Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely) Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000751

Posted by gianbattista (# 3883) on :
 
This just in: The Diocese of Los Angeles yesterday elected Rev. Mo. Mary Glasspool a suffragan bishop. She's still got to be confirmed by the General Convention, but my uneducated guess is that she will be.

Speculation, warranted or otherwise, about potential impacts?

[ 06. May 2010, 19:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I predict that someone on this very thread will accuse the diocese of Los Angeles of electing her just because she's gay.

Zach
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
More bad news for the Church of Jesus Christ, lots of media guff and wind, lots of dicussion, lots of confused unchurched people wondering what the issue is and best of all.........

No one from any church getting the message of the Gospel across, reinforcing the beliefs of most people that the church is dull and irrelevant run by well spoken middle class men who wear dresses.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Whilst an Anglican, I was constantly confused as to why the bedroom activities of Episcopalian bishops were the topic of considerably more debate than the credal orthodoxy of Episcopalian bishops. I am no longer an Anglican, but am still confused.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I predict that someone on this very thread will accuse the diocese of Los Angeles of electing her just because she's gay.

Zach

That'll be me then.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
[Snore]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Under the circumstances good, then. It should convince the rest of the Anglican world that the American Church isn't going to change and won't be dictated to.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
..well spoken middle class men who wear dresses.

whilst in the link from the OP:
quote:
... elected a lesbian as assistant bishop ...
Why not:
quote:
More bad news for the Church of Jesus Christ, lots of media guff and wind, lots of discussion, lots of confused unchurched people wondering what the issue is, but best of all...

[...] challenging the beliefs of most people that the church is dull and irrelevant, run by well spoken middle class men who wear dresses, by electing a partnered gay woman.

?

[ 06. December 2009, 18:52: Message edited by: Qoheleth. ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The rampantly homophobic bishops in Uganda and Nigeria are obsessed with gay man - this bishop is only (!) a woman
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
Considering what a miserable bunch the majority of mateys are it seems strange a gay one just pops up. Will they lead a merry dance round the altar and sing cheerful songs so that we all become gay people. Or will after a time become just a miserable as all the others.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

Yeah, but only because she was ugly, and chicks rarely hit on her.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gianbattista:
This just in: The Diocese of Los Angeles yesterday elected Rev. Mo. Mary Glasspool a suffragan bishop. She's still got to be confirmed by the General Convention, but my uneducated guess is that she will be.

How much of a brouhaha would it cause if she was not confirmed? How often does that happen?

Andrew Brown's take on ++Rowan's position is interesting.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Under the circumstances good, then. It should convince the rest of the Anglican world that the American Church isn't going to change and won't be dictated to.

I recall Adrian Hastings in his biography of ++ Runcie presciently suggesting that the Anglican Communion faced three dangers in terms of the fragmentation which the 102nd Archbishop feared. Firstly, there was an authority deficit. Secondly, he saw problems in the emergence of a powerful 'global south' bloc. Finally, he identified the avowed independence of TEC as a threat to the interdependent Communion in which ++Runcie believed.

I think we know that TEC won't be steered off its course and won't be 'dictated' to (though I seriously don't think that has happened). The way I see it is that TEC had the choice to build or break the communion and sadly chose the latter course. Unfortunately the fault lines which emerge out of this choice lie within the other western provinces also. A pox on TEC.
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

IIRC she refused to consider making female homosexual activity illegal because she couldn't imagine what two women could get up to in bed.

Which only goes to illustrate just how ignorant and prejudiced so many people were in the dark ages, before Google and internet pornography... [Biased]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
++Rowan is now going to succeed in once and for all alienating those members of the American Church who still had any time for him (which wouldn't include me, in any event).
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
++Rowan is now going to succeed in once and for all alienating those members of the American Church who still had any time for him (which wouldn't include me, in any event).

I think the two-fingered salute gave that away. There's no point in having a Communion is there when you're alienated just because you disagree with someone. Idiots.
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The rampantly homophobic bishops in Uganda and Nigeria are obsessed with gay man - this bishop is only (!) a woman

Yes, I'm a little confused about the "gay" angle here. I thought the Anglicans were still arguing about women bishops, but this one seems to have slipped through, diverting attention by being "gay".
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Ah, but this is The Episcopal Church (of the United States of America (and some other countries too)). The most liberal jurisdiction in the Anglicanism from my outsider's POV. The debates over the place of women in TEC are pretty much over.

TEC is a bit of an oddity in the Anglican world in that its origins lie more in Scotland than in England and it is surrounded by other more evo-friendly churches like the Baptists and Presbyterians. TEC's problem is that it just doesn't speak the same idiom as other Anglican jurisdictions, again as LSK summarized for me.

Still, I'm not Anglican so I may be a few miles wide of the mark here.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
If TEC want to 'do their own thing', then fine. I'm puzzled though why they want to continue to regard themselves as part of the Anglican Communion; ISTM that this is a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it. Sorry, but real life don't work like that.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Whilst an Anglican, I was constantly confused as to why the bedroom activities of Episcopalian bishops were the topic of considerably more debate than the credal orthodoxy of Episcopalian bishops. I am no longer an Anglican, but am still confused.

Inclined to agree. I suspect it's because it's harder to get round a clear lifestyle issue than a doctrine where there's sneaky ways of wording things and people who say different things to different people.

Admittedly, that's a suspicion based on the premise that it's better to be generous where there's the chance to do so...
 
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :
 
To do the tired argument one more time: TEC passed B062 at General Convention 2006 in order to appease the homophobic provinces of the Anglican Communion and to indicate the serious desire to come to the table one more time over something that has been debated for what--30 some years? We got shat on, pure and simple. Primates being as rude and demanding as possible to ++Katherine.
So, this General Convention, TEC said--IMO--ok, we've tried to do all you want, and it didn't make any difference. We will be who we are. And who we are is,overall, a church that believed all people are made in the image of God.

BTW, The Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool, from the diocese of Maryland, is well-respected on her home ground. She is competent on a whole lot of fronts. And, to be clear, while she has not hidden the fact that she is a lesbian, she has not made her sexual orientation an issue in her ministry.

At this point, I personally to really care what the rest of the Communion thinks. There are a great many more issues of importance in following the gospel than sexual orientation.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
The issue is not what TEC believes, but whether they are prepared to show any self-restraint for the sake of the Communion. At least as far as one diocese is concerned the answer is no.

This is a self-excluding issue from the main instruments of the Anglican Communion. Even the more liberal proponents of women bishops and a rethink on homosexuality in the CofE are going to have to admit that this is TEC going off on one.

In order to keep some sort of Communion together this arguably forces +Canterbury towards parts of Africa, South America and Sydney than he would have liked. Thus pushing one of the world's main proponents for third way reformed catholicism towards conservativism.

So while advancing the cause of women's rights and gay rights at home, TEC are almost certainly setting it back in the rest of the world.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
Only if you define Communion as what the most conservative Churches demand. My understanding is that's a recent innovation, one that Rowan Williams and others are attempting to present as normative and 'how it ought to be', but that the Instruments of Communion have no authority (at least, not yet) to impose.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Ah yes, ++Rowan has been so effective in challenging homophobia and misogyny abroad!The man is almost as full of it as the pope. TEC's main, rightful priority in terms of social gospel is to the peoples of its own jurisdiction. I'm not interested in being in an ecclesial organisation with a bunch of reactionaries headed up by a Quisling. If the AC is a federation of independent provinces, fine -- but that doesn't impose on us the obligation to compromise with the objective evils, prevarications and complicity of other provinces.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Only if you define Communion as what the most conservative Churches demand. My understanding is that's a recent innovation, one that Rowan Williams and others are attempting to present as normative and 'how it ought to be', but that the Instruments of Communion have no authority (at least, not yet) to impose.

Agree. Why, in fact, should the most conservative, anxious, frightened, etc. members of the Communion get to decide the positions for everyone else on all the issues?

This whole thing has reminded me of the really bad political meetings of twenty and thirty years ago, the ones where the most demonstrative, demanding, noisiest, wrongheadedly threatened and explosive members set every agenda and made every decision, while everyone else always had to be tiptoeing around them. You'd sit there in terror, hoping that the next thing you said or the next sneeze or the next turning of your head wasn't going to be the thing that set them off and sent the meeting spinning off into two hours of humiliating breakdown. Again.

Genevieve's post was really interesting, and tallies with a sense that I have also. I think the US Episcopal Church really has had it with this stuff, and is ready to move on, with whomever is willing to move on with us. My understanding is that quite a few will be willing, and then we also have the ELCA, the Church of Sweden, and a few other ecumenical partners. There are plenty of churches in the USA that won't admit gay and lesbian people to membership or communion, so those who feel strongly about this issue have many choices, many other denominations to which they can turn.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If TEC want to 'do their own thing', then fine. I'm puzzled though why they want to continue to regard themselves as part of the Anglican Communion; ISTM that this is a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it. Sorry, but real life don't work like that.

I think that General Convention understood that we very well could be kicked out, and that most of the Communion seemed to want us gone before now anyway.

And historically, we came from the Anglican Church. And for most of my life, that's what I've been taught. It's only been the past 10 years or so that people have talked about an "Anglican Communion" in TEC. So for us that is a new thing, and it's becoming clear to some of us that it does not seem to be a good thing.

What is the purpose of having an Anglican Communion anyway? To me it just seem that Anglicans are trying to keep up with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox. And the purpose of that seems to elude me...
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I am with the likes of LSK and Gramm. The unity that the conservatives are demanding never existed in the first place. We can hardly mourn something that never was. If the conservatives want to found an Anglican papacy, let's leave them to it.

Zach
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
What is the purpose of having an Anglican Communion anyway?

Keeping ties with a shared heritage.

quote:
To me it just seem that Anglicans are trying to keep up with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox.
Roman Catholics perhaps. The Orthodox are much better at understanding the concept of bottom line essentials of doctrine.

The fact that the communion did not see a tremendous schism over the ordination of women underscores the true discrimination and cultural bias behind the current troubles in the AC. People can't be faulted for sticking by their opinions, but the AC by nature is not all about the Archbishop of Canterbury enforcing doctrinal unity as some sort of English pope.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

IIRC she refused to consider making female homosexual activity illegal because she couldn't imagine what two women could get up to in bed.

Not true. No monarch since Charles I has considered interfering with an act of parliament.

If she had actually refused to consider this legislation there would have been a revolution. It's just another urban myth.
 
Posted by gianbattista (# 3883) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
How much of a brouhaha would it cause if she was not confirmed? How often does that happen?

To your first question, quite a lot. My understanding is that only one bishop-elect has ever been voted down at General Convention (that was James de Koven, over the issue of churchmanship, I know not what year, but donkeys ages ago). I also believe it unlikely IMHO as the post +Gene Robinson exodus (albeit modest) has thinned the ranks of likely opponents.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I have a suspicion events in ECUSA will follow the normal course to its logical conclusion.

There is something very similar to the euphoria that preceded the American Revolution here.

ECUSA seem to be no different to Sydney and Nigeria in that they have decided God is on their side and they are going to follow the Holy Spirit.

There are a reasonable number of Anglicans in the middle of this course of events who will simply wonder why the two extremes want to be part of a Communion.
 
Posted by gianbattista (# 3883) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is it true tha Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing as lesbianism was even a possibility?

IIRC she refused to consider making female homosexual activity illegal because she couldn't imagine what two women could get up to in bed.

Not true. No monarch since Charles I has considered interfering with an act of parliament.

If she had actually refused to consider this legislation there would have been a revolution. It's just another urban myth.

I read years ago in a book by Richard Davenport-Hines that a late 19C MP by the name of Henry Labouchere, in an effort to sink the bill, introduced an amendment to a revision of the criminal code that defined sodomy as an exclusively male act. To his chagrin, the amendment was adopted and the bill passed. Apparently, in any case, the common law always had a blind spot, defining "sodomy" as "unnatural intercourse of man with woman, or man with man, or man or woman with beast."
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Actually, two candidates have failed the confirmation vote recently- South Carolina and Northern Michigan. In both instances, there were some pretty grave irregularities in how their elections went down

The confirmation has only ever been a vote affirming that the candidate's election was fair and all in order. It's not an opportunity for the Church, or the Primate of Uganda, to veto a diocese's decision.

Zach
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I'm trying to understand the arguments from conservatives.

Has TEC ever expressed a Holier than thou attitude of liberalism towards the African and Asian churches? I know John Spong wrote that nasty piece a few years ago, attacking African and Asian Anglicans as superstitious and backward. But Spong is retired. I have yet to read anything official from the TEC on this matter.

We all know that many of the Southern Churches are more conservative than either TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada. But I have never heard a Bishop from North America virulently attack the Church of Africa or Asia in the same manner. I'm willing to be corrected on this.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, two candidates have failed the confirmation vote recently- South Carolina and Northern Michigan. In both instances, there were some pretty grave irregularities in how their elections went down

The confirmation has only ever been a vote affirming that the candidate's election was fair and all in order. It's not an opportunity for the Church, or the Primate of Uganda, to veto a diocese's decision.

Zach

As far as I am aware there appear to have been no technical irregularities about this election.

I think you misunderstand the concern of some in sister churches that confirmation will cause further disharmony and enhance what is a de facto schism.

The message to ECUSA from those trying to steer a middle course between them and Sydney et sim seems to translate:
'Do what you want but bear the consequences.'

How simple do you want it? [Help]
 
Posted by gianbattista (# 3883) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, two candidates have failed the confirmation vote recently- South Carolina and Northern Michigan. In both instances, there were some pretty grave irregularities in how their elections went down

The confirmation has only ever been a vote affirming that the candidate's election was fair and all in order. It's not an opportunity for the Church, or the Primate of Uganda, to veto a diocese's decision.

Zach

I stand corrected on the first point, and I am sure you are right, in principle, on the second -- but how realistic is it to expect that the opportunity of a confirmation vote won't ever be (mis)used as a means of scotching a diocesan election on political grounds? I don't recall +Gene Robinson's opponents going on about misprinted ballots a la Broward County!
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
How simple do you want it?
The thing is, we are more than happy to be in communion with conservatives. It's the conservatives that won't have us. Yet it's all our fault somehow. Quite frankly, I don't see why we should stick around for the abuse any more.

quote:
I stand corrected on the first point, and I am sure you are right, in principle, on the second -- but how realistic is it to expect that the opportunity of a confirmation vote won't ever be (mis)used as a means of scotching a diocesan election on political grounds? I don't recall +Gene Robinson's opponents going on about misprinted ballots a la Broward County!
Nothing, I suppose. Thankfully, recent conservative attempts to misuse it for their own ends have failed.

Zach
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
What is the purpose of having an Anglican Communion anyway?

Keeping ties with a shared heritage.
Which simply understanding that we come from a common background would suffice. I still don't understand how coming from the same original church means we have to still agree. My brother and I come from the same parents and we don't agree on the same church.

quote:
quote:
To me it just seem that Anglicans are trying to keep up with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox.
Roman Catholics perhaps. The Orthodox are much better at understanding the concept of bottom line essentials of doctrine.

Not a good reason. That seems to simply be pride talking, and that's not a good thing.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
She isn't even the 2nd openly gay bishop in the TEC. She is third or forth. Otis Charles and Oliver Garver (also of LA) were openly gay; both came out after they had been bishops for many years, with no international waves made whatsoever.

The brouhaha seems to be solely based on going through the process openly gay.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, two candidates have failed the confirmation vote recently- South Carolina and Northern Michigan. In both instances, there were some pretty grave irregularities in how their elections went down

The confirmation has only ever been a vote affirming that the candidate's election was fair and all in order. It's not an opportunity for the Church, or the Primate of Uganda, to veto a diocese's decision.

Zach

I think that you will find that Bl. James De Koven was denied the consents to his election to Illinois in 1875 on the grounds of his ritualistic tendencies. I believe there was another denial on theological grounds as well, but the details escape me.

As well, I am not sure if Bp Lawrence's election in South Carolina featured grave irregularities; I gather that objectors focussed on his presumed lack of loyalty to the Episcopal Church. Some of the consents suffered from defects of format, but at the time I felt that the objections were over-technical and had a whiff of intellectual dishonesty. Mileage may vary.

The Northern Michigan election gave rise to concern in that there was only one nomination, much as in the good old days in Albania, but several of the denials were on the grounds of the candidate's lack of clarity on his relationship with Buddhism. I think that this was a bit of a bum rap, as they say in the east end of Ottawa, but his confused explanations did not help him.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The election itself was all according to canons in South Carolina, I suppose, but he failed to do any of the post election paperwork necessary to get his confirmation.

I wouldn't be surprised if the confirmation vote had been abused in the past.

Zach
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The issue is not what TEC believes, but whether they are prepared to show any self-restraint for the sake of the Communion

With all Christian respect, slag the communion and slag the Archbishop of Cantebury for being a useless bastard of a primate.

Mazel tov to the Dicocese of Los Angeles, where at approximately the time I was born it was impossible for a woman, let alone a dyke, let alone a dyke with my Christian name to be ordained, to consecrate a woman, let alone a dyke, let alone a dyke with my Christian name as Bishop Suffaragen.

May God bless herself, as herself is gonna need it. May the prayers of the faithful queers, united with the prayers of the faithful cisgendered and faithful heteronormative, be pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

As I head a Bishie Suffragen once opine, the Bishie part of the title is nice and all, but the Suffragen is the part that really means anything.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
It is a shame that TEC did not withdraw from the Anglican Communion first, rather than this 'suicide by +Cantaur' approach.

It is surely clear that the Anglican Communion does not want TEC, and TEC does not want the Anglican Communion, at least not on any terms realistically available.

A TEC outside the Anglican Communion would at least be acting with complete internal integrity in its actions.

I don't honestly see what those who are criticising +Rowan really think he could do differently that he isn't.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I will repeat, most of us are more than happy to be with the Anglican Communion. It is the Communion which doesn't want us. I am rather sick of being blamed for refusing to be bullied into line by Akinola and gang.

Zach

[ 07. December 2009, 03:16: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
So in Uganda various people including Anglican bishops are suggesting life sentences for people like the gay and lesbian shipmates you all know on these boards, and what has been the Archbishop's response to that? Sssssh! Be vewy vewy qwiet! We are doing top secret diplomacy with the homophobes. We can't possibly say that jailing and executing gay people as part of a witch-hunt and moral panic is a bad thing! What do you think we are? A church that might possibly have something to say about something that immoral?

But a female bishop who might possibly be getting her bits jollied by someone not attached to a penis? Oh the humanity! We cannot have the abomination of lady fingers on an episcopal clitoris! We cannot stay in communion with these people! They climax the wrong way under the duvet!

Words do not even begin to capture how screwed up that is.

L.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The election itself was all according to canons in South Carolina, I suppose, but he failed to do any of the post election paperwork necessary to get his confirmation.

I wouldn't be surprised if the confirmation vote had been abused in the past.

Zach

IIRC, the paperwork supplied by diocesan standing committees was done, but with defects in format (i.e. faxed or e-mailed, or with certain signatures missing), all remedied after a second election. However, I think that this was a subtext, and the real remedy was provided by Bp. Lawrence's professions of loyalty to TEC.

In any case, the intent of the consents provision was to ensure that a new bishop could take his (and now her) place in the US episcopate-- the drafters were mindful of the Scottish church's approach to the episcopate as an apostolic college. Theological unity was one of the aspects of this.

Consents as a recognition of administrative process appears to be a very recent view. As well as theological objections, in the 1970s, a number of dioceses withheld consents on the grounds that bishops-elect were divorcés (insufficient in number to block any of these elections,) an objection which seems to have died out in recent years although, IIRC, some consents were withheld when Barry Beisner was elected as Coadjutor of North California in 2006, as he was now on his third marriage (as a footnote, Bp Beisner withheld consent from Glenn Forrester's election to Northern Michigan because of his revision of the baptismal liturgy).
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.

But, to then expect dioceses to blatantly refuse to ordain LGBT people would place them in direct contravention with the teaching of the national Church. Wouldn't that be more contrary to the canons than trusting dioceses to make their own choices in regards to episcopal leadership?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
So in Uganda various people including Anglican bishops are suggesting life sentences for people like the gay and lesbian shipmates you all know on these boards, and what has been the Archbishop's response to that? Sssssh! Be vewy vewy qwiet! We are doing top secret diplomacy with the homophobes. We can't possibly say that jailing and executing gay people as part of a witch-hunt and moral panic is a bad thing! What do you think we are? A church that might possibly have something to say about something that immoral?

But a female bishop who might possibly be getting her bits jollied by someone not attached to a penis? Oh the humanity! We cannot have the abomination of lady fingers on an episcopal clitoris! We cannot stay in communion with these people! They climax the wrong way under the duvet!

Words do not even begin to capture how screwed up that is.

L.

I want to be in communion with TEC and not the Anglican church in Uganda and I am sure I am not the only CofE layperson to feel that way. Interesting times ahead.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.

Much though I hate the language of "orientation" (it's far too binary for what is obviously a sliding scale, and wrongly implies a conflation of identity with sexual preference), a refusal on the grounds of practice is logically distinct from one on the grounds of desire, which is what orientation is about.

It's interesting comparing this to the Sydney position re lay presidency. Sydney have long chosen not to enforce the rules as strictly as they might have done, but when it came to a vote at Synod, it threatened to split them from the rest of the Anglican Communion. Synod voted in favour of allowing lay presidency. The Archbishop vetoed that decision, therefore keeping Sydney within the Anglican Communion...

It seems this is precisely what isn't about to happen in the US...
 
Posted by Pretty Butterfly (# 15024) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
So in Uganda various people including Anglican bishops are suggesting life sentences for people like the gay and lesbian shipmates you all know on these boards, and what has been the Archbishop's response to that? Sssssh! Be vewy vewy qwiet! We are doing top secret diplomacy with the homophobes. We can't possibly say that jailing and executing gay people as part of a witch-hunt and moral panic is a bad thing! What do you think we are? A church that might possibly have something to say about something that immoral?

But a female bishop who might possibly be getting her bits jollied by someone not attached to a penis? Oh the humanity! We cannot have the abomination of lady fingers on an episcopal clitoris! We cannot stay in communion with these people! They climax the wrong way under the duvet!

Words do not even begin to capture how screwed up that is.

L.

Point.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Can I just say that I'm openly gay, and if anyone elected me to be a bishop I would take it as a massive insult. In my opinion, bishops are the lower intestine of the Body of Christ - necessary, but rather distasteful to think about in any great detail. The election of anyone to such a post should not be an occasion of celebration, but of commiseration.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.

But, to then expect dioceses to blatantly refuse to ordain LGBT people would place them in direct contravention with the teaching of the national Church. Wouldn't that be more contrary to the canons than trusting dioceses to make their own choices in regards to episcopal leadership?

I think you are missing the reasons the objectors have, or say they have, for objecting. For them its not a matter of "orientation" or "sexuality", nor of church government and canon laws, but of morality. The traditional position of the churches has been that bishops (or priests, or any other ministers) should be either married or celibate. So for people who do not believe that a permanent same-sex relationship is the moral equivalent of marriage, it looks more like what we used to call "living in sin".

Its not orientation or sexuality that they think should rule someone out but way of life. In theory they ought not to have a problem with a celibate gay bishop. (Unlike the Roman Catholics who seem to have recently changed their rules to prevent all ordinations of celibate gay men)

Which is why:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

The brouhaha seems to be solely based on going through the process openly gay.

is logical for them. In their view a bishop who came out as gay and was living with a same-sex partner would be in the same situation as a bishop who was found to be unrepentantly guilty of some other sexual sin. They would still be a bishop, but would be a bad bishop. It is hardly earth-shattering news that a bishop can be a sinner.

But "going through the process openly gay" (or rather openly and unrepentantly in a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner) would imply that those who appoint bishops are colluding in ongoing sin. And for elected bishops that means the whole diocese. So canon law is neither here nor there, it seems irrelevant to them. Their problem is not that the Americans elect their bishops, it is that some of them want to elect bishops who they believe to be living in unrepentant sin.

Which is why some of them look on this as a communion-breaking issue, because it is about morality and sin. And so it is unlike ordination of women which is merely a matter of church government - most evangelical opponetns of the ordination of women can agree to disagree on that. There is no "taint" involved. Sydney is happy to be in communion with Uganda, even though Uganda ordains women (as do all East African Anglican provinces) as long as they don't have to ordain women themselves.

For example, some quotes from the GAFCON process:

Peter Jensen:
quote:

We ... do not ordain women — that is well known. The ordination of women is a different order of things from the presenting issue. Scripture never suggests an ordained woman is in danger of losing her salvation. The continual practice of greed or immorality is clearly a matter of being inside or outside the kingdom of God. People at GAFCON had different views. The Jerusalem Statement in paragraph 12 speaks of secondary matters and seeking the mind of Christ on issues that divide us. It is time to rethink this matter under the word of God, yet again. We may be wrong, but we need to bring this prayerfully with each other and to reconsider it. Similarly, we may rethink on divorce and remarriage.

- for him (& presumably a majority of his clergy) both the ordination of women and the remarriage of dovorced people are secondary issues. Different churches can legitimately have different opinions, and Sydney might one day change its position. But "immorality" and "the presenting issue" (by which I assume he means clergy in same-sex relationships) are more serious.

Or the church in Uganda:

quote:

The Bible is very clear that homosexual practice is sin. But, nowhere in the Bible is being a woman described as a sin. The ordination of women and the ordination of practicing homosexuals cannot be compared. They are not the same issue. People of equally strong evangelical conviction come to different conclusions about the ordination of women, but we in Uganda have understood the Bible to teach that God created men and women in His image and both can be ordained to serve God in His Church.

OK, you might not agree with all that, you might even think it is dishonest, but its as well to be aware of what your opponents are actually saying and thinking.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?

It follows therefore that having an all female all lesbian priesthood is a natural state of development. To try to stop this process would be pure Cnutism.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?
Is this a serious question?

Zach
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?
Is this a serious question?

Zach

Obviously not [Frown]
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
I am an Anglican, and I hope I’m not partially feminised! True, my hair is slightly longer than average, but that has probably more to do with my taste in music than wanting to be ‘feminised’. I think the Church of England does seem rather more appealing (for whatever reasons) to women than men at the moment, which needs to be addressed (I am not sure how). I don’t think my (evangelical) C of E church is at all feminised, though!
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Most churches of whatever denomination tend to have greater female attendance and female hangers-on than faithful male disciples. It seems that even during Our Lord's earthly ministry this was likely the case; 'twas ever thus.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I am an Anglican, and I hope I’m not partially feminised! True, my hair is slightly longer than average, but that has probably more to do with my taste in music than wanting to be ‘feminised’. I think the Church of England does seem rather more appealing (for whatever reasons) to women than men at the moment, which needs to be addressed (I am not sure how). I don’t think my (evangelical) C of E church is at all feminised, though!

It is possible that you represent a small island of testosterone in the sea of female juices that is Modern Anglicanism. The admission of long hair does raise some concerns however.

Do you spend much time watching television property makeover programmes by any chance?
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
No, I prefer quizzes, 'Have I Got News for You', 'Time Team' and David Attenborough-type programmes!

(I uesd to like ABBA a lot, though, [Hot and Hormonal] but I was 10-11 at the time!)
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In their view a bishop who came out as gay and was living with a same-sex partner would be in the same situation as a bishop who was found to be unrepentantly guilty of some other sexual sin. They would still be a bishop, but would be a bad bishop. It is hardly earth-shattering news that a bishop can be a sinner.

But "going through the process openly gay" (or rather openly and unrepentantly in a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner) would imply that those who appoint bishops are colluding in ongoing sin. And for elected bishops that means the whole diocese. So canon law is neither here nor there, it seems irrelevant to them. Their problem is not that the Americans elect their bishops, it is that some of them want to elect bishops who they believe to be living in unrepentant sin.

I agree absolutely. The consecration of Gene Robinson was no worse than the consecration of any other openly creed-denying alcoholic in an unrepentant extra-marital sexual relationship.

But such a person shouldn't even be ordained, let alone consecrated, and the people who do that should be disciplined appropriately.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I see, and who do you propose do the disciplining? HH Pope Rowan I? And I haven't heard +V Gene Robinson deny any articles of the Creed. He's no longer drinking and I wonder how many active but surreptitious alcoholic bishops are running about the Anglican Communion.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
Qoheleth,

My comment on men in dresses wasn't a comment on the issue under discussion, it relates to the usual representatives of churches that we see in the media.

As for the meat of my point, I think it stands, the content of this discussion so far seems to fulfil most of the criteria.

[Snore]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
I must as always be the one to point out that +Gene's isn't just like any other unmarried relationship, because in his case that's the only option the Church gives him. Reasserters of course know the disingenuousness of the argument (we've called them out on it enough times) but that doesn't stop them from using it. Classy.
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is possible that you represent a small island of testosterone in the sea of female juices that is Modern Anglicanism. The admission of long hair does raise some concerns however.

Do you spend much time watching television property makeover programmes by any chance?

Oh dear. I have long hair. Enjoy shopping. Have worked in the field of Construction, Architecture and Interior design. Like to cook. Dislike Football, although enjoy Rugby. I do like Cars though and watch Top Gear. I also enjoy computer games. However I wear significantly less make up than most civilised men through human history. But I do read books. And seldom grunt, burp or pass wind in public. Probably a lost cause.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
In theory they ought not to have a problem with a celibate gay bishop.
I believe that the Diocese of Oxford road tested that particular theory to destruction in 2003.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Most churches of whatever denomination tend to have greater female attendance and female hangers-on than faithful male disciples. It seems that even during Our Lord's earthly ministry this was likely the case; 'twas ever thus.

I'm not actually sure this latter part is true, though I remain open to persuasion. From my admittedly limited knowledge, it rather looks looks like one of those things that comes in waves, so you can certainly find evidence if you seek it - the real question though is if that itself is true and then if so - why? It might give some insight.

Sorry about the tangent - pray continue (wish I could say that about Eccl. Angl.)
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If TEC want to 'do their own thing', then fine. I'm puzzled though why they want to continue to regard themselves as part of the Anglican Communion; ISTM that this is a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it. Sorry, but real life don't work like that.

Unless ++Rowan is in charge.
 
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.

But, to then expect dioceses to blatantly refuse to ordain LGBT people would place them in direct contravention with the teaching of the national Church. Wouldn't that be more contrary to the canons than trusting dioceses to make their own choices in regards to episcopal leadership?

It is this claim that makes the election significant. I suspect that the Episcopal Bishop of South Carolina and his Standing Committee will deny consents precisely because she is a non-chaste lesbian, thereby ratcheting up a notch the Episcopal Church's ideological purge of social conservatives from its clerical and lay leadership.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.

That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!

[ 07. December 2009, 19:18: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.

That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!

And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?


[Help]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I still genuinely don't understand the bile that some people come out with when talking about Rowan Williams. Well, I understand it from the mainstream "serious" British press, because that is how they deal with religion these days, but I don't understand it from some Anglicans. Sometimes it looks as if they are talking about someone imaginary who has very little to do with the actual bishop.

To be honest its hard to imagine how he could have done much better with this mess that's been handed to him that is very little to do with him.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Oh, you can't imagine why many members of the American Church have little time for ++Rowan? Really?
 
Posted by caercybi06 (# 15105) on :
 
All that will come of this is 1- a statement from ABC Williams, 2- lots of sniping or worse from the right wing & the african church 3- proplr stop attending of course thats predicatd on her being confirmed ECUSA GC . Maybe saner heads will prevail [Tear] [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
By now I don't think many of us in TEC really give a rat's ass for the natterings of His Grace, nor certainly at all for what the various African provinces or Southern Coneheads have to say.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.

That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!

And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?


[Help]

Hey, pumpkin, I didn't say word one about being unemotional. I'd prefer that Rowan showed an emotion to his US brethren and sistren in Christ beyond passive-aggressive one of these days, but I ain't holding my breath.

I also didn't say word one about keeping things unbiased, because if there's one thing that I learned from my sojourns in academia, it's that the only truly unbiased source for Truth is a four-year-old child. Who is quite good at speaking the Truth at such a time that it maximizes embarrassment to the adult caregivers of said child.

And of course the comment's selfish, I'm sick and tired of people, including the current Archbishop of Canterbury, whining when things don't go their power-grabbing way. The entire Communion needs to pull up its big girl panties and deal, because we got bigger issues surrounding us right now. When every child on this bright blue world goes to bed in a warm, safe space with a full stomach, then maybe I'll grant we've got some spare time on our hands to kvetch about who is in a consensual relationship with whom.

Maybe.

[ 07. December 2009, 20:21: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Ken, have your even been listening to what the conservatives have been accusing us of for whole decades? Then Rowan comes on stage to save the Communion, and blames us for it all. Why should we put up with that any more?

Zach
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
By now I don't think many of us in TEC really give a rat's ass for the natterings of His Grace.

Blimey. I really don't get you guys at all.

You get an ABofC who is personally on the thoughtful-but-liberal side of the main ecclesio-political issues of the day; is a gentle but firm and honest intellectual; is interested in liturgy and is theologically highly literate; is very fluffy personally but not afraid to fight tricky corners; and has the most difficult job globally of any of his predecessors, which he is coping with as even handedly as anyone could reasonably expect.

And yet he is completely dismissed as a conservative-courting bozo becuse he doesn't unwaveringly side with the most liberal of all the world's Anglican provinces. Unbe-flippin'-lievable.

What (or who) on God's earth would be acceptable to you?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line. Any other takers on that?

Zach
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.

You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?

Sounds to me as if you want an ABofC that applauds every province's bold autonomous initiatives - unless, of course, they conflict with your own.

Some international arbiter of Anglicanism that would make him.

Really, your claim of "bullying" sounds rather silly from my side of the pond. The "bullying" doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing exactly what you would have done anyway. How precisely is the GAFCON-type pressure holding you guys back in TEC or Canada?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I still genuinely don't understand the bile that some people come out with when talking about Rowan Williams. Well, I understand it from the mainstream "serious" British press, because that is how they deal with religion these days, but I don't understand it from some Anglicans. Sometimes it looks as if they are talking about someone imaginary who has very little to do with the actual bishop.

To be honest its hard to imagine how he could have done much better with this mess that's been handed to him that is very little to do with him.

He's got a moral panic and witch-hunt on his hands where some Anglican churches have actually broken out into lobbying the secular arm to step in and kill and imprison.

We're talking classic witch-hunting, where a minority group is demonised, scapegoated, treated as a fifth column and blamed for the ills of society - everything from being inspired by the Devil, to spreading disease, to attacking fertility and this is used to justify even the death penalty, and it's religiously driven.

Even in churches which haven't gone as far as Nigeria and Uganda, we have the scapegoating of gay people as proxies for all kinds of issues about the authority of the Bible, heterosexual promiscuity and the failure of heterosexual marriages

God knows, I've tried not to think ill of the man, but now I do. He attacks those who stand in solidarity with a persecuted group and then can't bring himself to stand up and be counted against anti-gay witch-hunters who are seeking people's lives.

There's something very wrong with your Archbishop. Sorry.

L.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?

Sounds to me as if you want an ABofC that applauds every province's bold autonomous initiatives - unless, of course, they conflict with your own.

Some international arbiter of Anglicanism that would make him.

Really, your claim of "bullying" sounds rather silly from my side of the pond. The "bullying" doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing exactly what you would have done anyway. How precisely is the GAFCON-type pressure holding you guys back in TEC or Canada?

How have we done any such thing? We've never demanded people obey our understanding. We are more than happy to be in communion with the conservatives. I will say AGAIN: It's the conservatives that won't have us. How is that not bullying?

Zach
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Look, it would be better for ++Rowan to boldly and prophetically speak the truth to provinces like Nigeria and Uganda (and indeed to their secular governments as well), condemning in the harshest terms their hate-mongering, even if the Anglican Communion were to disintegrate around him. Instead, what we get from the ABC is moral cowerdice and the apparent motive to maintain a facade of Anglican unity to the exclusion of all other virtues. He's a messenger boy for the reactionaries and has never given the slightest public hint of disdain for the reactionaries. So English, so ineffectual, so burdened I would imagine with pointless post-colonial guilt.

[ 07. December 2009, 21:10: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I can certainly understand that, Louise. But Williams is not, as far as I can see, supporting such vile agendas as such - he is likley to be as disgusted by them as yourself.

It's just that some of those with vile agendas are using as springboards for those agendas what decent conservative (and some not so conservative) evangelicals and anglo-caths perceive as biblical othodoxy on sexual morality, etc.

What he's trying to do ISTM is get a balance between what the provinces have pretty much always taught on these issues hitherto and allowing room for legitimate doctrinal development without the whole edifice breaking up before that can be achieved.

I don't happen to think that that particular circle can be squared, but I certainly admire Rowan's efforts to do what he clearly thinks is the honourable thing - despite its clear antipathy to some of his own personal views.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.

You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?
I checked my dictionary, communion is not a synonym for lockstep.

As my great-grandfather (a wise and holy man) was wont to say, "the only thing in this world a man can really have a firm hold on is his own dick, anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling himself."
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
.. and how is caving into conservatives' every whim "balance?"

Zach
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I will say AGAIN: It's the conservatives that won't have us. How is that not bullying?

But, Zach - can't you see that by that logic you would not be breaking communion with any other province no matter what TEC decreed? It's like saying, "Well sure we voted to rescind three out of four of the items of the historic creeds, but we wanted to be in communion with the Orthodox - and THEY broke with US! The bullies!"?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Pfft. What has the Communion done for me lately, Ches, other than making me (queer, brown, female) a scapegoat, a person to blame and to use to engender fear and loathing, which in turn engenders cash donations?

I'm of the opinion that the ABC and the rest of the powermongers can take their little Communion and let the doorknob hit them on the butt on the way out. Maybe then we could get some Kingdom Work done around here. I'm sure the millions of dollars we send to keep Cantaur's high holier-than-thou self up in that house of his will feed many, many hungry babies in the 16 countries covered by TEC.

[ 07. December 2009, 21:32: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, Zach - can't you see that by that logic you would not be breaking communion with any other province no matter what TEC decreed? It's like saying, "Well sure we voted to rescind three out of four of the items of the historic creeds, but we wanted to be in communion with the Orthodox - and THEY broke with US! The bullies!"?

Except we're not breaking with the creeds, so that's irrelevent. The creeds have been declared central to Anglican identity. A wish to stone homosexuals has not.

Zach
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Well we see things quite differently, Spiff, and I doubt my admittedly blinkered view of the situation admits of much more mutual comprehension than we've already got.

But I certainly raise a hearty Caledonian "AMEN" for that proposed kingdom work. [Cool]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Let's look at the things the witch-doctors and evo-reactionaries specifically object to:

1. Many of them still don't like/really approve of female clergy, especially female bishops; even more especially a female primate -- ++Katherine was treated most rudely by many at the last Lambeth Conf.

2. Granting full inclusion to all persons regardless of sexuality and recognising the possibility for grace and healthiness in faithful same-sex relatioships; acting on this recognition by being willing to ordain homosexual clergy in committed same-sex relationships and indeed being willing to solmenize and bless the vows that such couples make to one another.

None of this affects other provinces, except of course a queer or lesbo bishop could attend the Lambeth Conference and make one feel ever so uncomfortable.
 
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
I thought Bishop Harris of Mass. was lesbian, and that appointment was like ages ago. Have I got that wrong?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
so ineffectual, so burdened I would imagine with pointless post-colonial guilt.

You beat me to it. IMHO the best potential argument for our restraining ourselves as requested has been to assist the African missionaries in presenting the faith in competition with Islamists. But I'm beginning to wonder how realistic this argument is. Demands upon TEC look increasingly to me, on the contrary, like just another attempt to appease Islam, being made by the same people who are in the habit of it. An editorial-page column in today's New York Times commented on yet another book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe by Christopher Caldwall, detailing the troubling failure of "multiculturalism" as a policy in Europe. As I recall from reading this article only a few hours ago, the term "post-colonial guilt" came up there, too.

Even conservatives may soon be glad of such signs across the pond that some Westerners refuse to play this game.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Except we're not breaking with the creeds, so that's irrelevent. The creeds have been declared central to Anglican identity. A wish to stone homosexuals has not.

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).

Knowing that and deciding to press ahead regardless - and still to cry foul when the conseravtives are not so cool with full communion - seems not entirely unmanipulative to me.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
I'm not saying foul. More like "whatever."
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Look, get this message, ok: The American Church has to do what is right within its own jurisdiction and territorial purview. If other's can't live with decisions that TEC has reached democratically, canonically and constitutionally -- too bad and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
There are some serious balanace issues with the proposed compromise. The libarals are expected to just suck it up for the sake of the communion. The liberals only want to follow Christ the best they know how, and are happy to be in communion with the conservatives with no expectation that they agree.

The conservatives, on the other hand, want everyone to do it their way. It seems to me that, as far as attitudes go, the conservatives are being far less conciliatory. They don't want compromise. They don't want a middle way. The very much want a window into men's hearts. How is that Anglican?

Zach
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.

Me too. I started out with roughly the view Ken describes, but I don't think it's accurate. Rowan Williams is not in fact taking a benign, pragmatic line. He's trying to reinvent the Anglican Communion by imposing his Catholic theology. He doesn't seem to want a Communion but a global Anglican Church with central doctrinal control.

Not only is this new and as far as I'm aware a break with anglican tradition, he is presenting it as if it's no real change and the only option. That's the point where he's lost my sympathy. However difficult his job, if when push comes to shove he chooses control and his personal ecclesiology over respect for theological difference, he is betraying precisely what for me makes the Church of England and anglicanism worthwhile.

A different angle to more orthodox complaints, I guess, but I think essentially the same objection.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The liberals only want to follow Christ the best they know how, and are happy to be in communion with the conservatives with no expectation that they agree.

Fine. But you can't just be "in communion" by fiat. Being in commuinion must surely mean more than agreeing to differ over really big essentials, otherwise I'd be in communion with TEC myself!

No one expects TEC to value being in communion with other Anglicans over doing what they feel Christ is calling them do. Go for it if conscience leads you there. But similarly, if TEC do what they know is completely unacceptable to tons of other Anglicans they cannot then entirely blame those other Anglicans for not playing any more - they can't help seeing your actions as communion-breaking any more that you can (apparently) resist acting in those ways.

Rowan cannot be any threat to your real autonomy because he cannot stop you legislating whatever way you chose and isn't even trying beyond attempting to urge caution and patience, so I don't see how he's the big meanie all of a sudden for just explaining the inevitable communion-wide consequences of acting in that way (i.e., that other provinces will see themselves as no longer being in communion with you). That's hardly bullying in my book.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.

That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!

And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?


[Help]

Hey, pumpkin, I didn't say word one about being unemotional. I'd prefer that Rowan showed an emotion to his US brethren and sistren in Christ beyond passive-aggressive one of these days, but I ain't holding my breath.

I also didn't say word one about keeping things unbiased, because if there's one thing that I learned from my sojourns in academia, it's that the only truly unbiased source for Truth is a four-year-old child. Who is quite good at speaking the Truth at such a time that it maximizes embarrassment to the adult caregivers of said child.

And of course the comment's selfish, I'm sick and tired of people, including the current Archbishop of Canterbury, whining when things don't go their power-grabbing way. The entire Communion needs to pull up its big girl panties and deal, because we got bigger issues surrounding us right now. When every child on this bright blue world goes to bed in a warm, safe space with a full stomach, then maybe I'll grant we've got some spare time on our hands to kvetch about who is in a consensual relationship with whom.

Maybe.

Pumpkin?
[Killing me]

So you've been in academia?

I can just get a glimpse of bizarrely twisted logic in your last para.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[An free added "d" in privileged - just because I care. [Smile] ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Pumpkin?
[Killing me]

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?
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Pumpkin?
[Killing me]

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]
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
And the hierarchy of the RCC while you're at it....

m
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Brilliant synopsis ken. If wrote for a parish magazine I publish it as my own. [Razz]
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
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'.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Yeah, Spawn, you can console yourself with that gloss.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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"?
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
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 [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
[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 ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Mary Glasspool has stated the following reason why she should be consecrated bishop: "Simply... it's time."

Now, that - to me - sounds like a direct reference to her sexual orientation. I'd be interested to know if I should be reading it another way. For example, is it a reference to her gender, or perhaps politics, or her churchmanship. I think she is saying that her consecration should go forward on the basis that it's time that there was a lesbian bishop. Bizarre.

I'm searching my ordinal and - quite honestly - I can't find that particular reason anywhere. Not surprising really.

[ 08. December 2009, 14:34: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
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.

So ECUSA dispossessed them of their church through the courts - that must have been a big moral victory.

And why would you want to go for the other dioceses' properties?

Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

I rarely side with Rowan Williams (I am not sure it is correct to suggest he is on a side here) but there is nothing vindictive about the man - which is perhaps a virtue that the leaders of ECUSA might do well to copy.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

Indeed I am sure the position in property law is all sown up - that is always the way with the materialistically minded.

That ECUSA would rather claim its property rights than see these churches continue with their traditional flocks says it all.

A shame that as a Church they cannot see the immorality of such actions.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
We must all understand that we are part of the same church

No, we're not (except of course in the sense of an invisible universal church). This is the fallacy that is being perpetrated. Until a covenant is agreed, the Anglican Communion is a family of autonomous Churches that have in the past recognised each each other's orders and allowed members to take communion at each other's services. Implicit in that is respect for theological and eccesiological differences.

