|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: TEC suspended (... maybe?)
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Euty:
quote:
I'm confused. Your illustration suggested to me that if the minority push was for a "communion" model to replace an existing "global" church, you wouldn't support it, by virtue of it being a minority. Is that what you mean? That basically the minority should always simply leave?
Ah, no, ok sorry that's not what I meant at all. In giving that illustration of a minority push for a communion I was trying to illustrate the situation I personally would find myself in if the roles were reversed.
Posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
In which case, why does it matter so much to GAFCON what TEC says and does; and why does TEC care about what GAFCON says and does?
I'm not sure TEC did care much about what GAFCON et al did to be honest, apart from the concern about the effect it might have on the Communion as a whole. It matters to GAFCON et al what TEC (and others too it must be said) do because they want to restrict that autonomy to create a global Anglican church that allows them to dictate terms to members and have them enacted upon. That, combined with ideas about TEC doing something they consider to be unscriptural and doctrinally un-sound and therefore should face discipline for.
quote:
And why, if you're all so independent and able to act under your own authority, do you even bother to meet and discuss stuff?
Because we are a communion in the sense that we share some things in common; mainly the liturgical tradition, the three-fold orders, shared history, a similar governing system and we work together in areas like mission, social work, elimination of poverty, ecumenical partnerships etc etc etc. To do this work together requires us to be able to come together regardless of difference and work together in a spirit of Christian fraternity. It also helps us - in theory, a theory that has of late collapsed - to work through one another's differences and hopefully understand the approaches and methods of another province that may differ from us and so that we can learn from one another how we appropriate the Gospel in our contexts.....to name but a few things.
quote:
Why not get on with what you do in the US and let the others get on with what they want to do?
Well, I'm actually not in the US, but yes, that would be more or less my stance with an added caveat. I think that a communion can support one another in a particular way. There are times when the persecuted church can have the support of others around the world and greatly benefit from that, there are times when a province might need to make a stand against injustice, corruption and failure within a state and having the backing of the interest of a world wide communion can be extremely beneficial and enabling and equally there are times when a province might do something or be involved in something that the rest of the communion might believe is a wrong direction and can put a finger on it as a point of engagement and something for further consideration, but I don't think suspension (temporary or otherwise) is an effective way of doing that and as I have already extensively pointed out, it only serves to dissolve the ideals of a communion.
quote:
It seems TEC wants to act as it would like and have an opinion about what the others are doing, but doesn't want anyone else to have the freedom to do the same or have an opinion about TEC.
TEC has forced precisely no one in the world wide Anglican communion to do anything in regards their own considerations. they are not asking the rest of the world wide Anglican Communion to do as they do. What they have done certainly raised issues for some clergy and congregations within their own ranks. With hindsight they might have approached things better, but as far as I am aware they did it within the confines and restrictions of their own governing polity. Those who disagreed so strongly as to feel they could not be a part of it any longer at least had the integrity to leave.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Augustine the A:
quote:
Remember how the primates, about twenty years ago, declared a number of Rwandan dioceses vacant on account of their bishops having behaved scandalously during the genocide? Perhaps there were protests against their over-reach then, but I cannot recall them.
I think there was a good bit more to it than that, although I could be wrong in some of the timeline detail, but I do know first hand of their difficulties more recently up to and including 2012/13. I understood that the government had literally usurped the clergy and installed their own corrupt puppets enabling them to elect one of their own as a Primate. As I say, I might be wrong on that front, but I know for sure they did install puppet clergy in order to enact the land and property grabs on behalf of the government which took place up until very recently. It was the same corrupt puppets who were wanting to present themselves as fundamentalists and dismantle their links to the communion so as to have no outside influence in the grab. Many of the 'true' clergy were at pains to let the rest of the world know that the puppets didn't speak for them, neither did they represent the province of Rwanda. It left congregations and clergy having to conduct services in secret in some places or hold services in the open under a tree or in scrub. At no point was the province suspended, but I suspect the reason for that is that it would have provided the government with exactly what it wanted.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Random bit of info from the press conference: Pope, Orthodox and Anglicans meeting with the Coptic Pope to discuss possibility of a fixed date for Easter.
Also Ab Welby appeared to be attempting to row back on the press release from yesterday and the ability of the Primates to do anything about other provinces.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Augustine the A:
quote:
Remember how the primates, about twenty years ago, declared a number of Rwandan dioceses vacant on account of their bishops having behaved scandalously during the genocide? Perhaps there were protests against their over-reach then, but I cannot recall them.
