the Anglican Communion has not ye changed to one where a province can be imposed upon, but clearly some think that change has happened. Just because we've been quiet, doesn't been we've assented.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I hope that someone can reassure me that there is diversity elsewhere and, for example, not all Ugandan Anglicans want gays imprisoned or dead.
Of course there is and they don't. How could you imagine otherwise?
Unless perhaps your only source of news was right-wing ex-Anglican bloggers in the USA.
From over here a lot of this looks like a very loud argument going on mainly in America, with one side or another using sound-bites from other countries as ammunition. But its not really any direct engagment with those other countries.
Also, as someone else said, its hard to see what some of the Americans are so worked up about. Its not as if they were in any danger of having their churches ripped away from them by invading hordes. They are on the whole big enough to look after themselves. (& in a purely worldly sense far more rich and powerful than those they are yelling about)
Its kind of weird:
1) Americans elect a bishop who some Africans half a world away think ought not to be a bishop. As they are perfectly entitled to.
2) Rowan Williams says quite truthfully that that will make it harder to keep the Anglican Communion together (surely no-one here thinks that he wasn't telling the truth?)
3) Americans on both sides of the argument run around shouting "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
Seems strange.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Brilliant synopsis ken. If wrote for a parish magazine I publish it as my own. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I hope that someone can reassure me that there is diversity elsewhere and, for example, not all Ugandan Anglicans want gays imprisoned or dead.
Of course there is and they don't. How could you imagine otherwise?
Well, that's what I hoped and expected, but I get the impression that the Southern provinces are often portrayed as, or assumed to be, monolithic blocks of same-thinking people, whereas the Western provinces are divided. I was sort of making the point that the same characteristically Anglican diversity is found everywhere, and is threatened at every level. However, I genuinely had no knowledge to back that up in relation to Uganda, and had I assumed someone might equally have come in to tell me that, no, in fact they all pretty much believe the same...
Now perhaps those Ugandan Anglicans who don't want all gays to go to prison or be killed should hear some strong words of reassurance and support from Lambeth, over the heads of their Bishops? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
Also, as Dave Marshall pointed out earlier in the thread, the nature of the Anglican Communion has not ye changed to one where a province can be imposed upon, but clearly some think that change has happened.
No-one is proposing that any province can be imposed upon. The weak proposals in the covenant merely remind all the provinces that actions may have pretty mild consequences for our relationships. This doesn't restrict General Conventions right to act.
quote:
Just because we've been quiet, doesn't been we've assented.
Yes I've noticed that TEC is a shrinking violet. Such a quiet and well-behaved church.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
No-one is proposing that any province can be imposed upon.
It depends what you mean by imposed. If a province is entirely unconcerned about being excluded from participation in Communion decisions, then obviously being marginalised is no big deal. But for anyone who cares about the global impact and credibility of their faith and tradition, which I imagine is where TEC and other 'liberalising' Churches are, it's not something they can roll over about with a resigned 'c'est la vie'.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Is it just me, or is supporting the proposal law in Uganda not also in violation of the Lambeth Conference resolutions of 1998?
I would like to see some more arguments from the people objecting to the Episcopal Church in the USA saying that the diocese of Uganda knows it is calling its status in the Anglican Communion into question by supporting these laws and should expect the consequences.
[ 08. December 2009, 11:09: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
Also, as Dave Marshall pointed out earlier in the thread, the nature of the Anglican Communion has not ye changed to one where a province can be imposed upon, but clearly some think that change has happened.
No-one is proposing that any province can be imposed upon. The weak proposals in the covenant merely remind all the provinces that actions may have pretty mild consequences for our relationships. This doesn't restrict General Conventions right to act.
quote:
Just because we've been quiet, doesn't been we've assented.
Yes I've noticed that TEC is a shrinking violet. Such a quiet and well-behaved church.
Whatever TEC is or isn't, I'm not a part of it. Same Communion, different colony.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why is this decision the one that prompts such communion-shattering argument, and why is unity so important on this issue? Anglicans haven't exactly reached a 100% consensus on the number of sacraments, the Real Presence, the ordination of women, and the role/authority of scripture.
Because so many hetero-males can't deal with their brittlely repressed passive homoerotism, nor with their masochistic tittilation at the thought of two women choosing each other as sex objects and spurning a cock. The best solution seems to be to beat up or kill people who are engaging in activities that unconsciously (or perhaps not so unconsciously) arouse you but which threaten your frail sense of masculine identification.