This is not about one bishop or clumsy politics but a proposed fundamental change in the nature of anglicanism. That it is in the process of being pushed through, apparently with Rowan Williams' blessing, is what I think underlies the strength of feeling being generated.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

Indeed I am sure the position in property law is all sown up - that is always the way with the materialistically minded.

That ECUSA would rather claim its property rights than see these churches continue with their traditional flocks says it all.

A shame that as a Church they cannot see the immorality of such actions.

[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]

Look, in the Diocese of Fort Worth the secession displaced many faithful episcopalians from their own churches in those cases where they didn't comprise a solid majority of the voting membership. Those people are now having to worship in whatever space they can find. They need to get back to their accustomed places under secure TEC title. In cases in which there are no displaced persons (if any such instances exist)it might be possible for the reconstituted TEC diocese to rent the property to the secessionists, as was done for a very nominal amount in the case of St Mary's, Denver.

[ 08. December 2009, 15:11: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

Are you here for rational debate or would you prefer to call names?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

Are you here for rational debate or would you prefer to call names?
Of course! How dare aumbry suggest that that ECUSA is Christian. How excluding! Such name calling is completely out of order.

[ 08. December 2009, 15:34: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

Are you here for rational debate or would you prefer to call names?
Unlike all the name-calling by those whining about ++Rowan [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
If being a Christian means telling the gays and lesbians in my parish that they are not full and equal members of the body of Christ, then I'd rather not be a Christian.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

Well we've got a surplus of church buildings in many areas so as far as many people are concerned FiF are welcome to their buildings. But their legal status is even more complicated than in American law, because of the CoE's established status, the principle that the buildings belong to the whole community - not the CoE and not the particular congregation. I'd fully expect there to be examples of FiF congregations continuing to use their buildings by negotiation with the diocese. I don't think there's the sort of polarisation and animosity that there is in TEC which prevented any effective negotiation.

I suspect you may very well have a series of pyrrhic victories in the property cases in TEC. You may gain the building, but you're likely to lose many people who've hitherto worshipped in those buildings. It's doubtful that you can keep a TEC presence in many parishes and areas where you successfully sue.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

Okay then! We'll also be taking the checkbook with us. According to the 2010-2012 budget (PDF), that's 3.49M USD.

Using the calculations I learned at the Food Pantry at my parish, one dollar buys five pounds of food, and a meal is about 1.3lbs of food... *does the math*

Thirteen million, four hundred twenty-three thousand, and seventy-six meals for hungry children of God.

Can't talk! Busy! We got people to feed!

[ 08. December 2009, 15:53: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If being a Christian means telling the gays and lesbians in my parish that they are not full and equal members of the body of Christ, then I'd rather not be a Christian.

All forgiven sinners - including you, me and the gatepost - are full and equal members of the body of Christ. The job of the presbyter is to call all full and equal members of Christ's body and those who are outside of Christ to repentance. Calling people to repentance is an act of radical inclusivity. That's why the Church requires it of her presbyters.
 
Posted by bonabri (# 304) on :
 
Two small points:

i) It is invidious, indeed perhaps patronising, to refer to "Africans" in this context as though all provinces and bishops on that continent have the same view;

ii) how tired I get of secessionists moaning over property issues. For goodness sake, if you resign from an organisation you are leaving it and all its assets.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

Okay then! We'll also be taking the checkbook with us. According to the 2010-2012 budget (PDF), that's 3.49M USD.

Using the calculations I learned at the Food Pantry at my parish, one dollar buys five pounds of food, and a meal is about 1.3lbs of food... *does the math*

Thirteen million, four hundred twenty-three thousand, and seventy-six meals for hungry children of God.

Can't talk! Busy! We got people to feed!

Ooh! Financial clout and good works make me righteous!! Pharisee. Ever heard of Jesus?
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

As declared by a General Convention via the infamous "Dennis Canon" and not approved by any multitude of parishes, some of whom predate the Episcopal Church.

Myself, my General Convention, held in my majestic apartment cathedral, has just passed the Punk Canon. It reads in full: "All your parish are belong to us."

So fork it over and get over it.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Okay then! We'll also be taking the checkbook with us.

It's all about money and property with you people isn't it?

I have pointed out many times that the CoE has always paid more into the inter-Anglican budget than TEC. Your money and arrogance may not be missed as much as you think. That is if your leaders have the same temper tantrum as Spiffy.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Hey, Spawn, what you and Numpty seem to be missing from my posts is I really, really, REALLY hate hierarchy. Blame my congregationalist roots. I think we should kick them all to the curb, from Rowan right on down to the last deacon getting a stipend.

I am just a simple woman, I'm no theological giant nor political maven. I think that when Jesus fed those 5,000 people on the hillside with just a little bit of food, that was pretty cool. So I always wonder why, when Jesus pulled that off 2,000 years ago, 35 million people in my own country are going hungry.

I've got my soapbox. It's full of food I'm trying to give away.

Your soapbox seems to be full of bitter gall that you keep trying to pass off to me.

I'd rather have peanut butter and cans of tuna than political wrangling. We always have problems maintaining stocks of shelf-stable proteins at the pantry, but especially at this time of year.

[ 08. December 2009, 16:05: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:


I am just a simple woman,

with a chequebook.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:


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.

At least with the first wave of continuers (St Louis Affirmation, Chambers consecrations) the issue was more one of churchmanship. The Chambers jurisdictions were made up of intransigent old-style Anglo-Catholics in the late 1970s; not a good fit with the Evangelical styles of ++Akinola et al.

The current second wave of continuers has more in common with the African primates, at least in terms of how they see Anglicanism working. As I'm sure you know, there are a few prelates who oversee missionary dioceses in the US, and then there are all the bewildering interlocking para-ecclesial organizations like AMiA, GAFCON, and ACNA...
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Hey, Spawn, what you and Numpty seem to be missing from my posts is I really, really, REALLY hate hierarchy. Blame my congregationalist roots. I think we should kick them all to the curb, from Rowan right on down to the last deacon getting a stipend.

I am just a simple woman, I'm no theological giant nor political maven. I think that when Jesus fed those 5,000 people on the hillside with just a little bit of food, that was pretty cool. So I always wonder why, when Jesus pulled that off 2,000 years ago, 35 million people in my own country are going hungry.

I've got my soapbox. It's full of food I'm trying to give away.

Your soapbox seems to be full of bitter gall that you keep trying to pass off to me.

I'd rather have peanut butter and cans of tuna than political wrangling. We always have problems maintaining stocks of shelf-stable proteins at the pantry, but especially at this time of year.

You seem to be confusing two things:

1. The relationship of TEC with the rest of the Anglican Communion expressed through the instruments of unity

2. The need to feed the poor in your own country.

They are not mutually exclusive, but that is how it is reading. Perhaps if you seperate these two out what you're saying will seem an awful lot clearer.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
ianjmatt, you seem to be confused. I don't give a flying figgy pudding about the Anglican Communion.

I only barely care about TEC.

Congregationalist, remember? Not quite sure what a bishop's good for, but others seem to like them. I like mine just fine as long as he's not being a nosy nellie and trying to tell this laywoman what she should or shouldn't be doing.

[ 08. December 2009, 16:18: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Okay then! We'll also be taking the checkbook with us.

It's all about money and property with you people isn't it?

I have pointed out many times that the CoE has always paid more into the inter-Anglican budget than TEC. Your money and arrogance may not be missed as much as you think. That is if your leaders have the same temper tantrum as Spiffy.

Well, you guys have all those former colonies in Africa and everywhere else all over the less salubrious bits of the globe.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
ianjmatt, you seem to be confused. I don't give a flying figgy pudding about the Anglican Communion.

I only barely care about TEC.

Congregationalist, remember? Not quite sure what a bishop's good for, but others seem to like them. I like mine just fine as long as he's not being a nosy nellie and trying to tell this laywoman what she should or shouldn't be doing.

He is not the only one who is confused.

Do Congregationalists have a lot of leeway with ECUSA's chequebook?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
ianjmatt, you seem to be confused. I don't give a flying figgy pudding about the Anglican Communion.

I only barely care about TEC.

Congregationalist, remember? Not quite sure what a bishop's good for, but others seem to like them. I like mine just fine as long as he's not being a nosy nellie and trying to tell this laywoman what she should or shouldn't be doing.

What's your point then? I lost it somewhere along the way.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

That's pretty much been the tenor of the debate: "There is no place in the Anglican Communion for those that disagree with a narrow set of views on one particular issue!"

Somehow, I just don't see that as Anglican, but it seems the Anglican Communion has changed.

Zach
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:


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.

At least with the first wave of continuers (St Louis Affirmation, Chambers consecrations) the issue was more one of churchmanship. The Chambers jurisdictions were made up of intransigent old-style Anglo-Catholics in the late 1970s; not a good fit with the Evangelical styles of ++Akinola et al.

The current second wave of continuers has more in common with the African primates, at least in terms of how they see Anglicanism working. As I'm sure you know, there are a few prelates who oversee missionary dioceses in the US, and then there are all the bewildering interlocking para-ecclesial organizations like AMiA, GAFCON, and ACNA...

I must beg to disagree with your characterisation of the post-1976 crop of continuers: it was always a bad marriage between a few Anglo-Catholics (mostly clergy) and those who wanted to keep 1928 Morning Prayer (a lot of the laity).
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Mary Glasspool has stated the following reason why she should be consecrated bishop: "Simply... it's time."

Now, that - to me - sounds like a direct reference to her sexual orientation. I'd be interested to know if I should be reading it another way. For example, is it a reference to her gender, or perhaps politics, or her churchmanship. I think she is saying that her consecration should go forward on the basis that it's time that there was a lesbian bishop. Bizarre.

I'm searching my ordinal and - quite honestly - I can't find that particular reason anywhere. Not surprising really.

If that's truly the case - then this gay Episcopalian agrees with you.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
[To Spawn]
My point is my priorities are different than yours.

Are they better? Meh. I don't care, they're my priorities, not yours, I can't speak for you.

And if the ABC and the rest of the Communion quit trying to make their priorities the same as TECs, using threats of power and scolding and a spanking from Daddy Rowan, maybe we could get some kingdom work done around here.

[ 08. December 2009, 16:26: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Actually, a lot of this argument is about money. Not long after Lambeth '98 a CofE bishop said to me, "Privately, I'm very pro-gay. But if I said that publicly, about a dozen evangelical parishes in my diocese would stop paying their parish share tomorrow. We'd be bankrupt in three months."

Priorities, priorities . . .
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Lord knows our commitment to Christ is questioned day after day, but Lord forbid we accuse the conservatives of any negative motivations- that's being unfair and unreasonable!

Zach
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[cross-post]Regarding Archbishop Rowan:

Nope. Time for TEC to take a final bow and leave gracefully (if such a thing were possible).

That's pretty much been the tenor of the debate: "There is no place in the Anglican Communion for those that disagree with a narrow set of views on one particular issue!"
TECs episcopate should look in the mirror and say that.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At least with the first wave of continuers (St Louis Affirmation, Chambers consecrations) the issue was more one of churchmanship. The Chambers jurisdictions were made up of intransigent old-style Anglo-Catholics in the late 1970s; not a good fit with the Evangelical styles of ++Akinola et al.


I must beg to disagree with your characterisation of the post-1976 crop of continuers: it was always a bad marriage between a few Anglo-Catholics (mostly clergy) and those who wanted to keep 1928 Morning Prayer (a lot of the laity).
There's something to that; nevertheless, many of the Morning Prayer types fell away fairly quickly (or joined the UECNA) once it became clear to them that their bishops & priests were Catholics. Some went back to conservative ECUSA parishes; some joined other churches; some took up golf on Sunday mornings.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Bullshit-- what we have NEVER done is expect the conservative Provinces to do everything our way. It's been the other way around. For GAFCON, it's our way or the highway. If the Anglican Communion has no place for the liberals, then it has forsaken the Via Media that has defined it for so long.

Zach
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Lord knows our commitment to Christ is questioned day after day, but Lord forbid we accuse the conservatives of any negative motivations- that's being unfair and unreasonable!

Zach

I'm just super-duper annoyed that because I insist God loves all her children, I have to put up with liberal fluffy-bunny pseudo-pagan theology a lot of the time. Since those parishes who are more my theological style would punt my queer ass out on the street.

I am, by the way, speaking from personal "been escorted out of a parish and told not to come back until you repent of being a dyke (preferably by getting hitched and popping out some kids), but be sure to drop your tithe check off at the parish office" history.

When people start talking about "gays" this and "conservatives" that, people forget that there is intersection between the two groups, and they are not monolithic in their beliefs.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullshit-- what we have NEVER done is expect the conservative Provinces to do everything our way. It's been the other way around. For GAFCON, it's our way or the highway. If the Anglican Communion has no place for the liberals, then it has forsaken the Via Media that has defined it for so long.

Zach

Amazing, but I can agree with Numpty and Zach - I must be truly "Anglican" in my breadth...

Wait! That was the old Anglicanism wasn't it?

[ 08. December 2009, 16:45: Message edited by: Comper's Child ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Amazing, but I can agree with Numpty and Zach - I must be truly "Anglican" in my breadth...

Wait! That was the old Anglicanism wasn't it?

Not all that old; I remember it. Gone forever, I suspect.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I'm just super-duper annoyed that because I insist God loves all her children, I have to put up with liberal fluffy-bunny pseudo-pagan theology a lot of the time. Since those parishes who are more my theological style would punt my queer ass out on the street.
Heck, I'm not even that liberal. I'll start a riot if a priest calls Mary the "Mother of Christ." But I am willing to stand up for liberals, so I have to pitch my tent on that side of the line, I guess.

I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.

Zach
 
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You really think any Tiber-swimming FiFers are going to be able to take their CoE properties with them? In TEC all property is held in trust for the entire corporate entity known as the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Get over it.

Indeed I am sure the position in property law is all sown up - that is always the way with the materialistically minded.

That ECUSA would rather claim its property rights than see these churches continue with their traditional flocks says it all.

A shame that as a Church they cannot see the immorality of such actions.

It is a shame that the clergy who have violated their ordination vows and then lied about it cannot see the immorality of their actions.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Amazing, but I can agree with Numpty and Zach - I must be truly "Anglican" in my breadth...

Wait! That was the old Anglicanism wasn't it?

I am arguing that there can be One Church for both liberals and conservatives, and Numpty is arguing that there can only be a Church for conservatives. How is it you can agree with both views?

Zach
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
This is what many of the benighted Anglicans from beyond the seas fail to grasp: many of us here in the USA are conservative/traditional in terms of dogmatic theology; our moral theology is subject to the light of reason, as is the role we assign to scripture (we aren't fundamentalists, literalists or scriptural conservatives). Above all, we stand for human rights and for the dignity of all persons. Many of us think that more important than the survival of an artificiality called the Anglican Communion or our own membership of that club.
 
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Hey, Spawn, what you and Numpty seem to be missing from my posts is I really, really, REALLY hate hierarchy. Blame my congregationalist roots. I think we should kick them all to the curb, from Rowan right on down to the last deacon getting a stipend.

I am just a simple woman, I'm no theological giant nor political maven. I think that when Jesus fed those 5,000 people on the hillside with just a little bit of food, that was pretty cool. So I always wonder why, when Jesus pulled that off 2,000 years ago, 35 million people in my own country are going hungry.

I've got my soapbox. It's full of food I'm trying to give away.

Your soapbox seems to be full of bitter gall that you keep trying to pass off to me.

I'd rather have peanut butter and cans of tuna than political wrangling. We always have problems maintaining stocks of shelf-stable proteins at the pantry, but especially at this time of year.

You seem to be confusing two things:

1. The relationship of TEC with the rest of the Anglican Communion expressed through the instruments of unity

2. The need to feed the poor in your own country.

They are not mutually exclusive, but that is how it is reading. Perhaps if you seperate these two out what you're saying will seem an awful lot clearer.

Ah,yes, the "instruments of unity"--which never existed until made up by ++Rowan and friends in the current attempt turn a communion--however imperfect as is the whole body of Christ--of autonomous provinces into a hierarchy governed by the top honchos of the hierarchy.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
quote:

No, we're not (except of course in the sense of an invisible universal church). This is the fallacy that is being perpetrated. Until a covenant is agreed, the Anglican Communion is a family of autonomous Churches that have in the past recognised each each other's orders and allowed members to take communion at each other's services. Implicit in that is respect for theological and eccesiological differences.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I did mean the church universal, but I was also talking about the anglican communion in terms of a family, that has autonomous units in it. Bit of a stretch, I know, but I couldn't think of a simpler way to put it. But right now it looks like a rugby scrum.... from the look of this thread anyway.... depressing.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
That ECUSA would rather claim its property rights than see these churches continue with their traditional flocks says it all.

A shame that as a Church they cannot see the immorality of such actions.

It is a shame that the clergy who have violated their ordination vows and then lied about it cannot see the immorality of their actions.
The conservatives aren't the only ones guilty of this. A certain retired bishop of Newark comes to mind, who declared (according to the ordinal in use at his consecration) that he was persuaded that Holy Scripture contained all things necessary to salvation, and promised to "banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word".

You can't take a lax attitude to the Creeds and then expect a literalistic adherence to the ancient canons to fly. It's a package deal.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:


I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.


Oh, I'd believe, it's the unbelieveability of the shenanigans that eventually ran me out of the UMC.

[ 08. December 2009, 17:12: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:


I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.


Oh, I'd believe, it's the unbelieveability of the shenanigans that eventually ran me out of the UMC.
Once, the pastor hosted an "Interfaith Thanksgiving" service which included rituals from the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bahais, and the Pagans. I can't decide if the highlight of the service was the Hindus ringing the church bell in honor of Krishna, or the Bahais praying that all "false religion" should die out.

Stuff I don't have to put up with in the wicked ECUSA.

Zach
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Amazing, but I can agree with Numpty and Zach - I must be truly "Anglican" in my breadth...

Wait! That was the old Anglicanism wasn't it?

I am arguing that there can be One Church for both liberals and conservatives, and Numpty is arguing that there can only be a Church for conservatives. How is it you can agree with both views?

Zach

I agree with Numpty's point - IF - Mthr Glasspool believes she ought to be consecrated only because she is a suitable lesbian candidate because "it's time". I have no argument with her suitability - solely - because she is a lesbian. To me that's idiocy.

I agree with you that TEC isn't, by this or other episcopal elections, telling the African or other churches that they must do the same.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I did a google search and couldn't find any such statement by the Rev Mary Glasspool. Actually I did find a very nice statement from her that I tried to post twice but didn't succeed either time; I'm not sure what was wrong with my link.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
Yes, Numpty, I'd like to see that link.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullshit-- what we have NEVER done is expect the conservative Provinces to do everything our way. It's been the other way around. For GAFCON, it's our way or the highway. If the Anglican Communion has no place for the liberals, then it has forsaken the Via Media that has defined it for so long.

Zach

The so-called 'Via Media' or middle way is a liberal fiction and it always has been. Not only is it a liberal fiction but it is a dishonest fiction based on a false spatial metaphor. The reality is that a relative newcomer (i.e. liberal protestantism) has claimed a fictional 'middle' in an attempt to marginalize historically authentic Anglicanism. Well, this Anglican is having none of it. "Middle" my arse, you're on the edges and you know it.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Is ECUSA a Christian Church or a bunch of grasping asset strippers?

Are you here for rational debate or would you prefer to call names?
Unlike all the name-calling by those whining about ++Rowan [Roll Eyes]
There was no name-calling nor whining when the election of our two new bishops was announced in my parish this last Sunday. Most people probably couldn't tell you the ABC's name.

Spiffy's grandstanding aside, the reality is that many US Episcopalians are functionally congregationalists, or verging on being so. I for one will not look back if we get booted out of the Anglican Communion for electing gay bishops; I simply can't see working to stay in communion with people who are okay with murderous anti-gay legislation being pushed in their countries, very far away from where I live, and simultaneously telling people I worship and work with that their loving, healthy, fruitful and Christ-centered relationships are sinful and unworthy of recognition by the church.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Was this the link perhaps?

She does say "it's time" but it's a bit different when in context. She takes 10 paragraphs to talk about her call before saying

quote:
The second thing is simply to say that it’s time.
The "second thing" is a single paragraph. So "it's time" is hardly her main claim to a vocation.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The so-called 'Via Media' or middle way is a liberal fiction and it always has been.

It was probably originally used in Anglican circles in the 16th century to describe a middle way between Calvinist and Zwinglian views of the Eucharist.

I guess the idea that Anglicanism was somehow in between Rome and the "real" Protestants was a 19th century thing.

[ 08. December 2009, 18:27: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
RuthW points out fairly that many US Episcopalians are functionally congregationalists, or close enough to it. I think that applies to Canadians as well, which is one of the reasons that, when individual parishes go through turmoil on this (or other issues), a substantial chunk of the congregation simply stops going to church.

Broader connexions tend to be real only for a minority of parishioners, although I suppose we would have more sentimental sympathy for an Archbishop of Canterbury than a Californian gathering of any sort even if we are more likely to tune our televisions into a Californian product than a Cantuarian one.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
I guess the idea that Anglicanism was somehow in between Rome and the "real" Protestants was a 19th century thing.
The likes of Clarendon, Falkland et. al. tended to regard the C of E as a via media between Rome and Geneva, according to Clarendon's biographer. Whether they actually used the term via media, I have no idea. But basically, you have to be asleep at the wheel not to notice that we are way too popish for the protestant truth society and way too protestant for the pope.

If the C of E was basically just like Reform until the liberals and Oxford Movement got in on the act in the nineteenth century then why did we end up losing Baxter et. al. to the Presbies? Because the C of E was too high for the puritans but not, obviously, Roman Catholic. Quod Erat Demonstrandum (Quite Easily Done).
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Because I couldn't get this link to work using the URL code facility, I'm going to try it by just copying the link itself: http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2009/12/statement-by-mary-glasspool.html

I very much liked that.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

No, I'd be an Anglican in the States.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The so-called 'Via Media' or middle way is a liberal fiction and it always has been.

It was probably originally used in Anglican circles in the 16th century to describe a middle way between Calvinist and Zwinglian views of the Eucharist.

I guess the idea that Anglicanism was somehow in between Rome and the "real" Protestants was a 19th century thing.

Exactly. The idea that the term Via Media can be applied to a "middle" and thereby more "authentic" form of Anglican churchmanship is false and dishonest.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

No, he seems pretty central Reformed Catholic to me, which in my book makes him an Anglican
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

No, I'd be an Anglican in the States.
Some sort of schismatic Anglican I expect. I don't know anyone in TEC like you. Finding you in an authentically Anglican Church would be about like discovering bird shit inside a cuckoo-clock.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
'love one another with a pure heart fervently... see that ye love one another' repeat ad naseum to disney type tune.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Some sort of schismatic Anglican I expect. I don't know anyone in TEC like you. Finding you in an authentically Anglican Church would be about like discovering bird shit inside a cuckoo-clock.

Hostly Hat ON
This sure seems like a personal attack to me. As such, it has no place in Purgatory. Stop it.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
"Middle" my arse, you're on the edges and you know it.

Numpty, you're in the Church of England, aren't you? Aren't there a lot of gay people in the Church of England? That has been my impression every time I have visited since 1972. The Church of England probably comprises about the same percentage of gay people as TEC.

In England as well as in the U.S., gay people are less and less "on the edges", i.e. marginal, and increasingly accepted in mainstream society. The U.S. is, if anything, rather laggard in this regard, considering how many civilized countries now provide either marriage or robust domestic partnerships without a second thought.

As they can hold their heads high in other areas of life to an extent almost undreamed of just forty years ago, naturally they will be increasingly impatient with second-class citizenship in the church. Maybe you imagine that if they all left, went on strike, or were raptured, you could say good riddance; but I doubt it. The church would lose valuable and outstandingly devoted members, if not grind quickly to a halt.

But once the Archbishop of Canterbury has insulted them enough with his obeisances to the right wing on another continent, that is what his own province may eventually get. Why should their patience and masochism in supporting an organization intent on denigrating them be unlimited? Who or what will be left even more "on the edges" then?
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

No, I'd be an Anglican in the States.
Some sort of schismatic Anglican I expect. I don't know anyone in TEC like you. Finding you in an authentically Anglican Church would be about like discovering bird shit inside a cuckoo-clock.
The only people you, Spiffy and Zach are ultimately crapping on is yourselves.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Numpty, it's you who is on the far edge of some sort of Anglicanism. In the States I'd surmise you to be a Southern Baptist or Televangelisto.

No, I'd be an Anglican in the States.
Some sort of schismatic Anglican I expect. I don't know anyone in TEC like you. Finding you in an authentically Anglican Church would be about like discovering bird shit inside a cuckoo-clock.
The only people you, Spiffy and Zach are ultimately crapping on is yourselves.
Hostly Hat ON
Sir P, I've already indicated this line of attack is off-base for Purgatory. Your cheap shots add no value at all. Stop it now.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
... why did we end up losing Baxter et. al. to the Presbies?

We didn't lose them. That would be carelessness! Charles II (or his government) kicked them out. Baxter (and a few thousand others) were excluded from their livings. Baxter himself carried on preaching where he could in both parish churches and private chapels, ands was imprisoned for it a number of times and persecuted by Judge Jeffries.

He wasn't a separatist or a Puritan - he wanted to keep a place for those of more Presbyterian views within the CofE, so he was more like what would have been called Broad Church in the 18th century, a sort of spiritual great-uncle of the Anglican evangelicals. And he was always strong for the Establishment of the national church, in a way that looks odd to us now - so many of his other ideas seem so modern that his identification of the Church of England with the English people at prayer seems not to fit - though of course it was commonplace then. Anachronistically you might call Baxter a High Church Evangelical (maybe he is John Wesley's counterpart - Wesley ended up a sort of low-church anglo-catholic) From his non-separatist point of view the Presbyterians and so on were part of the Church of England, whether the King thought they were or not. Anyway, Baxter survived till the Glorious Revolution and was accepted by the hierarchy of the CofE again before he died. And he was buried in the chancel of an Anglican church. So we never really lost him...

And as for the Protestant Truth society, would they have taken Richard Baxter's advice on how to deal with Papists?

quote:

(1) We must lay deep in our minds and inculcate in our hearers the common fundamental truth and duty, that love is the second great commandment like the first, that it is the fulfilling of the law, love is the second great commandment like the first, that it is the fulfilling of the law, that he that dwells in love dwells in God and God in him; that he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, loveth not God whom he never saw [...]

(2) We must acknowledge and commend all that is good among them, and must truly understand in what we are agreed.

(3) We must not deny what good use God hath made of Rome's grandeur, unity and concord [...]

(4) We must not, by scandals of some persons or fraternities, be drawn to think that the rest are like them, nor to deny but such men as Bernard, Gerson, and the abundance of friars and nuns, though zealous for the Roman concord, were godly excellent persons/ Even in the dark ages of the Church, what abundance of most learned school doctors had they, in which much piety also appeared (as in Bonaventura, Sales etc); and in the Oratory and many most learned Jesuits. All this we must candidly confess and honour.

(5) I think we should hurt no Papist in body or goods any further than it is necessary to our own defence, or the defence of the truth and souls of men and the Kingdom's safety; but win them by love.

(6) And (though the unlearned have safer and better books enough to read) I think it will do much to rectify men's judgments that are inclined to extremes, and to mellow and sweeten their hearts into Christian love, if the learned would read the devotional, pious writings of Papists ...[followed by a discussion of some Catholic devotional books Baxter foumd useful]...


 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

Spiffy's grandstanding aside,

Grandstanding? I don't rate that high on the set list. This bein' the Internet, I'm just another woman on her own private soapbox somewhere down the end of an alley, shoulder to shoulder with other folks on soapboxes tryin' to shout over each other.

Which I keep in mind, at least. A lot of other folks on the Internet seem to think they pride of place up front and center when one person deigns to notice them.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I stand by my characterization of your posts on this thread.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
If that's high-church evangelicalism I'm all for it. [Overused]

Angloid (low-church anglo-catholic)

[tangential reply to ken interrupted by above two - non-tangential - posts]

[ 08. December 2009, 19:56: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I stand by my characterization of your posts on this thread.

Well, then, thank you kindly. It's good to know one has fans.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Aren't there a lot of gay people in the Church of England? That has been my impression every time I have visited since 1972. The Church of England probably comprises about the same percentage of gay people as TEC.

Indeed. As Gene Robinson said in 2003, the real "h" word we're talking about is "honesty."
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Aren't there a lot of gay people in the Church of England? That has been my impression every time I have visited since 1972. The Church of England probably comprises about the same percentage of gay people as TEC.

Indeed. As Gene Robinson said in 2003, the real "h" word we're talking about is "honesty."
That's not the start of 'interfering in our affairs' is it??? [Devil]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
"Middle" my arse, you're on the edges and you know it.

Numpty, you're in the Church of England, aren't you? Aren't there a lot of gay people in the Church of England? That has been my impression every time I have visited since 1972. The Church of England probably comprises about the same percentage of gay people as TEC.

In England as well as in the U.S., gay people are less and less "on the edges", i.e. marginal, and increasingly accepted in mainstream society. The U.S. is, if anything, rather laggard in this regard, considering how many civilized countries now provide either marriage or robust domestic partnerships without a second thought.

As they can hold their heads high in other areas of life to an extent almost undreamed of just forty years ago, naturally they will be increasingly impatient with second-class citizenship in the church. Maybe you imagine that if they all left, went on strike, or were raptured, you could say good riddance; but I doubt it. The church would lose valuable and outstandingly devoted members, if not grind quickly to a halt.

But once the Archbishop of Canterbury has insulted them enough with his obeisances to the right wing on another continent, that is what his own province may eventually get. Why should their patience and masochism in supporting an organization intent on denigrating them be unlimited? Who or what will be left even more "on the edges" then?

You know, Alogon, I'm not sure Numpty would be caught dead in those kind of CoE places. Yes, all the gays are to be found down the Anglo-Catholic parishes, but I've always wondered if in England the CoE is generally as gay as in the USA. I got stuck into one prominent A-C London parish before even moving there and then once we moved my partner and I were rapidly recruited as servers so we rarely had the chance to go elsewhere. I do think there are a number of differences. For one, more church-gays in the CoE seem to be old maids or sexually repressed than in TEC. They're very loathe to criticise the ABC in general because they view His Grace primarily as Metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury and as Primate of All England, but don't really experience him as Ye Olde Instrument of Unity of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. If they criticise, they make excuses for him in the same breath. In TEC, while we have some prominently gay Anglo-Catholic parishes, there are gay parishioners visibly spread throughout the range of churchmanship (with possible exception of staid, old fashioned low church). TEC of course is explicitly welcoming of gay members, whilst the CoE isn't (obviously as the State church to whose ministrations everyone has right of access, it's a bit of a different situation). I also think that in America gay persons aren't as alienated toward religion as is the case in the UK -- just a particular facet of the overall greater continuing religiosity of Americans. I'm not sure what the ramifications of all these differences are, but I do think gay and lebian persons have been able to find a true home at last in TEC, whereas in the CoE we may still be a bit like not-very-well-liked family members with whom the rest of them feel obliged to put up. And much more isolated within the A-C wing.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
To clarify, I meant much more concentrated within the A-C wing of the CoE, in contrast to the less A-C heavy distribution in TEC.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
"Middle" my arse, you're on the edges and you know it.

Why is that, Numpty? What, precisely, puts me at the edges of Anglicanism?

Zach
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The conservatives on this thread remind me of something multipara said, who I hope will not mind that I cite for my own cause. In her own battles as a liberal in the Roman Catholic Church, she so often encounters hateful screeds from conservatives who wonder why she doesn't bugger off to other denominations or something- much like what Numpty et al. are offering here. Her response to them is along the lines of "I am just as baptized into this Holy Faith as you are, and this is my Church too. I'm not going anywhere."

Numpty & gang, if you don't want to sit down at the table with the ECUSA, then you don't have to. But we will take our place because we love our family, however much they disagree with us. You will have to learn to live with it. I will disagree with Spiffy here. I will not walk away, and if the conservatives throw us out, it is on their souls.

Zach
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
OK, I'm one very confused RC at this point. On the one hand, some of those who are supporters of Rev. Glasspool seem to be saying, "to hell with all this 'Anglican Communion' nonsense; we're essentially congregationalists anyway," while others are throwing around terms like "schismatic" and "authentic Anglican" etc. Am I correct in seeing (at least) two quite different ecclesiologies at work here? Does "schism" make any sense if one is basically a congregationalist? Do those who say "to hell with this Anglican Communion nonsense" care about being "Authentic Anglicans"? If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

Could someone help me sort out the various positions in play here?
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Do those who say "to hell with this Anglican Communion nonsense" care about being "Authentic Anglicans"? If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

I second these questions, because when the subject of the Continuing Churches has come up in the past, I've seen members of the TEC object to the CCs calling themselves "Anglican", since they're not in communion with Canterbury. Following that reasoning, if the TEC ceases to be in communion with Canterbury, can it or its members continue to call themselves Anglican(s)?

[ 08. December 2009, 21:11: Message edited by: Pancho ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?
That is precisely the question that is up for debate. The Anglican Communion, as many have said, is a new creation. The ECUSA predates the creation of the AC, so naturally it is assumed that we would do quite well enough without it. The American Church has been getting the sort of attitude we have seen on this thread for 30 years, so I am not surprised that they feel that way.

Others, such as me, believe that the Anglican Communion is a symbolic union of independent provinces that share a common history and form of church governance.

Then you have those who believe the Anglican Communion is one worldwide denomination united over complete agreement over a narrow set of doctrines, especially doctrines about gay people.

Zach
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I think you're taking the "congregationalist" description too literally. I guess there's some truth to it, in terms of people having a great deal of loyalty to their own parishes and not really giving a toss what is going on at diocesan or national levels. And yet I would hesitate to say that, because most people in a parish are pretty conscious of the parish's diocesan assessment -- the money they have to pony-up toward the support of the diocese and indirectly to that of the national church. For those of us who move around all over the country and remain with TEC, we obviously can't be congregationalists. I don't care much for the local churchmanship so I travel the fairly short journey over to the next diocese and state in order to attend a parish whose liturgics I find more agreeable, but when I go to the beach on the Atlantic coast here in Delaware, Sundays will find me at one of the Episcopal churches of this diocese.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Others, such as me, believe that the Anglican Communion is a symbolic union of independent provinces that share a common history and form of church governance.

So would, by this definition, Continuers be part of the Anglican Communion?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Continuers aren't part of the Anglican Communion cause the ABC doesn't grant them official recognition and they don't get invited to any parties at Lambeth or Canterbury. If TEC gets thrown out of the AC we'll still be Anglican (like the continuers), we just won't be part of the Anglican Communion group.
 
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm one very confused RC at this point. On the one hand, some of those who are supporters of Rev. Glasspool seem to be saying, "to hell with all this 'Anglican Communion' nonsense; we're essentially congregationalists anyway," while others are throwing around terms like "schismatic" and "authentic Anglican" etc. Am I correct in seeing (at least) two quite different ecclesiologies at work here? Does "schism" make any sense if one is basically a congregationalist? Do those who say "to hell with this Anglican Communion nonsense" care about being "Authentic Anglicans"? If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

Could someone help me sort out the various positions in play here?

I have not said "to hell with the Anglican Communion" but I am not a fan of the proposed Covenant, nor of++Rowan's heavy pressure to ratify and codify a type of relationship between provinces that has not previously existed.

With Zach, I would say that the Anglican Communion has been a loosely related set of provinces worldwide with a more or less common worship, adherence to the Creed, and a common polity based on apostolic succession of bishops. The ABC was/has been essentially a ceremonial head, with influence, but absolutely no power over any other province, all of which are autonomous. The Lambeth Conferences, held every 10 years, have never--until now--been seen as producting resolutions that carried binding weight.
Provinces do not all have the same polity in specific matters. For example, in TEC bishops are elected by diocesan convention, then ratified by other dioceses. In other provinces bishops are appointed. Our PB does not have any power over the dioceses; in other provinces the primate does have much more power.
Trying to make us a worldwide confessional denomination is madness IMO. Why should all the provinces be in lockstep?

[ 08. December 2009, 21:28: Message edited by: Geneviève ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
IIRC about 3 years ago there was talk that provinces that signed onto the proposed covenant would be real, full members of the Communion and any provinces who didn't do so would have some secondary status. Maybe that's how it will end for TEC -- neither fully in nor fully out. I don't see how we can ratify a convenant that is explicitly designed to advance the agenda of a particular faction which is ill-disposed toward TEC.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm one very confused RC at this point. On the one hand, some of those who are supporters of Rev. Glasspool seem to be saying, "to hell with all this 'Anglican Communion' nonsense; we're essentially congregationalists anyway," while others are throwing around terms like "schismatic" and "authentic Anglican" etc. Am I correct in seeing (at least) two quite different ecclesiologies at work here? Does "schism" make any sense if one is basically a congregationalist? Do those who say "to hell with this Anglican Communion nonsense" care about being "Authentic Anglicans"? If so, what exactly is an "Authentic Anglican"?

Could someone help me sort out the various positions in play here?

Let me take an apophatic approach to this question. Authentic Anglicanism is not synonymous with being "Middle Of The Road". This incredibly arrogant spacial metaphor - that claims some fictional "middle" - is just a thinly disguised play for dominance, like a spoilt child whining because they lost at musical chairs.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Actually, as some C17 controversialist wrote, Anglicanism is perched atop the perfect pinnacle, midway between the meretricious gaudiness of the Church of Rome and the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle. From atop that perfect pinnacle, I myself lean out toward the meritricious gaudiness of Rome, whilst I'll leave you to guess who amongst the Anglican posters here is closer to the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle side of things.

[ 08. December 2009, 22:03: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I'd rather be face up in a gutter than face down in a palace.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Actually, as some C17 controversialist wrote, Anglicanism is perched atop the perfect pinnacle, midway between the meretricious gaudiness of the Church of Rome and the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle. From atop that perfect pinnacle, I myself lean out toward the meritricious gaudiness of Rome, whilst I'll leave you to guess who amongst the Anglican posters here is closer to the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle side of things.

And yet would scorn the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Actually, as some C17 controversialist wrote, Anglicanism is perched atop the perfect pinnacle, midway between the meretricious gaudiness of the Church of Rome and the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle. From atop that perfect pinnacle, I myself lean out toward the meritricious gaudiness of Rome, whilst I'll leave you to guess who amongst the Anglican posters here is closer to the squalid sluttery of a fanatical conventicle side of things.

I'm not sure whether those you consider coming from that nasty place would deign to even speak to ECUSA. Certainly Sydney and Nigeria have basically gone their own way. No one from Nigeria has, as far as I'm aware, ever posted on these boards and I think any 'Sydney Anglican' from Sydney would steer well clear of this thread.

The English Evangelical position - where many who argue against you come from - is actually as normal and valid as the Anglo-Catholic one. Ken, Spawn et sim are no weird kooks from outer space but quite normal CofE members.

Alogon is also quite correct: there are quite a few gay clergy in England as there are in Australia.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone here has argued that gays are inherently evil nor proposed 'the Nigerian solution'.
[Roll Eyes]

I think the gist of the disagreement lies in the conception of what Christian sex ethics in practice should be.

I'll avoid the question 'whose business is that' for the moment.

The concept of what Christian sex ethics in practice should be obviously effects what sort of ethics someone called to the ministry or episcopate should have.

There is disagreement on this between ECUSA and others in the Communion, not necessarily extremists such as Sydney nor Nigeria.

As far as I am aware the statements from ++ Canterbury and Canon Glasspool have been extremely diplomatic. They still appear to be communicating.

If I understand the likes of RuthW and Zach they wish to remain in Communion and to keep communicating.

I suspect that a sort of impaired Communion - with mutual doubts and suspicion from each side still talking - will continue.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

If I understand the likes of RuthW and Zach they wish to remain in Communion and to keep communicating.

I suspect that a sort of impaired Communion - with mutual doubts and suspicion from each side still talking - will continue.

Still talking -- yes, but not often, and they'll be short conversations: wave, smile, "Hi, how ya doin'." Not much else left to say, really.

TEC is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of American (ELCA) and several other bodies more disposed to show goodwill toward us than the Church of England evangelicals. There is much talk of our simply choosing to unite with our brothers and sisters in these churches, with whom we also have historic ties. That sounds like a very good solution to the Communion problem to me, FWIW.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I'd agree, Grammatica. And really far more exciting since we can actually do things on the ground together.

As far as gay clergy in the CoE I do know they are still being pushed into positions of silenced hypocricy -- civil partnered couples having to pretend not to have a relationship that includes genital sexual expression. In point of fact I know one half of such a male clergy couple. They wouldn't be put in that position in TEC. It's a pathetic policy.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

If I understand the likes of RuthW and Zach they wish to remain in Communion and to keep communicating.

I suspect that a sort of impaired Communion - with mutual doubts and suspicion from each side still talking - will continue.

Still talking -- yes, but not often, and they'll be short conversations: wave, smile, "Hi, how ya doin'." Not much else left to say, really.

...


Good point. 'Mutual misunderstanding at 100 yards'.

It might take a while to start talking meaningfully again.

ECUSA is very American (Surprise! Surprise!
[Biased] ) So I'm not surprised it talks to other American churches.

The future is fluid.

The American (and possibly Canadian to a lesser extent) mindset and the way that expresses itself is very different from the English and other British (which vary) as well as the Australian.

Watch this space...
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Well, I'm not surprised that the thread was at five pages before I had a chance to catch up...

I don't think most American Episcopalians are particularly surprised that the Diocese of L.A. would elect an honestly-gay bishop. Nor are they surprised at the consternation this would cause elsewhere. I think the particular anger at ++Rowan's generally bland tut-tutting response, however, is just how quickly it was made--when no amount of increasing pressure internationally or from those in his own province has brought him to make any statements about the involvement of the Church of Uganda in pushing the draconian legislation there.

I would also have to say that the best responses--and some of the harshest words--that I have read on the topic outside of the Ship are by people who are NOT on my side of the pond (Louise's new signature comes to mind).

I would have been happier with our own PB if she had spoken out a little sooner, but I suspect that anything we have to say will just push Uganda harder in the opposite direction...what with us being apostate, and all.

I think it is possible that the "gracious restraint" urged might have had a chance of holding longer if there had ever been the least sign that ALL the gracious restraints asked for were important.

I don't think Americans would have blamed him for being unable to stop Nigeria and Uganda from poaching US congregations. They do blame him for not seeming to care. The perception--even among the convincible moderates--was that the only church for whom "Thou shalt not..." was important was TEC. It isn't just the rabid liberals that ++Rowan lost in the US (and in all fairness he never had them). He has lost the much larger middle who might have been able to prevent the confirmation of another gay bishop.

Most Americans still have a lot of respect for the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They aren't wasting any time over the pronouncements of the current holder of that See, however. They would be sorry to see the Anglican Communion change, but have begun to recognize the Communion as envisioned by ++Rowan is a change from its history.

Many Americans are also well aware that there are other Provinces in Britain who will be proud to remain in FULL communion with TEC.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
I don't give a toss for impaired communion. In for a penny, in for a pound. If impaired communion is all that is on offer, I'd just as soon have no association with the Anglican Communion.

That said, I imagine in this situation the establishment of a number of inter communion relationships resulting with a number of national churches currently in the Anglican Communion.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
TEC is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of American (ELCA) and several other bodies more disposed to show goodwill toward us than the Church of England evangelicals. There is much talk of our simply choosing to unite with our brothers and sisters in these churches, with whom we also have historic ties. That sounds like a very good solution to the Communion problem to me, FWIW.

Kenneth Leech spoke at my parish a while back, and the most memorable (to me, at any rate) thing he said was that in the future the various denominations of Christianity will be relatively meaningless, and there will really only be two kinds of Christians: those who believe that the Kingdom of God is the province of the next life and those who believe it is up to us to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Many Americans are also well aware that there are other Provinces in Britain who will be proud to remain in FULL communion with TEC.

I don't know much about how Anglicanism works.

Is it possible for the CofE to be out of communion with TEC, but for the Scottish Episcopal Church to be in communion with both the CofE and the TEC, but not say, with Uganda?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Is it possible for the CofE to be out of communion with TEC, but for the Scottish Episcopal Church to be in communion with both the CofE and the TEC, but not say, with Uganda?
Probably. The precedent being situations like TEC being in full communion with the ELCA, but the CoE and all aren't. Several provinces have similar agreements.

Zach
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Yep, CofE are in pretty much complete communion with the Epsicopal Lutherans in Scandinavia, and some of them are with some north American Lutherans and some of them are with various Canadian churches that are in communion with our Methodists here, and them with our URC... so you can sort of work your way along the chain - there might even be some cyclic loops of communion.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Speaking of impaired communion, I think the CoEers should give some serious thought to what Akinola and gang will think of your province once he doesn't have the ECUSA to pitch a fit about.

Zach
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
...I don't know much about how Anglicanism works.

...

Nor do many Anglicans! It sometimes seems to be 'a work in progress' as far as the worldwide situation goes.

I believe Samuel Seabury - the first post-revolutionary American bishop - had to be ordained by the (then officially outlawed, post-Culloden) Scottish Episcopal Church because of the political situation at the time. For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.

As far as I can work out, the 'provenance' of the Scottish Episcopal Church is historically from bishops who were consecrated at the behest of a Stuart sovereign in an attempt to change the course the kirk had taken.

ECUSA is not, I believe, in communion with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod who are quite conservative on certain matters.