I think there was a good bit more to it than that, although I could be wrong in some of the timeline detail, but I do know first hand of their difficulties more recently up to and including 2012/13. I understood that the government had literally usurped the clergy and installed their own corrupt puppets enabling them to elect one of their own as a Primate. As I say, I might be wrong on that front, but I know for sure they did install puppet clergy in order to enact the land and property grabs on behalf of the government which took place up until very recently. It was the same corrupt puppets who were wanting to present themselves as fundamentalists and dismantle their links to the communion so as to have no outside influence in the grab. Many of the 'true' clergy were at pains to let the rest of the world know that the puppets didn't speak for them, neither did they represent the province of Rwanda. It left congregations and clergy having to conduct services in secret in some places or hold services in the open under a tree or in scrub. At no point was the province suspended, but I suspect the reason for that is that it would have provided the government with exactly what it wanted.
This tangent relates very closely to the authority of the primates and other "instruments of unity" of the Communion, but I think you are referring to a more recent (and regrettable) phenomenon-- one which illustrates how churches are both targets and instruments in dangerously corrupt circumstances.
As idle googlers know, Abp Carey forced the resignation of Primate Augustin Nshamihigo, Archbishop of Kigali, but it is my bad in saying that the primates did the deposing deed. It was the Anglican Consultative Council at its 1996 Panama meeting which declared vacant the sees of Cyangugu, Shyogwe (whose diocesan died awaiting trial at the war crimes tribunal in Nairobi), Kibongo, and Shyria.
Perhaps my point is that a magisterium has developed, and that we have an Anglican mechanism of discipline and restoration in the most extreme circumstances. I have certainly not heard of anyone arguing against the Rwandan depositions of the majority of that independent church's hierarchy, but I would imagine that bishops facilitating genocide falls under most people's breaks-the-rules-entirely perspective.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Demas: GAFCON sez:
Wow, these people are arseholes.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ah, so they want the Canadians consigned to the Outer Darkness™ too?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I've discovered in recent days that one is well advised not to read the comments on Anglican ink.
If they're going after the ACC then the SEC will be next on the hit list.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
However I'm surprised at the restraint of American shipmates - if I were American I would not be feeling quite so sanguine and would quickly find there are other deserving causes for Episcopal money - and this is over an issue I haven't really got a settled view - or at least I have mixed feelings.
I don't know that I'm sanguine about all this, but we've been taking shit from other provinces in the Anglican Communion over consecrating an openly gay man as bishop since 2003, including being told we are Very Bad at the last Lambeth Conference in 2008, so it's hard to get really excited about this now.
If I got to decide what would happen with TEC money going forward, we would continue all charitable giving overseas but not pay anything toward the administration and meetings of the Anglican Communion. If our bishops can't speak or vote, we shouldn't be paying for other people to show up and tell us we're Very Bad.
I wish they'd kick us out so we wouldn't have to keep discussing homosexuality. All this bullshit about "walking together" just means TEC has to have yet more discussion about something that in the US is basically settled. Gay people can legally get married in the US, TEC ordains gay people and offers the rite of marriage to them, and if TEC has to keep discussing this, we will look like retrograde assholes. People in the anti-gay provinces keep blathering about how we're hurting their witness to Christ in their own countries but have no thought about how much it will hurt our ability to witness to Christ in the US if we have to conform to their cultural norms.
[typos]
[ 15. January 2016, 16:00: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The next issue will be the suspension of other provinces for ordaining gay and lesbian clergy, quickly followed by a desire to tighten the stance on divorce and the remarriage of divorcees in church, a hope for the reversal of the ordination of women (I accept that not all in the enclave desire this, but a substantial number do) and the push for lay presidency.
So many evangelicals have divorcees in their own congrgations that they are unlikely to get very far with that issue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Depends how far the radical conservatives want to go with their 'Talibanisation'.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates can keep the PB and bishops of TEC from participating in Lambeth and the Primates Meeting. The Anglican Consultative Council can keep the TEC representatives from participating as well. I'm not sure what the endgame is here. TEC isn't going repent. The suspension of TEC will not likely deter other provinces from following the same path of TEC.
It's all pro forma so that when the bishops from Africa & the Southern Cone get stroppy +Welby can point to TEC's slap on the wrist and say, "Look, we did something!"
Politics, innit.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
Cranmer's masterful prose and Tallis and Byrd's Mass Settings.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Demas: GAFCON sez:
Wow, these people are arseholes.