And because it was such a hot-button issue to this group of troubled people, it was used, cynically and knowingly, by the hard Religious Right in the US to gain political power (see under Karl Rove, Permanent Majority, "Adam and Steve").
It was used in a cynical attempt to undermine and seize control of the US Episcopal Church, a prize because of its enormous endowments and valuable property. These same Far-Right players in the US then exported their agenda to the rest of the Anglican Communion (see under Martyn Minns, a former Nigerian oil executive, who knows very well how things are done in that country). Thus we suddenly had the "Global South."
The Archbishop of Canterbury took all their cynical propaganda at face value (was it that post-colonial guilt?) and threw the game to them. His reward: the same tactics this group used to undermine the Episcopal Church in the US are now being used against his own Church, while liberal/moderate Church of England members are quitting in disgust. The Church is now fully identified with the homophobia of the far right.
Good job, Rowan! If my ancestors hadn't been prominent Lollards, I would give up on Christianity altogether in disgust. But if Archbishop Arundel couldn't stop them, I suppose Archbishop Williams won't stop me.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me, or is supporting the proposal law in Uganda not also in violation of the Lambeth Conference resolutions of 1998?
I would like to see some more arguments from the people objecting to the Episcopal Church in the USA saying that the diocese of Uganda knows it is calling its status in the Anglican Communion into question by supporting these laws and should expect the consequences.
Because the Africans are always to be mollified and the Americans villified. That's what it says in Master Williams's little black book of Anglican Papacy.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Here in the diocese of Indianapolis we have a priest slithered from the bosom of the bishop of Bolivia going parish to parish to tempt people to split away from the authority of the rightful bishop.
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The good thing Zach is how unsuccessful these miscreants have been. The only major defections were portions of four retrograde dioceses that kept themselves cocooned for years in a contrarian posture vis a vis the rest of TEC. Fort Worth is instructive. When the diocese was first carved out of the Diocese of Dallas, Bp Davies the Ordinary of Dallas was given the choice to keep Dallas or to take over Fort Worth. He took Fort Worth as a final post before his retirement. Although he'd always seemed a very moderate episcopalian company man, he appointed an arch-conservative archdeacon and upon retirement Davies unexpectedly launched a schism called the Missionary Episcopal Church. So the diocese got off to a terrible start. They then elected Clarence Pope who gave permission for a whole major parish to leave for Rome and take their property with them, then defected for Rome himself (he subsequently hopped back and forth across the Tiber and I'm not sure in what communion he died). Fort Worth then elected the truly awful Jack Iker who set a course of confrontation with TEC and ultimately engineered the diocese seceeding. Yet even then some of the most important parishes refused to participate in his secession, including All Saints (at one time the cathedral), St Christopher's (once home to the diocesan offices), and Trinity (a well-established liberal parish located in the vicinity of Texas Christian University).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me, or is supporting the proposal law in Uganda not also in violation of the Lambeth Conference resolutions of 1998?
I would like to see some more arguments from the people objecting to the Episcopal Church in the USA saying that the diocese of Uganda knows it is calling its status in the Anglican Communion into question by supporting these laws and should expect the consequences.
Because the Africans are always to be mollified and the Americans villified. That's what it says in Master Williams's little black book of Anglican Papacy.
You are talking cock again!
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
How about the moral dimension: To appease Akinola's morality, we have to tell homosexuals that they don't have the right to pursue the path they have rightfully discerned from God Himself. Which violates my morality. But only the conservatives' morality counts in the Anglican Communion for some reason.
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
You are talking cock again!
There's a lot of it on this thread from people who have little or no knowledge of the history of the communion, no understanding of cultural differences and absolutely no idea of what an angry, hostile and prejudiced image they're presenting of their own church.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Because the Africans are always to be mollified and the Americans villified. That's what it says in Master Williams's little black book of Anglican Papacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...These same Far-Right players in the US then exported their agenda to the rest of the Anglican Communion (see under Martyn Minns, a former Nigerian oil executive, who knows very well how things are done in that country). Thus we suddenly had the "Global South."
The Archbishop of Canterbury took all their cynical propaganda at face value (was it that post-colonial guilt?) and threw the game to them. His reward: the same tactics this group used to undermine the Episcopal Church in the US are now being used against his own Church, while liberal/moderate Church of England members are quitting in disgust.
I just don't recognise any of this in what's actually been said and done. It's like its coming from another planet.
Also I've never heard of Martyn Minns but I do know that people started talking of the "South" in this sense a long time ago - probably in the 1970s, certainly the 1980s - as a way of getting round the derogatory connotations of "Third World" (which is now an anachronism of course), and that the language was most from the left, not right.