As Ken says, there is the possibility of a range of being in communion (or not) for various branches of the still extant Anglican Communion.

I am reminded of that Goon Show adage: 'The plot thins.'

For a shaft of light.



[Votive]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Seabury was consecrated by Scottish non-jurors because he couldn't take the oath of alleigance that consecration by English bishops would have imposed. Parliament rectified this problem quite quickly after Seabury's consecration. TEC is indeed not in communion with the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is not itself in communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. In fact the LC-MS don't even consider the ELCA to be proper Lutherans.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Speaking of impaired communion, I think the CoEers should give some serious thought to what Akinola and gang will think of your province once he doesn't have the ECUSA to pitch a fit about.

Zach

Oh, they already know what's in store for the Church of England. It's already started over there.

Something called FOCA-UK (no joke), the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans-UK, an arm of GAFCON, captured a beachhead or two last year and stands ready to detach as many parishes and even dioceses from the Church of England as it possibly can.

Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments (sound familiar?) and won't let the bishop in the door (sound familiar?). They are making serious plans for schism and starting to demand to be able to take the church buildings with them (sound familiar?) because they are the True Christians and everyone else is not (sound familiar?).

The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK -- this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. So what goes around comes around.

Then there's the Pope's offer to Anglo-Catholics who don't like the idea of women bishops: Join the RCC as a diocese, and we'll call you an Anglican Ordinariate. You can even have married priests.

It is very much like Archbishop Williams's earlier offer to John Howe and others among the most conservative TEC bishops. He told them that they could remain in the Anglican Communion as dioceses, even if TEC is removed. So, once again, what goes around comes around for the Church of England, and I think they are well aware of it.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Glory. They're carving us up like a pie before we're even in the pan. It almost seems like it was the plan all along. I am trying to think up a Psalm for the situation, but all that comes to mind at the moment is "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed."

Zach
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex. The African churches didn't cut ties with the American Episcopalian Church over Bush's imperialist foreign policy, nor did it threaten to cut ties over our North American churches' failure to speak out about the negative effects of globalization. I definitely don't think our North American churches are perfect. I know quite a few left-wing people who complain that our mainline churches still refuse to seriously take our prophetic role and speak truth to power.

Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex. The African churches didn't cut ties with the American Episcopalian Church over Bush's imperialist foreign policy, nor did it threaten to cut ties over our North American churches' failure to speak out about the negative effects of globalization. I definitely don't think our North American churches are perfect. I know quite a few left-wing people who complain that our mainline churches still refuse to seriously take our prophetic role and speak truth to power.

Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?

TBH - this is a bit of worn out accusation. (Sort of: "yah boo. Look at them getting obsessed about willies and stuff just because we are changing what people can do with their willies and stuff ... [Roll Eyes] ). It seems to be something that everyone is obsessed with.

To properly answer your question, I think that the problem some people have (please note the 3rd person here) is that American policy on global warming, imperialism etc is not generally the policy of TEC, whereas this is. The concern seems to be with what is happening within the Anglican Communion, not what is happening in the country (or other churches withing that country) that concerns other parts of the AC.

That's how I see it anyway.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.

Could have, but didn't. Dundee tourist board really should think of adopting "For some reason it happened in Dundee" as a strapline, though.

Actually, for some reason it happened in Aberdeen.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Anglican_Brat asked -
quote:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?
Probably it's because outside the USA these are not issues that divide us. To be sure there are contrary voices to be found, but if you were to go into an average evangelical and then a MOTR, then an A-C parish in the UK, you would get a pretty similar set of answers on issues like global warming and most social justice issues.

These sort of criticisms work the other way round, too. ++Rowan speaks regularly on these things. In the rush to judgement and condemnation earlier in this thread, why did these things not get noticed? Why does a somewhat anodyne "this may make matters more difficult" statement cause such red mist? It's hardly other Anglicans who are perplexed by this reaction - several others have been baffled by it. Whatever your POV on the presenting issue, I think most of us long ago expected TEC to do what it saw as right, and that the long unravelling of Anglicanism would continue its course.

These are genuine questions, BTW. I'm still puzzled.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments

I don't believe that is true. You'd have to give us names to persuade me that its not just a made-up rumour. The usual impression we get round here - and I haven't seen the numbers - is that on the whole evangelical parishes pay more of their share than the distinctively Anglo-Cathloic parishes.

quote:


...and won't let the bishop in the door (sound familiar?).

That might well be treu, but its hardly news! Been going on since at least the 18th century.


quote:


The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.

That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone. And most evangelicals in the CofE probably have no idea who or what ACNA or CANA are anyway. Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

I don't know who you have been getting your news from but it sounds like those nasty right-wing bloggers again. This whole business could do with some honesty about what the other side thinks.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.

Could have, but didn't. Dundee tourist board really should think of adopting "For some reason it happened in Dundee" as a strapline, though.

Actually, for some reason it happened in Aberdeen.

OMG! Accepted! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Well, I'm not surprised that the thread was at five pages before I had a chance to catch up...

I don't think most American Episcopalians are particularly surprised that the Diocese of L.A. would elect an honestly-gay bishop. Nor are they surprised at the consternation this would cause elsewhere. I think the particular anger at ++Rowan's generally bland tut-tutting response, however, is just how quickly it was made--when no amount of increasing pressure internationally or from those in his own province has brought him to make any statements about the involvement of the Church of Uganda in pushing the draconian legislation there.

I would also have to say that the best responses--and some of the harshest words--that I have read on the topic outside of the Ship are by people who are NOT on my side of the pond (Louise's new signature comes to mind).

I would have been happier with our own PB if she had spoken out a little sooner, but I suspect that anything we have to say will just push Uganda harder in the opposite direction...what with us being apostate, and all.

I think it is possible that the "gracious restraint" urged might have had a chance of holding longer if there had ever been the least sign that ALL the gracious restraints asked for were important.

I don't think Americans would have blamed him for being unable to stop Nigeria and Uganda from poaching US congregations. They do blame him for not seeming to care. The perception--even among the convincible moderates--was that the only church for whom "Thou shalt not..." was important was TEC. It isn't just the rabid liberals that ++Rowan lost in the US (and in all fairness he never had them). He has lost the much larger middle who might have been able to prevent the confirmation of another gay bishop.

Most Americans still have a lot of respect for the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They aren't wasting any time over the pronouncements of the current holder of that See, however. They would be sorry to see the Anglican Communion change, but have begun to recognize the Communion as envisioned by ++Rowan is a change from its history.

Many Americans are also well aware that there are other Provinces in Britain who will be proud to remain in FULL communion with TEC.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican." I realize that this is one of the things that is at issue on this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing what people mean by this term. If it is not membership in the Anglican Communion, then what is it?

It looks to me as if both Continuers and (increasingly) Episcopalians are arguing that one need not be a part of the Anglican Communion in order to be "Authentically Anglican." Yet they do not consider each other to be Authentically Anglican," so there must be some other criterion at work.

Maybe I'm just bringing a RC mindset to this situation, which is keeping me from seeing something that is blindingly obvious to others.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex.

I agree with IanjMatt - IMHO this tired cliche should be banned from the discussion due to its redundancy.

Conservatives are called that precisely because they like to keep things the way they are. If it was only one side that was obsessed with sex then there wouldn't be an argument because the other side simply wouldn't be bothered.

Our sexuality is part of identity and incredibly important to who we are - and because it is a very important issue we are arguing about it.

[ 09. December 2009, 11:38: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Anglican_Brat asked -
quote:
Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?
Probably it's because outside the USA these are not issues that divide us. To be sure there are contrary voices to be found, but if you were to go into an average evangelical and then a MOTR, then an A-C parish in the UK, you would get a pretty similar set of answers on issues like global warming and most social justice issues.
I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?

ISTM that the opposition to gay rights is drawn from roughly the same social groupings in the US and the UK. In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

Granted, the UK is much more secular than the US, but the small percentage of your society that still attends church is attending a church that is vocally opposed to gay rights and claims an exception to the anti-discrimination laws for itself. So how different can the constituencies really be?
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments

I don't believe that is true. You'd have to give us names to persuade me that its not just a made-up rumour. The usual impression we get round here - and I haven't seen the numbers - is that on the whole evangelical parishes pay more of their share than the distinctively Anglo-Cathloic parishes.
I wouldn't say that this was always the case and, IME, social class plays as big a part as churchpersonship but it works as a reasonable generalisation. There have been cases, again IME, of big evo places saying 'we'll pay our own costs but not a penny more' but to be fair there are an awful lot of MOTR and AC places that are marking time and not paying their way but it has to be asked why the the congregation of a preaching box should give sacrificially to subsidise people who aren't pulling their weight.

The inner city is different. Churches who don't want to subsidise ministry to Christ's poor are hounds. But I really don't think that it is responsible behaviour for a priest to encourage his congregation to hand over vast swathes of money and in turn to hand it over to the diocese without taking at least a passing interest on what it's being spent on. Incidentally, when I was at a very well heeled AC place we used to have similar conversations at PCC meetings. But I've never heard of a case of a place refusing to pay its ministry costs and I can't imagine a responsibly PCC encouraging their priest to do so because incumbents don't last forever and the Bishop would suspend the living the seconds after the last Pickfords Van had rolled out of the driveway.

Parenthetically, Grammatica's version of the Church of England looks rather more apocalyptic than the one I happen to inhabit.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.

That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone.
You would make out a much better case for your side if you did not invalidate the experience of your opponents. Don't tell us what to feel. We do know what we have suffered in the Episcopal Church from the depradations of ambitious breakaway movements, and we do know they have been supported by C of E evangelical movements such as Anglican Mainstream and Reform. "Ravaged" is a reasonable word for what they have done to our church. Yes, we have feelings about it. That's a major factor in our willingness to go our separate ways.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Our sexuality is part of identity

Agreed
quote:
and incredibly important to who we are
Well now, that depends, doesn't it?

I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background. That might be because I'm part of that privileged white, male, straight, British cohort.

Or it might be that I don't see any of those things as particularly special or extraordinary. Of my gay friends, the least interesting thing about them is that they're gay. If you want to make it all about which bit goes where, go ahead, but my Give-a-damn-o-meter™ is barely flickering.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican." I realize that this is one of the things that is at issue on this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing what people mean by this term. If it is not membership in the Anglican Communion, then what is it?

It looks to me as if both Continuers and (increasingly) Episcopalians are arguing that one need not be a part of the Anglican Communion in order to be "Authentically Anglican." Yet they do not consider each other to be Authentically Anglican," so there must be some other criterion at work.

Maybe I'm just bringing a RC mindset to this situation, which is keeping me from seeing something that is blindingly obvious to others.

I suppose a rough analogy would be a sedavacantist who holds that the C of E isn't Catholic because it split from the Pope and the Pope isn't Catholic because he split from them!

It's about values being separable from institutions. And it's not actually a wholly unreasonable point. If the C of E tomorrow canonised Adolf Hitler, made belief in a world Jewish conspiracy a criteria for holding a position as an ordained minister and renamed itself the First Church of Jesus Christ, Aryan Nations I would chuck myself in the Hellespont whilst avering that, in a fairly important sense, I was closer to the spirit of Bl. Michael Ramsey et. al. than those remaining in communion with the See of Canterbury.

Now, obviously, the current case is not quite as straightforward as my Godwin-resistant analogy but it's not totally weird and counter-intuitive to say 'The Anglican Communion has abandoned orthodoxy therefore we who are true to the Anglican spirit (which involves being orthodox) can no longer remain institutionally Anglican' or 'The Anglican Communion has abandoned its openness to free enquiry and new ideas therefore we who are true to the Anglican spirit (which involves being open to free enquiry and new ideas) can no longer remain institutionally Anglican'.

Whether either claim can withstand sustained critical enquiry is another matter. But neither is on a par with claiming that green ideas sleep furiously. It's always possible for a given institution - assuming its head honcho is not infallible, of course - to lose the plot, or become apostate or sell out or whatever. Such a claim might be wrong but it is not self-evidently absurd.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican."

Here's the official line.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?

You don't hear statements because they don't need to be made. Reform et al aren't (yet) a separate church, so the ABC's statements cover them, too. None of these groups was set up to protest a different corner to the rest of the church about environmentalism, so they don't make environmental statements. Since the agree with everyone else, a Reform/FWS/etc pronouncement on global warming would contain no new information, nd so be superflous.

quote:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.
It may have escaped your attention that we don't have a Republican party in the UK, we're not even a republic. The cultures are different, and your American experience can't tell you anything about the political values of evangelicals over here.

As it happens, I know someone high up in Reform. He has solar panels on his roof.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns.
[...]
You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
The Conservative and Unionist Party (the closest thing we have to the Republicans) are fairly relaxed about Teh Gaze, nowadays. The party leader David 'Call Me Dave' Cameron has cultivated the pink vote in a discreet sort of way and their shadow spokesman for education has stood up and said that Clause 28 and their opposition to civil partnerships were a mistake.

Basically, the battle for gay equality has been pretty much won in the UK (apart from Norn Ireland which, for complex historical reasons, is run by a coalition of clerical fascists and fundamentalist presbyterians) and the opposition are just faffing around trying to agree on a suitable location to sign the instruments of surrender. Whatever they may say anyone with an IQ in triple figures knows that an attempt to return to the heady days before Woy of the Wadicals is about as likely as a Jacobite restoration.

[x-posted with ken.]

[ 09. December 2009, 12:51: Message edited by: Gildas ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background.

That's because they are all the unmarked variant.

Like being English. English people hardly notice we are English. Its the default nationality to us.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.

Yes - and Russians have a predisposition to cannibalism.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Grammatica asks
quote:
I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?
Grammatica - please don't take this amiss, but surely only an American could ask that question - ? No, I'm not trying to start a pond war. There are many of us here (ken and myself on this thread for starters) who keep trying to point out that American socio-cultural criteria have limited, if any, validity outside their original context. Anglican pressure-groups are set up to pressurize whoever in respect of whatever it was they were set up for.

You might as well ask why Forward in Faith keeps rabbiting on about women priests and bishops (which is of course regularly asked here too). The answer to all these things is the evidence you need to realise that what is at fault is not your logic, but the way you are framing the whole issue. Things simply don't work like that here. The alignment of cultural norms with ecclesiastical norms and self-identity is very much an American phenomenon. (It is of course a plank in the culture wars, though there is much about that that lies outside our discussion here.) I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, but that the correlation is weak, and for the most part local. Attempts to view the world through this lens are going to be doomed to misinterpret other people badly.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
It's understandable, aumbrey, that you don't have a facility for receiving personal messages. I hadn't noticed that before; how clever of you.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???

Fulcrum
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

It's quite likely for a UK evangelical to be conservative about homosexuality and abortion but have a totally different attitude to other social justice issues - e.g. fair trade or the environment. AFAIK there's no fundamental reason that political conservatism and social conservatism should closely correspond.

Also, because we're more secular, homosexuality and abortion aren't strong party political issues.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
"K"??
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.

Being pedantic, surely it could only be considered 'retrograde' if they held 'view a', changed to a new view, and then returned to 'view a' again. 'View a' would then be considered retrograde. Holding a position that seems out of date or not the latest opinion on something is not 'retrograde'.

Anyway ... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.

[Eek!]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?

Well given that Anglican Mainstream is a pressure group, and so is Reform, you'd hardly expect them as groups to make statements outwith their purpose. If I was you I wouldn't risk making a fool of myself by not taking Ken's word for it. He's been immersed in the CoE and its evangelical tradition for decades.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

It's quite likely for a UK evangelical to be conservative about homosexuality and abortion but have a totally different attitude to other social justice issues - e.g. fair trade or the environment. AFAIK there's no fundamental reason that political conservatism and social conservatism should closely correspond.

Also, because we're more secular, homosexuality and abortion aren't strong party political issues.

And it is why Ludicrous Kazimierz pontificating on Labour and Conservative voters (presumably from somewhere on Mount Rushmore) is wrong. If any social group was traditionally conservative about matters to do with homosexuality it was the British working class which was also traditionally the bedrock of Labour's vote.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
A question. Is not disagreeing the same positively agreeing?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???

Fulcrum
That would be the same Fulcrum that criticised the formation of both ACNA and CANA for not waiting for the 'glacial' processes of the Anglican Communion to unfold?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
aumbrey, what party did the last PM who launched a major legislative assault on gay rights represent?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If any social group was traditionally conservative about matters to do with homosexuality it was the British working class which was also traditionally the bedrock of Labour's vote.

Perhaps - I don't know enough to say. The Conservative Party tended to support Clause 28 though, and the Daily Telegraph is distinctly less pro-gay rights than the Guardian or Independent.

Opinions seem to be much less divided along party lines than in the US though.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.

[Eek!]
Numpty, perhaps what confuses is you is that we could agree the Holy Scripture contains all things generally necessary to salvation? Of course, Scripture contains much else that isn't edifying or relevant to life either in the Christian dispensation generally or in present day social reality. So the approach to Scripture might be problematic for you. But I daresay that's likewise a problem you would encounter with your co-religionists in other wings of the CoE.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
aumbrey, what party did the last PM who launched a major legislative assault on gay rights represent?

Why don't you go back and read your own post? You were pontificating on the voters not the parties.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.

This is what I am referring to.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Why don't you quit splitting hairs, you little chrism-cabinet?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.

[Eek!]
Numpty, perhaps what confuses is you is that we could agree the Holy Scripture contains all things generally necessary to salvation? Of course, Scripture contains much else that isn't edifying or relevant to life either in the Christian dispensation generally or in present day social reality. So the approach to Scripture might be problematic for you. But I daresay that's likewise a problem you would encounter with your co-religionists in other wings of the CoE.
It is possible to err by addition as well as subtraction, and there are plenty of socially real things that aren't socially good things. Much of scripture is given to humanity so that - by obedience - we may avoid ungodly social realities.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I think this is really the crux of it: we disagree on first principles when it comes to the role and interpretation of Scripture. This also tends to imply different POVs regarding inspiration, the nature of the collection of canonical books, etc; and the degree to which the Canon is subject to historical criticism.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Kenneth Leech spoke at my parish a while back, and the most memorable (to me, at any rate) thing he said was that in the future the various denominations of Christianity will be relatively meaningless, and there will really only be two kinds of Christians: those who believe that the Kingdom of God is the province of the next life and those who believe it is up to us to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.

Surprisingly for him, Ken Leech is less than true to scripture or tradition than he should be here (though I know what he means). But it's a truism that the Kingdom is already/not yet. Or both/and.
And this thread shows that the issue is not about the dilemma Ken points up. It's about what the Kingdom is. And how we give content to justice and inclusion is a part of that debate.

But that's a theological tangent to the thread!
 
Posted by Resurgam (# 14891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.

That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone.
You would make out a much better case for your side if you did not invalidate the experience of your opponents. Don't tell us what to feel. We do know what we have suffered in the Episcopal Church from the depradations of ambitious breakaway movements, and we do know they have been supported by C of E evangelical movements such as Anglican Mainstream and Reform. "Ravaged" is a reasonable word for what they have done to our church. Yes, we have feelings about it. That's a major factor in our willingness to go our separate ways.
Our small-town parish lost several of its most involved families after 2003. They felt they were the ones whose views and beliefs were ravaged by the national church. It wasn't depredations of ambitious breakaway movements that caused them to leave, but the actions of the national leadership itself. There's victimology on both sides of the issue, or as Basil Fawlty asked, "Do I detect the stench of burning martyr?"
 
Posted by bonabri (# 304) on :
 
A little voice of sanity from today's Times (of London) by Richard Morrison here
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Kenneth Leech spoke at my parish a while back, and the most memorable (to me, at any rate) thing he said was that in the future the various denominations of Christianity will be relatively meaningless, and there will really only be two kinds of Christians: those who believe that the Kingdom of God is the province of the next life and those who believe it is up to us to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.

Surprisingly for him, Ken Leech is less than true to scripture or tradition than he should be here (though I know what he means). But it's a truism that the Kingdom is already/not yet. Or both/and.
And this thread shows that the issue is not about the dilemma Ken points up. It's about what the Kingdom is. And how we give content to justice and inclusion is a part of that debate.

But that's a theological tangent to the thread!

Pete,
that's actually a really interesting tangent to this thread - could you develop it a bit more? or does it need its own thread?
thanks,
Louise
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
A separate thread I suspect, but definitely another vote of encouragement here.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Grammatica writes:
quote:
ISTM that the opposition to gay rights is drawn from roughly the same social groupings in the US and the UK. In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

Granted, the UK is much more secular than the US, but the small percentage of your society that still attends church is attending a church that is vocally opposed to gay rights and claims an exception to the anti-discrimination laws for itself. So how different can the constituencies really be?

Thankfully, we are far more confused than this in Canada. The majority church is fairly leftwing in its politics, but is opposed to gay marriage rights, although most of its attendees support gay marriage rights, even if not in church.

Supporters of the centre and sort-of-sometimes-leftwing Liberals support gay marriage rights, unless they are visible minority immigrants, in which case they tend to oppose them (Conservative activists are beginning to take advantage of this).

Most New Democrats, as far as I can figure out, are strong supporters of gay rights, aside from many of the Muslism supporters.

The Conservatives would rather oppose gay marriage rights and even tried, half-heartedly, to revoke them a few years ago. This gang is the only place where the US culture wars and evangelical=rightwing happens. Even so, many of the Tories' evangelical supporters are strong supporters of 3d-world aid and socially progressive measures for aborginal Canadians.

Churchgoing Anglicans are a fairly small percentage and, with an Erastian past, are generally happy/resigned to support gay marriage rights because Parliament has said so. Most of the separating group (Anglican Network in Canada, but I think they have a new name now), many of whom I know, are diverse in their politics. Some take the line that gay marriage is fine, but not in Anglican churches.

Attempts at achieving a coherent connexion between belief and politics is not very easy for Christians in Canada. I think it is simpler for Muslims but I don't think that my Shi'ite or Sunni friends spend a lot of time thinking about the Archbishop of Canterbury's position on the topic. I hope that this hasn't been too much of a tangent, but I wanted to note that Grammatica's equation is not universally valid.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
That would be the same Fulcrum that criticised the formation of both ACNA and CANA for not waiting for the 'glacial' processes of the Anglican Communion to unfold?

I was able to identify the grouping from Grammatica's description. I didn't say I agreed with it.

I understand that lots of TECcies are cross about +Tom Wright's frequent interventions in their internal decision-making, and +Tom is patron of Fulcrum.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Resurgam:
Our small-town parish lost several of its most involved families after 2003. They felt they were the ones whose views and beliefs were ravaged by the national church. It wasn't depredations of ambitious breakaway movements that caused them to leave, but the actions of the national leadership itself. There's victimology on both sides of the issue, or as Basil Fawlty asked, "Do I detect the stench of burning martyr?"

This is unfortunate, but I think has been relatively rare most places within TEC. Fortunately most people have lives to get on with even when they don't like the decisions of the national church. After living with continual change in TEC for close to 40 years now, it takes one of a few select psychologies to become particularly exercised over any specific event or decision taken within the Church.

[code]

[ 09. December 2009, 19:50: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.

Zach

Well, you know, a few conservative priests-- including Fr. Moyer in my diocese, have been deposed, or at least the bishop affected to depose him, while the bishop of Pittsburgh affected to succor him. I'm not sure where that matter stands legally. He is still the Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, and whether Charles Bennison is to remain Bishop of Pennsylvania is disputed (and seems doubtful). But anyway, if deposition isn't "being pushed out of a church", I don't know what is. Fr. Moyer did diss the bishop and give other provocation and is a raging homophobe to boot-- but in fairness, it isn't as though this never happens.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Alogon, didn't Good Shep., Rosemont basically leave the diocese?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Our sexuality is part of identity

Agreed
quote:
and incredibly important to who we are
Well now, that depends, doesn't it?

I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background. That might be because I'm part of that privileged white, male, straight, British cohort.

Yep.

Whereas I've always been identified by visual inspection as a brown female and people treat me thusly (the queer part's a little harder to identify right off the bat, but it's usually assumed when I point out I don't have a husband, I don't want a husband, and I'm really not looking for a partner of any stripe, because being celibate is even more socially unacceptable than being queer).

And by people treating me thusly, it's typically white males telling me they don't treat me differently, instantaneously invalidating my experiences because it doesn't fit well into your happy little world view.

I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .

[ 09. December 2009, 15:48: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.

Zach

Well, you know, a few conservative priests-- including Fr. Moyer
Isn't he Bishop Moyer now?

(I would think that by accepting episcopal orders in a schismatic group he's no longer "in good standing" in any TEC diocese, but maybe it's more complicated than that)
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Bonabri's link to the Times article is really rather sobering reading... especially when he points out the possibilities of a golden age of the church.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy?

The reasons are, of course, psychological. In Republican Gomorrah, Max Blumenthal sheds light on the seamy side of those who build their careers on sex-negativism, and especially homophobia. Time and again these individuals are themselves outed, whereupon their houses of cards collapse in the tender mercies those whose support they have cultivated for years. I heartily recommend this book especially to those of like mind here: get to know your new friends. Just don't read it around mealtime. IMHO, these are seriously screwed-up people. But chacun a son gout...
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Much of scripture is given to humanity so that - by obedience - we may avoid ungodly social realities.
You mean like throwing people in prison for being gay?

Zach
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.
You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.

They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Of course, when I was a child there were still such creatures as liberal Republicans, big business types practising noblesse oblige and not trying to peek into people's bedroom windows.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.
You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.

They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."

That's more a product of American Christian culture I suppose and will make for interesting interaction.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Alogon, didn't Good Shep., Rosemont basically leave the diocese?

Not according to the diocese's web site. However, the name "Moyer" does not come up among people. Yes, he is a bishop, also he is rector.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.

CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.
You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.

They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."

That's more a product of American Christian culture I suppose and will make for interesting interaction.
"Interesting" would be one word for this kind of approach.

Enjoy your new friends, Matt.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.

You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.

Grammatica,

You appear to assume that, if the Anglican Communion, splits the CofE will all fall behind Rowan. I do not believe that; I have no idea what proportion of the laity would choose to remain in communion with Uganda rather than TEC (or what proportion does not care), but a significant chunk would rebel.

The one thing I can predict is that it will be very messy - and there will be legal ramifications, so the Government's view might have to be taken into account as well. The Supreme Governor presumably has an opinion, even if we have no idea what it is, and she cannot be ignored totally.

I feel ++Rowan should spend less time on the Anglican Communion and more on the CofE.


quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

It depends how you define "orthodox"; the concept of a Bishop in the USA who is responsible for a clutch of geographically dispersed parishes and who in turn is supervised by a primate in another continent and NOT by the primate in the area where he is based (although there is one there, in communion with the ABC) does not fit what I would call "orthodox Anglicanism".
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Alogon, didn't Good Shep., Rosemont basically leave the diocese?

Not according to the diocese's web site. However, the name "Moyer" does not come up among people. Yes, he is a bishop, also he is rector.
It is more complicate than that. Moyer is not recognised as rector by the diocese, but the parish claims him as rector. The parish website makes clear that they are still part of the diocese, though it's clear it's an unwilling arrangement.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy?

The reasons are, of course, psychological. In Republican Gomorrah, Max Blumenthal sheds light on the seamy side of those who build their careers on sex-negativism, and especially homophobia. Time and again these individuals are themselves outed, whereupon their houses of cards collapse in the tender mercies those whose support they have cultivated for years. I heartily recommend this book especially to those of like mind here: get to know your new friends. Just don't read it around mealtime. IMHO, these are seriously screwed-up people. But chacun a son gout...
Alogon - thanks for the link. The rise of the religious right into American politics has been a bit of a closed book to me, and maybe that book might help the process of illumination. I'll order it. Is it reasonably comprehensive - any other titles that might help?

Though just to demonstrate my ability to annoy on an even-handed basis (not you Alogon - just generally), if we are talking about seriously screwed up people, there's been some recent work at Harvard which points towards higher than average levels of repressed homophobia amongst people who like to identify as "gay-friendly" (in the words of the Scientific American review, not mine). Personally I reckon 'twas ever thus. We probably all give away more about ourselves than any external light we shed. I don't worry about it too much until it starts involving badmouthing other people (i.e. transference). That's the danger sign.
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Having wasted many hours peering over the Internet offerings of the Anglican/Episcopal blogosphere in the US, I can say without cavil that the conservative "reasserter" side tend to be quite conservative on American political issues, while the liberal "reappraiser" side tend to be quite liberal. If you read, for example, the reasserter blog "Stand Firm," you will find posters scoffing at global warming and if you read reappraiser blogs (like "An Inch at a Time") last November you would have seen hosannas raised at the election of Barack Obama. So, please, no more "just because they are orthodox in religion doesn't mean they are conservative in politics" comments regarding Americans. Just ain't so.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
[Confused]

Which post was that LADave? The comments I made related to applying that POV outside the US situation. I did comment on the apparently regular alignment in the USA.
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
I wasn't addressing your post, Honest Ron, but rather the notion, that I have often seen from UK or other non-American posters, that conservatives in church can be, and are often, progressives in politics. While there are exceptions to any rule, in the colonies, the term "Religious Right" is accurate in both a political and theological sense.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
the notion, that I have often seen from UK or other non-American posters, that conservatives in church can be, and are often, progressives in politics.

I don't remember anyone claiming this for the US. People are simply saying that the "religious right" shouldn't be assumed for the rest of the world.

(Actually, even within America, black churches quite often seem to be socially/theologically conservative without being particularly Republican. They aren't a trivial group.)
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Grammatica,

You appear to assume that, if the Anglican Communion, splits the CofE will all fall behind Rowan. I do not believe that; I have no idea what proportion of the laity would choose to remain in communion with Uganda rather than TEC (or what proportion does not care), but a significant chunk would rebel.



It seems some of the above are now being heard from; witness this letter from Inclusive Church, signed by Giles Goddard as chair.

I do not know how much influence Inclusive Church has in the Church of England, however.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???

Fulcrum
Fulcrum?! [Eek!] Since when did Fulcrum do "their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA" do anything, never mind "ravage the Episcopal Church."? And lets be honest they are hardly a big hitter in terms of international ecclesiastical or evangelical politics. (*) Its really hard to imagine them ravaging North American Anglicanism. Or anything else much tougher than a pizza. I mean seriously. These guys aren't Fred Phelps.

And their published statements are opposed to the ACNA, GAFCON, CANA and so on. For example Graham Kings defining four possible positions on the future of global Anglicanism
[http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=310] and discussing more recent developments using them[/url] and making it clear that he thinks that Fulcrum (& their friends such as Tom Wright & Michael Poon) are in a different quadrant from ACNA. He is also by and large critical of GAFCON and of Martin Minns part in it.

And Tom Wright, here

Yes, you can some find very bigoted comments on their web forum, and some support for GAFCON and ACNA, and a lot of it from a few of the same people, but that's a web forum. All sorts of loonies say stuff on web forums. Its not the position of

(*) As a declaration of interest, of the various CofE pressure groups they are the one I guess I am likely to be closest to on most things. (Durham in the 1970s, CMS, Grove booklets, Anvil, the usual suspects) And our parish recently had a clergyperson who was on its committee - but that is not neccessarily an indication of an official position as we have also got one who is on the committee of "Inclusive Church". But I suspect if Tom Wright wasn't associated with them no-one outside the small world of English Open Evangelicalism would have heard of them.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background. That might be because I'm part of that privileged white, male, straight, British cohort.

Yep.

<snip>

And by people treating me thusly, it's typically white males telling me they don't treat me differently, instantaneously invalidating my experiences because it doesn't fit well into your happy little world view.

I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .

I'll have a look at the link - but I fail to see why you think I'm invalidating your experiences, any more than I'm invalidating my friends' experiences when we meet over a pint. Being gay is part of them: it's not all of them.
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Hiro's Leap: Yes, this claim has been made here and often.

As for predominately black churches, I think that the only major issue that might separate some of them from white liberal churches is sexuality.

However, I should have clarified that I was writing more specifically about Episcopalians/Anglicans in the US, which takes the African-American churches pretty much out of the issue. Since this thread is about the American Episcopal Church (happy, all of you who hate the term "TEC"?), the comment was intended to be focused there.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Hiro's Leap: Yes, this claim has been made here and often.

Oh, OK. Has it been made in this thread? It's not something I've noticed.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Fulcrum?! [Eek!] Since when did Fulcrum do "their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA" do anything, never mind "ravage the Episcopal Church."? [....]
And their published statements are opposed to the ACNA, GAFCON, CANA and so on.

Sorry, it hasn't come across that way. AFAIK Fulcrum has pretty consistently supported ACNA/CANA -- but in the US (only) -- defending these groups as refugia for the "persecuted orthodox" of North America.

They just haven't supported an extension(i.e. FOCA) to the UK. Granted, that nuance means a good bit to their position within the Church of England, but it means very little to a Yank.

More: Fulcrum has consistently called for disciplining TEC and/or removing TEC from the Communion. They have never varied in this, no matter what TEC said or did in response. Each time we complied with a demand, a fresh and harsher demand was made. We complied with the Windsor Report -- all right, but Windsor doesn't matter. We agreed to delegated episcopal oversight -- not good enough. We agreed (via B033) not to bring forward any more gay or lesbian candidates for bishop -- not enough, we were told we could not ordain gay or lesbian priests as well. (Memo to evos: Let's see you do the same in the C of E first, eh?)

The goalposts were constantly being moved for the Episcopal Church. One humiliation after another visited on us.

The last straw for me came when Tom Wright declared he could not accept TEC in the Communion even if TEC signed the Anglican Covenant, because we couldn't possibly mean it even if we did. After that there was really no reason to wish to continue in Communion with the Church of England; it was clearly an entire futile and useless wish.
 
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :
 
Except I've noticed that, with respect to white American liberals, sexuality trumps everything, even traditional liberal issues like affordable housing, racial equality, higher government spending on the social net, and so on. Around my neck of the woods, white liberals are now treating all black churches that take traditional positions on "sex and gender" related issues as if they were the mirror image of Coral Ridge Presbyterian, even though clearly they are not.

A couple of other deviations from the liberal party line amongst black voters are immigration (anti) and vouchers for private and parochial schools...at least those black voters that are not beholden to teacher unions.

As I've said before, one of the dirty little secrets in American culture is the personal antipathy between African immigrants and black Americans (descendants of slaves). The latter see the former as a threat to their economic security (and snobbish). The former perceive the latter as little better than savages. But, in the case of the affluent mainline Protestant American blacks, like Episcopalians, the "savage vs. the civilized" perceptions are reversed!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[qb]I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .

I'm more than a little bemused. Something tells me that if I moved to Mexico City or Shanghai, my 'white male privilege' would be shown to be nothing more than the result of belonging to the existing culture. Many of McIntosh's 'daily effects' are simply that.

I can assure you that as a Teaching Assistant (low-pay, low-status job, usually done by women) in a Primary school (predominantly led and taught by women - I'm one of three male teaching staff out of about 20) in an incredibly white-bread area (something like 98% white British), the chances of opening any text book or reading book and seeing all-white faces is approaching zero. Likewise TV, Radio, newspapers, sports, music... I simply don't recognise the world she describes.

You'd say that was part of the problem, I guess. I'd say that treating all people fairly, equally, without prejudice is just part of being a decent human being.

Or it's just a pond difference. Britain has changed dramatically over the last four decades.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
There was a survey about the relationship between religion and politics in the US a few years ago (just after Bush was re-elected, IIRC). Basically there is a strong correlation between conservative evangelical religion and politics somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan among one subset of the population. Among another subset of the population conservative evangelical religion mapped across to being in favour of truth, justice and the common person.

The punchline is that the good con evos were black and the con evos lining up with the party of war, torture and ignorance were - yep, you guessed it - white. So the generalisation that conservative religion = lunatic teabagger doesn't actually work for the whole population of the US, it works for white Americans. So all the 'oh so inclusive' types who've been plugging that particular stereotype ought to consider that they've managed to give an account of the relationship between religion and politics in the US that ignores black people and extrapolated it to the rest of the world.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.

I asked for statements by Reform and Anglican Mainstream that demonstrated support for liberal and progressive positions. I was told there would be none because(apparently) both are single-issue pressure groups, and not in the least concerned with environmental issues, poverty, global warming, and so forth.

So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality? Merely because one or two of them on this board threaten to get out the big stick if I don't believe them?

Name-calling won't do. Let's have evidence. I know of one who proclaims himself a Socialist; are there any others?

[Note for the gray-haired: Many of us can remember when the Left, particularly the Marxist Left, was as homophobic and misogynistic as the Right, if not more so. Stalinists promoted wholesome family values; Raymond Williams, no Stalinist, fell foul of British feminists for his (as he came to admit) troglodyte attitudes. It isn't evidence of this kind I'm looking for, just in case I really need to make that clear.]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.

I'd like evidence for your ridiculous claims that Fulcrum has done anything other than oppose ACNA, CANA and other initiatives.

I think there are one or two pond differences. Firstly, what do you mean by 'con evo'? It's a term that seems to be thrown about with increasing regularity and I never know quite what is meant by it. Secondly, I don't think that evangelicals who run credit unions, soup kitchens, campaign for the forgiveness of third world debt would see their support for such initiatives as 'liberal' or 'progressive', or even 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'. There's a long tradition in British evangelicalism of social action. Remember Wilbeforce, Shaftesbury, the Clapham sect etc.

quote:
So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality? Merely because one or two of them on this board threaten to get out the big stick if I don't believe them?
You're the one making assertions with absolutely no evidence. Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

And who on earth is threatening the big stick?
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I asked for statements by Reform and Anglican Mainstream that demonstrated support for liberal and progressive positions. I was told there would be none because(apparently) both are single-issue pressure groups, and not in the least concerned with environmental issues, poverty, global warming, and so forth.

No, you were told that they didn't release statements because that wasn't their business. I happen to be a member of the Cycle Touring Club, do you expect them to release statements representing my view on religion or politics? If not, why do you expect AM/Reform to be different?

quote:
So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality?
Well why shouldn't you believe it, you've got no evidence to the contrary. The only evidence you've got is the testimony of several British evangelicals. If you want more, I could point you to the values of An evangelical house church network I know. I could point you at national charities such as A Rocha, Tearfund, Besom, Christians Against Poverty and many more. I could point you at The Campaigns page of the Evangelical Alliance.

On the other hand, you could just accept what you've already heard.

[x posted with Spawn]

[ 09. December 2009, 20:30: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.

Anecdotally...

When I was an evangelical, most of the people I knew at church were conservative about sexual morality - including being anti-homosexuality. Their views on other social issues differed widely though, and in general I'd say were slightly left-wing.

Similarly, the teaching at those churches was always conservative about sex, but this didn't correlate to being generally right-wing at all. For one thing, they were very early promoters of Fair Trade.

The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I can kinda see why Rowan has taken the conservative side time after time. The US Church has far less to worry about in terms of an internal schism. Sure, a few dioceses have split away, but all in all I really doubt more than a tiny fraction will leave. So we have time to worry about external schism. The English Church does not have that situation. An internal schism, a huge one, is looming over Rowan's head. While the liberals are quite used to sucking it up, the conservatives literally pour over his every word looking for things to split over.

So perhaps his pandering to GAFCON and gang is more about preventing a schism in his own province than even bothering to find a fair settlement in the Communion, or calling the conservatives to task in how they've fallen short of the Gospel themselves.

Zach
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Were that what's going on, Zach, it would just be further mendacity and moral cowerdice on Cantuar's part.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Alogon - thanks for the link. The rise of the religious right into American politics has been a bit of a closed book to me, and maybe that book might help the process of illumination. I'll order it. Is it reasonably comprehensive - any other titles that might help?

The other two with which I am familiar are Stealing Jesus by Bruce Bawer, and American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips. The Phillips book seems to me to have three separate sections dealing with three separate topics which he hardly tries to relate to one another (and only one relating to the religious right), but they're all informative.

Blumenthal interprets the scene using the psychology presented by Erich Fromm in reference to Nazi Germany. The resemblances in mentality are sobering.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

So perhaps his pandering to GAFCON and gang is more about preventing a schism in his own province than even bothering to find a fair settlement in the Communion, or calling the conservatives to task in how they've fallen short of the Gospel themselves.

Zach

This isn't about GAFCON or any other acronym. I think it is about the ABC refusing to the allow extremes of the debate dictate the centre. And, when viewing Anglicanism as a whole, both GAFCON and TEC are on the extremes. In the middle there are many people of differing opinions and convictions trying to walk through with grace.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
This isn't about GAFCON or any other acronym. I think it is about the ABC refusing to the allow extremes of the debate dictate the centre. And, when viewing Anglicanism as a whole, both GAFCON and TEC are on the extremes. In the middle there are many people of differing opinions and convictions trying to walk through with grace
I call shenanigans: How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?

Zach
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I call shenanigans: How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?

Zach

It would be if that is what he said, but he didn't. He did observe that ignoring the moratorium and process will lead to further difficulties. Which it will.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
There is an American perception (among the few who bother to think about it) that the only thing holding the various elements of the C. of E. together is Establishment.

That may be a misperception on the part of Americans, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting them. Certainly, Americans are aware that there are those in England who greeted the news of this election with a joy as great as that of the Diocese of L.A.

So when we hear talk of disestablishment, we tend to wonder what parts of the Church of England would remain in communion with each other...

On the other hand, I've never been thrilled with the term "in communion" anyway--the fact remains that if Spawn or Matt Black or Ken or Aumbry or any other Shipmate on ANY side of the question presented themselves at the altar of any TEC church for communion, they would be served with gladness. As a gay man I probably wouldn't find a welcome in Matt's or Spawn's church, but I could certainly find C. of E. congregations which would be happy to have me there. I don't see that that will change.

Any of the former Episcopalians in the break-away churches who came for communion would be welcome in TEC. I have no doubt I would be welcome in their churches if I was willing to be closeted again--there ARE gays in their churches, just as there are (probably) gays in every Evangelical church of any size in the UK (though many in the congregations probably don't realize it).
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

I do not know how much influence Inclusive Church has in the Church of England, however.

So you finally admit that you know very little about the groups within the CofE? Hallelujah!

I heard they had their latest AGM in a phone box. Given that relatively influential over a group of people who included the previous Monmouth incarnation of +Rowan.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
They're only the same thing, ian. What you think the moratorium is? How is it not giving the conservatives precisely what they wanted? Name a single scrap that Williams has given the liberals this whole time.

Zach
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
but my Give-a-damn-o-meter™ is barely flickering.

Ummh, posting on this thread shows that you do care. [Roll Eyes]

This is not rocket science. ECUSA has overthrown the traditional stance of the Anglican Communion on homosexuality. Whether they were right to do so or not gets us into the territory of a DH. But that they have done so is simply a matter of fact.

If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

One of the absurd (just one, there are many) aspects to this debate is how many people get so uptight over something they don't care about.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?

I wouldn't be, but who the fuck did that? Not the Archbishop of Canterbury. I still don't see where you all are getting this shit from.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
That's all good, johnny, so long as you are willing to admit that the conservatives are just as hung up about it themselves if they are willing to banish their sister Church from the table about it.

Zach
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
They're only the same thing, ian. What you think the moratorium is? How is it not giving the conservatives precisely what they wanted? Name a single scrap that Williams has given the liberals this whole time.

Zach

Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( [Biased] ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( [Yipee] ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I meant "It wouldn't be" of course.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?

I wouldn't be, but who the fuck did that? Not the Archbishop of Canterbury. I still don't see where you all are getting this shit from.
We elected a gay bishop. The conservatives don't like that. So, he says, we are endangering the communion. Is it really that much of a leap, then, to conclude that the only proposed thing we can do to prevent schism is to give in to conservative demands?

Zach
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( [Biased] ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( [Yipee] ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.

... and how is a complete moratorium on ordaining gay bishops not giving the conservatives their way?

Zach
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend. [/QB]
Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently?
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

I do not know how much influence Inclusive Church has in the Church of England, however.

So you finally admit that you know very little about the groups within the CofE? Hallelujah!
Oh dear must now point out the gentle irony and polite demurral to one who by virtue of his pond side claims knowledge of same by birthright. Or just say out loud that you were in a hurry to score points and were therefore tone deaf and misunderstood. Sorry.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
There is an American perception (among the few who bother to think about it) that the only thing holding the various elements of the C. of E. together is Establishment.

That may be a misperception on the part of Americans, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting them. Certainly, Americans are aware that there are those in England who greeted the news of this election with a joy as great as that of the Diocese of L.A.

So when we hear talk of disestablishment, we tend to wonder what parts of the Church of England would remain in communion with each other...

On the other hand, I've never been thrilled with the term "in communion" anyway--the fact remains that if Spawn or Matt Black or Ken or Aumbry or any other Shipmate on ANY side of the question presented themselves at the altar of any TEC church for communion, they would be served with gladness. As a gay man I probably wouldn't find a welcome in Matt's or Spawn's church, but I could certainly find C. of E. congregations which would be happy to have me there. I don't see that that will change.

Any of the former Episcopalians in the break-away churches who came for communion would be welcome in TEC. I have no doubt I would be welcome in their churches if I was willing to be closeted again--there ARE gays in their churches, just as there are (probably) gays in every Evangelical church of any size in the UK (though many in the congregations probably don't realize it).

I don't think many Americans understand the CofE, or the English way of life at large, unless they have lived in middle England (not London), and possibly not even then. Most of the CofE is not affiliated to any of the pressure groups. The silent majority are the majority.