I note it uses the word "sanction".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note it uses the word "sanction".
Someone asked Ab Welby why there were no GAFCON Primates on the platform with him at the Press Conference, and he said they'd all gone home. He was, though, quite insistent that this was not a sanction, but a "consequence" of the actions of the church in the USA.
I couldn't help thinking that whilst GAFCON were gleeful yesterday at the press release, they're going to be much less pleased at the ABoC's approach at the PC.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
There's an article in the Guardian
here
And I see Chris Bryant has left the CofE which might have happened anyway admittedly but we need news like this like a hole in the head
I'm not gay myself but I do know gay people in my church and I'm just a little concerned by the impact this may have on them
( Looks at Albertus) With regard to the Welsh Church Governing Body discussions I obviously have no idea whether the decision is supported widely by the rank and file - however it would be by the populace at large I think and it may be an indication of trends within the C-i-W generally. At one time we were a lot more conservative than the C-of-E but this now seems to be changing?
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
Stable doors.Horses. Bolted.....
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Please could somebody who knows clarify something for me? From the Communiqué that Mr Cheesy linked to:-
quote:
"The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching."
What actually does the TEC's canon on marriage now say? Does it agree with that statement or has the doctrine been formally changed?
Ecclesiastical councils of all ages and levels of importance have a long history of dealing in weird mixtures of carefully constructed precision and imprecision. This may sound pedantic, but over time, it may prove to be important.
The RCC doesn't recognise divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox churches and most Protestant churches, including the CofE and I suspect most of the Anglican communion have come to a position where they regard divorce and remarriage as an unfortunate thing that happens. It's not the best, but a necessary concession to human imperfection. So scripture, tradition - and for that matter reason, though it's not mentioned above - uphold marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. We'd all rather all couples could achieve that. Not all do, but 'the majority of those gathered' would I am sure unhesitatingly reaffirm that teaching. Indeed, it would be quite interesting to know who actually did not.
Apart from the RCC, most people can see that coming to accommodation with divorce and remarriage is sad, but does not compromise that reaffirmation.
Likewise, polygamy. I suspect that those churches that have accommodated it, have done so on the basis that 'we'd rather you didn't. It goes against our aspiration for the best way. But if you must, we don't want to throw you out, and we certainly aren't willing to let you use that as an excuse to get rid of a wife that you don't want any more'.
My question is this:- What actually, or perhaps implicitly is the TEC's doctrine on marriage? Do its canons still officially reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union and treat SSM as a concession, 'not perhaps the best, but fidelity and commitment are better than their absence'? Or has it actually changed its doctrine to something on the lines of 'marriage is any faithful, lifelong union between any two people'?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Anglican "apologies" on this issue always translate as "We're really sorry we keep punching you. If it's any consolation, it's really starting to hurt our fists now."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
He made clear it was a personal apology and that he could not speak for anyone else. The subtext was that there were others who would not agree with his apology (and it appeared that even one of the Primates on the panel disagreed with his words..)
quote:
If he really wanted to be fair, along with imposing sanctions on TEC he should sanction Nigeria and Uganda for suppoorting criminalisation of gays.
He was very clear that the media was wrong in calling the exclusion of the ECUSA "sanctions".
He was also clear that he (and the other Primates) had no power to sanction anyone - which still leaves unanswered exactly what happened. Presumably the only explanation can be that the church in the USA is being asked to exclude itself from various offices of the Anglican Communion.
If that's the case, presumably it is free to refuse to.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Why did they choose something with the acronym GAFCON? It seems to be made up from the components of gaff, as in awful mistake, and con, as in confidence trick, and I can't hear it seriously.
Though their self satisfaction does make me feel that even with women priests and bishops now, I am still outside Anglicanism.
It seems like an obsession with what people do with what is between their legs, when what makes us human, what makes us in the image of God, lies above the waist. It is how we use our senses to communicate with others, how we reach out to others with love, that love which we feel with our heads and our hearts (yes, I know that that part of us has not a lot to do with emotion, but it's where we feel it, and has been recognised as that down the centuries). "My true love has my heart, and I have his" wrote Philip Sidney, presumably to another man, in a poem celebrating something wonderfully human. I don't see or hear a recognition of this wonder in GAFCON's pronouncements. I've heard in my head today a phrase I can't place "head, heart, and hand," where the hand is our acting to do God's work, and all three together being tied together in expressing love.