And who are these "Church of England members" who are "quitting in disgust"?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There's a lot of it on this thread from people who have little or no knowledge of the history of the communion
I imagine we're more concerned with the present and future of the communion.
quote:
no understanding of cultural differences
Understanding is one thing. Prioritising cultural accomodation at the expense of basic human rights seems something rather different.
quote:
and absolutely no idea of what an angry, hostile and prejudiced image they're presenting of their own church.
Yeah. Let's all politely object and trust the Instruments of Communion to listen as they define the anglican way.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
Can someone explain to me how the reaction to ECUSAs latest antics is an example of anti-americanism when a substantial portion of ECUSA's membership has already broken away in disgust?
Are these self-hating Americans?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Túathalán
Shipmate
# 14148
|
Posted
I'm one of the (pretty numerous, in my experience) Anglicans who are puzzled by ABp Rowan's treatment of recent events - i.e. the critical tone taken of the diocese of L.A., and the soft-pedalling of the frankly hateful legislation being proposed in Uganda. I have faith in ABp Rowan, but not his current standpoint. And as a side point, I do not see how the Ugandan legislation can be approved of by even conservative Christians, as that proposed law goes a whole lot further even than a conservative interpretation of the Bible's teaching on sexuality.
And for what it's worth, if it was up to me, I'd be a whole lot happier to remain in communion with Los Angeles than with Uganda ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 129 | From: Here, where else? | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Túathalán:
...the critical tone taken of the diocese of L.A.
The official statement was:
quote:
The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole
Which is not so much critical as very, very, bland. In the sort of "Yes Minister" English bureacrat non-committal house style. But it is also pretty obviously literally true - if it wasn't there wouldn't be so many people getting worked up about it here.
And that was the only thing so far said publically about the LA election that has Rowan Williams's name on it as far as I know.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Túathalán
Shipmate
# 14148
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Which is not so much critical as very, very, bland. In the sort of "Yes Minister" English bureacrat non-committal house style.
I agree entirely that it is a 'Yes Minister'-type of statement. However, as someone who has had to get to grips with the CofE's rather, erm, subtle use of language over the past few years, I am fairly sure that a disapproving tone was meant.
Now, I'd be delighted if ABp Rowan was to make a subsequent statement clearly distancing himself from disapproval of the new Bishop's election ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 129 | From: Here, where else? | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Can someone explain to me how the reaction to ECUSAs latest antics is an example of anti-americanism when a substantial portion of ECUSA's membership has already broken away in disgust?
Are these self-hating Americans?
A substantial portion of TEC's membership HAVE NOT broken away. TEC has given birth to a number of schisms since the 1960s, none of which has amounted to anything. Four freaking retrograde dioceses left more recently and I addressed that history in a lengthy post above in which I described the peculiar history of one those dioceses, Fort Worth. If it weren't for the news media most people in TEC in most of the country wouldn't be aware of any secession at all. In the diocese in which I currently live there has been no splitting and the only "continuing Anglican" church in the diocese dates from the post-1976 schism over OoW -- they're tiny and pretty well invisible.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Ok, let me get this out of my system first.....
I am sick to death about hearing nothing other than sex, sex, sex outta the Anglican communion. It's a pathetic indightment of our times that when the future generations look back on us they will see a group of Christians who argued and lost out with one another cos one of their mates took it up the arse, or may have worn a strap on. Meanwhile the earth melts like wax (especially at its poles), the flood waters rise, the poor get poorer and health scares abound. there are wars and rumours of wars, and the people tremble at the shaking heavens. And what our response throughout these repeated crises? No bum sex people. For Fuck sake, get a fucking life!
Right, now I got that rant outta the way, maybe I can now respond sensibly.....
Part of being an Anglican Communion means that we have to be sensitive to others - even if that means not pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable or not acceptable. We are in a difficult situation at the moment that will require great sensitivity and good leadership from all parts of the communion. That said, I think this move is ill-timed, no matter how morally right it may be. We can't loose sight of the fact that we are a pilgrim people, and maybe in this season of Advent we need to return to those concepts of waiting and watching - which may also include biding our time until and appropriate moment. There is no point in forcing an issue through when we don't stop to consider the impact on the rest of the communion; especially those who live side by side Muslim neighbours and who will face persecution (admittedly through ignorance) as they are seen as one and the same as their ECUSA brothers and sisters. But before you jump to lynch me - it is something that works both ways, and this is where the clear leadership is required. We must all understand that we are part of the same church and dictating to one another will simply not work.