As the nature of establishment evolves, the CofE will evolve. I really don't think a big split is inevitable. If anything the CofE could become more united depending on how certain other issues with Rome and women bishops play out.

I agree with you about 'in communion'. You would be very welcome to receive communion in the CofE, and indeed in most protestant churches in England. The only churches that would deny you communion would be Rome, Orthodoxy and a very few closed brethren or baptist churches (and you almost certainly wouldn't go there anyway.)

There would be some evangelical churches that would expect celibacy at certain lay leadership positions, but other than that the CofE would welcome you with open arms whatever happens in the USA. The CofE is not the same as TEC in variety of churchmanship, so you would in practice probably not go to a lot of its churches regularly.

While obviously there are gays in many CofE churches they are not normally as loud about being out as perhaps they would be in TEC, but then English people aren't normally as loud about anything as Americans are.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( [Biased] ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( [Yipee] ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.

... and how is a complete moratorium on ordaining gay bishops not giving the conservatives their way?

Zach

Well ... I would hazard a guess that the clue is in the word moratorium (actually, you can't have a complete moratorium - it either is one or isn't. Using the word 'complete' doesn't make it sound any more draconian). A time to wait, pray, talk and consider. That is not what the extreme wings of the conservatives want. They don't want to listen (or think!).
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Well ... I would hazard a guess that the clue is in the word moratorium (blah blah blah...). A time to wait, pray, talk and consider. That is not what the extreme wings of the conservatives want. They don't want to listen (or think!).
And if you will recall, we agreed to it and obeyed it until pretty recently. And the conservatives continued to set up competing jurisdictions with complete impunity. I am failing to see the fairness in this yet. Where is the middle way again?

Zach
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
but my Give-a-damn-o-meter™ is barely flickering.

Ummh, posting on this thread shows that you do care. [Roll Eyes]
I care that some of my fellow Christians get their knickers in a twist over it, and are prepared to act like loons. That Mary Glasspool is a lesbian? Not bothered.
quote:
This is not rocket science. ECUSA has overthrown the traditional stance of the Anglican Communion on homosexuality. Whether they were right to do so or not gets us into the territory of a DH. But that they have done so is simply a matter of fact.

Overthrown is overstating the case. Doing in the open what the CofE (and probably other Anglican churches) have been doing on the quiet for years, if not centuries - I agree.

quote:
If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

[Confused]

quote:
One of the absurd (just one, there are many) aspects to this debate is how many people get so uptight over something they don't care about.

The thing is, you're confusing caring about whether gays get to wear the pointy hat with caring about what happens to the Anglican Communion. I care about the latter much more than I care about the former. Now, it might be that the AC is broken beyond anyone's ability to repair it, simply because there are enough others who put their priorities the other way up.

But for me, I like being in the CofE, and I like that I'm part of an international network of loosely-federated autonomous national churches. I think it brings more to the table than just a different range of snacks at parties.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Grammatica - you may also want to check out the writings of John Stott, who has for many years been seen as one of the doyens of English Evangelicalism of a distinctly conservative theological bent.

(for example this one)

It seems very, very difficult to get the message through that the American way is not the universal way. It may of course become that way if you persist hard enough, though if it does you will have succeeded in re-exporting your unique form of puritanism back, centuries after we thought we had got rid of it. Sigh.

(ETA - Alogon - many thanks for the links - will try to check them out tomorrow.)

[ 09. December 2009, 22:05: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Grammatica - you may also want to check out the writings of John Stott, who has for many years been seen as one of the doyens of English Evangelicalism of a distinctly conservative theological bent.

(for example this one)

Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship." He is quite important to conservative evangelicals in the US -- the Southern Baptist Convention, for example. Many, but not all, of his followers extend his ban on female "headship" to all secular contexts; all do agree there can be no women in positions of leadership in religious organizations or families. This does not strike me as an especially progressive outlook. As I mentioned earlier, however, there was a time when left-wing views co-existed quite happily with misogyny and the Stalinist version of "family values." So perhaps there are still some in the religious organizations who see themselves as socially progressive, while continuing to hold very retrogressive views of women's abilities and capacities. They may see no contradiction here, but I do.

But somehow, I think the main line of argument here has been getting confused, and confused in an interesting way.

We in the US church have been saying that, yes, we are now departing the Anglican Communion. We welcome openly gay and lesbian persons and allow them to serve in church positions. You in the Church of England will not tolerate that and do not wish to be in communion with us unless we change our ways. Well, we are not going to, so we are departing.

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Why isn't it?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Which leaves those of us who aren't in either ECUSA or the CofE, but are a part of a disintegrating communion, in a fascinating position. If push came to shove I suspect the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/NZ would swim to join ECUSA, while the Australian Anglicans would swim to Canterbury. Of the rest of the Europeanized, white Anglican world, I can't surmise.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend.

Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently? [/QB]
Don't think so. Are you thinking of the Ang Mainstream/CMS/Greenbelt controversy?
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.

Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend.

Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently?

Don't think so. Are you thinking of the Ang Mainstream/CMS/Greenbelt controversy? [/QB]
No, Tearfund -- similar problem, though. You can explain both situations in detail if you like. As I understand it, both Tearfund and Greenbelt were suspected of being "soft on gays" and threatened with withdrawal of support. Pretty clear evidence there of evangelicals' priorities.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship."

I think his view on headship was a bit more nuanced than you give credit for. He was after all in favour of women's ordination.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship."

I think his view on headship was a bit more nuanced than you give credit for. He was after all in favour of women's ordination.
But only in subordinate roles. Not that nuanced, in other words.

Among the Southern Baptists, a woman can teach boys in Sunday School, but not teenage males, and certainly not men. This is how they interpret "headship."
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
So perhaps there are still some in the religious organizations who see themselves as socially progressive, while continuing to hold very retrogressive views of women's abilities and capacities.

You're probably right about headship. Evangelicals didn't lead the way in gay or women's equality issues: at best they seemed to jump aboard after the issues were accepted by wider society.

Last weekend I met an old friend, a very committed conservative evangelical. His views include...
He's not all that different to other evangelicals I've known: some are relatively right-wing, some are left-wing, and many are uninterested in political issues. There are a wide range of views on different issues and these don't correspond neatly with US divisions.

(To be fair, my friend also complained that many evangelicals over here are becoming more right-wing. It seems to be nowhere near as monolithic as in the US though.)
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Interesting, HL. I sincerely doubt that any American con-evo would be so concerned about global warming. Though to be fair, Albert Mohler, a prominent American evo, has expressed what I would characterize as mild concern about global warming, a concern that he admitted in a 2007 commentary was not typical of most evangelicals.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Googling "Tearfund gay", the most relevant hit I could find was this 2 year old relic from the Wycliffe Hall fiasco, by that well known impartial news source Ekklesia, which somehow manages to link Elaine Storkey in her former Wycliffe role, her position in Tearfund, and the LGCM who were having a whine at the time. Grammatica couldn't possibly be scraping the barrel for ammunition, could she?

I suggest everyone looks at the (British evangelical) Third Way magazine website. How much of that looks like a Tory party pamphlet?

On the John Stott issue, the point being made upthread was precisely that he does indeed hold some views that are repugnant to Grammatica et al and yet is progressive in other areas, thus disproving her pathetic whinge about the hardly-existent religious right in the UK. What are we arguing about here?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Grammatica writes:
quote:
ISTM that the opposition to gay rights is drawn from roughly the same social groupings in the US and the UK. In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.

Granted, the UK is much more secular than the US, but the small percentage of your society that still attends church is attending a church that is vocally opposed to gay rights and claims an exception to the anti-discrimination laws for itself. So how different can the constituencies really be?

Thankfully, we are far more confused than this in Canada. The majority church is fairly leftwing in its politics, but is opposed to gay marriage rights, although most of its attendees support gay marriage rights, even if not in church.

Supporters of the centre and sort-of-sometimes-leftwing Liberals support gay marriage rights, unless they are visible minority immigrants, in which case they tend to oppose them (Conservative activists are beginning to take advantage of this).

Most New Democrats, as far as I can figure out, are strong supporters of gay rights, aside from many of the Muslism supporters.

The Conservatives would rather oppose gay marriage rights and even tried, half-heartedly, to revoke them a few years ago. This gang is the only place where the US culture wars and evangelical=rightwing happens. Even so, many of the Tories' evangelical supporters are strong supporters of 3d-world aid and socially progressive measures for aborginal Canadians.

Churchgoing Anglicans are a fairly small percentage and, with an Erastian past, are generally happy/resigned to support gay marriage rights because Parliament has said so. Most of the separating group (Anglican Network in Canada, but I think they have a new name now), many of whom I know, are diverse in their politics. Some take the line that gay marriage is fine, but not in Anglican churches.

Attempts at achieving a coherent connexion between belief and politics is not very easy for Christians in Canada. I think it is simpler for Muslims but I don't think that my Shi'ite or Sunni friends spend a lot of time thinking about the Archbishop of Canterbury's position on the topic. I hope that this hasn't been too much of a tangent, but I wanted to note that Grammatica's equation is not universally valid.

Eh? Whose the "Majority Church"? [Confused]

If you mean the Roman Catholics, then their doctrine and teaching on homosexuality is clear. While the laity may and do hold contrary views, this is irrelevant to the official position. Of course, this movie is seen worldwide.

Next down the size list, the position of the United Church of Canada is also clear. Per the 32nd General Council in 1988, homosexuality is not a bar to membership or ordination in the United Church. Local congregations are completely free to not call an openly gay minister, and this does happen. Our polity requires no special structure for this.

The Anglican Church of Canada's position is up in the air right now, though I would note that since the 1988 decision in the United Church many of our anti-gay party left for other churches, including the Anglicans. This reinforced the ACC's anti-gay party. I was informed of this by an Anglican priest who is a friend of mine.

Since Canada has such a small number of mainline churches, church affiliation does not map onto party affiliation.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
All right, I'm going to try this one more time, though I got absolutely nowhere with my previous queries.

I want to make it clear that I am simply testing a hypothesis about conservative evangelicals in the UK. Just evaluate it please. No defensiveness needed; I want to see where the chips fall.

ISTM that it was quite possible, forty or fifty years ago, to be progressive in politics but still hold views that today would be considered extremely retrograde, with respect to the position of women and certainly with respect to gay and lesbian persons. Many a committed Marxist of that time believed in some version of complementarity, even in separate spheres for men and women. When contemporary second-wave feminism began to appear in the late 1960s, many a committed Marxist viewed it as a distraction from the real struggle; a bourgeois preoccupation or worse.

This sort of view, however, would now be considered very retrogressive. I'm not saying there aren't (still) many otherwise progressive men who don't "get" feminism, but few progressives now would be willing openly to oppose it. Likewise, while even twenty years ago many progressives would have scoffed at gay rights, that also has changed, and changed dramatically.

However, these changes have not taken place among British evangellicals, who hold on to the viewpoints of the progressives of forty or fifty years ago. I wonder why, but I do have a theory:

As I am beginning to understand British conservative evangelicals, their thinking seems to me to resemble very closely the British Marxists and New Leftists of the previous generation. It isn't the same as the thinking of an American biblical literalist. Evangelicals, like Marxists, can be literate and sophisticated in their thinking. But both groups have a need to pull everything that might possibly be proposed, learned, discovered, thought, back to a pre-existing, fixed, and fully authoritative body of scripture.

Whatever the proposition is, if if it can't be clearly expounded out of a place in Marx, Engels, or Lenin, then, whatever it is, it has to be discarded, no matter how much experience and reason might seem to speak for it. If it can't be tied in securely with that pre-existing body of authoritative writings, then it would be opportunistic or worse to accept it. There were not a few, especially in New Left circles years ago, who would have wanted to see women's issues become a matter of concern, but to the committed Marxist, if feminism couldn't be tied back into Marx, then, with whatever regrets, feminism would have to be left off the agenda.

Now this does seem to me to be very much the conservative evangelical approach, with (of course) the Bible taking the place of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

[ 10. December 2009, 01:37: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I care that some of my fellow Christians get their knickers in a twist over it, and are prepared to act like loons. That Mary Glasspool is a lesbian? Not bothered.

[Confused] In which case I'm struggling to read your response in any way that says the AC has any meaning to you at all?

I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.


quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Overthrown is overstating the case. Doing in the open what the CofE (and probably other Anglican churches) have been doing on the quiet for years, if not centuries - I agree.

[Ultra confused]

As an argument that is weak - the church has turned a blind eye to many things in the past (e.g. slavery), that is hardly a reason (in and of itself) to overthrow a traditional stance on morality. All it shows is that the church is full of hypocrites ... rather like the rest of humanity.

But as an argument to conservatives it is especially weak - the traditionalists case is built on a desire to remove hypocrisy in the first place. Saying things like, "I wish conservatives were as bothered by ... divorce / doctrinal orthodoxy etc." is actually playing into their hands. The only response you'll get is ... "Now you mention it ..."

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The thing is, you're confusing caring about whether gays get to wear the pointy hat with caring about what happens to the Anglican Communion. I care about the latter much more than I care about the former. Now, it might be that the AC is broken beyond anyone's ability to repair it, simply because there are enough others who put their priorities the other way up.

But for me, I like being in the CofE, and I like that I'm part of an international network of loosely-federated autonomous national churches. I think it brings more to the table than just a different range of snacks at parties.

Then, again, you seem to have a very individualistic notion of the AC. Your involvement seems to be entirely on your terms.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

No - I think you are still being somewhat simplistic.

Firstly, what you mean by conservatives. Do you mean the Church Society/English CHurchman tyoe? Or, going slightly broader the Reform/UCCF sort? Or perhaps all evanglicals who would hold to biblical innerancy would be considered 'conservative' which would then also stretch to groups such as Anglican Mainstream, New Wine, (perhaps) Fulcrum etc.

I am thinking you mean the latter of these, but aplogies if you don't. In this case you are still being too simplistic. You will find, in an average congregation of average size (which is, if I recall the research, about 120) a mixture of opinions. E.g. some will be Marxist, some 'wet' Tory, some 'dry' Tory, some Lib Dem centre-left, some New Labour centre-right, some will be what Philip Blond recently labelled 'red tory' (not the same as the Canadian thing) - which is really Distributist on the right and anarcho-syndicalist on the left.

You will find some wanting greater state-aid for development, some wanting more church income sent, some wanting all buildings sold, some wanting all buildings used for social activities, some more sacramentalist about buildings.

You will find most churches will be Fairtrade in policy, most members will be the same at home. Environmental action will be considered essential. Stop the Traffik and other initiatives against people trafficking, exploitative working conditions and bonded labour will be stringly supported, as was Drop the Debt (on developing world debt) and Make Poverty History before them. Many members will be strongly involved in their local community (such as School Governors, scout/guide leaders, homeless shelters, help the aged, after school clubs, breakfast clubs etc) not to convert people but to 'make a difference'.

Con Evos as defined above will be both diverse and socially progressive. Many will see Shaftesbury, Wilberforce et al as their spiritual and social forebears. But I don't think they can be defined through some sort of psycological explanation for their religious conviction. I may not agree with them on everything, but I don't think them flawed for the way they think.
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
Can someone explain how come the U.C ELCA Lutherans are so pro-gay priests/marriage? I always thought of them as conservative, so their open position really pleases me.
Lutherans are worldwide, look at Sweden, though Kenya objects...are they better off for not having a n Archbishop
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

No - I think you are still being somewhat simplistic.

Firstly, what you mean by conservatives. Do you mean the Church Society/English CHurchman tyoe? Or, going slightly broader the Reform/UCCF sort? Or perhaps all evanglicals who would hold to biblical innerancy would be considered 'conservative' which would then also stretch to groups such as Anglican Mainstream, New Wine, (perhaps) Fulcrum etc.

I am thinking you mean the latter of these, but aplogies if you don't. In this case you are still being too simplistic. You will find, in an average congregation of average size (which is, if I recall the research, about 120) a mixture of opinions. E.g. some will be Marxist, some 'wet' Tory, some 'dry' Tory, some Lib Dem centre-left, some New Labour centre-right, some will be what Philip Blond recently labelled 'red tory' (not the same as the Canadian thing) - which is really Distributist on the right and anarcho-syndicalist on the left.

You will find some wanting greater state-aid for development, some wanting more church income sent, some wanting all buildings sold, some wanting all buildings used for social activities, some more sacramentalist about buildings.

You will find most churches will be Fairtrade in policy, most members will be the same at home. Environmental action will be considered essential. Stop the Traffik and other initiatives against people trafficking, exploitative working conditions and bonded labour will be stringly supported, as was Drop the Debt (on developing world debt) and Make Poverty History before them. Many members will be strongly involved in their local community (such as School Governors, scout/guide leaders, homeless shelters, help the aged, after school clubs, breakfast clubs etc) not to convert people but to 'make a difference'.

Con Evos as defined above will be both diverse and socially progressive. Many will see Shaftesbury, Wilberforce et al as their spiritual and social forebears. But I don't think they can be defined through some sort of psycological explanation for their religious conviction. I may not agree with them on everything, but I don't think them flawed for the way they think.

This is precisely how I see the UK evo scene as well. I think it is true of both the conservative and the "open" traditions. On the narrower subjects of gay clergy and the role of women in the church, I think you would find much shoulder shrugging, at least amongst the footsoldiers. The view that "we shouldn't be obsessed with sex when there are far more important issues like the evangelisation of our neigbours/social justive issues/global warming on which to concentrate" is pretty common. I recognise this si in itself scant comfort to those who do feel marginalised because of their gender or their sexuality, but it certainly isn't evidence of a doctrinaire right wing approach to these issues.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.

You've inadvertently diagnosed, for me, precisely the "illness" of the Anglican Communion at present. Of course, the problem is precisely that some are bothered and others not. Liberals' failure to be "bothered" isn't any kind of evidence about our attitude towards the problem - it is, in conjunction with the corresponding objections of conservatives, the problem. Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians. But it would be just as much begging the question as your comment. Somehow, though, the conservative position has become the default one, the one singularly deserving of "accomodation," and the benchmark of loyalty to the Communion.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

Yes, if they were really sincere about no longer viewing homosexuality as a sin, they would continue to condemn it as a sin. That's not silly at all.

[ 10. December 2009, 08:06: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
All right, I'm going to try this one more time, though I got absolutely nowhere with my previous queries.

I think the problem is the terms you are using. Words like 'progressive' and 'reactionary' would simply be irrelevant to most UK evangelicals. From this side of the pond we're trying to say that there isn't the same phenomenon of the religious right that you have in the US. That isn't to say that there are no examples of such fundamentalism - Christian Voice spring immediately to mind. Neither is it to say that evangelicals tick all the boxes in Grammatica's checklist of what makes a 'progressive'.

Frankly, there's always been a tendency among catholics, evangelicals and liberals to define too rigidly - those who are 'sound' and 'unsound', those who are 'progessive' and 'reactionary' - with regard to hot-button issues.

BTW, I do now recall the Tearfund controversy over an association with ++Desmond Tutu. You must try to understand that only a small grouping were involved in this controversy - the majority of us continue to support the work of Tearfund.

BTW 2, I don't think that John Stott's thinking gives rise to women only being able to teach boys in the Southern Baptist tradition. Stott thinks that headship, rules out women being in charge of a team of male clergy. In other words, they can teach a mixed congregation but they can't be team rector, archdeacon or bishop. In fact, his reinterpretation of headship in the 1970s/80s was a halfway stage to many evangelicals becoming fully supportive of women's ordination.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Sorry to double-post, but I have asked Grammatica a question previously and received no answer: What is a 'con evo' or a conservative evangelical? The increasing usage of such terms is confusing. Is it an attempt to define evangelicals in terms of one issue only.

It makes me think that it is not really the evangelicals who are obsessed with sex but their critics.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Who is "you" here?
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.

Sure. But unless you have a system like that in California where people get to vote on single issues, in practice they tend to line up with political liberals.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

It depends how you define "orthodox"; the concept of a Bishop in the USA who is responsible for a clutch of geographically dispersed parishes and who in turn is supervised by a primate in another continent and NOT by the primate in the area where he is based (although there is one there, in communion with the ABC) does not fit what I would call "orthodox Anglicanism".
<shrug>It seems similar in doctrine and practice to the CofE place I attend.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I can kinda see why Rowan has taken the conservative side time after time. The US Church has far less to worry about in terms of an internal schism. Sure, a few dioceses have split away, but all in all I really doubt more than a tiny fraction will leave. So we have time to worry about external schism. The English Church does not have that situation. An internal schism, a huge one, is looming over Rowan's head. While the liberals are quite used to sucking it up, the conservatives literally pour over his every word looking for things to split over.

So perhaps his pandering to GAFCON and gang is more about preventing a schism in his own province than even bothering to find a fair settlement in the Communion, or calling the conservatives to task in how they've fallen short of the Gospel themselves.

Zach

There are, what, thirty eight provinces in the Anglican communion. I guess that Canada, South Africa, one of the Latin American provinces, Scotland and Wales would be reasonably comfortable with the consecration of +Robinson and +Glasspool (pending). That leaves thirty two provinces that are less than ecstatic about the whole thing.

But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending) this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

Do you have any idea how up yourselves you are all beginning to sound?

[ 10. December 2009, 08:57: Message edited by: Gildas ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians.

[Confused] I'm not an Anglican, so it is quite possible that I've missed something here, but I don't see how conservatives are unbothered by Lambeth I.10.

I thought conservatives were asking ECUSA to uphold Lambeth I.10?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.

You're in danger of a "there goes the neighbourhood" argument. I'm committed to my local community - but if a bunch of say, Afghani refugees move in and my neighbours throw up their hands in horror, am I to say "yes, something must be done!" or "get a bloody grip!"


quote:
[Ultra confused]

As an argument that is weak - the church has turned a blind eye to many things in the past (e.g. slavery), that is hardly a reason (in and of itself) to overthrow a traditional stance on morality. All it shows is that the church is full of hypocrites ... rather like the rest of humanity.

Bzzzt. I think you meant to say supported slavery and had slaves of their own. That's a pretty big reason to overthrow the traditional stance on slavery. I could go on with the analogy, but that's DH territory. You get the picture.

quote:
Then, again, you seem to have a very individualistic notion of the AC. Your involvement seems to be entirely on your terms.
Er, no. You could, and others are, argue that it's the traditionalists who only want an AC on their terms, otherwise they'll split. I'm happy with an AC that contains both Glasspool and Orombi. I'd be happier if he wasn't suggesting a pogrom on homosexuals in his own country, but hey.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.

It depends how you define "orthodox"; the concept of a Bishop in the USA who is responsible for a clutch of geographically dispersed parishes and who in turn is supervised by a primate in another continent and NOT by the primate in the area where he is based (although there is one there, in communion with the ABC) does not fit what I would call "orthodox Anglicanism".
<shrug>It seems similar in doctrine and practice to the CofE place I attend.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I think before you prepare yourself to greet your new CANA overlords, Matt, you might want to consider that when the invitations to Lambeth were dished out +Minns was made to sit in the naughty corner (along with +Robinson and that bloke from Zim who wasn't allowed into the country for being a crony of Mr Mugabe) on the explicit grounds that his parking his tanks on TEC's lawn was not on. So I think Grammatica's idea that we are just going to declare ourselves out of communion with TEC and recognise CANA as the Anglican Church of the US overnight may be just a little bit far fetched.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending) this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

Well, when you frame it in straw man terms like that it's fairly easy to shoot down ECUSA. And, if we were talking about "factoring in," you would be right. But since we're instead talking about trying to pass off a complete overthrow of historic Anglican polity and provincial autonomy as mere recognition of pre-exising relationship, I can't imagine which Archbishop of Canterbury or which Anglican Communion you have in mind with your comment. It can't be the ++Rowan who is trying to convince us that an Anglican Covenant is something we've somehow implicitly agreed to all along, or the Communion that is seeing a shift away from its prior stance of non-interference in the synodical decisions of national churches.

[Edit: Scratch that. You refer not to the ABC but to a fictional "Primate of the Anglican Communion." In that case I've no idea what personage you have in mind, ++Rowan's ambitions notwithstanding]

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians.

[Confused] I'm not an Anglican, so it is quite possible that I've missed something here, but I don't see how conservatives are unbothered by Lambeth I.10.

I thought conservatives were asking ECUSA to uphold Lambeth I.10?

I was using "not bothered" to mean "in favour of", which is evidently the meaning you were using when describing liberals as "not bothered" by gay bishops. (If not, then I'm not sure what your comment was supposed to mean. That liberals are simply uninterested in the opinions of other Christians?)

[ 10. December 2009, 09:25: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
BTW, I do now recall the Tearfund controversy over an association with ++Desmond Tutu. You must try to understand that only a small grouping were involved in this controversy - the majority of us continue to support the work of Tearfund.

There was also some controversy about Tearfund and Cliff Richard (one of its vice presidents) when he came out in favour of civil partnerships.

On the wider issue, I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand why ++Rowan and ++Sentamu have not spoken openly against the Ugandan bill.* I gather that it would be seen in Uganda as proof of the corruption of the west, but they think that anyway and it would go a long way to reassure many of us in the West. I'm with the Rt Revd Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol on this one. He said at a recent diocesan synod, “Whatever view we take of the issues on the human-sexuality de­bate, this piece of legislation is so pernicious and so unpleasant, that I hope that Chris­tians on both sides of the debate would stand as one and say that this is unacceptable.”

According to Giles Fraser, he is on the more conservative side. Actually, maybe that is the answer -- ++Rowan and ++Sentamu can't speak out because they are already regarded as too liberal on this issue -- what if Reform, Fulcrum and other such bodies came out against this law?

I can see more easily why ++Rowan has called for restraint from those of us who take a more liberal position -- we are changing the position after all. But I can also see that that is incredibly painful for those for whom this is a pressing issue -- it's easy for me to be restrained on this issue because I'm straight, but harder for me to be restrained on women's ordination because I'm a woman!

Somehow we have to learn to communicate again. I think there is a strong theological case for the liberal position, but that because we've tended to talk in terms of rights and justice the more conservative haven't heard it theologically and they need to hear that.

But I do also wish that there could be more honesty about the matter in the CofE and CinW. I know someone who was advised she could go on to ordination as long as she was prepared to be discreet (i.e. lie) about her partner. Equally, I know of a number of gay priests who are already ordained who are then in a very difficult situation -- especially if a relationship fails.

Carys


*As a Ugandan ++Sentamu would perhaps have more leverage -- or would it just be seen as proof that he's sold out to the west

[ 10. December 2009, 09:50: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
On the wider issue, I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand why ++Rowan and ++Sentamu have not spoken openly against the Ugandan bill.* I gather that it would be seen in Uganda as proof of the corruption of the west, but they think that anyway and it would go a long way to reassure many of us in the West. I'm with the Rt Revd Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol on this one. He said at a recent diocesan synod, “Whatever view we take of the issues on the human-sexuality de­bate, this piece of legislation is so pernicious and so unpleasant, that I hope that Chris­tians on both sides of the debate would stand as one and say that this is unacceptable.”

I also applaud Mike Hill's statement particularly given the links of Bristol Diocese with Uganda. But I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to both ++Williams and ++Sentamu. Public statements might not help their behind-the-scenes efforts to intercede with Ugandan political and religious leaders. I would think they're both working pretty hard to use their influence and can't speak about it for obvious reasons. Over-the-years there've been many examples of Archbishops of Canterbury carrying out unsung work behind-the-scenes which may on the surface not seem to amount to a lot - but it is honest effort with more chance of success than public statements (examples in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine/Pakistan/Liberia, Sudan come to mind).
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Grammatica -

I'm afraid you completely missed my point in citing John Stott. I am neither con. nor evo. I chose him precisely as someone who might fill that description, yet who is passionately committed to international justice and the environment (just to cite two things). You read right past that and went for your selected tick-box item. It's difficult to progress any further.

But to go to another matter - you write
quote:
As I am beginning to understand British conservative evangelicals, their thinking seems to me to resemble very closely the British Marxists and New Leftists of the previous generation. It isn't the same as the thinking of an American biblical literalist. Evangelicals, like Marxists, can be literate and sophisticated in their thinking. But both groups have a need to pull everything that might possibly be proposed, learned, discovered, thought, back to a pre-existing, fixed, and fully authoritative body of scripture.
Whilst I don't agree with your analysis in general, there are some aspects I can agree with. But what is most encouraging is the fact that you attempted to get a revised view of things by reframing the issue. Can we continue on this basis? I don't particularly want to prolong that issue because I don't think it is particularly relevant to matters in hand. It is hardly just evangelicals who are miffed at TEC, and you could finish up down a side alley by thinking it was. Maybe they are the hottest on the presenting issue, but to collapse it to that would be too simplistic.

Assuming that's OK. The point about the way we frame things is relevant because we all do it. You do it, I do it... Within that frame of understanding we include much that we take on trust - unexamined issues which we haven't examined rigorously (if at all). But they are generally settled issues amongst the people we trust. The technical term for such views is prejudices - matters we take to be pre-judged. We all have them - we have to as there just isn't time to analyse absolutely everything.

But we are social animals and conforming to our peer-groups can make us feel over-comfortable with received wisdom. And as the philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out, history usually debunks most received wisdom as wrong anyway.

What I and several others are trying to get over is the need to radically question these world-views. Where do they come from? Why are they worth believing? Why should communities based around them command my allegiance? The repeated use of "conservative", "liberal", "progressive" and so on all pre-suppose a commitment to a world-view widely shared by North Americans. However, those words carry a different load elsewhere. They are all words with multiple valence and there is endless scope for misunderstanding. If everyone who keeps banging on about Conservative this or Liberal that does not stop for a moment to even question why that should even be a meaningful way of looking at things, then understanding will never be achieved.

Just a final point :-
quote:
This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Why isn't it?

Whilst I appreciate this may have been a rhetorical question, I can give you an answer.

What you assume is diametrically opposite to my case. (Others will need to speak for themselves). I am gutted by it all. I have a high view of the church and take most seriously the prayer that we might all be one. Clearly we are not, and that is not the fault of anyone alive today, but if we can work towards re-integration with the great communions and our separated brothers and sisters on the protestant side, I am reasonably content. But I will not do schism. If that happens I shall walk off for a season to consider my options and then present myself elsewhere. You can possibly guess why I am here now.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
There are, what, thirty eight provinces in the Anglican communion. I guess that Canada, South Africa, one of the Latin American provinces, Scotland and Wales would be reasonably comfortable with the consecration of +Robinson and +Glasspool (pending). That leaves thirty two provinces that are less than ecstatic about the whole thing.

But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending)this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

Do you have any idea how up yourselves you are all beginning to sound

As if those other 32 provinces had any business telling the diocese of Los Angeles who their bishop could be. Are saying the Anglican Communion is ruled by mob rule, and a few dissenting provinces should just put up and shut up? Sounds like precisely my point.

My point is more about liberals than Americans. He's held the liberals on his own province down more than any one else. That sure doesn't sound "up myself."

Zach
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Spawn, I reject your equation of quiet, behind the scenes work in long term political processes such as Northern Ireland and Palestine with the proper response to the type of Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda. Places like Zimbabwe and Uganda call for an entirely different form of massive public international condemnation and pressurization of the international community of governments to make it clear to the offending state that there will be unpleasant consequences if they insist on pursuing a particular course of action (and then indeed carrying out punishment of the target state if it should persist in its unacceptable aims). The Archbp of Canterbury has a moral obligation to speak out, loud and clear on this matter. Working behind the scenes in this sort of context will not achieve desired aims and amounts to no more than complicity. When combined with Cantuar's unsolicited warnings regarding the election in the American Church of the Rev Mary Glasspool, the total effect is to present ++Rowan as completely wrong-headed and morally reprehensible. With most Americans, at least, he has now lost any shred of moral authority that he may have previously managed to retain.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I'm not sure I understand your point: either we are a Communion, in which case there surely needs to be a degree of consensus, or there isn't that need for consensus, in which case it's not much of a Communion.

[reply to Zach]

[ 10. December 2009, 11:57: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Matt, are you really saying that, with agreement on nearly all other points of theology... about the trinity, Christology, salvation, and all that... with similar power structures in our hierarchy and a common history... after centuries of cooperation... that a different understanding on sexuality amongst some of your province's members and some of my province's members really means we have no consensus whatsoever?

Zach
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matt, are you really saying that, with agreement on nearly all other points of theology... about the trinity, Christology, salvation, and all that... with similar power structures in our hierarchy and a common history... after centuries of cooperation... that a different understanding on sexuality amongst some of your province's members and some of my province's members really means we have no consensus whatsoever?

Zach

My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.
L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Grammatica -

I'm afraid you completely missed my point in citing John Stott. I am neither con. nor evo. I chose him precisely as someone who might fill that description, yet who is passionately committed to international justice and the environment (just to cite two things). You read right past that and went for your selected tick-box item. It's difficult to progress any further.

I agree it is difficult to progress any further. You see, I don't believe Christianity has anything at all to do with the breakup of the Anglican Communion. It's been about politics and power, pure and simple. There's no Christianity in it at all.

So I have simply been trying to discover what sort of politics is practiced among British Evangelicals, how their diehard opposition to gay rights and feminism (for example) sits with their claimed interest in social justice. The best model I have been able to come up makes a structural analogy between their thinking and that of the British Marxists of fifty years ago.

That helps me understand their gut-level dislike of the Episcopal Church. Our politics are of the pragmatic, emotional, often sloppy liberal variety. So if the British Evangelicals want to kick us out of the Party -- oops, I meant the Communion -- for left bourgeois deviationism, i.e. support of gay rights, I can perfectly well understand the reasons. (I will be the first to admit that identity politics has done the Left no good at all).

If they have made an alliance with the US Religious Right to do so, well, it's just another Red-Brown Coalition, isn't it?

Again, in my view none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Christ or Christianity. If it did, the whole course of this would have been very, very different.

I am quite content to see the Anglican Communion changing into something much looser, something in which the Americans will not longer participate actively, though some connections may remain. I do think it is going to be better for all concerned.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.

I see know reason to think that is so, since the definition of sin does not hinge on sexuality. For me any way, I can't speak for you.

Which still leaves completely valid my point that there is still lots of consensus between our provinces either way.

Zach
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
Spawn, High view of Scripture + Calvinism = (more or less) Con Evo.

There are so many varieties of Calvinism it's difficult to be more precise, but the view of Scripture is AFAIK very close to the view committed Marxists take of the writings of Marx/Engels/Lenin. If it can't be expounded out of a place in one of the Writings, it can't be held as true, no matter how much experience and reason may claim for its truth, or sentiment may wish to believe it.

This view of things is not one I share, nor can I really understand it, but I do understand that people take this view.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.
L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.
The analogy/similarity is between the Third Reich's racial purity laws and the perpetration of the Shoah on the one hand, and the scapegoating of homosexual persons by Ugandan demogogues - and the pending witch-hunt and holocaust againt Ugandan homosexuals - on the other. That's obvious enough. You apologists for discrimination simply don't want to hear it.

[ 10. December 2009, 12:34: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Ugh, can we please rewind the thread to before the conservatives were accused of being nazis? [Hot and Hormonal]

Zach
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.
L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.
Only if you consider Godwin's law to be sacred writ. Uganda may be unlike the Third Reich (I don't have a problem with that statement) but if were in Uganda right now, looking at an impending death sentence and wondering which of my "Christian" neighbors would be turning me in to the State I suspect the analogy would cross my mind.

Given Uganda's historic ties to Britain, it would not surprise me if a number of refugees seek asylum in Britain. I do rather wonder how the ABC will respond when they start taking him to task for not speaking out against the evil there.

These are people who are going to be your neighbors. Some of them will go to your churches. I suspect they will ask some very uncomfortable questions.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Spawn, I reject your equation of quiet, behind the scenes work in long term political processes such as Northern Ireland and Palestine with the proper response to the type of Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.

The examples I gave weren't all about long-term processes.

quote:
Places like Zimbabwe and Uganda call for an entirely different form of massive public international condemnation and pressurization of the international community of governments to make it clear to the offending state that there will be unpleasant consequences if they insist on pursuing a particular course of action (and then indeed carrying out punishment of the target state if it should persist in its unacceptable aims).
I think the legislators of Uganda would laugh if the Archbishop of Canterbury threatened sanctions - withholding the eucharist? - against Uganda. The point though is that ++Rowan was indeed criticised for not speaking up on Zimbabwe earlier because he spent sometime in putting private pressure on +Kunonga before eventually cutting loose at the guy.

quote:
The Archbp of Canterbury has a moral obligation to speak out, loud and clear on this matter.
Maybe, but you don't necessarily get to pick the timing. These proposals haven't become law yet, there is still still to play for - for example it looks likely that the death penalty and life imprisonment sentences may be dropped from the Bill. The legislation may turn out to be not much worse than the existing law and similar laws in many other countries throughout the world which also criminalise homosexuality. Furthermore, anti-gay proposals in Nigeria never did actually become law. [Note: I oppose any such laws].

quote:
Working behind the scenes in this sort of context will not achieve desired aims and amounts to no more than complicity.
Says you.

How do you know it won't achieve desired aims? Quiet diplomacy may well achieve more than public statements. However the apparent silence of the Archbishops of both Canterbury and York does not signal complicity when both of them have spoken out against such homophobia in the past. Anyway, I'm not ruling out public statements.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.

I see know reason to think that is so, since the definition of sin does not hinge on sexuality. For me any way, I can't speak for you.

Which still leaves completely valid my point that there is still lots of consensus between our provinces either way.

Zach

Well, from our perspective, you've redefined what sexual sin is. And much of your commentary about what we have in common can just as well be said of what we have in common with most Christian denominations, with the (recent) exception, as Spawn has said, of theology.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Spawn, High view of Scripture + Calvinism = (more or less) Con Evo.
[...]
If it can't be expounded out of a place in one of the Writings, it can't be held as true

This is getting a bit off-topic, but as my last attempt to explain...

Conservative evangelicals (in my rusty experience) are more likely to say "If it contradicts Scripture it can't be held as true." This is obviously a giant can of worms, but many UK con evos believe that abortion and homosexuality go against Scripture - and some believe female priests do too.

They don't see your other "progressive" issues as contradicting Scripture though - quite the opposite. Hence they feel free to campaign (or not) about African debt relief, workers' rights, climate change, abolishing the death penalty, prison reform, Fair Trade, etc.

You're looking at this from a US perspective where the culture war has created two opposing camps: Progressive versus Conservative. This neat split doesn't apply in the UK, or (I suspect) many places outside the US - e.g. churches in Latin America. It doesn't even apply inside the US, as the black churches and the Catholics demonstrate - not to mention these guys.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
I think the point about our theological differences is well-made by Grammatica, for whom it is all about 'power'. Canon Mary Glasspool makes the same point in today's Times that the opposition to her appoiintment is all about 'power and authority'.

I can assure you that for me it is about theology and nothing else. But the fact that this is a theological concern is dismissed. In fact, I don't see a theological argument coming from the other side at all.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Spawn, High view of Scripture + Calvinism = (more or less) Con Evo.

There are so many varieties of Calvinism it's difficult to be more precise, but the view of Scripture is AFAIK very close to the view committed Marxists take of the writings of Marx/Engels/Lenin. If it can't be expounded out of a place in one of the Writings, it can't be held as true, no matter how much experience and reason may claim for its truth, or sentiment may wish to believe it.

Your view of evangelicals applies to at least some of them perhaps, but no Marxists I know of treat Marx like Holy Writ. That sounds like a straw man.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

I can assure you that for me it is about theology and nothing else. But the fact that this is a theological concern is dismissed. In fact, I don't see a theological argument coming from the other side at all.

As I said earlier, there is a theological argument -- centering around Jesus' inclusion of those who were seen in his day as outcasts and sinners; verses such as those in Colossians and Galations about 'In Christ, there is no x no y'; 'those who live in love live in God and God lives in them'; and questions as to exactly what is aim of passages such as Romans 3 and how they relate to faithful monogamous homosexual relationships as we know them today -- but that the inclusive side all to often does not make it.

I can see where the accusations of it all being about power come from too though. And in the Ugandan situation there seems to be a streak of anti-colonialism.

The conservatives accuse the liberals in American of changing (their reading of) to suit their culture, but as far as I can tell much of the debate in African is strongly influenced by cultural and political issues there.

This is why I wish we could listen to each rather than just claiming victim status for our side.

Carys
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I think the point about our theological differences is well-made by Grammatica, for whom it is all about 'power'. Canon Mary Glasspool makes the same point in today's Times that the opposition to her appoiintment is all about 'power and authority'.

I can assure you that for me it is about theology and nothing else. But the fact that this is a theological concern is dismissed. In fact, I don't see a theological argument coming from the other side at all.

Possibly relevant here is a shift that has occurred in the American Church with respect to how the figurative three-legged Anglican stool is conceived. These days, rather than hearing talk so much of "scripture, tradition, and reason", the contemporary formula is often framed as "scripture, tradition, and lived experience". This latter is certainly relevant to the description of the emotional and pragmatic style that Grammatica referred to.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Possibly relevant here is a shift that has occurred in the American Church with respect to how the figurative three-legged Anglican stool is conceived. These days, rather than hearing talk so much of "scripture, tradition, and reason", the contemporary formula is often framed as "scripture, tradition, and lived experience". This latter is certainly relevant to the description of the emotional and pragmatic style that Grammatica referred to.

Ah, if they would just combine the two lists, they would finally arrive at the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. There may be hope for you Anglicans yet...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

I can assure you that for me it is about theology and nothing else. But the fact that this is a theological concern is dismissed. In fact, I don't see a theological argument coming from the other side at all.

As I said earlier, there is a theological argument -- centering around Jesus' inclusion of those who were seen in his day as outcasts and sinners; verses such as those in Colossians and Galations about 'In Christ, there is no x no y'; 'those who live in love live in God and God lives in them'; and questions as to exactly what is aim of passages such as Romans 3 and how they relate to faithful monogamous homosexual relationships as we know them today -- but that the inclusive side all to often does not make it.

I can see where the accusations of it all being about power come from too though. And in the Ugandan situation there seems to be a streak of anti-colonialism.

The conservatives accuse the liberals in American of changing (their reading of) to suit their culture, but as far as I can tell much of the debate in African is strongly influenced by cultural and political issues there.

This is why I wish we could listen to each rather than just claiming victim status for our side.

Carys

Look, I don't think the Africans can be given a pass on the commission of atrocities just because they were under colonial rule 50 or 60 years ago. In Rwanda Catholic priests and the members of religious orders participated actively in the genocide. Should they be given tea and sympathy because the unpleasantness there was after all an expression of inter-tribal and cultural issue that we Europeans can't appreciate? Give me a fucking break!
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I don't know why the issue of Uganda has been dragged into this - it sounds like some sort of tu quoque argument to me. But it has. So let's address it.

It is undoubtedly the case that the situation for gay people in both Nigeria and Uganda over the last few years. (Gay activists say that is also possibly true in the UK too, but I can only address so much in one go). It is a disaster - and not just for gay people but also in the fight against AIDS, which seemed to be going well in Uganda.

Why? More to the point, why Nigeria and why Uganda?

Interestingly both Nigeria and Uganda have a number of things in common. Uganda has a founding myth concerning the Uganda martyrs (link). Nigeria has long laboured under extremely corrupt and violent rulers, onto whom all manner of accusations have been levelled. Including homosexual practice. I still haven't been able to tie this one down exactly, but there does seem to have been a clique within the Air Force during the dictatorship of Sani Abacha for which the accusation may have had some traction. Most of the rest of it is pretty clearly a fiction. Nevertheless it is there - just read any Nigerian commentator or blog and it won't be long before you find it.

The point of all this is that in both those countries, homosexual practice is aligned with a perception of corruption and brutality within a power clique.

Into this state of affairs marched, at some point in early 90's, a delegation from ECUSA as-was, headed by Frank Griswold, and accompanied by Louie Crew of Integrity. The Ugandans treated them graciously I understand, but asked in what capacity exactly they were supposed to understand the presence of LC. This has been followed up on several occasions by stated intentions to establish "Integrity Uganda" - you can read about what happened here (link).

Meanwhile over in Nigeria, the same time frame saw Peter Akinola setting out as ECUSA's biggest buddy on the African continent - a fact that appears to have been mysteriously forgotten. During one big PR event entitled "Come and See", Frank Griswold invited African Anglican primates to come over and - well, see I suppose. What Akinola actually saw I have no idea, but whatever it was seems to have triggered what we now have before us. And since then there has been the ongoing saga of our own Changing Attitude keeping the pot boiling with constant public letters and press releases. I have a great deal of time for CA and I think they have been treated poorly, but the point is that we have had involvement there too.

So then - we have two states who have a perception of homosexual practice aligning with corrupt power cliques, and both have distictly conservative (small-c) notions of sexuality. does breezing in there by gay pressure groups - let alone ECUSA with pressure group cheerleader in tow - sound like a good idea? By any evidence-based assessment, the answer must surely be that it has been a catastrophe.

And into this maelstrom you suggest that +Rowan should stand up and exercise megaphone diplomacy? Are you mad? It is clear that +Rowan should indeed do something, but for goodness sakes expecting that public finger-wagging will ever achieve anything other than more grief for the gay community in the short and medium term.

In fact, the situation in Uganda is the one that annoys me the most. It never need have come to this I am sure. And if we get it right it might actually be recoverable. Nigeria I am not so sure. It may be a basket case so far as this issue is concerned.