Yet it is those parts we share with the other primates the Primates were concerned with. They are like Hamlet, faced with the piece of work which we are, are not delighted.
I am sorry for their narrow view. And a part of me is also sorry for their wives.
[ 15. January 2016, 17:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He was very clear that the media was wrong in calling the exclusion of the ECUSA "sanctions".
Gafcon did in their press release.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Gafcon did in their press release.
Yes. As I said, I'm not expecting GAFCON to be very pleased with the press conference.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Enoch asks:
quote:
My question is this:- What actually, or perhaps implicitly is the TEC's doctrine on marriage? Do its canons still officially reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union and treat SSM as a concession, 'not perhaps the best, but fidelity and commitment are better than their absence'? Or has it actually changed its doctrine to something on the lines of 'marriage is any faithful, lifelong union between any two people'?
Canon 18.2.b once read: That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong
and, as far as I can figure out from the General Convention 2015, it has been amended by the House of Bishops Resolution, which was concurred with, which made it effective Advent 2015. Perhaps someone for familiar with TEC-speak can confirm this?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why would any LGBT person become an Anglican after this? I suppose there are always a few masochists.
Cranmer's masterful prose and Tallis and Byrd's Mass Settings.
Cranmer's prose is nice, but, having made the move to the Lutherans some time ago, I'm more than willing to take Praetorius, Bach, et al. as compensation for the loss of Tallis and Byrd.
I'd have some more things to say about this to members of the Episcopal Church. Namely: You are already in full communion with the largest American Lutheran synod, itself a member of an international body of churches -- so why not pursue, ahem, "ever-closer union" with the ELCA? The Anglican Communion wants to be the church for the British Commonwealth, and that's just not us. Let's move on.
I have to say that I have been made welcome in Lutheran churches -- everywhere, from the Berliner Dom to the Klosterkirche in Neuruppin to the little church I worship at in Florida -- in a way I never felt welcome in any church in the Anglican Communion, whether in the US or Canada or in the UK. Somehow, wherever I was, I felt the Anglican congregations were most concerned with sizing me (personally) up - asking "Is she (really) one of us?"
The Lutherans, on the other hand have all been too busy doing things, living their faith. They want to know what I can do, not whether I am one of them. Maybe it's the lingering Pietism, I don't know. I do find it refreshing.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Question: why three years - what's the significance of that time frame?
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In TEC their General Convention is supreme and the Presiding Bishop can't bind it. It next meets in 2018 so presumably they intend to come back to the question in the light of what the General Convention does.
And it gives time for the Primates to boot out TEC before the next Lambeth Conference in 2020, making it so much nicer.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It seems like an obsession with what people do with what is between their legs, when what makes us human, what makes us in the image of God, lies above the waist.
Some people believe that what a person chooses to do with his genitals is trivial and unconnected to the state of his soul. This idea is a fairly novel one among Christians, though, and doesn't seem to be held by most of them.
And therein lies the problem.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates can keep the PB and bishops of TEC from participating in Lambeth and the Primates Meeting. The Anglican Consultative Council can keep the TEC representatives from participating as well. I'm not sure what the endgame is here. TEC isn't going repent. The suspension of TEC will not likely deter other provinces from following the same path of TEC.
It's all pro forma so that when the bishops from Africa & the Southern Cone get stroppy +Welby can point to TEC's slap on the wrist and say, "Look, we did something!"
Politics, innit.
Welby is just delaying the inevitable.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It seems like an obsession with what people do with what is between their legs, when what makes us human, what makes us in the image of God, lies above the waist.
Some people believe that what a person chooses to do with his genitals is trivial and unconnected to the state of his soul. This idea is a fairly novel one among Christians, though, and doesn't seem to be held by most of them.
And therein lies the problem.
I didn't say it wasn't important. I said there was an obsession with it, to the exclusion of other more important matters. If what is done is regardless of relationships, and abusive, it is clearly relevant to the state of someone's soul, negatively. If it is done in love - real love, not the sort that uses "speaking the truth in love" as spiritual putting down and bullying - it is also relevant to the state of someone's soul, positively. Surely?
Domestic violence and coercion of women into cowed subservience would seem to me to be much worse than two people who love each other doing whatever they do. And yet those things have been not merely allowed, but encouraged in the past. And the present.