There is one area that does concern me in the approach of the Global South to the rest of the communion, which has to do with being dictated to. Where will it actually end? It seems that the aspects of self governance and agreed statements has been lost somewhere along the line. Will we be in a situation where the traditional anglican triangle of reason, scripture and tradition becomes unbalanced through the heckling of one particular part of the communion? I personally would find this a very worrying and depressing situation. The idea that one part of the communion can dictate to another part of the communion and say it must be more 'Biblically based' (whatever that means), or it must think this particular way doctrinally and no other way. Such a development may seem far off, but I really wonder if it's not just a logical next step. I would certainly be very concerned if it was.
There is also the important aspect of living with pain and hurt and difference. Sometimes parts of the communion will have to sacrifice doing something it wants to do for the sake of wider unity. For instance, the Church of Ireland is in communion with the Lutherans under the Porvoo agreement and they recently appointed a lesbian. The C of I was invited to the ceremony, but felt it had to decline. This was a painful decision, but one that was respectfully understood and accepted.
I tend to view the anglican communion like a family, and like many families they might have a gay uncle or a lesbian second cousin. They may fight about this, they may even loose out with one another for a while, but they are still a family. They may throw tantrums, they may know exactly which buttons to push to aggravate the members of that family they like the least.... but they are still a family; part of a single unit that is dependent upon one another and needs one another at the end of the day. I lament deeply the fact that this family has a pre-occupation with sex right now, but hopefully some day soon, we shall all wake up and remember our unity in Christ.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Can someone explain to me how the reaction to ECUSAs latest antics is an example of anti-americanism when a substantial portion of ECUSA's membership has already broken away in disgust?
Are these self-hating Americans?
A substantial portion of TEC's membership HAVE NOT broken away. TEC has given birth to a number of schisms since the 1960s, none of which has amounted to anything. Four freaking retrograde dioceses left more recently and I addressed that history in a lengthy post above in which I described the peculiar history of one those dioceses, Fort Worth. If it weren't for the news media most people in TEC in most of the country wouldn't be aware of any secession at all. In the diocese in which I currently live there has been no splitting and the only "continuing Anglican" church in the diocese dates from the post-1976 schism over OoW -- they're tiny and pretty well invisible.
Four dioceses not substantial?
What are "retrograde dioceses" by the way?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Túathalán:
...the critical tone taken of the diocese of L.A.
The official statement was:
quote:
The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole
Which is not so much critical as very, very, bland. In the sort of "Yes Minister" English bureacrat non-committal house style. But it is also pretty obviously literally true - if it wasn't there wouldn't be so many people getting worked up about it here.
And that was the only thing so far said publically about the LA election that has Rowan Williams's name on it as far as I know.
The problem is that the statement goes on to suggest that her election should not receive consent from the bishops and standing committees of a the American Church and that the election be rejected. CRAP! INTERFERENCE IN OUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS. Time for the nattering old lady with the bushy eyebrows to exit the stage.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
The problem is that the statement goes on to suggest that her election should not receive consent from the bishops and standing committees of a the American Church and that the election be rejected. CRAP! INTERFERENCE IN OUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS. Time for the nattering old lady with the bushy eyebrows to exit the stage.
Waaah Waaah Waaah
Just because he doesn't wholeheartedly support your position you're reduced to petty name-calling of a thoughtful and intelligent pastor.
Just sad
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:
Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).
[ 08. December 2009, 14:07: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
aumbrey, we have 110 dioceses. The four that left we cases that amounted to ecclesiastical coup d'etat after their renegade bishops gradually packed the ranks of their clergy and lay activitists with sycophants. Fort Worth is such a good example, where the first bishop seems to have been in the process of losing his mind and totally changing what had always been his character at the time he took over the diocese just shy of his retirement, followed by launching a schismatic church. Then the unfortunate diocese elected a very confused and unhappy man who couldn't decide if he wanted to be a bishop of the Episcopal Church or a Roman Catholic -- clearly a disturbed and dysfunctional guy who didn't last long. Then they got the terribly narcissistic Jack Iker, who ultimately manipulated the diocese to secede, but couldn't even get all of the people and parishes to come along. As elsewhere, he lost some of his most important parishes and others were split, with a "rump" that stayed in TEC. As the legal processes play out the secessionists will almost certainly lose their properties, as all case law has supported the Episcopal Church and one previous case (St Mary's, Denver) has gone all the way to the US Supreme Court, with the parish losing its case.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