This is not a full analysis, even though I am sure the events I have mentioned have played their part. I am not naturally disposed to start blaming people when no malice was clearly intended, and of course now we have your beloved Conservative alphabet-soup warriors crawling all over the place. Well done. Chalk that one up as a success to the culture wars, and as a good indicator as to why I think this insane dichotomy is so utterly fucked.

By all means, please try and do something, but if it involves massaging your own sense of self-righteousness before the plight of gays in Africa, you may wish to consider that - in your case - doing nothing might be the kinder option.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
SPK is right to raise a query mark. When I wrote this I had just returned from 4 days in Montréal and had not re-adjusted mentally to my return to Ontario. By majority church (i.e., RCC), I meant the largest single church in Canada (somewhere around 40%). Of course, a mean person could suggest that non-attenders are the largest religious group in Canada.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think this is really the crux of it: we disagree on first principles when it comes to the role and interpretation of Scripture. This also tends to imply different POVs regarding inspiration, the nature of the collection of canonical books, etc; and the degree to which the Canon is subject to historical criticism.

Anglicans believe that the OT and NT Scriptures are the rule and ultimate standard of faith and that the Nicene Creed is the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. Anglicans also believe that the 39 Articles of Religion bear witness to that Christian faith. There's no wriggle room in Anglicanism concerning the authority of the Scriptures as the ultimate standard of faith. That's what the word 'ultimate' means. You can't reject scripture - or even selected parts of scripture - and still maintain that they are 'ultimate' in any real sense of the word. The very fact that you subject them to revision and socio-political censorship is ample evidence that they are no longer ultimate for you.

[ 10. December 2009, 14:34: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Numpty, the 39 Articles have no official place in the canons of TEC. They were indeed endorsed by our bishops in the C18, albeit without any requirement for acceptance by either the clergy or laity. Some US Anglicans have taken them relatively seriously, others not so much. In the present revision of our BCP they were reduced to microscopic print and put in a section called "Historical Documents of the Church", although the other such documents in that section are of arguably greater importance, e.g. Chalcedonian Definition of the Natures and Person of Christ. As to Scripture being the rule by which everything else is to be judged, most American Anglicans IME reject that. Rather, scripture is subject to evaluation based on reason/lived experience and tradition; there's supposed to be a feedback loop actually between scripture, tradition, and reason/experience such that each is informed and assessed in terms of the others. You've a very rigid view of what constitutes Anglicanism and it seems clear that as an overall church TEC doesn't fit within Numpty Brand Anglicanism (Deo Gratias).
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

Into this state of affairs marched, at some point in early 90's, a delegation from ECUSA as-was, headed by Frank Griswold, and accompanied by Louie Crew of Integrity. The Ugandans treated them graciously I understand, but asked in what capacity exactly they were supposed to understand the presence of LC. This has been followed up on several occasions by stated intentions to establish "Integrity Uganda" - you can read about what happened here (link).

Please give evidence for your dating. What I can see indicates that there was some sort of controversial visit and report by Louie Crew in 2001. I cant see anything for 'the early 1990s' as you claim. The date is important.

L.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Just to add to my reply to Nump', I have NEVER heard an Anglican take the "you either believe it all or you don't believe any of it" position with regard to the Bible. It sounds a form of literalism and/or inerrancy that I normal equate with Southern Baptists and their ilk. Many here in the States became Anglicans to get away from that sort of perverse biblicism.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Sorry, but this memory occurred to me after the end of the edit window and provides an interesting counterpoint to Numpty's take on the role of scripture in Anglicanism. The priest who prepared me for confirmation at the beginning of the 1970s was an old Irishman who had received his orders in the Church in Wales on the eve of the Battle of Britain. By the time I knew him, he had landed in West Texas. In confirmation classes he emphasised that the scriptures were completely subordinate to the Church and not the other way round. Rather like Luther who at one point had tried to impeach the Epistle of James and get it removed from the canon, Fr Cotter opined that the Gospel of Matthew was a "very plotting" book that the Church might well decide one day to replace with something else, perhaps the Gospel of Thomas. He may have been hyperbolising in an effort to get his point across, which was that the Church makes and controls the scriptures, the scriptures don't create or control the Church. You may find that heresy or an extreme position. Interesting to contemplate that it was coming from a CiW priest of Irish ethnicity, born around the end of the Great War. I don't think the basic point of his teaching was especially an aberration in the Episcopal Church.

[ 10. December 2009, 15:08: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
And into this maelstrom you suggest that +Rowan should stand up and exercise megaphone diplomacy? Are you mad? It is clear that +Rowan should indeed do something, but for goodness sakes expecting that public finger-wagging will ever achieve anything other than more grief for the gay community in the short and medium term.

Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone calling for Rowan Williams to do megaphone diplomacy. I would have thought most people would agree it's an unhelpful approach, whether directed at TEC, African Churches, or anyone else. What he is failing to do is express a position that many people in the Church of England can identify with. Instead it's left to the likes of Inclusive Church to have to apologise for what he has said and speak for its constituency - no finger-wagging required.

The idea that it's acceptable to "let it be known" he's working behind to scenes but refuse to "officially" say on what basis is nonsense. Does he think comments from his office don't find their way to Africa?
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Louise wrote:-
quote:
Please give evidence for your dating. What I can see indicates that there was some sort of controversial visit and report by Louie Crew in 2001. I cant see anything for 'the early 1990s' as you claim. The date is important.
Apologies - you are quite right - I got the wrong decade there.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Please give evidence for your dating. What I can see indicates that there was some sort of controversial visit and report by Louie Crew in 2001. I cant see anything for 'the early 1990s' as you claim. The date is important.

L.

I'm assuming that Honest Ron meant the noughties.

I think he's right in general terms in saying that both sides have to take some responsibility for the spillover of the US culture wars. It is undoubtedly true that US conservatives wooed the so-called 'global south' church leaders for their support on the issue of homosexuality at least as early as the mid-1990s. US liberals were not far behind - in fact they may have been in front of the conservatives.

Of course, traditional Christian beliefs generally play better in Africa both for theological and cultural reasons.

Yes it has to be said that there are elements of a power struggle in the Anglican Communion - there are some pretty ugly nationalisms at play on both sides.

And there is also theology.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Dave Marshall wrote:-
quote:
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone calling for Rowan Williams to do megaphone diplomacy. I would have thought most people would agree it's an unhelpful approach, whether directed at TEC, African Churches, or anyone else. What he is failing to do is express a position that many people in the Church of England can identify with. Instead it's left to the likes of Inclusive Church to have to apologise for what he has said and speak for its constituency - no finger-wagging required.

The idea that it's acceptable to "let it be known" he's working behind to scenes but refuse to "officially" say on what basis is nonsense. Does he think comments from his office don't find their way to Africa?

There are any number of people on Anglican blogs out there demanding that he say something NOW and that the fact that he hasn't is indicative of total indifference on his part which is shameful. The point is that we do know +Rowan's views on such things. And I agree with you that you can't "let it be known" if you are trying to get things sorted out pronto behind the scenes. (Not sure where you picked that one up from though - was that Spawn's earlier comment?). You will have to take it on trust that representations are being made. It seems to me to be fair to ask if they are. But it is a step too far to assume they are not, when the evidence suggests that a) +Rowan does have strong views on this, and b) from reports of people who have had calls from him, we know he is regularly in contact with bishops worldwide. I cannot say I know he is, though - it doesn't work that way.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.
L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.
Although LSvK has already explained how the second part of your post is simply wrong ("utterly unlike"? you're not serious?), I have to jump in to point out that Godwin's law says nothing about the who wins the argument, only that the likelihood of the analogy's invocation increases as the argument progresses.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You've a very rigid view of what constitutes Anglicanism and it seems clear that as an overall church TEC doesn't fit within Numpty Brand Anglicanism (Deo Gratias).

My "rigid view" was taken verbatim from the "What is an Anglicanism?" sections of the Church of England website. The Church of England says that the scriptures are "ultimate" and that the creed is "sufficient".

Would you mind telling how you understand the words 'ultimate' and 'sufficient' with respect to scripture? I'm asking because, in an earlier post, you said that TEC didn't disagree anything on that webpage.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
If Numpty's view of scripture were, in fact, normative for the Church of England we would be discussing David Holloway's failings as Archbishop of Canterbury and not Rowan Williams'.

Just saying.

As to Ugandan affairs, it's really not my field but from what I can make out it seems to be about local conditions. Between independence and 1985 Uganda was run by Milton Obote part one, Idi Amin, and Milton Obote part two. Uncle Idi was your loveable comedy mass murdering despot whereas Obote was a stone cold psycho killer. If you wanted to put James Bond into a TARDIS and send him back into Ugandan history you'd put Daniel Craig up against Obote and Roger Moore up against Idi Amin. In 85' President Museveni seized power in a coup. Now Museveni is quite well regarded in the west. In '85 Uganda was a basket case. Nowadays its a fairly reasonable place by African standards. But Museveni isn't a democrat. He's what the ancient Greeks would have called a Tyrant. He rules by a mix of populism, decent government and making sure that no-one fucks with him. Think of a slightly (only slightly mind) fluffier version of Vladimir Putin and your half way there. Now enlightened autocrats are not currently fashionable among western governments so Museveni's regime is a kind of quasi-democracy tempered by quasi-rigged elections. Now the voters next come out in a couple of years time, Uncle Yoweri has been in power for over a couple of decades and people are muttering about having too much of a good thing and Museveni has kind of run out of land reform bills and other useful stuff so what better than a piece of populist willy waving directed at our mates Teh Gaze. String 'em up! It's the only language they understand! I had that Archbishop Orombi in the back of the cab once (in a purely platonic sense, officer)!

That's the bad news. The good news is that the bill may yet fall or be diluted. Something like a third of Uganda's income comes from foreign aid and western governments tend not to hand money to governments passing laws against unpopular minorities, especially when said minorities are rather vocal back on the mothership. But when you are dealing with an African demagogue engaging in a bout of misplaced populism it's not a good move for a westerner (and particularly not a representative of the former colonial power) to denounce him in thunderous terms because then said demagogue can claim to be standing up to the forces of colonialism and generally sticking it to The Man. So the trick is to pressurise him whilst allowing him to back down comparatively gracefully. So it's not so much 'Ruin seize thee, ruthless king! Confusion on thy banner wait!' that is called for here, so much as 'nice development project you've got here guvnor, be a shame if something happened to it'.

Now I would be absolutely gobsmacked if Lambeth Palace didn't have the occasional chin wag with someone at the foreign office about this sort of thing. And I'm pretty sure that the FCO would take a dim view about someone engaging in a fit of grandstanding about a delicate situation where pressure is being applied at the highest level. (Mr G. Brown recently took the opportunity to engage in a full and frank exchange of views on the subject with Mr Museveni.) Add to this the fact that +Orombi and the Ugandan episcopate were part of the Global Alliance of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, You Are Having A Fucking Laugh, Aren't You Conference in Sacred Jerusalem last year so they are a bit on the semi-detached side these days as far as Holy Mother Canterbury is concerned.

So, softly, softly catchee monkey it is. Like many of us I would be absolutely gratified if Rowan were to ascend the pulpit at Canterbury Cathedral and denounce Archbishop Orombi as a homophobic cunt but the guys at the Department of Getting Shit Done assure me that this may not be the most effective way of winning hearts and minds. All very depressing and dull but then grown up politics generally is. An acre in Middlesex and all that jazz.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Obviously I should have been more specific. AFAIK it's common teaching in TEC that the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation. The passage I looked at on the CoE website actually seemed to be derived from the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, being the irreducible minimum on which home reunion could be based. In that context, the Apostles Creed is taken as the baptismal symbol and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient summary of Christian belief. We wouldn't disagree with the Quadrilateral, since we thought it up in the first place.

Does General Synod of the CoE get to define what constitutes Anglicanism? Don't think so; maybe for your two provinces.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In confirmation classes he emphasised that the scriptures were completely subordinate to the Church and not the other way round. <snip> I don't think the basic point of his teaching was especially an aberration in the Episcopal Church.

That isn't the Anglican view of Scripture. Full stop. No matter how nice a chap Father Ted was.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Anglicans also believe that the 39 Articles of Religion bear witness to that Christian faith.

Outside of (some members of) the Prayer Book Society, I can't think of any Anglicans I know who believe that.

[ 10. December 2009, 15:45: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Gildas: I've no idea if your post was accurate, but it was a delight to read. [Overused]
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I think that the 39 Articles bear witness to the Christian faith. I also think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church bears witness to the Christian faith, as does the Westminster Confession, +Kallistos' handy Vade Mecum on the Orthodox Church and the Methodist Worship Book.

Bearing witness to the Christian faith need not entailing being absolutely correct about everything. [Razz]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
LQ

Do you not know any English Anglicans? From the Preface to the Declaration of Assent :

quote:
Led by the Holy Spirit, [the CofE] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
Thurible
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Numpty, your co-religionists in America are called "the Reformed Episcopal Church" and they skulked out of the American Church back in the 1870s in a snit over ritualism and the waning fortunes of Calvinism in what was then still PECUSA. St Punk the Pious is their lone representative on the Ship. Sadly, in order to pick up some stray Episcopalians in more recent times they've been allowing such innovations as papistical vestments and the use of our old 1928 BCP eucharistic liturgy (their traditional HC liturgy is a proposed C18 American liturgy that was based on 1662 but wasn't approved, as the Seabury party prevailed in getting the Scottish-based rite adopted instead). Anyway, I'm sure you'll like the REC if you ever visit these shores -- if you can find one of their few and far between shacks.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.

Sure. But unless you have a system like that in California where people get to vote on single issues, in practice they tend to line up with political liberals.
We do have such a system -- the ballot initiative process. We vote on a variety of single-issue propositions in every state-wide election. Last November black people in California turned out to vote for Obama and went 7 out of 10 against gay marriage (Washington Post story here).

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It seems very, very difficult to get the message through that the American way is not the universal way. It may of course become that way if you persist hard enough, though if it does you will have succeeded in re-exporting your unique form of puritanism back, centuries after we thought we had got rid of it. Sigh.

We Americans have been exporting our culture in a variety of ways for decades, yes; I'm sure it's beyond annoying sometimes. But the Episcopal Church here is not trying to make our way in this matter the universal way; we are not insisting that other Anglican churches ordain or consecrate gay people, no more than we have insisted that other Anglican churches ordain or consecrate women or that they countenance divorce and re-marriage for clergy. It is others outside our church who are trying to impose their way upon us.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Does General Synod of the CoE get to define what constitutes Anglicanism? Don't think so; maybe for your two provinces.

Two provinces?

No General Synod doesn't get to decide what Anglicanism is. The historic documents, especially the BCP, have a pretty fundamental role. Ultimately though you don't get recognised as an Anglican (though I guess you can still call yourself one) unless you're in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I have to agree with Numpty here. You're outlining an approach to scripture that is in utter contradiction to Anglicanism. Confirms for me the fundamental theological divisions there are.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But the Episcopal Church here is not trying to make our way in this matter the universal way

RuthW, I suspect Honest Ron was referring specifically to Grammatica, who was puzzling how to slot British evangelicals into positions dictated by the U.S. culture wars.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Basically that's it, Hiro's Leap. RuthW - I'm just debating with Grammatica how best to see things from a different perspective that will allow her to see how evangelicals outside the USA should not be conflated with those within. Clearly there are overlaps but many differences too.

Gildas - thanks for the political overview too which is genuinely helpful.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[qb] All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.

Sure. But unless you have a system like that in California where people get to vote on single issues, in practice they tend to line up with political liberals.

We do have such a system -- the ballot initiative process. We vote on a variety of single-issue propositions in every state-wide election. Last November black people in California turned out to vote for Obama and went 7 out of 10 against gay marriage (Washington Post story here).
My original point was that the equation 'conservative in religion equals conservative in politics' didn't apply in a uniform manner across the US so one ought not to assume it works that way outside the US. You've pointed me to black people who opposed gay marriage voting for Barack Obama. I think that pretty much proves my point.

(The gay marriage thing sucked like a Dyson, of course. But the Republicans getting pwned was a result.)

[ 10. December 2009, 16:18: Message edited by: Gildas ]
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm assuming that Honest Ron meant the noughties.

I think he's right in general terms in saying that both sides have to take some responsibility for the spillover of the US culture wars. It is undoubtedly true that US conservatives wooed the so-called 'global south' church leaders for their support on the issue of homosexuality at least as early as the mid-1990s. US liberals were not far behind - in fact they may have been in front of the conservatives.

Of course, traditional Christian beliefs generally play better in Africa both for theological and cultural reasons.

Yes it has to be said that there are elements of a power struggle in the Anglican Communion - there are some pretty ugly nationalisms at play on both sides.

And there is also theology.

Spawn, if the theology had been the focus of our discussions, none of us would now be in the positions we are in. But it wasn't. And we are.

There is nothing unusual about the position we're in. The history of Christianity is full of tales of proud and ambitious prelates who used one hot-button issue or another to consolidate their temporal power and gain control over the riches of the church.

It is unfortunate in that the North American churches have now no honorable way to remain in the Anglican Communion, but I don't think, all things considered, we're going to really miss it much. Possibly something better, more open, even more unifying will arise on the ashes of this decade's attempt to overcentralize on the Roman model. Meanwhile, we have ELCA, the Swedish Lutherans, possibly some other provinces of the Anglican Communion, and others with whom to remain in relationship.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Gildas: Yes, it does prove your point. It proves mine as well.

[ 10. December 2009, 16:25: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Basically that's it, Hiro's Leap. RuthW - I'm just debating with Grammatica how best to see things from a different perspective that will allow her to see how evangelicals outside the USA should not be conflated with those within. Clearly there are overlaps but many differences too.

Yes, there are differences, as you say, but they don't make a difference to the politics of the situation. Whatever their views on the environment may be, British Evangelicals are in tight alliance with the US Religious Right in their war against TEC. I think the Red-Brown Coalition model is probably the best one for what's going on.

My question might be: What do British Evangelicals hope to gain in this situation?

I assume their goal throughout has been to consolidate their control of the Church of England. To engineer the expulsion of the liberal American church from the Communion in 2003 might have been just the "shock and awe" needed to force a complete collapse of liberals in the C of E.

Unfortunately, as with another, more celebrated example of Anglo-American "shock and awe," the result was a grinding, interminable war of attrition that has, I think, done the Evangelical cause no good at all.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Like many of us I would be absolutely gratified if Rowan were to ascend the pulpit at Canterbury Cathedral and denounce Archbishop Orombi as a homophobic cunt but the guys at the Department of Getting Shit Done assure me that this may not be the most effective way of winning hearts and minds.

Thing is, whose hearts and minds. While it might be important for the ABC to be a Foreign Office agent everyone now and then, having the Church's CEO stay silent about this loses the hearts and minds not just of Church people but of everyone else in the country. What gets reported is the C of E has nothing to say. This is likely the entirety of how the Church, and Christians, and God, will be perceived by most people until something else comes along to change their minds.

Rowan Williams can do carefully worded statements. He doesn't need to lay down the law, just express the concern we all know he has.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Precisely. It doesn't ultimately matter what off-camera heroics he gets up to; it looks bad, and he knows that.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
My question might be: What do British Evangelicals hope to gain in this situation?

Why do you think that people gain from this conflict? It's a cause of grief not gain.

I'm not naive, I know the adrenaline junkies on both sides of the conflict (I've been there, done that). But ultimately this is a very wearying, sad and slow fragmentation of something we hold dear.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It's a cause of grief not gain.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Conservatives don't want to fight to keep gay couples in other churches from being blessed, but the poor souls battle on selflessly anyway? If they're not gaining anything, then why not just leave gay people be, which is all we're asking for? Who had a gun to Geoff Chapman's head?

[ 10. December 2009, 16:52: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
LQ

Do you not know any English Anglicans? From the Preface to the Declaration of Assent :

quote:
Led by the Holy Spirit, [the CofE] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
Thurible
Well, not personally, and those I know virtually don't think much of the Articles in other than a Newmanian sense. Unless you're about to surprise me very much indeed?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Louise wrote:-
quote:
Please give evidence for your dating. What I can see indicates that there was some sort of controversial visit and report by Louie Crew in 2001. I cant see anything for 'the early 1990s' as you claim. The date is important.
Apologies - you are quite right - I got the wrong decade there.
Yoweri Museveni's first major attack on gay people was in
1999. This included rape and at least one murder in the next year 2000. Musveni's initiative was reported as having the support of the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Livingstone Mpalanyi Nkoyooyo.

You can't blame that on Louie Crew, and this is four years before even the Jeffrey John controversy, never mind Gene Robinson.

As for using homosexuality as a tactic for demonising political opponents, whether they are or not, that goes back to at least the middle ages. Here's a nice little blog entry by a good historian on how that used to work, even as far back as the tenth century:
the invention of sodomy as a political weapon


quote:
However, if you start thinking about what you need in a scapegoat class, then male homosexuality looks like one of the obvious bets. Firstly, you need a relatively tiny number of people within the group (as with Jews, lepers and heretics), but not so few that you can’t find some handy to persecute (like Muslims in most of Europe or necrophiliacs). You then need a readily available discourse of how these people are evil and threaten society. (It’s for this reason that I think persecution of ‘Sodomites’ won out over persecution of those committing bestiality. The Bible condemns bestiality, but it hasn’t got a graphic story about their destruction).

That combination in itself is enough to produce an out-group, but I think in persecuting sodomites there are two additional advantages. One, paradoxically, is the ‘invisibility’ of gays as compared to Jews and lepers, an invisibility that they share with heretics. This means that you can never run out of them as a target (whereas you can with Jews, as in England after 1290). When anything goes wrong in society, you can always blame the lurking heretics and/or sodomites who are hidden among the normal and who must therefore be rooted out and punished. It’s the perfect make work scheme for persecutors.

The other useful thing when you’re deciding to persecute someone is to do it for something you’re never likely to want to do yourself.

It's an essay length post - so I'll snip another short para from it


quote:
Once sodomy as accusation had revealed its effectiveness, of course, it could be picked up and used for other political purposes. Hugh of Langres in 1049 was accused of simony, homicide, sodomy and torture, while Peter Damian insisted that it was the opponents of the Gregorian reformers who were sodomites. Celibate monks could claim that secular courts were full of sodomites, probably in an attempt to turn finger-pointing away from their own monasteries.... And so on, and so on. My impression is that from the eleventh century there is a continuous tradition of such accusations down to the present day (although people better informed on the eighteenth and nineteenth century than me might be able to correct me on this).
So really please, stop trying to excuse or mitigate this sort of behaviour in Uganda and Nigeria, on the grounds that some unsavoury politicians there might have been gay. That's precisely how people through the ages have justified this kind of witch-hunting and it doesn't smell any better now.

This is the really dirty laundry in the Anglican wardrobe. The people the Americans are being asked to make nice with and restrain themselves for the sake of keeping the family together are not just the family equivalent of strict evangelical but lovely Aunty Agnes who wont take a Sunday Ferry and who's never going to accept homosexuality because of the way she reads the Bible. They're also being asked to make nice to people more like Uncle Fred the serial killer who'd like to bury gay cousin Laura under the patio after having raped her a few times.


And of course apart from that yes, there is a legitimate and meaty Dead Horse theological discussion to be had (and a lot of it turns on how we read Genesis) but it seems to me that even before the latest claims of 'softly softly catchee monkey etc.' that I haven't heard a proper acknowledgement from ++ Rowan of the extent of the problem of gay witch-hunting in his church. I don't think the matter can be properly tackled without dealing with the moral panic side of it, and as far as I can see his tackling of it seems to have been extraordinarily weak.

If you've got some strong analysis by ++ Rowan of this, then please post it, but if he wont discuss the witch-hunting dynamic (which isn't just in some of the African churches) then I don't see how he can legitimately condemn the Americans for trying to fight back against moral panic and gay scapegoating with an inclusive strategy. He should have been seen and heard on this subject ages ago. It's no good going 'Ssssh! Be vewy vewy quiet!" now.

L.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matt, are you really saying that, with agreement on nearly all other points of theology... about the trinity, Christology, salvation, and all that... with similar power structures in our hierarchy and a common history... after centuries of cooperation... that a different understanding on sexuality amongst some of your province's members and some of my province's members really means we have no consensus whatsoever?

Zach

My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.
I don't see how this follows, Spawn. To recategorise certain activities as licit is not to undermine our views of activities still regarded as illicit, far less is it to redefine how we understand soteriology. Take, for example, there was once a widespread belief amongst many Christians that non-reproductive sex was sinful. Coming to a different view occasioned no redefinition of how we understand sin, as far as I can see.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
We in the US church have been saying that, yes, we are now departing the Anglican Communion. We welcome openly gay and lesbian persons and allow them to serve in church positions. You in the Church of England will not tolerate that and do not wish to be in communion with us unless we change our ways. Well, we are not going to, so we are departing.

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Why isn't it?

[brick wall]

Grammatica,

To repeat Ken's question, to which you have not yet responded:

quote:
Who is "you" here?
Matt Black,

To ask you a similar question:

quote:
Well, from our perspective, you've redefined what sexual sin is.
Who is "us" here?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It's a cause of grief not gain.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Conservatives don't want to fight to keep gay couples in other churches from being blessed, but the poor souls battle on selflessly anyway? If they're not gaining anything, then why not just leave gay people be, which is all we're asking for? Who had a gun to Geoff Chapman's head?
This is a pretty stupid post by any standards. First, I'm told that my theological objections are all about power, and now I have this telling me that what other Anglicans do/believe/say is none of my concern.

(BTW, who is Geoff Chapman anyway?)
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
a refusal on the grounds of practice is logically distinct from one on the grounds of desire, which is what orientation is about.

But we don't know her practice, do we? For that matter, how much do we know of anyone else's practice?

Furthermore, I don't recall what the Bible has to say against Lesbian practice. Could you refresh my memory?
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:


Grammatica,

To repeat Ken's question, to which you have not yet responded:

quote:
Who is "you" here?



When someone feigns ignorance to score a rhetorical point, I do not feel compelled to answer.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It's a cause of grief not gain.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Conservatives don't want to fight to keep gay couples in other churches from being blessed, but the poor souls battle on selflessly anyway? If they're not gaining anything, then why not just leave gay people be, which is all we're asking for? Who had a gun to Geoff Chapman's head?
This is a pretty stupid post by any standards. First, I'm told that my theological objections are all about power, and now I have this telling me that what other Anglicans do/believe/say is none of my concern.

(BTW, who is Geoff Chapman anyway?)

Well, that would be pretty stupid, if I had said that. I await a response to my actual post.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Well, that would be pretty stupid, if I had said that. I await a response to my actual post.

That is what you did say. And to repeat my ignored question - who is Geoff Chapman anyway?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
a refusal on the grounds of practice is logically distinct from one on the grounds of desire, which is what orientation is about.

But we don't know her practice, do we? For that matter, how much do we know of anyone else's practice?

Furthermore, I don't recall what the Bible has to say against Lesbian practice. Could you refresh my memory?

Sorry - dead horse territory.

Grammatica. I don't think it is feigning ignorance. It is a genuine question. Various posters have shown the political diversity of evanglical Anglicanism in England, and that trying to line things up on a US-centric politico-religious matrix just doesn't work.

As another example from the other side, you will find rural parishes in England who will be politically VERY conservative (hunt ball, countryside alliance etc) but who will embrace women or gay clergy as their parish priest as well.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Here is the text of the infamous Chapman Memo.

No. My post said (in essence) that I thought Grammatica's question (what stands to be gained?) was a fair one that merited a response beyond your suggestion that it wasn't a matter of gain. I'm quite clear on what gay and lesbian Anglicans stand to gain. What a spokesperson for Essentials, or Reform, or Forward in Faith stands to gain is much less clear, and certainly not comparable.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Grammatica. I don't think it is feigning ignorance. It is a genuine question. Various posters have shown the political diversity of evanglical Anglicanism in England, and that trying to line things up on a US-centric politico-religious matrix just doesn't work.

ianjmatt,

Thank you. At that point Grammatica had not made it clear that she(?) was only discussing evangelical Anglicanism in England. In the paragraphs that I quoted, she appeared from context to be referring to the whole CofE but what she said bore no relationship to my experience as a member of the church for the last 30+ years. Hence, as you said, I was not feigning ignorance; I was genuinely bemused.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

Thank you. At that point Grammatica had not made it clear that she(?) was only discussing evangelical Anglicanism in England. In the paragraphs that I quoted, she appeared from context to be referring to the whole CofE but what she said bore no relationship to my experience as a member of the church for the last 30+ years. Hence, as you said, I was not feigning ignorance; I was genuinely bemused.

I am glad to hear that there are some members of the Church of England who don't want to break Communion with TEC.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

Thank you. At that point Grammatica had not made it clear that she(?) was only discussing evangelical Anglicanism in England. In the paragraphs that I quoted, she appeared from context to be referring to the whole CofE but what she said bore no relationship to my experience as a member of the church for the last 30+ years. Hence, as you said, I was not feigning ignorance; I was genuinely bemused.

I am glad to hear that there are some members of the Church of England who don't want to break Communion with TEC.
Most members don't want that. But they also do not TEC to push itself away from the rest of the AC with the actions it is taking. Getting annoyed with the TEC (just as getting annoyed with Nigeria, or angry with Uganda) is not the same as wanting to break communion. Thinking that the TEC is wrong and the actions will cause difficulties is not the same as wanting to break communion.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
As another example from the other side, you will find rural parishes in England who will be politically VERY conservative (hunt ball, countryside alliance etc) but who will embrace women or gay clergy as their parish priest as well.

All right, then, I have another question: Why the demand that TEC cease to ordain and/or defrock existing gay clergy, and why the threat to break communion with us if we don't (see the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter this year), if you in the C of E cheerfully accept them?

I'd like an answer to that question. If there is one.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:


Grammatica,

To repeat Ken's question, to which you have not yet responded:

quote:
Who is "you" here?



When someone feigns ignorance to score a rhetorical point, I do not feel compelled to answer.

YOu may find this hard to believe but I genuinely don't know what you mean here, and didn't know who you were talking about when you said "you" in the previous post.

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Whatever their views on the environment may be, British Evangelicals are in tight alliance with the US Religious Right in their war against TEC.

[brick wall] And the moon is made of green cheese. [brick wall] There is something almost obtuse about this. Almost a refusal to imagine that anyone can really not be American at heart. As if the whole rest of the world was just the people who live in your town pretending to be different for some strange reason. So the only way to relate to them is to fit them into categories that you made from up in America.

quote:

My question might be: What do British Evangelicals hope to gain in this situation?

Unanswerable question because your notion of what the situation is so far from reality that adding to it would risk further confusing you.

quote:

I assume their goal throughout has been to consolidate their control of the Church of England.

What control of the Church of England? [Confused] How can they - we - "consolidate" what we don't have?

At the most three or four of the bishops - I mean of all the bishops, suffragans as well as diocesans - are out and proud theologically conservative evangelicals of the sort who might associate with the "Reform" pressure group in England or with the Diocese of Sydney and GAFCON abroad. In terms of numbers in pews the "Charismatic Evangelicals" are perhaps a larger group, and everyone always suggests that they are growing as a proportion of the CofE if not in absolute numbers, but they too have few bishops or other senior clergy. Yes, and some of them are rather obsessed by homosexuality as well. And no, I don't understand why.

As a proportion of the number of worshippers in the COfE such people are unlikely to be more than about ten to twenty percent of the whole, and I suspect probably much less. It is hard to be at all sure because of course there is no such thing as a census of churchmanship and many evangelicals attend non-evangelical churches and vice-versa (which from the comments I've seen here might be another difference between England and the USA). Although evangelical churches are disproportionately likely to be well-attended, so the ratio of clergy to lay people is probably less than in other kinds of parish, few of these churches are large by US standards - the average number of worshippers in evangelical parishes is nearer to fifty then a hundred, so that isn't the main reason for the relative lack of evangelicals in Synod or among the bishops.

Another ten percent of the CoE might be considered to be among the so-called "Open Evangelicals" but they mostly have no desire to fall out of communion with the Americans (any more than most of them want to see Forward in Faith and so on leave the CofE) and they really don't fit your Americanised description of evangelicals at all. They are rather better represented among the Bishops and on Synod.

But all put together all those evangelicals are perhaps a third of the Sunday attendance of the CofE (give or take ten percent) and maybe a fifth of its bishops and General Synod members. And those bishops and so on are disproportionately from the "open" end of things, least likely to side with GAFCON and friends. That is influence but it is a long way from control. The largest party in both General Synod and the House of Bishops is almost certainly what you might call "liberal catholic" though they are far from a majority. No one grouping in the CofE is a majority, and none is likely to be in the near future.

quote:

To engineer the expulsion of the liberal American church from the Communion in 2003 might have been just the "shock and awe" needed to force a complete collapse of liberals in the C of E.

That isn't even wrong.

To be honest, just as in every other country, most people here don't pay that much attention to what goes on in other countries. If every single theologically conservative iAnglian in America tossed a coin tomorrow and went off to join either the Roman Catholics or the Baptists depending on the way it came up, and if the remaining 100% theologically liberal churches pulled up stumps and declared themselves to be mo longer Anglicans an no longer in communion with Canterbury, I doubt if it would have any noticeable effect on the internal politicking of the Church of England at all - or any other Anglican body outside the Americas. [brick wall] [brick wall]

And what this all has got to do with either the elections of bishops in California, or proposed bad laws in Uganda, I don't know.

Oh, and what Gildas said about Rowan Williams and the Ugandan thing.

On a better note, Rick Warren, who I suppose most definitely is a right-wing American evangelical (well, he is an evangelical, he is American, and he is a hell of a lot more right wing than me or most people I know) seems to have come out on the side of the angels on the Ugandan law, and a copy of his statement is linked to here with approval on Maggi Dawn's very wonderful blog - and she is about as far from being a right-wing homophobic bigot as anyone you could imagine.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I can see where the accusations of it all being about power come from too though. And in the Ugandan situation there seems to be a streak of anti-colonialism.

The conservatives accuse the liberals in American of changing (their reading of) to suit their culture, but as far as I can tell much of the debate in African is strongly influenced by cultural and political issues there.

This is why I wish we could listen to each rather than just claiming victim status for our side.

Carys

Look, I don't think the Africans can be given a pass on the commission of atrocities just because they were under colonial rule 50 or 60 years ago. In Rwanda Catholic priests and the members of religious orders participated actively in the genocide. Should they be given tea and sympathy because the unpleasantness there was after all an expression of inter-tribal and cultural issue that we Europeans can't appreciate? Give me a fucking break!
Um -- how does that relate to my post? I mentioned anti-colonialism -- but that doesn't mean I was justifying their position, just noting that it is a factor in the current mess.

Thanks to Honest Ron Barcardi and Gildas for their insightful posts into the history of Uganda. Again it doesn't justify the nastiness of the bill -- but understanding where they are coming from is of help in knowing how to talk to them.

Carys
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
All right, then, I have another question: Why the demand that TEC cease to ordain and/or defrock existing gay clergy, and why the threat to break communion with us if we don't (see the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter this year), if you in the C of E cheerfully accept them?

This comes down to orientation and celibacy again. The CofE welcomes gay priests who have given an undertaking of celibacy to their bishop.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
All right, then, I have another question: Why the demand that TEC cease to ordain and/or defrock existing gay clergy, and why the threat to break communion with us if we don't (see the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter this year), if you in the C of E cheerfully accept them?

This comes down to orientation and celibacy again. The CofE welcomes gay priests who have given an undertaking of celibacy to their bishop.
And you police them to be sure they don't break it?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
a refusal on the grounds of practice is logically distinct from one on the grounds of desire, which is what orientation is about.

But we don't know her practice, do we? For that matter, how much do we know of anyone else's practice?

Furthermore, I don't recall what the Bible has to say against Lesbian practice. Could you refresh my memory?

Sorry - dead horse territory.
Done: Lesbians and the Bible
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I think there's a little of wink wink nod nod that goes on between many of the bishops and their clergy in the CoE, because there are after all same-sex clergy couples or clergy in same sex relationships who are apparently expected to pretend to be in relationships devoid of sexual intimacy. Hell, as I said before I know a deacon in one such relationship and he'll be a priest in a few months time, as is his civil partner. The whole notion that such couples are to remain sexually continent and are actually doing so is simply absurb and laughable. I'm sure a few of the bishops take it seriously but I can't believe that most of them are so barmy.

(In response to FreeJack and in reference to the situation in the CoE)

[ 10. December 2009, 19:35: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
And I made this thread here to try to divert some of the off-topic stuff (to which I have been a major contributor)that's really about the CoE and not the subject of this thread.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

Thank you. At that point Grammatica had not made it clear that she(?) was only discussing evangelical Anglicanism in England. In the paragraphs that I quoted, she appeared from context to be referring to the whole CofE but what she said bore no relationship to my experience as a member of the church for the last 30+ years. Hence, as you said, I was not feigning ignorance; I was genuinely bemused.

I am glad to hear that there are some members of the Church of England who don't want to break Communion with TEC.
Indeed - there will a come a time, soon, when I shall want you to send us flying bishops.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I made this thread here to try to divert some of the off-topic stuff (to which I have been a major contributor)that's really about the CoE and not the subject of this thread.

I think there's been so much off-topic stuff on this thread because in truth there isn't much to say about the OP. In broad terms we all know how it will likely play out and everyone's positions are pretty hardened, so there's really not much to say.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Louise:-
quote:
So really please, stop trying to excuse or mitigate this sort of behaviour in Uganda and Nigeria, on the grounds that some unsavoury politicians there might have been gay.
[Frown]
Where did I say that?

And re your quotes, I am well aware of the recrudescence of homophobia down through the ages. I am also aware of the fact of the bullying, exclusion and violence, both physical and verbal, that takes place at many other levels too, and of course for many other reasons too.

The simple purpose of my post was to point out the recent church background to the current local issues. In fact I went even further back than that to events that I have seen regularly cited by Ugandans and Nigerians. I pointed out that this was not a full analysis, and so far as cultural intrusions are concerned I made no claims to have identified "who started this". My analysis is tailored to my (perhaps incorrectly) perceived readership of this thread, which I had hoped was a matter of courtesy. I also admitted that I honestly don't have a clue about how to tackle Nigeria, and I am still awaiting any suggestions.

Then you post that. Why? You completely fail to address the fact that the situation we now have on the ground deals with real people and their real situations. No doubt they are screwed up in assorted ways just like you and me. The best you can offer is trumpeting noises from Lambeth.

Any attempt to address the developing situation in Uganda has to deal with real Ugandans. You appear to missed the irony in posting evidence of more homophobia in Uganda whilst not noticing how much that reinforces the danger of ignoring local prejudices. Any programme to tackle this issue that is not based on current facts on the ground (however distasteful you or I may find them) is doomed from the start. We have tried the "tell the benighted locals" approach. It failed, and now you are proposing more of the same.

No doubt Gildas's somewhat tongue-in-cheek approach - or something like it - is needed in the short term, and all the likelihood is that something along those lines is on the go. But let's not fool ourselves that will be anything other than a short term palliative. The longer term issue needs addressing through education and then the need to meet and interact with real Ugandan gays. Not some hellbound subspecies, nor some artificially pumped special cause, but real human beings, just like them.

I really don't mind if you disagree with me. If you have a better proposal then let's hear it, and I shall cheerfully accept it is the better way if so persuaded. Right now what else is on offer is what got us to where we are. If that does not register, then the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that what matters is demonstrating 21st century western social in-group rectitude, and if bloody foreigners (such as gay Ugandans) interfere with that, then so what?

I would, however, hope that you could come up with a better way that addresses the issues rather than received wisdom.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
L.Sv.K said
quote:
I think there's been so much off-topic stuff on this thread because in truth there isn't much to say about the OP. In broad terms we all know how it will likely play out and everyone's positions are pretty hardened, so there's really not much to say.
I guess I said something approximating to that upthread, so in a sense I agree. But the problem remains the monumental degree of misunderstanding that exists. And to be honest, I still don't understand why you went apeshit on the first few pages. I hope you won't mind my asking that, now you have regained your composure, because understanding the evident frustration might help.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Wow, I go to bed and wake up to find two pages have zipped past.

I'm probably way behind so feel free to ignore my responses if I'm not keeping up.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bzzzt. I think you meant to say supported slavery and had slaves of their own. That's a pretty big reason to overthrow the traditional stance on slavery. I could go on with the analogy, but that's DH territory. You get the picture.

No. I didn't mean 'supported' - even though that was also sadly true in the past as well - I meant what I said. The Church has a bad track record on turning a blind-eye to child molestation too but no one is suggesting that we should now embrace said behaviour.

The fact that the church has turned a blind-eye to something in the past proves nothing except that people are hypocrites.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I was using "not bothered" to mean "in favour of", which is evidently the meaning you were using when describing liberals as "not bothered" by gay bishops. (If not, then I'm not sure what your comment was supposed to mean. That liberals are simply uninterested in the opinions of other Christians?)

Actually I was only using "not bothered" as an attempt to understand what Doc Tor meant by it. It seemed to me that he did mean that he was uninterested in the opinions of other Christians.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think there's a little of wink wink nod nod that goes on between many of the bishops and their clergy in the CoE, because there are after all same-sex clergy couples or clergy in same sex relationships who are apparently expected to pretend to be in relationships devoid of sexual intimacy. Hell, as I said before I know a deacon in one such relationship and he'll be a priest in a few months time, as is his civil partner. The whole notion that such couples are to remain sexually continent and are actually doing so is simply absurb and laughable. I'm sure a few of the bishops take it seriously but I can't believe that most of them are so barmy.

(In response to FreeJack and in reference to the situation in the CoE)

There is obviously a spectrum of views on this. Some bishops have a personal view that is more or less liberal than the status quo, some are more disciplinarian than others, and some parishes are more tolerant than others.

So gay curates in gay-friendly parishes with either gay-friendly bishops or very uninterventionist bishops will survive on the basis of their own words as long as no-one in the parish complains and no public scandal.

It is not more or less policed than a single heterosexual curate, expected to give broadly similar assurances to the bishop.

Well I wouldn't talk too much about your friend's situation or he may not be a priest in a few months' time. These things are not automatic.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
L.Sv.K said
quote:
I think there's been so much off-topic stuff on this thread because in truth there isn't much to say about the OP. In broad terms we all know how it will likely play out and everyone's positions are pretty hardened, so there's really not much to say.
I guess I said something approximating to that upthread, so in a sense I agree. But the problem remains the monumental degree of misunderstanding that exists. And to be honest, I still don't understand why you went apeshit on the first few pages. I hope you won't mind my asking that, now you have regained your composure, because understanding the evident frustration might help.
I'm tired of the ABC's unhelpful interventions, fatherly advice, whatever. Like most Americans I'm sick of the condemnation of a number of provinces who I honestly don't see having the slightest claim to moral superiority - indeed quite the opposite - and I'm tired of the travails within our own province. I'd like those outside TEC to leave us to our own processes, especially if they aren't truly well-disposed toward us. At the moment, frankly, the only other Anglicans I expect to have some understanding of us are the Anglican Church of Canada. As to the rest of the AC: with friends like you, who needs enemies?
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
While written from a particular point of view which may not be shared by all Shipmates, here is a link that discusses the relationship between the events in Africa regarding gays and the religious/political situation in the US, with infighting among the various churches. It isn't unique to TEC/Anglicans.

The US Christian Right and the attic on Gays in Africa
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Whatever their views on the environment may be, British Evangelicals are in tight alliance with the US Religious Right in their war against TEC.

[brick wall] And the moon is made of green cheese. [brick wall]

This just in: Verdant cheddar spotted in the Sea of Tranquility.

If that doesn't convince, try this bit of moss-colored mozzarella, courtest of Fr. Kapya Kaoma.

These articles will give you a full and fair picture of the organizations with which British Evangelicals are allied.

Or are you saying that no one from Anglican Mainstream or Reform has ever spoken to Robert Duncan or David Anderson? Never ever ever? Not even at Dromantine?

Now please don't tell me again about your sterling record on global warming; that's a red herring.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

Or are you saying that no one from Anglican Mainstream or Reform has ever spoken to Robert Duncan or David Anderson? Never ever ever? Not even at Dromantine?

I haven't got the faintest. And I don't even know who Robert Duncan and David Anderson are, and don't much care right now. But what I am saying is that most Anglican evangelicals here are not affiliated with either "Anglican Mainstream" or "Reform". And also that the minority who are in those organisations have a wide variety of political positions, many of them quite unlike your caricature of the "religious right".

quote:


Now please don't tell me again about your sterling record on global warming; that's a red herring.

I never mentioned global warming. But seeing as you bring it up, no, it isn't a red herring. Nor is racism a red herring, or rural poverty, or workers rights, or warmongering, or sexism, or healthcare policy, or the concentration of power and money in the hands of a tiny rich elite, or any other of the dozens of political issues on which Christians of all sorts of kinds ought to take a stand.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

Or are you saying that no one from Anglican Mainstream or Reform has ever spoken to Robert Duncan or David Anderson? Never ever ever? Not even at Dromantine?

I haven't got the faintest. And I don't even know who Robert Duncan and David Anderson are, and don't much care right now. But what I am saying is that most Anglican evangelicals here are not affiliated with either "Anglican Mainstream" or "Reform". And also that the minority who are in those organisations have a wide variety of political positions, many of them quite unlike your caricature of the "religious right".