And as for the churches' records with regard to what people have chosen to do with their genitals to children - well, they aren't exactly in the best position to complain about the loving consensual relationships of adults, are they?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates can keep the PB and bishops of TEC from participating in Lambeth and the Primates Meeting. The Anglican Consultative Council can keep the TEC representatives from participating as well. I'm not sure what the endgame is here. TEC isn't going repent. The suspension of TEC will not likely deter other provinces from following the same path of TEC.
It's all pro forma so that when the bishops from Africa & the Southern Cone get stroppy +Welby can point to TEC's slap on the wrist and say, "Look, we did something!"
Politics, innit.
Welby is just delaying the inevitable.
I couldn't agree more. +Williams dodged the bullet; I should start laying odds on the (diminishing?) likelihood that +Welby will do the same.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Church Times sez:
The Primate of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), Dr Foley Beach, was a full, voting participant in the Primates’ gathering in Canterbury.
He said on Friday that he was handed a ballot paper on Thursday to vote on the fate of the Episcopal Church in the United States but declined it.
Groan... The trouble with 'informal' and unconstituted bodies like the Primates' Meeting is that there are no rules about proper voting and decision-making, so any old so-called Archbishop can take part if invited. It also means that any method of voting can be used - simple majority, absolute majority, two-thirds, consensus ('black balling' as gentlemen's clubs used to call it). So the majority that decided that TEC is to reflect on its errors for the next three years has as much legitimacy as any other random group of middle-aged men (and one woman) deciding that they don't like what one of them is doing.
If Christianity wasn't about hope, I would despair. But I am, in the words of St Marvin, "feeling very depressed".
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I'm wondering with the Primates meeting of whether or not different national churches in the Communion have radically different approaches to church polity. Yes, Anglicanism is an episcopal denomination with bishops, but Canada, the US, and to some degree the UK have adopted synodical government as a way to bring a democratic spirit into church governance. Other countries may have a more traditional "Bishop is Lord" approach in which little input is given to the laity, or even the clergy.
Bishops/Primates in some countries may not be used to being challenged in terms of theology, by their peers or their colleagues. In which case, conversation or mutual dialogue with TEC might be difficult because while ++Curry may be expected to listen to those who disagree with him, he also expects that others would be willing to listen to him, and thus TEC's position.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
Aka the nuclear option? That sure doesn't sound like the voluntary meeting of autonomous churches that most of the Anglicans here have been describing. Like the other non-A's here, I don't have a dog in this fight. But this statement really struck me. "We are going to change the nature of our communion such that we can tell one of our members what to do whenever they piss us off." Definitely looks like a power grab to this outside observer.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meet and Right So to Do
Apprentice
# 18532
|
Posted
A few thoughts:
1) I think the big, unanswered question is the involvement of the archbishop of the Anglican Church in North American, the Most Rev. Foley Beach. By all accounts, he fully participated with voice and vote in the primates' meeting.* Numerous reports have also indicated he was given a ballot to vote on the measure suspending the Episcopal Church's ability to fully participate in the "life and work" of the Anglican Communion for the next three years. This is, however, where it gets murky. Beach, as well as Church Times, claim he recused himself. However, Beach's ACNA bishop for Canada has publicly claimed that Beach and other GAFCON primates walked out when the measure wasn't of their liking. Either way, it's clear that the ACNA is now a de facto province. However, the closing statement issued at the primates' meeting said the ACNA would have to apply for membership. This is very unusual. If the ACNA isn't a province then he shouldn't been given voice and vote. Plain and simple, if you ask me. Regardless, I think ACNA membership is a forgone conclusion.
2) Some of the comments about the conservatives in the Anglican Communion unfairly treating liberals are ill-informed at best and ignorant at worse. The reality is the Episcopal Church has been as heavy-handed, if not worse, than the ACNA and GAFCON. All parties, as the archbishop of Canterbury alluded to in his opening remarks of the primates' meeting, haven't always conducted themselves in the best possible of manner concerning differences of theology and doctrine. For example, the Episcopal Church has more or less made it impossible for any traditional-minded would-be clergyman to be ordained in all but a couple of dioceses -- let alone any new traditional bishops.
3) The reality is the Episcopal Church's general convention will not repent nor reverse course on gay marriage. This is clear by the vast majority of responses issued over the past 24 hours. In fact, only the Episcopal bishop of Springfield, one of the few remaining traditionalists, seems to support what the Anglican Communion did. Many others have essentially flipped the middle-finger to the Anglican Communion and its more conservative provinces. It's therefore probably inevitable -- assuming the political majority of this week's primates' meeting is maintained -- that the Episcopal Church will be subject to further discipline, if not expulsion, in three years time by which point the ACNA will presumably be a full province.