This style of arguing is starting to get under my skin a little. Do you really not know who Robert Duncan is? Archbishop for ACNA? Motion tabled at the last C of E General Synod to recognize ACNA in place of the Episcopal Church? David Anderson was the head of the American Anglican Council, then the leader of a prominent breakaway movement supported by British Evangelicals. All of these people, and these groups, have been actively undermining TEC for the past twenty years, with considerable financial support from the American Religious Right. You accuse me of knowing nothing about your church, but you seem to be willfully ignorant of what has been happening to mine. Or worse, because British Evangelicals have had a considerable hand in these shenanigans.

Your reply to all this seems to be: But we Evangelicals are not like the American Religious Right. Fair enough. I am not saying you are. But you don't have to be like them to be their allies; politics makes strange bedfellows, as we say. ACNA itself is a pretty strange grouping; FiF and con evos have together attempted to block women bishops in the C of E. Nothing to stop C of E Evangelicals from making allies of the American Religious Right if they are working together toward a common goal, is there? The common goal here being a war on TEC.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I had to look up David Anderson, and I write as someone who IRL was booted out of my parish when the anti-gay evans took it over & separated from the Diocese of Ottawa. That some of the English evans had not heard of him is no surprise to me.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
I'll grant Dave Anderson may be a bit obscure, but surely the former TEC bishop of Pittsburgh, Bob Duncan, should be at least dimly recognizable to anyone paying even cursory attention. He has certainly chased after enough media to deserve this small courtesy.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I had to look up David Anderson, and I write as someone who IRL was booted out of my parish when the anti-gay evans took it over & separated from the Diocese of Ottawa. That some of the English evans had not heard of him is no surprise to me.

Well, all right, maybe some of this is innocent enough.
 
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
[QUOTE]No one from Nigeria has, as far as I'm aware, ever posted on these boards and I think any 'Sydney Anglican' from Sydney would steer well clear of this thread.

I may be the only 'Sydney Anglican' left on SOF (as opposed to 'Anglicans from Sydney' of whom there may be a few more). I read this far, but I've just seen the page count and I don't think I have the stamina to read it all the way to the end.

But I figure that the political reality is that every time TEC gets a gay or lesbian bishop it makes it that little bit easier for us to adopt lay administration of the Lord's Supper without getting thrown out of the communion.

So thanks for that. Getting thrown out of the communion would involve lawyers. And I really don't like lawyers.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I'll grant Dave Anderson may be a bit obscure, but surely the former TEC bishop of Pittsburgh, Bob Duncan, should be at least dimly recognizable to anyone paying even cursory attention. He has certainly chased after enough media to deserve this small courtesy.

Honestly, other than the rather geeky world of Anglican on-line forums most people will not have heard of him. In fact, most evanglical CofE members will not even care about him, ACNA, FiF, Reform, Anglican Mainstream or anyone else. That really is true. Church politics leaves most people in the CofE cold, and that includes conservative evalevanglicals.

For example, we had some people turn up at our parish who had been members of Jesmond Parish Church. They had attended their for ten years as reguar members. It has become clear to me as I got to know them that they had no interest whatsoever in wider church politics outside of living in such a way that it bears witness to the grace of Jesus (in fact, their only telling was when one of them said something like "it did get boring when they kept on banging on about the 'gay issue' at Jesmond all the time". That is, I think fairly typical of most attendees at the most conservative of parishes.
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
I think that ken and the other C of E evangelicals on the thread have a valid point, that the man or woman-in-the-pew evangelical in England care as much about ACNA or the breakaway Ecusans in the USA as Episcopalians in the pews care about the latest machinations in General Synod. Thus, I think that it is wrong to suggest that all C of E evos are giving aid and comfort to Bobby Duncan, Jack Iker and company. By focusing on the blogosphere, I think that the obsessed among us (and I count myself in that crowd) sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

It is fascinating, however, to see on this thread how, well, "evangelical" Anglicans can be. In the Episcopal church, it is a small party and liturgically rather high by English standards. Because the Episcopal church is a "choice" denomination, not a "we serve all sorts" state church, it generally is avoided by individuals seeking a more literal approach to biblical teaching and interpretation or an informal liturgical style focused on preaching.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
And I don't even know who Robert Duncan and David Anderson are, and don't much care right now
Most people in the UK will never have heard of these people, but the response does seem a little disingenuous coming from Ken, the Ship's master of Google skills. Ken, wouldn't your normal response be to have done a quick search for both of them and then informed us about the salient details of their lives? Esoterica is normally your stamping ground.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
And I don't even know who Robert Duncan and David Anderson are, and don't much care right now
Most people in the UK will never have heard of these people, but the response does seem a little disingenuous coming from Ken, the Ship's master of Google skills. Ken, wouldn't your normal response be to have done a quick search for both of them and then informed us about the salient details of their lives? Esoterica is normally your stamping ground.
I don't see how that's disingenuous. The point isn't that he couldn't find out who they were, it's that he doesn't already know when when he is supposedly in alliance with them in unholy war on TEC.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

Thank you. At that point Grammatica had not made it clear that she(?) was only discussing evangelical Anglicanism in England. In the paragraphs that I quoted, she appeared from context to be referring to the whole CofE but what she said bore no relationship to my experience as a member of the church for the last 30+ years. Hence, as you said, I was not feigning ignorance; I was genuinely bemused.

I am glad to hear that there are some members of the Church of England who don't want to break Communion with TEC.
Indeed - there will a come a time, soon, when I shall want you to send us flying bishops.
Hasten the day.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
L.Sv.K said
quote:
I think there's been so much off-topic stuff on this thread because in truth there isn't much to say about the OP. In broad terms we all know how it will likely play out and everyone's positions are pretty hardened, so there's really not much to say.
I guess I said something approximating to that upthread, so in a sense I agree. But the problem remains the monumental degree of misunderstanding that exists. And to be honest, I still don't understand why you went apeshit on the first few pages. I hope you won't mind my asking that, now you have regained your composure, because understanding the evident frustration might help.
I'm tired of the ABC's unhelpful interventions, fatherly advice, whatever. Like most Americans I'm sick of the condemnation of a number of provinces who I honestly don't see having the slightest claim to moral superiority - indeed quite the opposite - and I'm tired of the travails within our own province. I'd like those outside TEC to leave us to our own processes...
What? The process of replacing scripture with a weird, tortuously interpreted version of Canon Law in order to suppress dissenting voices? What? Leave you to "the process" of systematically using institutional bullying in order to silence conservative voices and ostracise perfectly valid expressions of Anglican churchmanship within TEC?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - there will a come a time, soon, when I shall want you to send us flying bishops.

Hasten the day.
[Disappointed] Do you mean what I take you to mean, that you will be glad to see the break-up of the Church of England? Or that the rump of self-righteous fundamentalists pretends that it is the real C of E?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - there will a come a time, soon, when I shall want you to send us flying bishops.

Hasten the day.
[Disappointed] Do you mean what I take you to mean, that you will be glad to see the break-up of the Church of England? Or that the rump of self-righteous fundamentalists pretends that it is the real C of E?
A qualified both.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
This just in: Verdant cheddar spotted in the Sea of Tranquility.

If that doesn't convince, try this bit of moss-colored mozzarella, courtest of Fr. Kapya Kaoma.

These articles will give you a full and fair picture of the organizations with which British Evangelicals are allied.

Or are you saying that no one from Anglican Mainstream or Reform has ever spoken to Robert Duncan or David Anderson? Never ever ever? Not even at Dromantine?

Most British evangelicals simply are not activists. But you're right to the extent that there are indeed close links between Anglican Mainstream and Reform and ACNA. But we really are talking about a small group of people. Archbishop Duncan in particular has links with some English evangelicals, and friendships even with some bishops - he was, after all, Bishop of Pittsburgh for a long time before ACNA came into being. In my experience, he's a decent man so there is some sympathy for him among people who know him in the English church.

As for your links, I've always felt that Jim Naughton's piece is not quite the killer blow against US conservatives that it's claimed to be. So what? There's right-wing money from foundations that finds its way into conservative coffers. So what that one of the donors had repugnant reconstructionist views before he became an Anglican? As far as I could see the Institute on Religion and Democracy (with the late Fr John Neuhaus among its trustees) was not quite the conspiracy that liberals claimed it was. It was open about its intentions and its Anglican influence was driven by the late Diane Knippers - someone who was likeable and intelligent. It's no surprise now that the IRD is much quieter and less interested in Anglican affairs since her tragic early death.

The other link isn't primarily about Anglican conservatives. It exaggerates the role of Anglican bishops in African politics and treats some people unfairly. It is indeed worth reading but it has a conspiratorial tenor.

I think many more English evangelicals would be shocked if they knew more about the US church - its stubborn choice to litigate rather than negotiate and the truly lamentable lack of intelligent theological thinking that now exists there.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that the 39 Articles bear witness to the Christian faith. I also think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church bears witness to the Christian faith, as does the Westminster Confession, +Kallistos' handy Vade Mecum on the Orthodox Church and the Methodist Worship Book.

Bearing witness to the Christian faith need not entailing being absolutely correct about everything. [Razz]

I agree. There is a stratification in terms of authority: the scriptures are said to be 'ultimate' (no higher revelation or authority); the creeds 'sufficient' (they're good enough to meet the needs of the church); the 39 bear witness (they are to be recognised an Anglican confessional document).
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
The thing to me is that is is very much like a family "breaking up".

Every time a family gets together for a meal, there are things that can be brought up that probably shouldn't for family harmony. (Coming from a dysfunctional family, there is a lot that we don't discuss when we get together at MY house. [Biased] )

The Anglican Communion seems determined to bring up those issues every time they get together. It's wearing and frustrating to everyone involved. And just like most families, eventually some people will just send their regrets and stop coming.

TEC has decided to stop coming. They understand that the rest of the family doesn't understand where they are coming from, but feel that there is no good coming from the current conversations. So they are moving on. They won't be coming to Christmas Dinner or to the Family Reunion. They will be happy to met some family members at the pub, or send letters or emails to people. But it's simply too painful and upsetting to continue to turn up to a dinner where it seems no one listens, cares to listen, and they are always yelled at.

TEC can take care of itself without ABC's help. So they've left the house, decided upon a very nice apartment, and are getting about doing what they believe the Holy Spirit has called them to do.

I'm sure that this is distressing for some family members for there to be an empty seat, and a happy time for some who are glad that they are gone. It's mixed for TEC also, but it may simply be time.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...it's simply too painful and upsetting to continue to turn up to a dinner where it seems no one listens, cares to listen, and they are always yelled at.

My kids moan that I don't listen to them sometimes. They also say that I'm mean when I say no and keep saying no when they are pestering me. Children pester because they are immature and don't know better. A pestering adult, however, is grotesque, pathetic, and pitiable.

quote:
TEC can take care of itself without ABC's help. So they've left the house, decided upon a very nice apartment, and are getting about doing what they believe the Holy Spirit has called them to do.
The sooner TEC get looking the better. There comes a time for every spoilt little rich kid to leave if they don't like the rules of the house. There's nothing worse than a cocky know-it-all teenager who just has to give the middle finger to their parents.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...it's simply too painful and upsetting to continue to turn up to a dinner where it seems no one listens, cares to listen, and they are always yelled at.

My kids moan that I don't listen to them sometimes. They also say that I'm mean when I say no and keep saying no when they are pestering me. Children pester because they are immature and don't know better. A pestering adult, however, is grotesque, pathetic, and pitiable.

quote:
I'm sure that this is distressing for some family members for there to be an empty seat, and a happy time for some who are glad that they are gone. It's mixed for TEC also, but it may simply be time.
Let the good times roll! [Yipee]

[ 11. December 2009, 11:07: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
weird
 
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :
 
Pata, I think your analogy is very apt. For me it feels like TEC is my brother, who sometimes does things which seem completely reasonable to him and a bit daft to me. Sometimes he does those things just to provoke mum (I'm an adult, I can do what I want). Sometimes he does them because they are right, and mum thinks it really is all about her. But he's my brother and I love him and I'll be sad if he doesn't come to family lunches anymore, whether it's because mum won't let him or because he doesn't want to. Even if I'm not sure of the wisdom of the actions of TEC at the moment, your are still my brothers and sisters, and I want you round the table. Can anyone find a way of shutting mum up?

(OK so that isn't much like my family. But the sentiment is there...)
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Numpty - I have to say that - along with the earlier "red mist" ones - was amongst the least helpful offerings here.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Numpty - I have to say that - along with the earlier "red mist" ones - was amongst the least helpful offerings here.

"Amongst"?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...it's simply too painful and upsetting to continue to turn up to a dinner where it seems no one listens, cares to listen, and they are always yelled at.

My kids moan that I don't listen to them sometimes. They also say that I'm mean when I say no and keep saying no when they are pestering me. Children pester because they are immature and don't know better. A pestering adult, however, is grotesque, pathetic, and pitiable.
This might have been something worth saying, except that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 says, in part,
quote:
We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons ...
And Pata is right: this part of the resolution has been comprehensively ignored ever since. It really is the rankest hypocrisy of the anti-gay people to complain about other breaches of I.10 when they've done nothing to honour this part.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
The sooner TEC get looking the better. There comes a time for every spoilt little rich kid to leave if they don't like the rules of the house. There's nothing worse than a cocky know-it-all teenager who just has to give the middle finger to their parents.
Statements like this are precisely why so many Episcopalians have come to value unity with your likes so little.

Zach
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
"Amongst"?
You may have a point, HL. It's just that I couldn't work out what the other ones were all about.

[ 11. December 2009, 12:01: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
This just in: Verdant cheddar spotted in the Sea of Tranquility.

If that doesn't convince, try this bit of moss-colored mozzarella, courtest of Fr. Kapya Kaoma.

These articles will give you a full and fair picture of the organizations with which British Evangelicals are allied.

Or are you saying that no one from Anglican Mainstream or Reform has ever spoken to Robert Duncan or David Anderson? Never ever ever? Not even at Dromantine?

Most British evangelicals simply are not activists. But you're right to the extent that there are indeed close links between Anglican Mainstream and Reform and ACNA. But we really are talking about a small group of people. Archbishop Duncan in particular has links with some English evangelicals, and friendships even with some bishops ...
This small group of people, however, together with their counterparts in Nigeria and Uganda, present themselves as representing "the overwhelming majority of," or even "the mind of the Communion." Their operatives set up shop at all Anglican international gatherings and wire-pull their way to the desired outcomes. A particularly egregious example of this sort of manipulation occurred at Dar-es-Salaam. Their one goal is to "discipline" (=expel) TEC from the Communion.

They do not speak for the Communion in this. As you no doubt recall, when they were locked out of the final deliberations at Nottingham, the ACC representatives voted NOT to expel TEC. Significantly, it was after that meeting that the first stirrings of GAFCON were announced to the press.

Well, as the breakup is occurring and will shortly be final, they have their wish at last. I still wonder what it is that British Evangelicals are getting out of all of this. Is it just the pleasure of sticking it to the Americans?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The sooner TEC get looking the better. There comes a time for every spoilt little rich kid to leave if they don't like the rules of the house. There's nothing worse than a cocky know-it-all teenager who just has to give the middle finger to their parents.
Statements like this are precisely why so many Episcopalians have come to value unity with your likes so little.
Good.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Thing is, whose hearts and minds. While it might be important for the ABC to be a Foreign Office agent everyone now and then, having the Church's CEO stay silent about this loses the hearts and minds not just of Church people but of everyone else in the country. What gets reported is the C of E has nothing to say. This is likely the entirety of how the Church, and Christians, and God, will be perceived by most people until something else comes along to change their minds.

Rowan Williams can do carefully worded statements. He doesn't need to lay down the law, just express the concern we all know he has.

Leadership isn't really about popularity, it's about doing the right thing. The right thing, in this instance, is whatever it takes to block the proposed legislation in Uganda. If that means fewer laudatory column inches in Comment is Free, so be it. Now there might be a prudential case for being a bit more forceful, if anyone wants to make it I'm prepared to listen. But there's not a case for undermining whatever diplomatic interventions are going on solely to look good. And, lets face it, the sort of people who are having a go at him will have a go at him whatever he does. If a host of Cherubim materialise over Lambeth Palace this Christmas singing 'Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his beloved servant Rowan who is well pleasing in his sight' Ruth, Damian and Andrew will rush into print explaining that not sending the Seraphim was a calculated snub on the Almighty's part.

This is all a bit of a will-you-condemnathon. It's like the way people demand that moderate Muslims condemn 7/7, or whatever. Actually, we should all assume that, unless we have evidence to the contrary, that any given Muslim thinks that blowing oneself up on the Tube is a bad thing and as you say, we all know that ++Williams is concerned about this and he is, actually, doing more constructive stuff about it than making sarky remarks on an internet discussion board, so we really ought to just let him get on with it.

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
No doubt Gildas's somewhat tongue-in-cheek approach - or something like it - is needed in the short term, and all the likelihood is that something along those lines is on the go. But let's not fool ourselves that will be anything other than a short term palliative. The longer term issue needs addressing through education and then the need to meet and interact with real Ugandan gays. Not some hellbound subspecies, nor some artificially pumped special cause, but real human beings, just like them.

I can't help thinking that we ought to drop the whole 'lets consecrate another gay person to the episcopate' bit and concentrate instead on insisting that the Anglican Communion respects the civil and human rights of gay people across the board. Partly because in some parts of the world we need to take baby steps on this issue and partly because any such campaign could be much less narrow and sectional. Also, being brutally frank, Jeffrey John can have a rich and full life as Dean of St. Albans whereas things look pretty bleak for your average gay Ugandan at the moment.

Channelling the spirit of Messer Niccolo for a moment watching the contortions of some of the reasserters confronted with this piece of ju-jitsu would be highly entertaining but for those who are more high minded than I am, I do not insist on this and can commend the proposal on the grounds that it is doable, supportable and would make the lives of lots of actually existing gay people much better.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Statements like this are precisely why so many Episcopalians have come to value unity with your likes so little.
Good.
Enjoy your Communion, supposed moderates. This is what happens to those who don't believe the Anglican Communion is a world wide confession centered on the Articles and hatred of homosexuals. Dare disagree with Pope Numpty, and you get booted without a second thought.

Zach

[ 11. December 2009, 12:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...it's simply too painful and upsetting to continue to turn up to a dinner where it seems no one listens, cares to listen, and they are always yelled at.

My kids moan that I don't listen to them sometimes. They also say that I'm mean when I say no and keep saying no when they are pestering me. Children pester because they are immature and don't know better. A pestering adult, however, is grotesque, pathetic, and pitiable.
This might have been something worth saying, except that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 says, in part,
quote:
We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons ...
And Pata is right: this part of the resolution has been comprehensively ignored ever since. It really is the rankest hypocrisy of the anti-gay people to complain about other breaches of I.10 when they've done nothing to honour this part.

I don't think that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 was intended to create a cosy Shangri-la of perpetual 'listening'. There is a time to listen and there is a time to speak. The listening has been done. The same things are being said ad infinitum. They are just as unconvincing now as when they were first being said. There is a time when talking become pestering. That time is now long past.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I don't think that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 was intended to create a cosy Shangri-la of perpetual 'listening'. There is a time to listen and there is a time to speak. The listening has been done. The same things are being said ad infinitum. They are just as unconvincing now as when they were first being said. There is a time when talking become pestering. That time is now long past.

Why? Because you're bored with it? Bored with having to hear, for instance, Ugandan homosexuals saying "Help us, they're going to send us to prison"? I'm sorry such things are such a strain on your ears and your attention span. Clearly compassion fatigue sets in sooner for some people than others.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I must say that anyone who thinks that the last decade or so has been characterised by the different wings of the Anglican Communion listening to one another really needs to have a lie down in a dark room for a couple of decades prior to having a primary school teacher with experience in handling reception classes with learning difficulties explain that sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la, la, la, I can't hear you' doesn't really constitute listening, as most of us understand the term.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This might have been something worth saying, except that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 says, in part,
quote:
We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons ...
And Pata is right: this part of the resolution has been comprehensively ignored ever since. It really is the rankest hypocrisy of the anti-gay people to complain about other breaches of I.10 when they've done nothing to honour this part.
Is that fair? Perhaps Lambeth should have been more specific about what was meant by 'listening', but it wasn't. How do you know that 'nothing has been done to honour this part'? (You may well be right - but how could you possibly know? Did you expect press releases of 'listening exercises'?)

On the other hand there was one other part of Lambeth that is quite easy to see if it has been broken or not ...

quote:
e.cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
Maybe Lambeth was faulty in the first place but the lack of even-handedness you complain of is built into the very document.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This might have been something worth saying, except that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 says, in part,
quote:
We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons ...
And Pata is right: this part of the resolution has been comprehensively ignored ever since. It really is the rankest hypocrisy of the anti-gay people to complain about other breaches of I.10 when they've done nothing to honour this part.
Is that fair? Perhaps Lambeth should have been more specific about what was meant by 'listening', but it wasn't. How do you know that 'nothing has been done to honour this part'? (You may well be right - but how could you possibly know? Did you expect press releases of 'listening exercises'?)

You want proof that no one's listening to each other? Let's take a look-see back on this thread and see exactly how well our brethren and sistren are listening to each other, irregardless of alphabet soup status. I see a lot of hollerin', but not a lot of considerin'.

The best example, Numpty's response below.

[ 11. December 2009, 12:44: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
There is no logical or causal correlation between what you've described in Uganda and what is being pushed for by TEC. I am happy to condemn the imprisonment of people who practice homosexuality on the basis that spiritual obedience to Jesus Christ cannot and should not be imposed by legislation. This is the sort of listening that should happen.

However, that does not mean that I have to consider TECs innovations to be a matter of justice and human rights. Nor does it mean that I - or anyone else - has an obligation to 'listen'. To suggest a similarity between brutal imprisonment and the simple answer 'no' strikes me as deeply insulting to anyone who really is suffering injustice.

Again, the image of a stroppy, over-privleged teenager comes to mind.

[ 11. December 2009, 12:44: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
... and you don't think you might be a mirror image of the very thing you profess to hate?

That's how it looks to me anyways
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The sooner TEC get looking the better. There comes a time for every spoilt little rich kid to leave if they don't like the rules of the house. There's nothing worse than a cocky know-it-all teenager who just has to give the middle finger to their parents.
Statements like this are precisely why so many Episcopalians have come to value unity with your likes so little.
Good.
and why so many English Anglicans wonder how it is that we have so little in common with the likes of Numpty and so much in common with TEC.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
There is no logical or causal correlation between what you've described in Uganda and what is being pushed for by TEC. I am happy to condemn the imprisonment of people who practice homosexuality on the basis that spiritual obedience to Jesus Christ cannot and should not be imposed by legislation. This is the sort of listening that should happen.

However, that does not mean that I have to consider TECs innovations to be a matter of justice and human rights. Nor does it mean that I - or anyone else - has an obligation to 'listen'. To suggest a similarity between brutal imprisonment and the simple answer 'no' strikes me as deeply insulting to anyone who really is suffering injustice.

Again, the image of a stroppy, over-privleged teenager comes to mind.

Actually there is a causal relation. If the news reports are correct, the Ugandan anti-gay campaign is being not only stirred up, but also funded, by the same kinds of conservative groups that are opposing what's happening in TEC.

Now, what I haven't said on this thread yet (though I have before) is that I don't approve of what TEC are doing either. It looks to me like they're being deliberately provocative. But I'm very willing to listen to them explain why they don't think they're being provocative. If the listening process to which we were exhorted in 1998 was to be time-limited or limited in scope, well then Lambeth should have said so. But it didn't. To simply shrug and walk away at this stage is behaviur characterised perfectly by Gildas as:
quote:
sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la, la, la, I can't hear you'

 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
What constitutes a provocation, at least in terms of the issues at hand, is in the eye of the beholder. TEC is just getting on with business. If you wish to see that as provocation, by all means do so.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
No, it's more akin to saying, "Yes, I appreciate that you hold that opinion, but my answer is no and will remain so because my point of view doesn't rest on the amount of persuasive skill that can be brought to bear on the issue: it rests on what scripture says."
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's more akin to saying, "Yes, I appreciate that you hold that opinion, but my answer is no and will remain so because my point of view doesn't rest on the amount of persuasive skill that can be brought to bear on the issue: it rests on what scripture says."

Oh right. So it's sticking a bible in your ears and singing 'la, la, la, I can't hear you.

Lietuvos: precisely. And I accept that viewpoint. I would hope that, since the listening process was enjoined on everyone, TEC might understand how it might look like provocation. From a long way off, obviously.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... and you don't think you might be a mirror image of the very thing you profess to hate?

That's how it looks to me anyways

Have I made a profession of hatred anywhere on this thread? In fact have I ever professed hatred towards anyone on this forum, ever? I might have said that I'd be perfectly happy not be in communion with TEC and I've also said that there are plenty of Anglicans that I'd be happy to not work with. But that doesn't mean that I hate them. It just means that I don't think that their vision of the Kingdom (or what-have-you) is something that I can agree with or endorse.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's more akin to saying, "Yes, I appreciate that you hold that opinion, but my answer is no and will remain so because my point of view doesn't rest on the amount of persuasive skill that can be brought to bear on the issue: it rests on what scripture says."

Oh right. So it's sticking a bible in your ears and singing 'la, la, la, I can't hear you.

Lietuvos: precisely. And I accept that viewpoint. I would hope that, since the listening process was enjoined on everyone, TEC might understand how it might look like provocation. From a long way off, obviously.

No again. It's about sincerely wrestling with the entire biblical witness and searching intently for the truth that scripture has to shed on this issue. It's not about wilful ignorance or blind prejudice or hate fueled witch-hunts. It's about accepting scripture as the 'ultimate standard of faith', rather than being swayed by the feelings and experiences of some terribly nice, but disobedient, people.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's more akin to saying, "Yes, I appreciate that you hold that opinion, but my answer is no and will remain so because my point of view doesn't rest on the amount of persuasive skill that can be brought to bear on the issue: it rests on what scripture says."

Oh right. So it's sticking a bible in your ears and singing 'la, la, la, I can't hear you.

Lietuvos: precisely. And I accept that viewpoint. I would hope that, since the listening process was enjoined on everyone, TEC might understand how it might look like provocation. From a long way off, obviously.

But the irreducible problem we keep coming back to is that some provinces and factions in the Communion are not going to change their positions with respect to something that TEC feels called to do/espouse. Unless everyone will agree to live and let live, the AC as presently constituted simply can't continue. And then there may be innovations, practices or positions coming from somewhere else in the AC with which TEC can't agree (lay presidency, killing homosexuals, abusing children and women who are presumed to be demonically possessed, etc). I just don't see as we go on into the post-modern, post-colonial eras how the AC can hold together. In principle a thoroughly centralised administration along Vatican lines could work, but is a nonstarter in practice because we won't accept that (nor should we).
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
There is no logical or causal correlation between what you've described in Uganda and what is being pushed for by TEC. I am happy to condemn the imprisonment of people who practice homosexuality on the basis that spiritual obedience to Jesus Christ cannot and should not be imposed by legislation. This is the sort of listening that should happen.

However, that does not mean that I have to consider TECs innovations to be a matter of justice and human rights. Nor does it mean that I - or anyone else - has an obligation to 'listen'. To suggest a similarity between brutal imprisonment and the simple answer 'no' strikes me as deeply insulting to anyone who really is suffering injustice.

Again, the image of a stroppy, over-privleged teenager comes to mind.

Actually there is a causal relation.
Right. Let me get this straight. You believe that a Lesbian should be consecrated bishop in TEC because people who practice homosexuality in Uganda are being threatened with unjust imprisonment? Tell me, how does that work?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
C.M.Numpty: I thought I'd explained exactly what I think the causal relationship is: the relationship exists in some (not all) of the people who are the origin of more heat than light in both situations.

Lietuvos: rarely do I agree so much with a post. If the AC had made half as much fuss over issues like social justice, unfair imprisonment, the mutilation of women, and the use of children in war - all of which exist on the doorsteps of some of the bishops most violently opposed to TEC - we'd have had something a great deal closer to the Kingdom of God on Earth than we have now. And I, too, don't believe that the AC is an institution that should survive in the postcolonial age.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Posted by LsvK:
quote:
And then there may be innovations, practices or positions coming from somewhere else in the AC with which TEC can't agree (lay presidency, killing homosexuals, abusing children and women who are presumed to be demonically possessed, etc).

Yay! Now that has got to be the most ridiculous rhetorical juxtaposition that I have ever read on the Ship of Fools. That seriously warrants a Hell Call and the Golden Asshat award of 2009.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
C.M.Numpty: I thought I'd explained exactly what I think the causal relationship is: the relationship exists in some (not all) of the people who are the origin of more heat than light in both situations.

That is not a causal relationship: there is no direct correlation between draconian Ugandan legislation concerning issues of human sexuality and the current state of TEC.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's about accepting scripture as the 'ultimate standard of faith', rather than being swayed by the feelings and experiences of some terribly nice, but disobedient, people.

I'm not an Anglican, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But the problem that I have with this standard is that the Bible honestly appears to embrace slavery as the way that God's world is structured. If we accept this way of approaching scripture, we seem to be stuck with embracing slavery. ISTM that folks really don't apply this approach, except when they find it to be in their interest to do so, and then they claim some great Biblical purity for saying what they really believed all along. There are other things that one could cite as examples where we just whistle past Biblical passages, but the starkest of them seems to me to be those involving the pecular institution...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's about accepting scripture as the 'ultimate standard of faith', rather than being swayed by the feelings and experiences of some terribly nice, but disobedient, people.

I'm not an Anglican, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But the problem that I have with this standard is that the Bible honestly appears to embrace slavery as the way that God's world is structured.
Apart from the fact that it doesn't. Firstly, the early church practiced manumissio per mensam (and other informal forms of manumission) within its own community: holy communion would have been impossible without it. You can read all about it in 1 Corinthians. They did this because the Roman legal system wasn't geared up to give slaves legal freedom without producing greater poverty. Table Manumission was the best way forward in those cultural circumstances.

Secondly, the apostle Paul openly condemns slave-trading as contrary to sound doctrine in 1 Timothy 1:10.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Manumissio Corum Amicos (freedom among friends) was another common Christian practice that went hand in hand with manumissio per mensam (table freedom).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'm a little confused. Where are you quoting this thing about scripture being our 'ultimate authority', and ultimate authority in what? I would have thought that any church with even an ounce of sense would have declared God as its ultimate authority.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
Since this thread seems to be as much about Uganda as it is about Los Angeles, I thought the following recent news bit might be of interest: Uganda to Drop Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment for Gay.

I realize that this is not decriminalization, but it does seem somewhat less draconian.

What interests me is that the article says that this change was made "to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties." It would be interesting to know who these religious leaders are.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - there will a come a time, soon, when I shall want you to send us flying bishops.

Hasten the day.
[Disappointed] Do you mean what I take you to mean, that you will be glad to see the break-up of the Church of England? Or that the rump of self-righteous fundamentalists pretends that it is the real C of E?
Not glad - but if the Anglican Communion splits and I happen to be in a diocese that aligns itself with Akinola, Venables and Sidney, I want to REalign elsewhere.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Secondly, the apostle Paul openly condemns slave-trading as contrary to sound doctrine in 1 Timothy 1:10.

You should seriously consider looking for another translation. andrapodistes does not mean "slave traders." It means something closer to "pirates" or "kidnappers." The people who captured free people and then sold them into slavery were andrapodistes. This is more in keeping with the worries of the comfortable than opposition to slavery. People who traded in slavery, as opposed to enslaved those who were not already slaves, were not mentioned at all in 1 Timothy. FWIW

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
This from Vine's:
quote:
"a slave dealer, kidnapper," from andrapodon, "a slave captured in war," a word found in the plural in the papyri, e.g., in a catalogue of property and in combination with tetrapoda, "four-footed things" (andrapodon, aner, "a man," pous, "a foot"); andrapodon "was never an ordinary word for slave; it was too brutally obvious a reminder of the principle which made quadruped and human chattels differ only in the number of their legs" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocab.). The verb andrapodizo supplied the noun "with the like odious meaning," which appears in 1Ti 1:10.
This from Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (via pm):
quote:
You are out of your fucking mind, you pathetic little creep.
[Razz]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Since this thread seems to be as much about Uganda as it is about Los Angeles, I thought the following recent news bit might be of interest: Uganda to Drop Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment for Gay.

I realize that this is not decriminalization, but it does seem somewhat less draconian.

What interests me is that the article says that this change was made "to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties." It would be interesting to know who these religious leaders are.

One of them appears to be Rick Warren, the highly-influential American Evangelical leader who has spoken out strongly against the bill. So I suppose he's going to get accused of 'megaphone diplomacy' now for actually having the guts and decency to do the right thing and to bear witness against this.

L.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Since this thread seems to be as much about Uganda as it is about Los Angeles, I thought the following recent news bit might be of interest: Uganda to Drop Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment for Gay.

I realize that this is not decriminalization, but it does seem somewhat less draconian.

What interests me is that the article says that this change was made "to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties." It would be interesting to know who these religious leaders are.

One of them appears to be Rick Warren, the highly-influential American Evangelical leader who has spoken out strongly against the bill. So I suppose he's going to get accused of 'megaphone diplomacy' now for actually having the guts and decency to do the right thing and to bear witness against this.

L.

He's going to be accused of having spoken out strongly against the bill only once the most draconian of its provisions were removed. He has refused for weeks to condemn the death penalty for gays. Now that it's off the table, he's against it.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This from Vine's:...

I stand corrected: You should seriously consider upgrading your entire library...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Have I made a profession of hatred anywhere on this thread? In fact have I ever professed hatred towards anyone on this forum, ever? I might have said that I'd be perfectly happy not be in communion with TEC and I've also said that there are plenty of Anglicans that I'd be happy to not work with. But that doesn't mean that I hate them. It just means that I don't think that their vision of the Kingdom (or what-have-you) is something that I can agree with or endorse.

quote:
The sooner TEC get looking the better. There comes a time for every spoilt little rich kid to leave if they don't like the rules of the house. There's nothing worse than a cocky know-it-all teenager who just has to give the middle finger to their parents.
I know I can feel the love.

Zach
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm a little confused. Where are you quoting this thing about scripture being our 'ultimate authority', and ultimate authority in what? I would have thought that any church with even an ounce of sense would have declared God as its ultimate authority.

The basic tenets of being an Anglican are:From The Church of England website.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This from Vine's:...

I stand corrected: You should seriously consider upgrading your entire library...

--Tom Clune

So the ESV's 'enslaver' and the NLT's "slave-trader" are wrong too? Or even Wycliffe's "stealers and sellers of men"? Of course, "kidnapper" is OK though because it preserves the "the bible doesn't condemn slavery" canard as an indisputable fact. Which it isn't.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?

The 'We' at the start of the sentence is a clue. I take it to mean "We Anglicans". The sentence then goes on to say that "We (Anglicans) view the Old and New Testaments ' as... Does that cause you a problem?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
No, it doesn't. But earlier I thought you were saying that the Bible is the ultimate authority, which to my mind is actually something very different from the statement quoted on the website

I'm a tiny bit surprised at the way you phrase that last question. It sounds like you are being defensive - which I can understand considering the tone of this thread, but I wasn't actually attacking you when I questioned your understanding of 'ultimate authority' - I'm simply trying to understand where you got it from and what you think it means

[ 11. December 2009, 16:56: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I actually agree with that clause. Though I am sure Numpty will be completely dumbfounded that I still disagree with him. Or he will just say something snarky. Whichever.

Zach
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Oh... I see. You're referring to the fact that it doesn't say 'authority', it says standard. Fair point. I should have been more careful. I actually get the idea of authority from the qualifier which precedes it. Scripture is the ultimate standard of faith for Anglicans. I take this to mean that there is no higher authority, but you're free to dispute that reading. In fact, I'd be interested in what you have to say.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Numpty, I still don't think you're getting what I'm saying. It's not about authority. I could tell you what I think, but you seem to be in a mood to go on the attack, so I'm keen keen to steer away from that and try to understand what you mean when you say scripture is the 'ultimate authority' for anglicans.

I'm not laying a trap; I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, cos I'm part of the Anglican communion and I have heard this before (not very often I must confess), and I don't understand it or where it comes from.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Thank gawd the Anglican tradition has never said anything about the authority of reason or tradition. That might make establishing a denominational confession difficult.

Zach

[ 11. December 2009, 17:09: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Scripture originates theology (it is authoritative) and is the end point of theology (it is the ultimate standard). In other words, all valid theological endeavour starts with Scripture (it is our authority) and ends with Scripture (it is our ultimate standard). Reason, tradition and experience inform the endeavour but they do not constitute either the starting point or the end point of any theology.

[ 11. December 2009, 17:23: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
The issue here isn't whether the Bible has ultimate authority or not, it is what interpretation of the Bible has ultimate authority.

What many on both sides of the aisle forget is that everything in the Bible is subject to interpretation because it is a product of a different language, context and culture, and that EVERY Christian, liberal or conservative, takes certain passages of the Bible literally and believes they are to be applied literally and either rationalizes the literal meaning of other passages away, or ignores them altogether. There isn't a Christian alive who doesn't pick and choose parts of the Bible to apply and to ignore. There is nothing wrong with this. The key here should be which passages and for what reason.

The other truth is that the passages that go into the "literal" column and the passages that go into the "disregarded" column has varied over the centuries. Conservatives are no closer to the original interpretation and application of scripture than liberals are.

Most Episcopalians, on both sides of this issue, look to scripture as their source of [earthly] authority. Both liberals and conservatives "believe" the Bible. The difference lies in interpretation. The problem here is that few are able to make a distinction between "what Scripture says" and what they believe it means or how it should be used. They confuse their interpretation of the word of God with the word of God itself. They are not the same thing.

[ 11. December 2009, 17:30: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
So the ESV's 'enslaver' and the NLT's "slave-trader" are wrong too? Or even Wycliffe's "stealers and sellers of men"? Of course, "kidnapper" is OK though because it preserves the "the bible doesn't condemn slavery" canard as an indisputable fact. Which it isn't.

Well, "enslaver" is a pretty good run at the actual meaning -- it emphasizes that the person being condemned is creating a slave out of a free man. I'm not sure it's an actual word, but other than that it seems right on target. NLT seems by my lights to miss the boat in exactly the same way that the NIV did -- a slave trader need not be the person enslaving a free man, just a buyer and seller of slaves. Wycliffe seems to make an honest effort at capturing that concept, too -- although the length of the phrase leaves something to be desired.

Of course, I may be in error. But the sense of the word as I understand it is that of someone who makes a slave out of a free man. That is a very different beast than simply someone who traffics in human flesh. People who happily buy and sell slaves may well see a cosmic distinction between a slave and themselves, and so be horrified at the idea of being "erroneously" enslaved. If the Bible actually is horrified at the notion of slavery, I have not been able to discern where it holds that outrage...

--Tom Clune

[ETA: In the antebellum southern US, preachers argued precisely this fact -- the Bible embraced slavery, so clearly it was in the nature of things that some men were slaves and some free. It was a major and wrenching reinterpretation of scripture that was required to bring us to the point at which we now reside, where we are not even able to see the extent to which scripture was comfortable with what we find abominable. It is precisely that historical precedent that I think may be of interest in the current context. Of course, YMMV.]

[ 11. December 2009, 18:14: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
No doubt I am blinded by my own apostasy or something, but it seems to me that the tangent discussion between Numpty and tclune makes ToujoursDan's point rather concretely.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Precisely, Tom.

We have the 20-20 hindsight of being on the winning side of the slavery issue, so it's almost impossible to imagine that christians could ever have viewed the matter differently, yet they assuredly did, and the venom which people like Wilberforce endured at their hands was not unlike that experienced by the so-called revisionists today.

By the way, to Grammatica and others, it is not true to say that British evos are monolithic in their condemnation of TEC. For what it's worth, in my part of the world, of the seven local evangelical churches of which I have personal knowledge, one is vehemently anti-gay, one moderately so, two have no stated position, and the three others (my own included) are affirming of committed gay relationships, and consider gay bishops to be a non-issue. On the issue of women priests, all save the two firstmentioned churches are very much in favour of women priests (and, indeed, women bishops) and my church has women in positions of ordained leadership, whilst another has a female vicar as incumbent. Now this may be a peculiarity of my particular arbour of God's Vineyard, but ken comes from a different corner of the UK, and I suspect he would recognise this sort of pattern of diversity.

All these churches would accept the standard CofE affirmation, as quoted by Numpty, that the scriptures are the ultimate guide to conduct, thoug, of course, they (and I) would dispute his interpretation of what those scriptures actually say.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Also, it's not a matter of the monolithic Anglican Communion versus the bad Episcopal Church, no matter how much so-called conservatives try to paint it.

It's certainly not hard to find Anglican laity and clergy in Scotland, Ireland, the rest of the UK, South Africa, Canada, Australia (even in Sydney), New Zealand, Brazil, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Central America and elsewhere who very much do not want to see the TEC "kicked out" of the Anglican Communion. They either view the election of honest gay candidates to the episcopate as a positive development or think the presence of the TEC is far too valuable to end because of this development.

If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been. While I certainly don't want to see the TEC leave the AC, I don't see much changing "on the ground".

[ 11. December 2009, 19:01: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank gawd the Anglican tradition has never said anything about the authority of reason or tradition. That might make establishing a denominational confession difficult.

Zach

Well, Richard Hooker (who is part of the Anglican tradition) had something to say about Scripture, Right Reason, and Tradition. But what he actually wrote and what people often refer to mistakenly as the "three-legged stool" are not the same thing.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Jolly Jape wrote
quote:
We have the 20-20 hindsight of being on the winning side of the slavery issue, so it's almost impossible to imagine that christians could ever have viewed the matter differently, yet they assuredly did, and the venom which people like Wilberforce endured at their hands was not unlike that experienced by the so-called revisionists today.
True. But it's also worth pointing out that Wilberforce was very evangelical, and very socially conservative. And that he owed a lot of encouragement and support to his friend, William Pitt (the younger), a tory who detested party labelling and would sometimes refer to himself as an independent whig. It may also be worth pointing out that Wilberforce sought and received cross-party support.

I'm only making this intrusion for the benefit of pointing out extreme futility of using culture-wars definitions of Conservative and Liberal as a way of viewing matters outside the proper purview of these ideas. Perhaps one might also suggest that living in a state of permanent antagonism is also a good way of securing the prolongation of injustice.

Sorry - carry on...
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been. While I certainly don't want to see the TEC leave the AC, I don't see much changing "on the ground".
It is also very possible that TEC won't be kicked out at all. I can see TEC being invited to Lambeth just like usual, 2% of our bishops being gay nonwithstanding, and GAFCON and gang threatening to leave forever, but never actually having the guts to do it.

Zach
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
The problem there, Zach, is that if the covenant process goes through, then it won't be a question of chucking out but rather of opting in.

If it doesn't though, you may be right.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I suspect that this is correct and that +Glasspool (pending) will end up sitting in the naughty corner with +Robinson but otherwise it will be business as usual.

Back in 2003 it was woe unto Illium and the Yanks getting cast into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, but what actually happened in 2008? The Yanks turned up at Lambeth and the Poor Man's Dietrich Bonhoeffer bottled it at the eleventh hour.

Incidentally, some of the credit for this desirable state of affairs (quite a lot actually) ought to go to the heir of St. Augustine. Perhaps he hasn't got it in for you after all?

[x posted with Honest Ron]

[ 11. December 2009, 19:59: Message edited by: Gildas ]
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Since this thread seems to be as much about Uganda as it is about Los Angeles, I thought the following recent news bit might be of interest: Uganda to Drop Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment for Gay.

I realize that this is not decriminalization, but it does seem somewhat less draconian.

What interests me is that the article says that this change was made "to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties." It would be interesting to know who these religious leaders are.

Apparently your lot
have got in on the act. Which would be consistent with the Catholic Church's stated position in the Catechism and make sense given that the population of Uganda divvies up something like 36% Anglican 42% Catholic 12% Muslim.

The same source quotes Uncle Ricky as suggesting the Anglican Archbishop is not a fan of the legislation. This is a somewhat belated development but obviously very welcome. More joy in a sinner that repenteth and all that.

It looks to me like behind the scenes arm twisting is paying off. Croesus of this parish, in Dead Horses, is somewhat sceptical and I wouldn't want to state categorically that he is wrong. None of this is grounds for complacency, of course, but it all looks a bit better than it did twenty four hours ago.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
This (link) has now appeared on the Ugandan presidential media centre site. It's worth pondering in the context of the issues mentioned earlier. I'll leave off commenting myself.

(I wasn't aware of the other thread Gildas, thanks for the heads up).
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been. While I certainly don't want to see the TEC leave the AC, I don't see much changing "on the ground".
It is also very possible that TEC won't be kicked out at all. I can see TEC being invited to Lambeth just like usual, 2% of our bishops being gay nonwithstanding, and GAFCON and gang threatening to leave forever, but never actually having the guts to do it.

Zach

GAFCON and Co aren't threatening to leave. They're threatening to stay.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Indeed they are most welcome to, Numpty. They simply have to sit down at the table with Anglicans they disagree with.

Word is, they don't like that.

Zach
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
You want proof that no one's listening to each other? Let's take a look-see back on this thread and see exactly how well our brethren and sistren are listening to each other, irregardless of alphabet soup status. I see a lot of hollerin', but not a lot of considerin'.

The best example, Numpty's response below.

Actually I think this thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You are quite right that no one is really listening to each other. Nevertheless it is a thread which consists of both sides of the debate are (sort of) engaging. You might be right that Numpty is not listening but he could equally respond by saying that it is possible to listen and still to completely disagree with what is being said.

This is like marriage counselling when one partner holds the cushion and the other is not allowed to have their say until they have fairly repeated back what their partner is saying - i.e. that they have really listened. This is a good exercise but it assumes that both parties do want to work at the relationship. If one side grabs the cushion and refuses to let go, ever, then there is no point. I suspect that there is nothing the conservatives could possibly do to demonstrate they are listening apart from to concede some ground. 'Listening' is a smoke screen. It has become a bargaining chip.

Hence the article from Lambeth about 'listening' is well intentioned but practically impossible to demonstrate (to anyone's satisfaction). OTOH it is not exactly hard to tell whether TEC has ordained an openly gay bishop.

Now, once more, this may well reflect badly on Lambeth but it is how it is. I cannot see how appealing to Lambeth helps anyone expect the conservatives.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
helps anyone expect the conservatives.

[Hot and Hormonal] Damn ... except obviously. [Disappointed]

No one expects the conservative inquisition ... er, well, they do actually. [Razz]
 
Posted by Big Wally (# 15341) on :
 
This might be the last nail in the coffin of my parish. Four families have made it clear that as a result of this election they will no longer attend an Episcopal church. They had been waiting to see if TEC would honor the agreement to 'restraint' until the rest of the communion made a decision.

Unfortunately, ours is not a large parish and we had already lost a significant number of people since Bishop Gene was elected. We were barely treading water with the folks we had left. I doubt we survive this and I understand there is another parish in our area that is experiencing the same fallout.

Sad
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...It is also very possible that TEC won't be kicked out at all. I can see TEC being invited to Lambeth just like usual, 2% of our bishops being gay nonwithstanding, and GAFCON and gang threatening to leave forever, but never actually having the guts to do it.

Zach

I think, as usual, Honest Ron B is on the money with this one.

It's not about 'guts' or 'morality' (of any sort) on the side of either GAFCON or ECUSA.

It's about religio-politics, or the politics of religion. Particularly the art of political brinkmanship.

Politics has always been part of Anglicanism (remember the Elizabethan Religious Settlement; the causes of the English Civil War et sim).

As Anglicanism is a worldwide Communion with no political nor religious head the real situation reads like: 'Nothing (effectively) can be done'.

I suspect things to continue along much as they are now.

The mutual demonization and de facto split between GAFCON and ECUSA is the nightmare the Communion lives.

I suspect other provinces (including my own) will wish to continue to have some sort of relationship with ECUSA.

Familial relationships are never icky pooey 'wonderful'. Adult siblings grow apart and have their own families and lives.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Big Wally:
This might be the last nail in the coffin of my parish. Four families have made it clear that as a result of this election they will no longer attend an Episcopal church. They had been waiting to see if TEC would honor the agreement to 'restraint' until the rest of the communion made a decision.

Unfortunately, ours is not a large parish and we had already lost a significant number of people since Bishop Gene was elected. We were barely treading water with the folks we had left. I doubt we survive this and I understand there is another parish in our area that is experiencing the same fallout.

Sad

What's your parish doing to attract new people?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Big Wally:
This might be the last nail in the coffin of my parish. Four families have made it clear that as a result of this election they will no longer attend an Episcopal church. They had been waiting to see if TEC would honor the agreement to 'restraint' until the rest of the communion made a decision.

Unfortunately, ours is not a large parish and we had already lost a significant number of people since Bishop Gene was elected. We were barely treading water with the folks we had left. I doubt we survive this and I understand there is another parish in our area that is experiencing the same fallout.

Sad

What makes your part of California so hypersensitively conservative? I've never quite understood that dynamic. There seems to be a particular cultural split within CA. Maybe you or Spiffy or Ruth can 'splain it to me.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?

The 'We' at the start of the sentence is a clue. I take it to mean "We Anglicans". The sentence then goes on to say that "We (Anglicans) view the Old and New Testaments ' as... Does that cause you a problem?
No. The "we" stands for "we members of the CHurch of England." The CofE website -- the CofE General Synod -- the Parliament of the UK all may claim to speak for the CofE. None of them, at all, in any way, speak for "Anglicans".
Some anglicans, perhaps, but not for us all.

(And that is a statement that leaves undiscussed how and to what degree some, any or all anglicans view the Old and New Testaments.)

John
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
What makes your part of California so hypersensitively conservative? I've never quite understood that dynamic. There seems to be a particular cultural split within CA. Maybe you or Spiffy or Ruth can 'splain it to me.

Is Visalia south of Fresno? 'Cause everything down there's just pretty much messed up. I understand people who live from Fresno on up to the Oregon Border, but south of Fresno? No idea.

(Although it probably stems from the fact that it is prime farm country, and farmers tend to be traditionally conservative. I should know, I drove a pickup truck to high school with a gun rack in back. But my family sent the previous generation kids to San Francisco and Berkeley for college, which makes us a little different than others. This is why I somehow manage to be fiscally and socially conservative and a member of the Green Party.)

[ 12. December 2009, 02:55: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Pell, if you really are the moderate you claim to be, then take a moment to think about what both sides really want. You seem to believe there can be a place for both conservatives and liberals in the Anglican communion. The conservatives do not believe this. The liberals do.

Instead of sitting in the middle and thinking you're so fantastic for being above it all, think about who would be at your side if you ever dissent from the new Anglican Pope's One True Doctrine.

Zach
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Pell, if you really are the moderate you claim to be, then take a moment to think about what both sides really want. You seem to believe there can be a place for both conservatives and liberals in the Anglican communion. The conservatives do not believe this. The liberals do.

Instead of sitting in the middle and thinking you're so fantastic for being above it all, think about who would be at your side if you ever dissent from the new Anglican Pope's One True Doctrine.

Zach

I fear, Zach, you are stronger at polemics rather than reading my posts.

I really 'claim' nothing.

Not sure whether Rowan Williams has set himself
as 'the New Anglican Pope'. He appears to have been handed a futile task to complete and his performance has been criticized by both parties.

Reading - and attempting to fathom and reply to - your posts makes me sad rather than 'feeling fantastic' about whatever constipated stance you seem to assume I'm taking.

Raging against the cruel world seems to be a popular position these days. If it's always someone else's fault than one never has to take responsibilty for anything.

++ Peter Akkinola - in a really scary interview courtesy of the BBC via our ABC's 'Compass' program seemed to be in a state of permanent, hyperactive rage. He blamed whites - the likes of Tom Wright who spoke very moderately against ++ A's extreme position - for being racist against him and his fellow Africans.

There seems to be a fair bit of what Jung called Shadow Projection going on.

By the way, I've always felt I'm on my own here and speak for myself. I have no 'friends' with me on this one.


[Cool]
 
Posted by JSwift (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
What makes your part of California so hypersensitively conservative? I've never quite understood that dynamic. There seems to be a particular cultural split within CA. Maybe you or Spiffy or Ruth can 'splain it to me.

My guess would be it is the by-product of the migrants from Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I fear, Zach, you are stronger at polemics rather than reading my posts. I really 'claim' nothing.
If you are claiming nothing, then there can't really be anything to read in your posts, can there?

I wasn't saying Williams was the Anglican Pope or ever trying to be. I was commenting on how the conservatives are trying to make the Anglican Communion into a confession based on a strict set of doctrines. I had thought that the Anglicans had rejected such things along with the Pope.

Speaking only on what you have said, in your perch in the middle, banishing both the ECUSA and GAFCON to the wings as extremists sure seems to imply that what each side expects in all this is equally unfair or preposterous. Once again, that is simply not the case.

Zach

[ 12. December 2009, 03:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Zach, I believe that the problem is that we are each looking from opposite ends of the same telescope, thereby totally obscuring the other person's view of anything.

I find this hilarious and analagous to the whole sad situation.

The whole thing is beyond me. [Help]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Oh, I think I have a good idea of what you are arguing now. I just think your stance isn't nearly as nuanced and fair minded as you think.

I hope you will forgive me for daring to have an opinion while you do nothing but look helplessly at the sitation and declare how tragic it is.

Zach
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Big Wally,

Is it not the case that the actions of your former Bishop have caused problems for your parish? Once the assets of the diocese are returned to Episcopalians, the process of rebuilding should at least have some material support, and I think that there are people who will come home for a variety of reasons.

Greta
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

This from Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (via pm):
quote:
You are out of your fucking mind, you pathetic little creep.
[Razz]
Host Hat On

Call me Numpty

Don't quote from PM's on the open boards unless by mutual agreement with other Shipmates involved. If you have a concern with a PM from any Shipmate, you can refer the exchanges to a Host. If you do not wish to receive further PMs from any Shipmate who sends you a PM, you can add them to your ignore list (look at the options).

A reminder for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras and all other Shipmates

PMs do not give any of us the absolute right to say what we want to say. Although they allow scope for more personal exchanges, they are also covered by the 10Cs. Therefore any Shipmate is free to refer exchanges believed to be out of order to H & A, by PM, for a ruling. Any ruling will be based on both content and context, rather than any particular quotation.


Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Numpty:
quote:
It's not about wilful ignorance or blind prejudice or hate fueled witch-hunts. It's about accepting scripture as the 'ultimate standard of faith', rather than being swayed by the feelings and experiences of some terribly nice, but disobedient, people.
Numpty, what do you do with the fact that there are some of us who sincerely believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality? (There's rather a long thread in Dead Horses that should provide evidence of this.) I accept Scripture as the "ultimate standard", but read it in a different way to you. Where do we go from here?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been.

I'm just pondering why it all comes down to money - and why that is so important to TEC's relationship to the Anglican Communion? Always the giver, never the receiver. CoE has historically bankrolled the Communion as much if not more than TEC but doesn't have this strong money/funding perception of itself. It strikes me that this aspect of the relationship, TEC as perpetual dispenser of largesse, might also be part of the problem.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been.

I'm just pondering why it all comes down to money - and why that is so important to TEC's relationship to the Anglican Communion? Always the giver, never the receiver. CoE has historically bankrolled the Communion as much if not more than TEC but doesn't have this strong money/funding perception of itself. It strikes me that this aspect of the relationship, TEC as perpetual dispenser of largesse, might also be part of the problem.
Spawn, what evidence do you have that tgis is "all about money". One passing reference to the TEC's record of funding overseas mission, from someone who, IIRC, is not a member of TEC, hardly qualifies as substantive proof of your assertion.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Numpty:
quote:
It's not about wilful ignorance or blind prejudice or hate fueled witch-hunts. It's about accepting scripture as the 'ultimate standard of faith', rather than being swayed by the feelings and experiences of some terribly nice, but disobedient, people.
Numpty, what do you do with the fact that there are some of us who sincerely believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality? (There's rather a long thread in Dead Horses that should provide evidence of this.) I accept Scripture as the "ultimate standard", but read it in a different way to you. Where do we go from here?
I would have to consider very carefully the scriptural evidence that was presented. If I concluded that the evidence was faulty and theologically sub-standard I would the reject your interpretation as false.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?

The 'We' at the start of the sentence is a clue. I take it to mean "We Anglicans". The sentence then goes on to say that "We (Anglicans) view the Old and New Testaments ' as...
  • containing all things necessary for salvation' and
  • as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
Does that cause you a problem?

No. The "we" stands for "we members of the CHurch of England." The CofE website -- the CofE General Synod -- the Parliament of the UK all may claim to speak for the CofE. None of them, at all, in any way, speak for "Anglicans".
Some anglicans, perhaps, but not for us all.

(And that is a statement that leaves undiscussed how and to what degree some, any or all anglicans view the Old and New Testaments.)

The Webpage is about what it means to be Anglican, not Church of England. I can understand why you may wish to wriggle out of this particular definition of Anglicanism, but you should explain precisely why you dislike the definition, not attempt to avoid it on the basis that it doesn't apply to you.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indeed they are most welcome to, Numpty. They simply have to sit down at the table with Anglicans they disagree with.

Word is, they don't like that.

Zach

There comes a time when the Apostolic principle found in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 trumps 'listening'. If Scripture is the ultimate standard of faith for Anglicans (which it is), then there comes a time when obedience to apostolic instruction trumps Lambeth.
quote:
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you. 1 Cor.11-13

It's somewhat difficult to sit at a table with a person - or even an entire church - who fulfils these criteria.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Standing peering into a horse's grave here.
quote:
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral
You have missed the point of the whole dispute: the majority of TEC (and I"d like to bet, the C of E too) denies that to be involved in a loving and stable same-sex relationship is to be 'sexually immoral'. You are at liberty to dispute that, but it's no good quoting such statements as if they proved your case. They don't.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Does the same standard apply to provinces of the Anglican Communion who consecrate openly greedy bishops?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
It's somewhat difficult to sit at a table with a person - or even an entire church - who fulfils these criteria.
Too bad, Numpty. This is our Communion too, and we aren't going anywhere.

Zach
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Zach82 writes:
quote:
I wasn't saying Williams was the Anglican Pope or ever trying to be. I was commenting on how the conservatives are trying to make the Anglican Communion into a confession based on a strict set of doctrines. I had thought that the Anglicans had rejected such things along with the Pope.

I don't think that Anglicans had ever rejected that approach as such. To begin with, we did not have a corpus of Reformers' authoritative writings such as provided by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, which provided a comprehensive basis for a confessional approach (which provides for a form of unity which does not require organizational coherence, so one can have several Lutheran churches on the same turf, all with varying degrees of communion).

There were attempts to set Anglicans on a more coherent path, such as the first Lambeth Conference which was trying to address the Colenso situation, but it proved impossible to devise something which worked for both state churches (CoE and parts of the Caribbean) and non-state churches (Canada, South Africa & the US). The growing diversity of liturgical practice made it impossible to rule generally on what was really important at the time, viz., vestments and ritual.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that doctrinal coherence was never the real point of Anglicanism to begin with, but that in recent years, developing divergences began to test those hitherto-vague limits. It might be that, if we had possessed doctrinal strictness, either much of this would not have arisen, or the splits would have happened much earlier on.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I'm not suggesting that it 'proves' anything with regard to sexuality, but I am saying that the decision not to sit a table with people whom - on the basis of scripture - I consider to be sexually immoral can be a principled decision based upon a scriptural injunction. My refusal to 'sit' can be a principled attempt at obedience.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
This might provide an interesting contrast of emphasis to the statement from the CoE website. Of course, I don't think that either is meant to be a definitive, scholarly exposition of what constitutes Anglicanism.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm not suggesting that it 'proves' anything with regard to sexuality, but I am saying that the decision not to sit a table with people whom - on the basis of scripture - I consider to be sexually immoral can be a principled decision based upon a scriptural injunction. My refusal to 'sit' can be a principled attempt at obedience.

quote:
Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

Zach

[ 12. December 2009, 15:30: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It's funny (not ha-ha funny) to see the differing emphasis that each part of the communion puts on a definition of what is anglicanism and what their church represents. The part to which I belong would describe itself as 'Catholic, but reformed' and tends to avoid the use of the word 'Protestant' which is rather prominent on that page. I guess it might be in part a reaction to Presbyterianism.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm not suggesting that it 'proves' anything with regard to sexuality, but I am saying that the decision not to sit a table with people whom - on the basis of scripture - I consider to be sexually immoral can be a principled decision based upon a scriptural injunction. My refusal to 'sit' can be a principled attempt at obedience.

The problem with this approach, Numpty, is that Paul also gives us very stern warnings about refusing to recognise the body of Christ in Communion. This, to me, at least, suggests that the Lord would have us be very generous and gracious with, rather than suspicious of, our brothers and sisters. That is certainly part of Anglican tradition, whether you approve of it or not, and is well supported from scripture. When I have to give an account before the Lord of how I had treated my brethren, I would rather hear Him criticise me for thinking the best of others, than to hear Him criticise me for thinking the worst.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Thank you, Jolly, for expressing my own views better than my petard ever could.

Zach
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Zach82 writes:
quote:
I wasn't saying Williams was the Anglican Pope or ever trying to be. I was commenting on how the conservatives are trying to make the Anglican Communion into a confession based on a strict set of doctrines. I had thought that the Anglicans had rejected such things along with the Pope.

I don't think that Anglicans had ever rejected that approach as such. To begin with, we did not have a corpus of Reformers' authoritative writings such as provided by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, which provided a comprehensive basis for a confessional approach (which provides for a form of unity which does not require organizational coherence, so one can have several Lutheran churches on the same turf, all with varying degrees of communion).

There were attempts to set Anglicans on a more coherent path, such as the first Lambeth Conference which was trying to address the Colenso situation, but it proved impossible to devise something which worked for both state churches (CoE and parts of the Caribbean) and non-state churches (Canada, South Africa & the US). The growing diversity of liturgical practice made it impossible to rule generally on what was really important at the time, viz., vestments and ritual.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that doctrinal coherence was never the real point of Anglicanism to begin with, but that in recent years, developing divergences began to test those hitherto-vague limits. It might be that, if we had possessed doctrinal strictness, either much of this would not have arisen, or the splits would have happened much earlier on.

Anglicans have never had a single ultimate authority to test doctrine. The Roman Catholics have the Magisterum, while various Protestant sects turn to the writings of their respective founders. This doesn't necessarily mean it is a matter of "John Calvin says it, that ends it." Rather, in the example of the Presbyterian Church, Calvin's major themes are a guiding post to look at doctrine.

Our theological giants, Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker and others, while thoroughly learned and influential, cannot be called the founders of the Anglican Church in a way that Lutherans look to Luther or Presbyterians look to Calvin. Cranmer's name is rarely if ever mentioned in our religious disputes.

Conservatives object to our doctrinal "looseness", because they think that if given the chance, the Anglican Church would feel free to dump major doctrines and simply preach that Jesus was a fun-loving guy who died about 2000 years ago. One could say that some conservatives are insecure about doctrinal flexibility. If they allow homosexuality, the next thing would be the Virgin Birth, then after that the Trinity, and then after that the Resurrection. Some fear, (though I don't share that fear) a theological domino effect.

So when conservatives hear about liberals talking about interfaith dialogue and apologizing to other religions for missionary activity in the past, they interpret that as a subtle denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the world. When conservatives hear liberals talking about inclusivity in relations to homosexuals, they interpret that as a rejection of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If the AC had made half as much fuss over issues like social justice, unfair imprisonment, the mutilation of women, and the use of children in war - all of which exist on the doorsteps of some of the bishops most violently opposed to TEC - we'd have had something a great deal closer to the Kingdom of God on Earth than we have now.

In my about 35-year experience of beibng in the CofE we've talked about, and taken action on, those sorts of issues farm far more than bothering about sexual morality. I almost only hear about the churches supposed hangups about sex from the secular media, and online in discussions like this one. Its genuinely years since I last heard anyone say anything about sexual morality in a sermon in our church and the only mentions of homosexuality that I remember have been generally supportive of the Inclusive Church position - one of our clergy is involved with that organisation.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We have the 20-20 hindsight of being on the winning side of the slavery issue,

British evangelicals, who are for some reason being attacked on this thread, were on the right side of the issue the whole time. The anti-slavery campaign was the evangelicals defining political issue in the late 18th and early 19th century, its what made them a coherent and visible group above and beyond denominational affiliation. And it carried on from there into action on missionary work and development work and anti-racism at home.

Its in our organisational genes. In Britain just about the only political issue that Christians disagree with non-Christians on is that we tend to be more positive about immigration and more anti-racist.

NB that inlcudes anti-abortion and pro-live activism, which is much less prominent in British politics than in American and which tends to be thought of as a Catholic thing rather than an Evangelical thing. It would be an exagerration to say that for British evangelicals anti-racism takes the same sort of place as anti-abortion does for American evangelicals, because to be honest we tend not to make a fuss about anything political much. But it would only be an exagerration, not a lie.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The part to which I belong would describe itself as 'Catholic, but reformed' and tends to avoid the use of the word 'Protestant'...

Protestant means the same thing as Reformed Catholic. You guys may have hangups with the sound of the word for some reason but I think most Anglicans don't.

In England our rather unpleasantly Erastian established church is by definition Protestant because constitutionally you have to be Protestant to be king. So if the CofE was redefined as not Protestant the Queen would have to either abdicate or become entirely Presbyterian - as she already is when in Scotland. (another reason why the established church can't be nasty to Presbyterians - our supposed governor is one)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
British evangelicals, who are for some reason being attacked on this thread...
I can't imagine why, myself. Unless some "for us or against us" logic has gotten out of the coop.

Zach
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
quote:

Protestant means the same thing as Reformed Catholic. You guys may have hangups with the sound of the word for some reason but I think most Anglicans don't.

eh... it was only an observation.
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
quote:
...if the CofE was redefined as not Protestant...
Redefined by who? The Church of England does not define itself as Protestant. 'The Protestant Reformed Religion established by law' is Parliament's phrase, not the Church's.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Leadership isn't really about popularity, it's about doing the right thing. The right thing, in this instance, is whatever it takes to block the proposed legislation in Uganda.

I really am not suggesting Rowan Williams set out to make himself popular. Leadership may well be about doing the right thing, but I'd take that to mean right for the body of which you are a leader. While blocking objectionable legislation anywhere in the world would seem to be a good thing, the value in attempting to influence a particular legislative process in which you have no direct say would seem less than clear cut. If it's a binary choice with making clear where your own Church stands, I'm not at all sure why it should have priority.

For the Archbishop of Canterbury to give the impression that the Church of England has nothing to say about the proposed Ugandan law, but is ready to instantly condemn the US Church for positive non-discrimination, is a serious failure of leadership. It only makes sense from a narrow dogmatically-orthodox catholic position; as posters across the theological spectrum have been noting on this thread, that is not where most Church of England people are.

That Rowan Williams does not court popularity is one of his many strengths. Whatever the complexities and hard choices that come with his position, I don't see they excuse putting up the shutters and retreating into closed political corridors in the hope of wielding a little personal influence.

Very ironically, perhaps what is needed is an Archbishop who is willing to articulate and reflect the actual beliefs of his Church, what I understand to be an authentically papal function. In general that would mean reflecting diversity in theology and, if not respect, at least tolerance for significant difference. But on issues like death sentences for sexual activity, I would have thought a clear pronouncement that accomodated the sensitivities of ongoing diplomacy was relatively straightforward.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
This (link) has now appeared on the Ugandan presidential media centre site. It's worth pondering in the context of the issues mentioned earlier. I'll leave off commenting myself.

(I wasn't aware of the other thread Gildas, thanks for the heads up).

Thanks for that: Well clearly the good news is that with a pronouncement that is one part woofing and one part 'lets be sensible' the Ugandan government is looking for a climbdown.

The bad news is that you could pretty much do a search and replace on that document with the words 'homosexuals' and 'transdimensional shapeshifting lizards' and it would probably make as much sense. If these are the reasserters new best mates then it is not so much a case of the Poor Man's Dietrich Bonhoeffer as the Poor Man's David Icke.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
This (link) has now appeared on the Ugandan presidential media centre site.

From the document:
quote:
We ought to know that homosexuality community across the world is now 10% of the world population. Since we are part of the global community how feasible would it be to kill off 10% of the population.
Is the second sentence a rhetorical question or a suggestion for further study?
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
I really am not suggesting Rowan Williams set out to make himself popular. Leadership may well be about doing the right thing, but I'd take that to mean right for the body of which you are a leader. While blocking objectionable legislation anywhere in the world would seem to be a good thing, the value in attempting to influence a particular legislative process in which you have no direct say would seem less than clear cut. If it's a binary choice with making clear where your own Church stands, I'm not at all sure why it should have priority.
Disagree. The document that was invariably cited in the nineties as to the C of E position on human sexuality was 'Issues in Human Sexuality'. The document that gets cited now is the Lambeth 98 Resolution. I am not wild about either document but they pretty much preclude 'gas them like badgers' being taken as the C of E's line as far as gay people are concerned so I think we can ignore the whole Andrew Brown But Rowan doesn't care... line. Anyone who thinks that the Ugandan legislation is a good thinks so in the face of the pretty much establised C of E position that it ain't.

So Rowan has a choice. On the one hand he can do stuff behind the scenes and this might have a positive outcome for gay people in Uganda. Or he can do what lots of liberals (including me) would like and slag off the Ugandan church despite this having absolutely naff all effect. If what matters is party lines then we will go for the latter choice because sticking it to the bad guys is important. If we care about gay people in Uganda we will go for the former because this might actually have some effect for the better on their situtation.

If it all goes tits up and the legislation gets passed then, for the record, yeah absolutely, I was wrong. Next time lets stick it to The Man. But at the moment I think that the prudential case says 'behind the scenes if you please, people'. And, if that's the right thing to do, then galling as it is, lets stick to it.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Ho hum. Scratch my last.

That said, given the events of the last forty eight hours there is probably an issue about timing here. And I notice that His Nibs draws our attention to the pronouncements of the AC as to why the Ugandan legislation is wrong. So I may yet refrain from wearing sackcloth and ashes for a bit longer.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Bit of both surely? Is it not possible to believe (unless one is a knee-jerk Rowan vilifier [which seems ironically to be a position common to conevo schismatics like Charles Raven and to Rowan's AffCath former friends!]) that he has been doing the behind the scenes diplomacy with Orombi and co., but now feels that it's possible to go public with the (pretty low key but nuanced) denunciation that all of us feel is required? It's classic Foreign Office diplomacy. You don't badmouth Uganda while you know that there's some behind the scenes arm-twisting to be done.

Equally, the rest of the UK bishops will have been keeping their powder dry and waiting for Rowan, and for our colleagues whose dioceses are twinned with Uganda, to do the business in private.

And that of course is where the moral equivalence stuff breaks down. Uganda may or may not be susceptible to low-key diplomacy. What is being proposed is of course utterly unacceptable. But they need to be persuaded.

ECUSA's action isn't in the same ball-park. But it is a deal-breaker for the Communion. They know it. And I'd venture to suggest that they aren't in the slightest bit open to any kind of persuasion about the effect of their actions. They're basically what used to be known in socialist circles as vanguardists. The question is whether the revolution they want is actually going to happen...

[ 12. December 2009, 19:29: Message edited by: pete173 ]
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
That would be largely my interpretation of what happened. I merely felt unable to enthusiastically commend our ongoing struggle with the forces of Eastasia fourteen minutes after I had exhorted the proletariat to commit themselves to the struggle with Eurasia! [Big Grin]

I think I disagree with your final paragraph but will need to have a think as to why.

[ 12. December 2009, 19:48: Message edited by: Gildas ]
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ECUSA's action isn't in the same ball-park. But it is a deal-breaker for the Communion. They know it. And I'd venture to suggest that they aren't in the slightest bit open to any kind of persuasion about the effect of their actions. They're basically what used to be known in socialist circles as vanguardists. The question is whether the revolution they want is actually going to happen...

But the deal was already broken: specifically, by those continuing to interfere across national/provincial borders; morally, by those who continue to offer no engagement with ('listening') lesbian and gay Christians.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I merely felt unable to enthusiastically commend our ongoing struggle with the forces of Eastasia fourteen minutes after I had exhorted the proletariat to commit themselves to the struggle with Eurasia! [Big Grin]

What this prole was mostly criticising Rowan for, though, was not representing the Church of England's position in his own back yard. Whether we like it or not, public perception of the Church will be disproportionately influenced by what Archbishops say or don't say.

Senior church leadership obviously requires political awareness and diplomatic nous, but if it refuses to speak credibly for the Church on what is in the news it effectively pulls the rug from under anyone or anything that identifies with it.

Those with some church involvement might say it's not about image. But in practice, for anyone on the outside, what else is there? What's in the news is the only church they're likely to see and hear from one year to the next. Rough as it is on Archbishops, a stoney silence can be taken to speak volumes and as easily misrepresented as anything that is said.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ECUSA's action isn't in the same ball-park. But it is a deal-breaker for the Communion.

Only I think if you assume a Communion that does not yet exist. The Communion as is has no such concept of breakage, only those who speak and act is if it did.

[cross-posted]

[ 12. December 2009, 21:30: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
But the deal was already broken: specifically, by those continuing to interfere across national/provincial borders; morally, by those who continue to offer no engagement with ('listening') lesbian and gay Christians.

Of course, the concept of listening is a bit like the concept of reception. It isn't susceptible of any kind of objective measurement. We can't know when it's happened.

The debate on gay relationships in the Church has been going on throughout my adult Christian life - since at least the early 1970s, and roughly coterminous with the gay rights movement itself. Within that 35 year period, there has been much dialogue of the deaf, but also a great deal of listening. Many may not have "listened", but the experience of a good number of Christians will have been [as mine has] that they have a number of gay and lesbian friends; that they have heard and aborbed the painful and sometimes cruel experiences of those friends at the hands of the Church; they have sat in groups and one-to-ones and dialogued; and that they (however partially) have been doing what the Lambeth resolution requires. But however much listening goes on, it remains an unfulfilled and impossible task.

Just as the ordination of women will never be "received" until every single person and ecclesial community has accepted women as fully part of the priesthood of the Church of God, so I suspect that listening will never be complete until every church, on the basis of listening, accepts the validity of committed faithful homophile relationships.

That's not a complaint. It's the content that I think "listening" has been given. It's kind of code for "winning the argument" - only put in softer tones. Doesn't absolve us from the need to do the listening - but I think we're aware that, like "reception", "listening" has an infinite middle. And if you remain unconvinced of the theological rightness of the reformist argument, we have a concept whose desired outcomes can't be fulfilled.

As to the border-crossing, you'll know that I and many others don't really think that people changing churches or planting new ones is any big deal. If some Anglicans in the USA want to realign, that's their choice. It's a matter of supreme indifference what church people decide to be a part of, provided that they're being discipled and growing in Christ.

But it would be interesting to hear from those who keep recalling us to the listening process what content they give to the word. It does really seem to me to end up as vanguardism.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I don't think that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 was intended to create a cosy Shangri-la of perpetual 'listening'. There is a time to listen and there is a time to speak. The listening has been done. The same things are being said ad infinitum. They are just as unconvincing now as when they were first being said. There is a time when talking become pestering. That time is now long past.

Gosh, you know, I think we agree on something.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Bit of both surely? Is it not possible to believe (unless one is a knee-jerk Rowan vilifier [which seems ironically to be a position common to conevo schismatics like Charles Raven and to Rowan's AffCath former friends!]) that he has been doing the behind the scenes diplomacy with Orombi and co., but now feels that it's possible to go public with the (pretty low key but nuanced) denunciation that all of us feel is required? It's classic Foreign Office diplomacy. You don't badmouth Uganda while you know that there's some behind the scenes arm-twisting to be done.

Charles Raven? He who was Team Vicar in a district in Kidderminster ten years ago who fell out with his Bishop / Team Rector / APCM over flying bishops / churchwardens / something or other. He set up a new independent church with his old churchwardens and left the CofE, didn't he?
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
But the deal was already broken: specifically, by those continuing to interfere across national/provincial borders; morally, by those who continue to offer no engagement with ('listening') lesbian and gay Christians.

Of course, the concept of listening is a bit like the concept of reception. It isn't susceptible of any kind of objective measurement. We can't know when it's happened.

The debate on gay relationships in the Church has been going on throughout my adult Christian life - since at least the early 1970s, and roughly coterminous with the gay rights movement itself. Within that 35 year period, there has been much dialogue of the deaf, but also a great deal of listening. Many may not have "listened", but the experience of a good number of Christians will have been [as mine has] that they have a number of gay and lesbian friends; that they have heard and aborbed the painful and sometimes cruel experiences of those friends at the hands of the Church; they have sat in groups and one-to-ones and dialogued; and that they (however partially) have been doing what the Lambeth resolution requires. But however much listening goes on, it remains an unfulfilled and impossible task.

Just as the ordination of women will never be "received" until every single person and ecclesial community has accepted women as fully part of the priesthood of the Church of God, so I suspect that listening will never be complete until every church, on the basis of listening, accepts the validity of committed faithful homophile relationships.

That's not a complaint. It's the content that I think "listening" has been given. It's kind of code for "winning the argument" - only put in softer tones. Doesn't absolve us from the need to do the listening - but I think we're aware that, like "reception", "listening" has an infinite middle. And if you remain unconvinced of the theological rightness of the reformist argument, we have a concept whose desired outcomes can't be fulfilled.

As to the border-crossing, you'll know that I and many others don't really think that people changing churches or planting new ones is any big deal. If some Anglicans in the USA want to realign, that's their choice. It's a matter of supreme indifference what church people decide to be a part of, provided that they're being discipled and growing in Christ.

But it would be interesting to hear from those who keep recalling us to the listening process what content they give to the word. It does really seem to me to end up as vanguardism.

Tendentious and misleading.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

The debate on gay relationships in the Church has been going on throughout my adult Christian life - since at least the early 1970s, and roughly coterminous with the gay rights movement itself. Within that 35 year period, there has been much dialogue of the deaf, but also a great deal of listening.

Well, yes. In the mid 1970s I was living in an evangelical Anglican college and we certainly had that sort of debate. Including at one point some students coming out publically - one of them in a CU meeting. You will remember some of individuals involved. Many of them are now CofE clergy. And of course Michael Vasey was at the same college. As was at least one current bishop.

There has been plenty of talking and listening going on for decades. Not all of it very charitable or useful, bit some of it was. We haven't been hiding under the table with our fingers in our ears.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Without referencing Pete173's entirely and lengthy (again) post, Grammatica said:
quote:
Tendentious and misleading.
No, it's not. It is a very different perspective (one I don't much agree with, by the way), and gives us something for reflection. (Pete173 should not assume anything on account of an occasional semi-compliment).

Grammatica.... might I suggest that we give our opposing interlocutors a bit more credit?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?

The 'We' at the start of the sentence is a clue. I take it to mean "We Anglicans". The sentence then goes on to say that "We (Anglicans) view the Old and New Testaments ' as...
  • containing all things necessary for salvation' and
  • as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
Does that cause you a problem?

No. The "we" stands for "we members of the CHurch of England." The CofE website -- the CofE General Synod -- the Parliament of the UK all may claim to speak for the CofE. None of them, at all, in any way, speak for "Anglicans".
Some anglicans, perhaps, but not for us all.

(And that is a statement that leaves undiscussed how and to what degree some, any or all anglicans view the Old and New Testaments.)

The Webpage is about what it means to be Anglican, not Church of England. I can understand why you may wish to wriggle out of this particular definition of Anglicanism, but you should explain precisely why you dislike the definition, not attempt to avoid it on the basis that it doesn't apply to you.
The webpage certainly purports to define Anglicanism, but it has no authority to do so for any group except the CofE. And as the CofE is not now -- nor has it beem for several decades -- normative for any other branch of Anglicanism, what the webpage says is interesting but not necessarily applicable outside England.

For example, any reference to the 39 Articles in the context of Anglicanism has to take account of the fact that they never had any authority in the Epicopal CHurch of Scotland. They must, therefore, fall as an authoritative standard or statement about Anglican belief, except insofar as individual churches have adopted them. You in ENgland can refer to them as the website and you have done. You do so, as regards the CofE, with perfect propriety. But that's where it ends.

John
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
Augustine the Aleut, here's the bit I objected to:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

As to the border-crossing, you'll know that I and many others don't really think that people changing churches or planting new ones is any big deal. If some Anglicans in the USA want to realign, that's their choice. It's a matter of supreme indifference what church people decide to be a part of, provided that they're being discipled and growing in Christ.

It's that last bit I called
quote:
Tendentious and misleading.
because that isn't a faithful and complete picture of what's been going on in the US, and Pete173 has every reason to know it. Like the equally surprising memory lapses certain other evangelicals were prone to, up the thread, it gives me reason to think some shading of the truth is going on. I don't like that.

[ 13. December 2009, 01:13: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
 
Posted by caercybi06 (# 15105) on :
 
In my diocese we have had 4 churches split , some people joining the Anglican Network reas friends of AB Akinola et al. the others staying to rebuild
IMHO conservative Anglicans should decide werther being conservative and Anglican, at the same time is possible . I think it is o.k. you have to accept that we will ordain gay & lesbian people but then aren't they part of the family of God too ? Where is the Christian concept of love thy neighbour ? We need to exercise such love and stop shooting at each other. I know much more of this all sex all the time in The Canadian Anglian Journal and I will be hard pressed to stay an |
Anglican. [Angel]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I think a lot of this stems from a rather pompous pride by some conservatives. The conservatives leaving our Church beat their chest proclaiming how good little orthodox people they are, as opposed to the wicked TEC. It is sad that one can only be secure in one's orthodoxy by attacking other people's point of view.

The ABC, rather than telling such people to bugger off and pay attention to their own sins, is enabling them by criticizing the election of the recent Suffragan bishop of LA. The ABC's criticism is laying the blame squarely on TEC and giving legitimacy to the specious claim that the Episcopal Church is heretical.

Frankly I do not think either the ACC or the TEC should accept having to look over one's shoulder to ensure Canterbury is happy before making a decision on an issue.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
pete173 and ken both make entirely reasonable points about listening; listening has gone on, it has sometimes been useful and sometimes not, and that 'listening' can carry a hidden agenda of aiming to win the argument. I do suspect that my experience of a Deanery Synod in the CofE in the late 1990s where 'listening' was interpreted as 'talking about' would not be a unique one.

But there are those within the Communion (both 'West' and 'South') with their mind made up who therefore see no purpose in dialogue. For them 'the gay issue' appears to have been made the touchstone of orthodoxy: if you accept some form of homosexual behaviour, that is evidence that your view of Scripture is not as high as 'ours'. But views vary between sincere Christians, as evidenced by the ongoing debate. Are the 'liberals' condemned to keep giving ground, while the 'conservatives' stand firm?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Posted by John Holding:

The webpage certainly purports to define Anglicanism, but it has no authority to do so for any group except the CofE. And as the CofE is not now -- nor has it beem for several decades -- normative for any other branch of Anglicanism, what the webpage says is interesting but not necessarily applicable outside England.

For example, any reference to the 39 Articles in the context of Anglicanism has to take account of the fact that they never had any authority in the Epicopal CHurch of Scotland. They must, therefore, fall as an authoritative standard or statement about Anglican belief, except insofar as individual churches have adopted them. You in ENgland can refer to them as the website and you have done. You do so, as regards the CofE, with perfect propriety. But that's where it ends.

Someone, rather helpfully, posted a link to TECs equivalent of the webpage under discusssion. It's called What makes us Anglican? The Hallmarks of the Episcopal Church. That suggests to me that there are certain "hallmarks" that should mark any Anglican church (e.g. the TEC and the CofE). This sentence from TEC's website provides a good example of what I'm talking about.
quote:
Like all Anglican churches, the Episcopal Church is distinguished by the following characteristics:
Now that to me looks like an attempt to define what is specifically Anglican about the TEC. However it is also, by implication, an attempt to define Anglicanism itself. For the record, I think this sentence from TEC's definition of Anglicanism is wonderful. I wish the CofE would say such a thing about itself!
quote:
Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition.
A bit of serious historical reflection on what that statement actually means, or might mean could solve a lot of the problems in TEC.

With regard to scripture the website goes on to make this statement:
quote:
The Anglican approach to reading and interpreting the Bible was first articulated by Richard Hooker, also in the 16th Century.
Again, a bit of serious engagement with what this actually means would yield great reward. Matt Black is the shipmate who is best placed to explain precisely what Hooker was about and my hope is that he'll post something about it at some point.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by caercybi06:
In my diocese we have had 4 churches split , some people joining the Anglican Network reas friends of AB Akinola et al. the others staying to rebuild
IMHO conservative Anglicans should decide werther being conservative and Anglican, at the same time is possible . I think it is o.k. you have to accept that we will ordain gay & lesbian people but then aren't they part of the family of God too ? Where is the Christian concept of love thy neighbour ? We need to exercise such love and stop shooting at each other. I know much more of this all sex all the time in The Canadian Anglian Journal and I will be hard pressed to stay an |
Anglican. [Angel]

I think what you're saying is that to be an Anglican in North America is to accept the majority position there, and if you don't like it you cannot be Anglican. Is that correct?

If so, it is utter hokum, any more than someone in Reform trying the same thing. After all, haven't we been continually told that TEC is basically congregational? If that is the case why can individual parishes not make such decisions themselves? Or is is a case have your congregational cake but eating it with an Episcopal flavour?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Link to post by Grammatica

Grammatica

A couple of technical points related to quotations.

1. As you have explained later, your comment did not apply to the whole post, so you would have been better to quote only the part on which your comment is based.

2. In general, there is no need to quote a relatively long post in its entirety. If you do wish to refer to an entire post, you can always post a link - for example as I've done in this post.

And of course you can combine 1 and 2.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
quote:
Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition.
That phrase, taken out of the context in which it occurs, is so misleading that is is simply Not True. This is where proof texting gets you.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
There seems to be an emerging consensus that when the Lambeth 1998 Resolution said 'listening to gay people' we really meant 'we had a conversation about that in our Christian Union in the 1970s and, like, totally ick and, hey, Somerset Maugham!'.

Ha! Fooled you gay people who trusted our bona fides! Egg all over your faces!
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
quote:
Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition.
That phrase, taken out of the context in which it occurs, is so misleading that is is simply Not True. This is where proof texting gets you.
I'm interested. Could you explain what you mean please?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Again, a bit of serious engagement with what this actually means would yield great reward. Matt Black is the shipmate who is best placed to explain precisely what Hooker was about and my hope is that he'll post something about it at some point.

[Confused] Am I? I'm flattered by the compliment, but I'm not sure that's the case nor that I fully understand the question. As I see it, Hooker basically developed further Luther's concept of adiaphora with reference to history and ecclesiology in particular. Hooker accepted (contra the Presbyterians) that Scripture could be argued at least three ways (episcopal, Presbyterian and congregational) with regard to church government; his take on it was that episcopacy was the pre-existing form that the Church had 'done' since the Year Dot so, as there was nothing in the NT against it and in fact on or two mentions of it in the NT, 16th century Reformers might as well keep it. There was, perhaps, more than a cursory nod to Tradition in Hooker's 'workings' of this conclusion and thus one can draw from this the principle that 'Tradition is OK, and fills in the gaps where Scripture is silent and indeed is useful for interpreting Scripture provided it doesn't actually contradict Scripture' but, tbh, that was hardly revolutionary even in the nascent CofE - Cranmer's Homilies of a generation earlier are shot through with the same methodology. For me, this is what firmly establishes Anglicanism as Reformed Catholicism...
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
pete173 and ken both make entirely reasonable points about listening; listening has gone on, it has sometimes been useful and sometimes not, and that 'listening' can carry a hidden agenda of aiming to win the argument. I do suspect that my experience of a Deanery Synod in the CofE in the late 1990s where 'listening' was interpreted as 'talking about' would not be a unique one.

How can any listening take place in the places where it needed to take place the most? During the period of time following Lambeth 1998, both the Nigerian and Ugandan churches have supported legislation that criminalized gay self-identification with assistance from Anglicans and other conservative evangelicals in the States and elsewhere.

Sure, a listening process may have happened in London, Toronto, New York, Los Angeles and Auckland, but I don't believe for a minute that openly gay people had the opportunity to tell their stories in church settings in Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Nigeria or Uganda. And these place are where the listening process was most critical. There, they are fighting for their lives.

Lambeth 1998 said that the listening process was meant to be communion wide, not just in the Western, gay friendlier parts of it. The percentage of homosexuals in Nigeria is probably the same as in the UK, but their voices have not been heard. As Nigeria, Uganda, etc., have actively participated in GAFCON and in the "realignment" process from the TEC and AngChCanada, I still believe one can argue that they also didn't hold up their end of the resolution, either.

[ 13. December 2009, 13:08: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
it would be interesting to hear from those who keep recalling us to the listening process what content they give to the word. It does really seem to me to end up as vanguardism.

I wonder what you mean by vanguardism in this context. If simply that a movement for change whose time has come does not reflect your tradition's position, I'd have thought what you're referring to was a legitimate outcome of any genuine listening process.

The problem with this particular listening process, whatever the original perhaps honorable intent, is it was based on at least one false assumption: that all involved were open to creative change. What's become clear, and I would have thought should have been obvious from the start, is that those whose faith is based on unreflective dogma cannot/will not accept innovation.

Given that reality, the 'content' that has emerged, the proposed Covenant to replace the Anglican Communion with a broadly acceptable global Anglican Church, was only ever either a pipe-dream or a cynical ploy to marginalise and exclude liberals.

I like the idea of some kind of covenant. It could frame a forward-looking, aspirational basis for anglicanism in terms of shared history and values. Instead all the drafts have aped existing orthodox forms of words, I guess out of habit as much as anything. The best thing that could happen would be for Churches to simply refuse to sign up. Only the ideologues attempting to impose their orthodoxies would lose out.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
ISTM Pete is pointing out that one can sincerely listen, and still not agree with the point being put. Whereas some people have taken listening to mean, talking until such time as we find we agree with you.

So then when conservatives say, we have listened and you're still wrong, the other side state - you said you were going to listen, but you haven't and we know you haven't listened because you haven't changed your mind.

The main problem on both sides seems to be the assumption that it is impossible to read the bible, seriously listen to a range of views, understand the situation in the world, and yet be able to sincerely disagree.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
When I see (many) conservatives still invoking claims from ex-gay "ministries" and long discredited research to state that not only is homosexuality a sin, but that gay people are sick, diseased-ridden, depraved people who are a threat to children, and who deserve no legal protections, I have trouble believing much listening has been done at all.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
The main problem on both sides seems to be the assumption that it is impossible to read the bible, seriously listen to a range of views, understand the situation in the world, and yet be able to sincerely disagree.