4) A point of personal privilege. I find the position of the left in the Anglican Communion very troubling, as it's neocolonial in that they are appalled that the "provincials" in Africa would dare challenge their theology.
* Supposedly, this was originally called a "gathering" but the Anglican Communion office itself called it a "primates' meeting.:
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Full Canterbury Communique just released.
From the Communique: "We will develop this process so that it can also be applied when any unilateral decisions on matters of doctrine and polity are taken that threaten our unity."
Aka the nuclear option? That sure doesn't sound like the voluntary meeting of autonomous churches that most of the Anglicans here have been describing. Like the other non-A's here, I don't have a dog in this fight. But this statement really struck me. "We are going to change the nature of our communion such that we can tell one of our members what to do whenever they piss us off." Definitely looks like a power grab to this outside observer.
Yes, that's what they want and have been trying to get since Gene Robinson.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
The reality is the Episcopal Church has been as heavy-handed, if not worse, than the ACNA and GAFCON. All parties, as the archbishop of Canterbury alluded to in his opening remarks of the primates' meeting, haven't always conducted themselves in the best possible of manner concerning differences of theology and doctrine. For example, the Episcopal Church has more or less made it impossible for any traditional-minded would-be clergyman to be ordained in all but a couple of dioceses -- let alone any new traditional bishops.
But isn't this apple-and-oranging? You're comparing what the TEC does within its own walls with other provinces trying to make TEC toe the line. Does TEC try to force African churches/dioceses to be liberal? THAT is the comparison. What happens intra TEC, although great for making ad hominem attacks, isn't analogous.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
A point of personal privilege. I find the position of the left in the Anglican Communion very troubling, as it's neocolonial in that they are appalled that the "provincials" in Africa would dare challenge their theology.
Who has called the African Anglicans "provincials"?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Meet and Right So to Do:
The reality is the Episcopal Church has been as heavy-handed, if not worse, than the ACNA and GAFCON. All parties, as the archbishop of Canterbury alluded to in his opening remarks of the primates' meeting, haven't always conducted themselves in the best possible of manner concerning differences of theology and doctrine. For example, the Episcopal Church has more or less made it impossible for any traditional-minded would-be clergyman to be ordained in all but a couple of dioceses -- let alone any new traditional bishops.
But isn't this apple-and-oranging? You're comparing what the TEC does within its own walls with other provinces trying to make TEC toe the line. Does TEC try to force African churches/dioceses to be liberal? THAT is the comparison. What happens intra TEC, although great for making ad hominem attacks, isn't analogous.
Thank you. You said what I wanted to say, but put it much better than I could have.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So how many other Anglican churches are likely to endorse same-sex marriage? And if some do, can they still be in Communion with TEC? And if the English Church endorses same-sex marriage will they be ejected from the Communion?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's a bit rich for Welby to apologise for the pain caused.
A bit? It's a bloody insult.
With you on this. I left the church 8 years ago, but I am angrier than I can understand about what's happened. Essentially, the bishops are endorsing the state and church-sanctioned murder of gay and lesbian people in Africa.
Whatever one thinks about the TEC, no one was likely to DIE from their stance.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.
The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.
In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.
This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The idea that TEC not electing (and we are talking about election) bigoted Bishops is the same as GAFCON trying to force its bigotry on TEC is ridiculous. A more pertinent question in that comparison would be where are the liberal, LGBT-friendly Bishops in the GAFCON provinces? Or even in the CofE? Either silenced or their appointments avoided. The CofE has been deprived of an excellent Bishop in Jeffrey John to appease these vile views.
The allegation of colonialism against TEC is a bit of a rich one to level at a black descendant of slaves being bullied by an English public school boy.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The idea that TEC not electing (and we are talking about election) bigoted Bishops is the same as GAFCON trying to force its bigotry on TEC is ridiculous. A more pertinent question in that comparison would be where are the liberal, LGBT-friendly Bishops in the GAFCON provinces? Or even in the CofE? Either silenced or their appointments avoided. The CofE has been deprived of an excellent Bishop in Jeffrey John to appease these vile views.
The allegation of colonialism against TEC is a bit of a rich one to level at a black descendant of slaves being bullied by an English public school boy.
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?
They support the criminalisation of homosexuality and equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm comfortable calling it bigotry.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