No, the problem is the proposed outcome - the Covenant - that will exclude liberal readings of the bible from involvement in global anglican decision-making. If accepted, this anglicanism will be synonymous with a dogmatic orthodoxy that discriminates against people on grounds of sex and orientation for as long as any national church vetoes change.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Honestly believing homosexality is sinful and dangerous and akin to peadophilia is certainly possible - and may be a majority view globally. Doesn't mean they are right of course - but it also doesn't mean they haven't listened. It means when they listened their minds were not changed.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
It means when they listened their minds were not changed.

Well, yes. So what should happen next? That's where the problem is arising.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Agree to disagree?
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
That would be my choice.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Honestly believing homosexality is sinful and dangerous and akin to peadophilia is certainly possible - and may be a majority view globally. Doesn't mean they are right of course - but it also doesn't mean they haven't listened. It means when they listened their minds were not changed.

Some people may believe homosexuality to be naturally ocurring, not 'akin to paedophilia', not dangerous, but homosexual activity to be sinful. They may have listened to the arguments and come to this conclusion. Without an absolutist philosophy it is impossible to say if they (or any other opinion) is right or wrong.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
"Agree to disagree" isn't really a conclusion, unless you're in a Dave Marshall non-dogmatic type of church. It works for pluralists, but not for anyone else.

Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps:

1. Disagree and hide the disagreement by not mentioning it - unlikely

2. Disagree and try to resolve it - it's what we've been doing (badly)

3. Disagree and stop talking to each other - won't help the "listening process"

4. Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE [for instance, unlike what appears to be the case in ECUSA, we couldn't have a diversity of official practice on liturgical provision for gay quasi-marriage].

Agree to disagree is, I suspect,only a theoretical possibility in a congregational, non-credal, non-episcopal denomination. Which is why ECUSA hasn't, despite their looser polity, held together. It also makes the covenant increasingly unlikely...
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE
None of which the Anglican Communion is.

Zach
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE
None of which the Anglican Communion is.
I don't understand. Will you please explain?
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...

There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle. It is the "reasserters'" claim that disagreement over sexuality must be Communion-breaking that has been the real problem, and not the fact that disagreement over sexuality exists.

Henry VIII, that old lion, saw the problem perfectly clearly in in his 1545 speech: "Some be too stiff in their old mumpsimus, others be too busy and curious in their sumpsimus.”

[Irony ON] But then, in his day, and his son and daughters' days, as we all recall, the disagreements in the Church were over unimportant stuff, adiaphora like permitting the laity to read the Bible in translation, allowing services to be conducted in the vernacular, the precise nature of the Eucharist, Communion in both kinds, the necessity of penance and the role of the priest, the proper veneration due to saints, the efficacy of relics and pilgrimages, little things like that. Nobody took them very seriously except for people like Anne Askew, Hugh Latimer, or Edmund Campion, who weren't really hurt much except for being burned at the stake or disembowled and dismembered. So it wasn't at all like today, when we debate over human sexuality. That's a real disagreement, not at all like that silly stuff people fought over in the Reformation. Nobody cares about any of that. [Irony OFF}

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Agree to disagree is, I suspect,only a theoretical possibility in a congregational, non-credal, non-episcopal denomination. Which is why ECUSA hasn't, despite their looser polity, held together. It also makes the covenant increasingly unlikely...

Stop the presses -- I agree with Pete173. The Anglican Covenant is not going to come into effect. It was too stiff it its old mumpsimus for the sumpsimus churches like Scotland to accept it.

Well, the historians will say that a closer union among the provinces of the Anglican Communion was attempted at the end of the 20th century, but the model proved unworkable and was abandoned by 2010. So the Anglican Communion went on to ---
Do what? That's what we should be thinking about now.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...

There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle.
Yeah. Brilliant. You do what you want inch by inch, regardless of everyone else. The truth is this: you don't the wider communion to listen to anything; you want it shut up and watch you do what the hell you like.
 
Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...

There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle.
Yeah. Brilliant. You do what you want inch by inch, regardless of everyone else. The truth is this: you don't the wider communion to listen to anything; you want it shut up and watch you do what the hell you like.
Speaking for +Peter Akinola, are you?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
But the VERY same things are going on in other parts of the communion. There are gay clergy and bishops that everyone knows about in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada and elsewhere. What I find puzzling is that Gene Robinson wasn't the first openly gay bishop. He was merely the first openly gay bishop through the process. It seemed to be perfectly okay in the 1990s to have openly gay bishops like Otis Charles and Oliver Garver doing their duties happily. No one split because they were not defrocked.

It's certainly not hard to get a same sex blessing in the Church of England, either. There was a big article in the Telegraph about this in 2002.

An investigation by The Telegraph can reveal for the first time just how easy it is for same-sex couples to receive a blessing in an Anglican church. In the space of less than a week, reporters posing as gay couples were offered blessings by 14 different vicars. The clergy, who were chosen at random, were happy to help the couples even though they were strangers who had no connection with either the local church or the parish. Two parish priests in the dioceses of Lincoln and Southwark even provided dates for the ceremonies, which they agreed could take place in their own churches.

Telegraph via Changing Attitude

The church splitting problem seems to be the TEC's willingness to acknowledge the elephant in the living room.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Pete173:

quote:
Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE [for instance, unlike what appears to be the case in ECUSA, we couldn't have a diversity of official practice on liturgical provision for gay quasi-marriage].
No, but apparently we can cope with a service of thanksgiving after a civil partnership as long as it's made clear that its not a wedding service or a blessing, for example. You could in theory have an official position which left space for a kind of loyal opposition, as it were. Which, lets face it, is the position quite a lot of good and conscientious C of E clergy find themselves in. It would be nice if General Synod were to move out of the 1950s but we don't have to wait for that to happen before getting on and doing our bit for the Kingdom of God. Now, whilst there is a minority of hardliners who would be quite happy to see the loyal opposition branded traitors and drummed out of the C of E in practice this would probably be quite difficult and the grown ups who disapprove in theory have sensible views about the logistics of replacing otherwise orthodox and capable clergy.

The problem with this on a communion wide level is firstly that TEC is expendable inasmuch as kicking them out will have little effect on the day to day life of the C of E so the opportunities for grandstanding are greater. It's not like waking up one morning and finding that all your Aff Cath parishes are in vacancies and the churchwardens aren't returning your calls because they've resigned in protest. Secondly the communion is more polarised than the C of E. A loyal opposition wouldn't be acceptable to GAFCON.
Thirdly we don't know what a communion wide shape would look like, whether it would be honoured in more conservative parts of the communion. Fourthly, after six years of name calling TEC aren't really in a mood for compromise any more. KJS was making those sorts of noises a few years ago but I don't think she can deliver her troops on the ground, any more.

Which is a pity because on paper its not a bad idea.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think what you're saying is that to be an Anglican in North America is to accept the majority position there, and if you don't like it you cannot be Anglican. Is that correct?

...

After all, haven't we been continually told that TEC is basically congregational? If that is the case why can individual parishes not make such decisions themselves? Or is is a case have your congregational cake but eating it with an Episcopal flavour?

I'm not quite sure what caercybiO6 was trying to say, but I don't think that is what most Episcopalians would say about being Anglican in North America. They would suggest you need to realize the majority position is the majority position and will influence policy as long as it remains the majority position. Still, no one was forcing Ft. Worth to ordain women (I use Ft. Worth as an example because it is the "hot spot" with which I am most familiar, although my on-the-ground knowledge is 20 years out of date). So while the majority was "moving on", no one was forcing the minority out the door. Except for a few of the more vocal blogosphere group, I don't think most Episcopalians would have felt they weren't "Anglican" until they left.

As for congregationalism in TEC--I think you have misread the discussion Spiffy and others were having up-thread. As I read it, they stated that many people in their parishes have a congregational view of their parish--often having come to the Episcopal Church from other congregationally-organized churches. However, I would suggest it takes more than that to actually BE a congregational church. Certainly Bishop Iker of Ft. Worth did not consider TEC a congregational church when he sued for and won recovery of the property of Holy Apostles Church in Ft. Worth, which attempted to take the property to the Orthodox Church (I don't recall precisely which branch).

There are just a very few people from Ft. Worth with whom I still keep in contact. In a very general way, they feel the true impetus for Bishop Iker's departure was not the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, but the election of a woman as Presiding Bishop.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...

There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle.
Yeah. Brilliant. You do what you want inch by inch, regardless of everyone else. The truth is this: you don't the wider communion to listen to anything; you want it shut up and watch you do what the hell you like.
Speaking for +Peter Akinola, are you?
No.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
ToujoursDan, with whom I normally agree, writes:
quote:
But the VERY same things are going on in other parts of the communion. There are gay clergy and bishops that everyone knows about in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada and elsewhere. What I find puzzling is that Gene Robinson wasn't the first openly gay bishop. He was merely the first openly gay bishop through the process. It seemed to be perfectly okay in the 1990s to have openly gay bishops like Otis Charles and Oliver Garver doing their duties happily. No one split because they were not defrocked.

The difference was that (neigh!! neigh!!) Bp. Robinson was not openly gay, but openly partnered. On the one hand, the distinction between orientation and practice began to blur and/or become irrelevant. On the other, this removed everyone's denial facility, which has been, in so many areas, the key to Anglicanism's ability to manage irrecondilable differences! With Bps Charles & Garver, they were IIRC both retired before they came out of the closet, which put them in the catgory of a) doesn't matter because they're retired and/or b) it is the fault of their diocesan who is now not disciplining retired clergy properly.

This may be a generational issue, where both pro and anti elements are now no longer willing to facilitate the situation where we all knew, but did not discuss it. This change has its positive points, but it also creates some major challenges, as we are now seeing.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Agree to disagree is not working because it is not a symetrical argument. The people arguing for change do not see the ordained priests of the status quo as ontologically not priests. Whereas the people arguing for status quo see the potential for lots of ontologically not-priests "pretending" to be actual-priests.

Put another way, what do you lose if you don't ordain gay clergy ? The individual contributions of - in absolute terms - a small number of individuals, increased acceptance for homosexual Christians.

From the point of view of a traditionalist, you potentially promote sin and risk the apostolic succession (and if folk leave over it, you lose the contributions of a number of individuals).

In that sense the the traditionalists have more to lose.

(I am not including the wider social issue of the abuse of homosexual people - of course those who want change hope that a lead from the church will reduce this.)
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
There is an asymmetry, but I think it goes the other way. The row over gay priests/bishops forms a secondary debate over whether self-identified gay people and gay relationships can be reconciled with the Christian walk. For gays, it is our lives you are attempting to pass judgment on and micromanage. Identity and relationships go to the core of who we are and how we interact with others. On a larger scale the way the church falls on this issue has implications for gay people in the political and societal realm as well.

Gay people have the most to lose in this fight.

Whether the church comes to the conclusion that gay people and relationships are sin or not doesn't affect the lives of conservatives on a personal level. They aren't being asked to give up their spouses and break up their families, leave the church or hide in the closet.

AA: You make a good point. Perhaps instead of using VGR, perhaps the Jeffrey John fiasco would have been a better example.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
That's a personal rather than an institutional loss - bottom line if it came to losing the apostolic succession or some folk having a more sacrificial and difficult life ....

ETA to add a related point, I think that gay rights activists would get further trying to get humane treatment for homosexuals in countries where they are maltreated - if they were not pushing to get them into the clergy. Allow the Akinolas of this world to assume a position of benign condecension, rather than their current outright hostility.

(Disclaimer: I am a gay female, I don't share the traditionalist viewpoint, but I can see where they are coming from.)

[ 13. December 2009, 18:17: Message edited by: Think² ]
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

Quite true, I'm afraid.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
That's a personal rather than an institutional loss - bottom line if it came to losing the apostolic succession or some folk having a more sacrificial and difficult life ...

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

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

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

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

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

[ 13. December 2009, 18:40: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
As for congregationalism in TEC--I think you have misread the discussion Spiffy and others were having up-thread. As I read it, they stated that many people in their parishes have a congregational view of their parish--often having come to the Episcopal Church from other congregationally-organized churches. However, I would suggest it takes more than that to actually BE a congregational church.

Actually, I read it as Spiffy saying that, all other things being equal, her inclinations were to congregationalism but she is currently worshipping in an Episcopalian church because it is the only one she has found where she is accepted as she is. I didn't understand her to be talking about anyone other than herself but others gave her words a wider application.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
"Agree to disagree" isn't really a conclusion, unless you're in a Dave Marshall non-dogmatic type of church. It works for pluralists, but not for anyone else.

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

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

Will this lead to a pluralist communion? Only as far as existing Communion members have accepted they cannot agree. Alternatively, it might be that the Communion's shared identity is better understood in non-doctrinal ways, perhaps as shared history and shared values, commitment to truth and respect for cultural difference. Theological or ecclesiological difference might not after all relate much to what most people think is important about the Anglican Communion.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
"Agree to disagree" isn't really a conclusion, unless you're in a Dave Marshall non-dogmatic type of church. It works for pluralists, but not for anyone else.

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

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

[ 13. December 2009, 22:03: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Even in the 39 Articles there was room for local autonomy:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

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

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


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

Anglicanism never has insisted on a specific interpretation of Scripture, so do national churches have the ability to come to interpretive conclusions that others in other contexts may not share yet be included in the Communion? They do when it comes to women's ordination and the criteria for divorce and remarriage, but not bishops in gay relationships.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
4. Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE [for instance, unlike what appears to be the case in ECUSA, we couldn't have a diversity of official practice on liturgical provision for gay quasi-marriage].

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

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

We appear to agree to disagree quite well on the nature of the Eucharist.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If one day TEC finds itself out of the AC, it's hard to believe that the relationship between TEC and these other national churches would change much. TEC will still send money to overseas churches and dioceses that need it, and bishops, priests and academics will still be recognized as valid by these other national churches and partnerships and exchanges will continue to go on as they always have been.

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

Sorry.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
After 14 pages this discussion has got me thinking of this:

Duty Calls
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
1. Disagree and hide the disagreement by not mentioning it - unlikely

Seems to be what most evangelical churches in practice do. Round here anyway.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
The people arguing for change do not see the ordained priests of the status quo as ontologically not priests. Whereas the people arguing for status quo see the potential for lots of ontologically not-priests "pretending" to be actual-priests.

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

Also most evangelicals probably don't give much time to the idea that priests are ontologically different from anyone else (to be honest most of them probably never heard of the notion and those that have likely think its just a Catholic thing), and also they don't often have hangups about the validity of ordinations or sacraments.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
]That's not true. They don't think that Robinson is not a priest. They think he is a priest who has not repented of a sin.

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

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

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

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

So we're not talking Donatism here. We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
We're probably not going to get it for the reasons I explained above.

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

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

You can keep trying to explain it, but actions speak louder than words. And in the American context, the reality of gay and lesbian laity and clergy is going to speak loudest.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
That's a personal rather than an institutional loss - bottom line if it came to losing the apostolic succession or some folk having a more sacrificial and difficult life

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

Why not ask 'straight' bishops if they'd be prepared to give up their wives as part of the sacrifice required of their calling?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So many American Episcopalians won't understand how a gay person's "manner of life" can be disruptive to others, particularly when hardly a fuss is raised over other "manners of life" like divorced and remarried clergy and bishops.

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

(United Methodist here not Episcopalian, but we have the same issues in our church)
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. (my italic)

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

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

Unless of course it's possible to let go of right-believing orthodoxy as the only possible basis for a covenant.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Sorry my mistake on the ontological thing then. But you still have the asymetry - one side ends up with ordained priests (and potentially bishops) they consider by definition unrepentent sinners (before they even open their mouths) the other doesn't.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Even in the 39 Articles there was room for local autonomy:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

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

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


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

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

I'm a bit confused. Article 34 has nothing to do with changing theological interpretations or emphases; it specifically refers to rites and ceremonies. I don't think it can bear the weight of the point you're trying to make on it here.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
We aren't talking about theological interpretations. We are talking about the criteria for consecration and the Blessing of Same Sex unions. These are creedal or theological matters. They are about the creation of rites and ceremonies and which people are eligible for them.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
We aren't talking about theological interpretations. We are talking about the criteria for consecration and the Blessing of Same Sex unions. These are creedal or theological matters. They are about the creation of rites and ceremonies and which people are eligible for them.

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

[ 14. December 2009, 23:37: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

[ 15. December 2009, 01:16: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.

Some of us get that. Some of us also wonder why each province can't decide for themselves which manner of life is compatible and which manner of life is incompatible with public ministry within their province. Or maybe its just me.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So many American Episcopalians won't understand how a gay person's "manner of life" can be disruptive to others, particularly when hardly a fuss is raised over other "manners of life" like divorced and remarried clergy and bishops.

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

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

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

See, the world didn't come to a crashing end, and we're still family.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.
Trust me, we get it. Somewhere in the world there is an Anglican absolutely mortified that there is a gay priest somewhere else in the world. It is quite clear, and so there is really no point in trying to explain it any more. Thank you.

Zach
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.

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

This, to me, is the real issue at stake.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion". Many of the said articles are directed against the anabaptists, who were the fashionable perceived menace of the day. The Articles are very much an artifact of their time. The only people in the American Church BTW for whom the Articles were especially important left back in the 1870s (the Reformed Episcopal Church with its virtually invisible presence).
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There are those, for example, like Numpty and myself, who believe that Anglicanism is a form of Reformed Catholicism and that documents like the 39 Arts are pretty normative and foundational to the concept of an Anglican Communion and without which there's not much of a 'communion' to speak of...and then there's a heck of a lot of people on this thread who think otherwise...

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

But this is only an issue if the Communion is understood as an orthodoxy-defining Church-like body. As far as I'm aware, that has only ever been a role concocted by those attempting to gain influence for their own particular position.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There are those, for example, like Numpty and myself, who believe that Anglicanism is a form of Reformed Catholicism and that documents like the 39 Arts are pretty normative and foundational to the concept of an Anglican Communion and without which there's not much of a 'communion' to speak of...and then there's a heck of a lot of people on this thread who think otherwise...

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

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

According to the website, the Anglican communion is:

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

My understanding is that the official line is thaty to be in the Anglican communion a member church needs to subscribe to all four instruments of communion. Whether that is historically justifiable or consensually correect I'm not sure.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.
Trust me, we get it. Somewhere in the world there is an Anglican absolutely mortified that there is a gay priest somewhere else in the world. It is quite clear, and so there is really no point in trying to explain it any more. Thank you.

Zach

Actually, Zach82, there are some of us for whom that is quite irrelevant. The real issue is how changes and decisions are made and accepted as much as the reasons for the decision and, as well, how dissenters from decisions get to be treated. Indeed, the more I have seen the Issue dealt with, the less I see this as being about the Issue itself.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

Somebody might correct me, but if I'm not mistaken it was Ramsey's predecessor Geoffrey Fisher who made that remark. Which is perhaps relevant because, unlike Ramsey, there is no way he could have been dismissed as an Anglo-Catholic.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

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

[ 15. December 2009, 14:24: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

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

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

[ 15. December 2009, 14:25: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

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

[ 15. December 2009, 14:40: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible
Really? The concept of sexual orientation was defined some 1800 years after the compilation of the Bible. Please provide a reference (chapter and verse, please) to support your extraordinary claim.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And as the CofE website says, Anglicans uphold the ultimacy of the scripture and the sufficiency of the creeds, and recognise the congruity of the 39 Articles with the preceding two.

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

[ 15. December 2009, 14:45: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Aye, there's the rub...
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
When Blessed Michael Ramsey stated that we have no distinctive doctrine of our own but rather have simply the Catholic Creeds of the Catholic Church, I don't recall his adding "plus the 39 Articles of Religion".

Somebody might correct me, but if I'm not mistaken it was Ramsey's predecessor Geoffrey Fisher who made that remark. Which is perhaps relevant because, unlike Ramsey, there is no way he could have been dismissed as an Anglo-Catholic.
Yes, I think you're correct. It would have been so much better ascribed to ++Ramsey. But actually when I was a teenager I used to have a little wallet-sized card (purchased at a parish gift shop at a church in West Texas) with this quote from Dr Fisher on it. It's been much repeated in the American Church. I do think that I've actually seen the misattribution to ++Ramsey in print, so that's another interesting sort of revisionist legend in TEC.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

The Bible
Really? The concept of sexual orientation was defined some 1800 years after the compilation of the Bible. Please provide a reference (chapter and verse, please) to support your extraordinary claim.
This has never been only about orientation though, has it?
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
No, but neither can we remove orientation from the equation as reasserters would like to do, because once you admit orientation into the evidence, it's much harder to defend a straightforward reading of the relevant texts.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Really, it's about a split that has been running through Christianity - at least Western Christianity - since the publication of On the Origin of Species. The split is in some ways livelier in protestant Christianity than in the RCC, due to the relative lack of central authority within protestantism. The bones of contention have changed over time for some of the participants. Darwin is no longer the bugaboo amongst English Evangelicals, though he still is amongst loads of American Evo-fundies. However, issues of sexuality have moved to the fore for many denominations in the past 35 years. Now our old friend Ingo would probably say this is the way protestantism was destined to go. I wouldn't agree. However, I do think Christianity has been experiencing something akin to a second Reformation, a long, drawn-out process that is associated with changes in society at large that are taking place with different degrees of speed in different places.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
One last time, Numpty: the C of E is not "Anglicans," and your frantic repetition of this point won't make it true.

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

[ 15. December 2009, 15:37: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Really, it's about a split that has been running through Christianity - at least Western Christianity - since the publication of On the Origin of Species. The split is in some ways livelier in protestant Christianity than in the RCC, due to the relative lack of central authority within protestantism. The bones of contention have changed over time for some of the participants. Darwin is no longer the bugaboo amongst English Evangelicals, though he still is amongst loads of American Evo-fundies. However, issues of sexuality have moved to the fore for many denominations in the past 35 years. Now our old friend Ingo would probably say this is the way protestantism was destined to go. I wouldn't agree. However, I do think Christianity has been experiencing something akin to a second Reformation, a long, drawn-out process that is associated with changes in society at large that are taking place with different degrees of speed in different places.

How'd you get so smart?...
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And as the CofE website says, Anglicans uphold the ultimacy of the scripture and the sufficiency of the creeds, and recognise the congruity of the 39 Articles with the preceding two.

One last time, Numpty: the C of E is not "Anglicans," and your frantic repetition of this point won't make it true. In some provinces, the Articles have no authoritative standing whatsoever.
What about the creed as a sufficient synopsis, and the bible as the ultimate standard, of the Ancient Catholic faith?
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
As Dead Horses shows, that would far from sort out the argument in this case.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
My understanding is that the official line is thaty to be in the Anglican communion a member church needs to subscribe to all four instruments of communion.

I'm not sure what that means. How do you subscribe to the Archbishop of Canterbury? Before recent attempts to use the Communion as a weapon of theological warfare I can't imagine any Church 'asking to join' - they would simply be included if they were one of the family. What we are seeing now is either family tensions or a family feud, depending on which family member you talk to or when you come into the room.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
My understanding is that the official line is thaty to be in the Anglican communion a member church needs to subscribe to all four instruments of communion.

I'm not sure what that means. How do you subscribe to the Archbishop of Canterbury? Before recent attempts to use the Communion as a weapon of theological warfare I can't imagine any Church 'asking to join' - they would simply be included if they were one of the family. What we are seeing now is either family tensions or a family feud, depending on which family member you talk to or when you come into the room.
You're right, my language was sloppy. I think it would be true to say that if a church were to reject one of the four instruments of communion they would be placing themselves outside of the communion though.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think it would be true to say that if a church were to reject one of the four instruments of communion they would be placing themselves outside of the communion though.

I think the family analogy works better. If, say, the Nigerian Church fell out with the US Church because they didn't like the way the US Church played, they might stop talking. They're still both anglican Churches. Either would only need to be excluded from family gatherings if they insisted on shouting obscenities across the meal table or some other parallel for disrupting normal family life.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Where is sexual orientation mention in any Anglican document? Is it in the 3 Creeds? Articles of Faith? Chicago Lambeth Quad? Which?

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

Whether sexual orientation is mentioned in the Bible I gainsay: please provide citations. Whether it says much about Lesbianism is also doubtful.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
My embryonic view is that the four instruments of communion are simply four distinct means by which the Anglican church should seek to order itself according to Scripture. Firstly, it is incumbent upon the ABC to be in submission to Christ and his word in accordance with his vows of consecration. Secondly, the Lambeth Conference should seek to worship, study, and converse in submission to the will of God as revealed in his word. Thirdly, the Primates are obliged to conduct themselves in a way that befits their vows of consecration. Finally, the ACC is committed to the centrality of bible study at it's meetings.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I have written above is what it sounds like to me.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
A point not yet mentioned is that the Scaife family wants the Episcopal church in their pocket. There was a big meeting in Dallas a few years ago. The city ought to be called the American capital of ecclesiastical amnesia. It was there that a lobotomy had been administered to the Southern Baptist Convention some thirty years earlier, such that they forgot what the denomination had hitherto stood for in the way of individual autonomy. Happily, Episcopalians are too aware and fond of history for the attempt to have succeeded yet in our case. The election of Ms. Claypool at least provides reassuring evidence that outside money has not yet bought our church (unless you are an even subtler conspiracy theoriest than I).

Those abroad might not feel this threat, but we do.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.

Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?
 
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And as the CofE website says, Anglicans uphold the ultimacy of the scripture and the sufficiency of the creeds, and recognise the congruity of the 39 Articles with the preceding two.

One last time, Numpty: the C of E is not "Anglicans," and your frantic repetition of this point won't make it true. In some provinces, the Articles have no authoritative standing whatsoever.
And in some (like mine), they are constitutionally enshrined as delineating the fundamentals of anglican belief (alongside the 1662 BCP).
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Indeed. And there is probably all manner of shading in between, as in the US (where they are a 'historical document') and Canada (where they have some status owing to their place in the Solemn Declaration).
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.

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

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

So you can't let each province interpret things like the 39 Arts themselves. And by the way you notice that sexuality was not mentioned in my post. I think you are right about this being deeper than sexuality. I think it is more to do with autonomy.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Although I've previously made this point it's important to remember, further, that the 39 have never had any real standing in the American Church. They were "established" by General Convention in 1801, albeit without any meaning of such "establishment" being attached; no subscription ever required. The only true believers walked out of the Church over ritualist controversies, led by the Suffragan Bishop of Kentucky, not long after the American Civil War. So it's not as if the Articles were subsequently relegated to irrelevance; they just never were terribly relevant. What is probably of greater interest is the original preface to the American BCP, which declares - as of 1789 - that the Episcopal Church did not mean to depart from the essential doctrine of the CoE, nor from its worship except insofar as local circumstances required. That was the perspective as of the late C18. Yet it's interesting to note that the very first American BCP got rid of the Athanasian Creed in the Offices and it was never to be seen in an American prayerbook until it was placed in the Historical Documents section of the 1979 book, but not authorised for liturgical use. Moreover, the eucharistic theology of the American BCP has always had a different slant due to the adoption of the rite used by the Scottish non-jurors, which Samuel Seabury agreed to endeavour to have adopted in the American Church. Although these issues aren't directly related to the controversies of the present day, it's worth keeping in mind the quite different starting point of the American Church relative to the CoE or its later colonial missions (as most will know, unlike its later work in overseas missions, the CoE would never consecrate or send forth bishops to its Church in the American colonies prior to the Revolution).

[ 15. December 2009, 23:52: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Finally, in case this isn't already entirely clear, I don't think the American Church will ever tolerate any limitations on its autonomy. That's just not on. I'm not even attempting to say whether that is a good position or not. It's simply that culturally the American Church won't be constrained by the collective will of foreign prelates.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
The prerequisites for church unity are expressed in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: scripture, creeds, sacraments, historic episcopate. There is nothing new in these criteria. They were expressed much earlier in the church history.

The Anglican Communion as it has come to be articulated recently by some is beginning to look suspiciously like one of the images/ideologies/institutions that Stringfellow and Wink warn have demonic properties, including that of depersonalizing and sacrificing human beings when it serves their own survival. It is uncomfortable to observe these developments, but they seem all too novel compared to the respectful and cordial collegiality of the past.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
...It's simply that culturally the American Church won't be constrained by the collective will of foreign prelates.
Which is precisely the reason there is Anglicanism in the first place.

Zach
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The prerequisites for church unity are expressed in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: scripture, creeds, sacraments, historic episcopate.

What's church unity got to do with the Anglican Communion?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Actually, to my understanding the Chicago-Lambeth Quad is a formula for the minimum basis for achieving "home reunion", the main sticking point of which is the adoption of some form of episcopacy by churches that presently lack it. I actually think we're moving beyond this. While achievement of communio in sacris between ourselves and the ELCA depended on the adoption by the ELCA of the historic episcopate, the proposed agreement on interim sharing of the Eucharist with the Prebyterian Church USA deals with the matter of polity by recognising that both churches have a dedicated ministry of oversight. This isn't really a new development; people have been talking in these terms for at least the past 25 years. However, the agreement would be groundbreaking because, by my reading, it would authorise the possibility of a presbyterian minister celebrating the Eucharist using the Presbyterian rite for a congregation of Episcopalians. I realise this is a digression, but I want to emphasise that in the USA a lot of progress is being made in the field of Christian unity, in contrast to our present travails within the AC.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
the proposed agreement on interim sharing of the Eucharist with the Prebyterian Church USA ...

I hadn't heard about this. Thanks for telling us.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
You can find the proposed agreement either on the website Episcopal Life Online (formerly the Episcopal News Service) or on the Episcopal Church website itself, if not both. I believe it's already been approved by TEC but has to be approved by a majority of presbyteries in the PCUSA.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Extremely interesting, especially as PCUSA sent it down on remit. Care to launch a separate thread to discuss this?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.

Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for essential matters concerning salvation. The Anglican tradition have historically rejected the Puritan insistence that every single thing must have a clear and explicit justification in the Bible.

In my view, the resolution of divergent views of Scripture can only be resolved in the direction that results in greater charity and love. Our Lord himself summed up the Law with the Two Great Commandments, and St Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13 declared that love is the ultimate criterion for true faithfulness to Christ. In the context of the Anglican Communion, a right decision must result in mutual understanding, respect, and appreciation for one another.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.

Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for essential matters concerning salvation. The Anglican tradition have historically rejected the Puritan insistence that every single thing must have a clear and explicit justification in the Bible.
I think that you are mistakenly conflating two distinct ideas. The sufficiency and the ultimacy of scripture. The result, ISTM, is a rarified definition of faith to those beliefs that particularly pertain to salvation. In other words, you seem to attempting to divorce beliefs which are essentially soteriological from certain behavioural injunctions as not pertaining to salvation. The book of James does not permit such over-spiritualisation of faith.

Oh, and for the record, I am not arguing for the regulative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are not do something until there is Scriptural warrant to do so. I am arguing for the normative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are to do the things we want until the Scripture says no. The starting point is not constraint, the starting point is freedom.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.

Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for essential matters concerning salvation. The Anglican tradition have historically rejected the Puritan insistence that every single thing must have a clear and explicit justification in the Bible.
I think that you are mistakenly conflating two distinct ideas. The sufficiency and the ultimacy of scripture. The result, ISTM, is a rarified definition of faith to those beliefs that particularly pertain to salvation. In other words, you seem to attempting to divorce beliefs which are essentially soteriological from certain behavioural injunctions as not pertaining to salvation. The book of James does not permit such over-spiritualisation of faith.

Oh, and for the record, I am not arguing for the regulative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are not do something until there is Scriptural warrant to do so. I am arguing for the normative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are to do the things we want until the Scripture says no. The starting point is not constraint, the starting point is freedom.

I would agree with you on this point. On this issue, I think at the very least, there is suitable room for respectful disagreement over the teachings regarding homosexual relations in Holy Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture do I find a condemnation of the blessing of a committed and faithful same-sex couple. Conservatives will no doubt disagree vehemently with my interpretation.

But all liberals and conservatives committed to the same creedal faith of the Christian tradition acknowledge the same Triune God, the same Jesus who is both God and human, etc. With the exception of John Spong who isn't representative of all US Episcopalians, let alone, all North American Anglicans, no TEC leader has ever repudiated the central tenets of the catholic Creeds. There is much to unite us than divide us. In fact, Anglicans have done quite well maintaining unity in spite of a diversity of views on the nature of the Eucharist. If an Anglican who accepts Transubstantiation can break bread with one who accepts Calvin's spiritual presence view, then why can't two Anglicans who disagree over homosexuality? Please tell me that homosexuality is not a greater theological issue than discerning the nature of the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

Going back to my first point, in the context of a genuine and honest disagreement over one moral issue by Anglicans who are uniformly faithful to the essentials, is not the most charitable thing to support religious conscience and permit each church to discern its own course of action in its dialogue with the Holy Spirit? I would say yes. Many in TEC would say to not ordain LGBT clergy or not bless same-gendered relationships would contravene Scripture. The scriptures they would refer to would be Our Lord's 2 Great Commandments and the many passages that speak to love, joy, peace and gentleness.

[ 16. December 2009, 05:52: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Posted by Anglican_Brat:

Nowhere in Scripture do I find a condemnation of the blessing of a committed and faithful same-sex couple.

You won't find the bible condemning the riding of unicorns either.

And I think the analogy between disagreements concerning the nature of the eucharist and the same of human sexuality is false. However, if TEC was advocating the replacement of bread and wine with Corn Chips and Coca-Cola I could see the analogy working.

[ 16. December 2009, 08:05: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Hehe, ironically this is happening in some places in Africa, the reason being that wine is so expensive that one bottle can be as much as a week or even a months wages and Coke is seem as the staple for parties and community gatherings. I recall a kerfuffle about it a while ago, but I don't know what the state of play is now.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?

No - who's saying that?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
...It's simply that culturally the American Church won't be constrained by the collective will of foreign prelates.
Which is precisely the reason there is Anglicanism in the first place.

Zach

and
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall

What's church unity got to do with the Anglican Communion?

And therein, IMO, lies the problem....

What's the point of having a Communion if it's not about church unity??? A disunited Communion is surely an oxymoron.

[ 16. December 2009, 08:27: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thank you for your last post Anglican Brat . Who may, or may not, be ordained is a matter of ecclesiology, not of faith, and we would do well to remember that our basic Anglican teaching is that church governance is a matter of tradition and convenience rather than of faith.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And I think the analogy between disagreements concerning the nature of the eucharist and the same of human sexuality is false.

I think that was rather AB's point. They're not analogous - one is a much graver disagreement, yet has not so far been a cause of impaired communion.

[ 16. December 2009, 09:01: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?

No - who's saying that?
I think the point was that Christians should be able to debate various interpretations of scripture with an assumption of good faith on the part of their opponents.

To dismiss all those who hold views different from your own, or even from the majority, as eccentrics (which may be true in the literal, but not in the common, usage) or as heretics, is not conducive to such debates, and would therefore tend to an approach more common in Islam than in Christianity.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Matt Black
What's the point of having a Communion if it's not about church unity??? A disunited Communion is surely an oxymoron.

Not at all. In fact, communion almost demands a certain sense of difference to make it meaningful. That may be difference within a congregation, between, say, traditionalists and progerssives, or within a diocese, between preaching house and AC shrine, or between national churches. How are we to mature if we do not subject ourselves to the discipline of "povdig" (thanks, Josephine), of learning to get on with one another in spite of our differences.

Communion is about saying, "I disagree with you, but that doesn't change the love and respect I have for you as a brother or sister in Christ, and whatever it costs me in pride and discomfort, I will sit down at table with you, and share with you the bread and wine of the undivided body of Christ. We are all one in Christ Jesus, whether we like it or not. Would that every "church" (ie denomination) in the world embody that truth, but we have to start from where we are, and where we are is that there exists an Anglican communion. Those who want to fracture that communion, however good their intentions, are surely moving against the expressed prayer of our Lord that what is true in the heavenlies should be manifest on earth.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It also depends what the degree of difference is. If we cannot even agree on what the term 'communion' means then what hope is there? "Unless two are agreed to walk together" and all that...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Shouldn't this be balanced with judgement though? It's a hard line to take when certain morals are so much a part of your being that you feel others should follow your way of thinking, but I think we are called not to judge which would mean giving people the freedom to find their own walk with God - easier said than done. But I think you need to remember that (if you want to divide it into two camps) that liberals and conservatives do view one another with a certain degree of suspicion, or at least an assumption on where they are coming from. Each groups morals/faith/discipline/practice/understanding of scripture, etc are different and in some cases deemed repugnant or even wrong by the other. So both need to learn tollerance and respect. It's a two way street Numpty, and you can't have it all your own way - the world just isn't like that.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?

No - who's saying that?
I think the point was that Christians should be able to debate various interpretations of scripture with an assumption of good faith on the part of their opponents.
Debate concerning interpretation, yes. Accepting divergent views as "equally correct", no. The aim of theology is to come to the correct interpretation; the true interpretation. Any other motive would be theologically substandard. Of course, different people will come to different convictions concerning what is correct and true. But let's not pretend that we aren't interested in being right. We are interested in being right. We are interested in truth.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.

[reply to fletcher christian]

[ 16. December 2009, 11:25: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."

So ought I to refuse to post on the same website as you because, say, it seems to me you have a compulsion to deceive? You consistently post as if your way of reading the bible is the only reasonable one, yet there is incontrovertable evidence on pages that you cannot not have read for that not being the case. That's a deliberate lie. I'm sure there must be texts that convincingly prove this is a gross sin.

I sometimes struggle to believe you're actually posting this kind drivel in good faith, Numpty, that really you're just playing word games. Either way, you're describing a world view that is entirely divorced from reality. Whether you can derive it from the text of the bible has no relevance whatsoever.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.

[reply to fletcher christian]

You can't have the world all your way, so you'll start a church were it can all be your way?

Oh dear.

Matt, you would have been much happier in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

... start a church were it can all be your way?

oh dear oh dear. must not post before morning coffee.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."

Then withdraw, already! Of course you're quite right that communion can't be coerced, but as Mao said, shit or get off the pot.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I thought Mao said you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. And Morrissey said "there's a country, you don't live there but one day you would like to, when you show them what you're made of, when you settle the score" (National Front Disco -- just seems relevant to some of the ideas about Church being posted on this thread).
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.

[reply to fletcher christian]

You can't have the world all your way, so you'll start a church were it can all be your way?


I was questioning the wisdom of basing our outlook on 'worldly' values.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."

Then withdraw, already! Of course you're quite right that communion can't be coerced, but as Mao said, shit or get off the pot.
If you look at 1 Cor 5.11-13 you'll see that I'm not advocating the withdrawal of conservatives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion; I'm advocating the principled expulsion of progressives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."

Then withdraw, already! Of course you're quite right that communion can't be coerced, but as Mao said, shit or get off the pot.
If you look at 1 Cor 5.11-13 you'll see that I'm not advocating the withdrawal of conservatives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion; I'm advocating the principled expulsion of progressives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion.
Well, there is no basis in Anglican polity for such an expulsion.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm advocating the principled expulsion of progressives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion.

[Killing me] Whose principles would they be, then? Certainly not the Church of England.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
quote:

But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.

...and I imagine it's the same world He came to save, but this conversation is going from silly, to downright mad; playing with words, deliberately obfuscating meaning and peeps calling for the expulsion of everyone who doesn't think in exactly the same way they do. I've had the unfortunate displeasure of seeing all this before, when during the Northern Ireland peace process an immovable object met an unstoppable force in the shapes of Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams. Everyone accepted that it would be tough because two bigoted assholes were locked in a room together - but really, is this what it has come to for the church? Where did we loose the concept of seeing the image of God in our neighbour? Maybe I was away on holiday the day the church decided that......
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...it was fed up with having too much of the world in the Church and not enough of the Church in the world?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
LQ possibly erroneously notes that:
quote:
Well, there is no basis in Anglican polity for such an expulsion.
Well.... there is the case of Bishop Colenso of Natal, but he was only half-expelled-- the ecclesiastical courts turfed him out, but the British civil courts kept him in. Before that, of course, many clergy were displaced in 1559-1561 for non-compliance with the Elizabethan establishment, and then there was the wholesale removal of puritan clerics in 1660 at the Restoration.

Most constituent churches have provisions to depose and/or defrock clergy for a wide variety of offences and, depending on the exact wording of canons and the willingness of a majority to use them, expulsions are quite feasible. There is an argument that this is what was done with the (for want of a better word) traditionalists in Pittsburgh and San Joaquin, but that discussion has been exhausted on the boards.

The desirability of doing so is quite another question.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whether sexual orientation is mentioned in the Bible I gainsay: please provide citations. Whether it says much about Lesbianism is also doubtful.

If Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool had both given vows of celibacy, you may have a point. AFAIK neither of them have done so, so this is a red herring.

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No, but neither can we remove orientation from the equation as reasserters would like to do, because once you admit orientation into the evidence, it's much harder to defend a straightforward reading of the relevant texts.

So you're suggesting that the bible's wrong because we've invented the concept of orientation in the last 200 years? That's what it reads like.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."

Well, actually, I don't actually recall accusing you of anything, just suggesting that you were not giving sufficient weight to the direct, unambiguous and unqualified Dominical teaching of, for example, the various and manifold references in John 13-17, in favour of a few verses by Paul, the applicability of which to the present circumstances is not even certain.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whether sexual orientation is mentioned in the Bible I gainsay: please provide citations. Whether it says much about Lesbianism is also doubtful.

If Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool had both given vows of celibacy, you may have a point. AFAIK neither of them have done so, so this is a red herring.

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No, but neither can we remove orientation from the equation as reasserters would like to do, because once you admit orientation into the evidence, it's much harder to defend a straightforward reading of the relevant texts.

So you're suggesting that the bible's wrong because we've invented the concept of orientation in the last 200 years? That's what it reads like.

No, what it reads like is that the Bible speaks against homosexuality as part of pagan cultic observances, or of orgiastic practices, or of just plain immorality, but is silent about it in a context of loving, lifelong and exclusive relationships, because the writers of the texts either never came across such relationships, and therefore could not have addressed them, or else came accross them, and made no comment.

I suspect we are in danger of approaching the horses' happy hunting ground here, though.

[ 16. December 2009, 14:31: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
There is a brand new thread in Dead Horses which started on Lesbianism and the Bible and which has now moved onto those sorts of questions

Lesbians and The Bible

All welcome.

L.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?

No - who's saying that?
I think the point was that Christians should be able to debate various interpretations of scripture with an assumption of good faith on the part of their opponents.
Debate concerning interpretation, yes. Accepting divergent views as "equally correct", no. The aim of theology is to come to the correct interpretation; the true interpretation. Any other motive would be theologically substandard. Of course, different people will come to different convictions concerning what is correct and true. But let's not pretend that we aren't interested in being right. We are interested in being right. We are interested in truth.
Come on, now, Numpty, we're all interested in the truth, I am, you are, so is Matt, and LQ, and Grammatica, and +VGR. So, for that matter, were the Pharisees, the Saducees, and even Pilate.

You seem, here, to recognise that there is a plurality of beliefs that people can, with integrity, hold. That is not saying that each of those beliefs is right, per se, though I probably allow for more complemetary truth than perhaps you do, but it is acknowledging that we see "through a glass darkly". If that is a just summary of your position, then is it not your desire to expel from fellowship those who have honestly come to an understanding different from yours just a tad worrying to you?

The truth (sic) is that if we look for differences we will find them, and there will always be some pretext at hand to highlight those differences to such a point where we can justify to ourselves the rending of the seamless robe. Do you really believe that that is what Christ wants for His Church? If we choose the other option, of looking for Christ in our brother or sister with whom we disagree, then we will see the strength of diversity, not the weakness of division.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Debate concerning interpretation, yes. Accepting divergent views as "equally correct", no. The aim of theology is to come to the correct interpretation; the true interpretation. Any other motive would be theologically substandard. Of course, different people will come to different convictions concerning what is correct and true. But let's not pretend that we aren't interested in being right. We are interested in being right. We are interested in truth.

Speak for yourself. I don't think it's even possible for us to be completely right, to know the full truth about God, this side of the grave. We see through a glass darkly, as Jolly Jape (and Paul before him) says.

There are four conflicting versions of the gospel in the Bible; the early church didn't seem to think it was important to come to one interpretation of the foundational events of Christianity. There has never, ever been agreement among Christians on one interpretation of those events or of the Bible. You're not talking about reality, Numpty.

[ 16. December 2009, 15:14: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Originally posted by Matt Black
quote:

...it was fed up with having too much of the world in the Church and not enough of the Church in the world?


Why are you assuming to know what I think? Did you actually manage to read what I posted? Because if you did, you might have a small inkling just how close a parody of Ian Paisley you are channelling right now.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are four conflicting versions of the gospel in the Bible; the early church didn't seem to think it was important to come to one interpretation of the foundational events of Christianity. There has never, ever been agreement among Christians on one interpretation of those events or of the Bible. You're not talking about reality, Numpty.

But Ruth, the conflicts in those four versions are relatively minor. I can't imagine that the early redactors & compilers of those texts missed the variations, yet they treated all four of them as equally authoritative.

If the argument that Paul's references refer to cultic practices is granted, there is still the difficulty of the church's reception of the text. Until the last few decades, the church has interpreted them as a condemnation of same-sex sexual practices, no matter what the context. If you can dismiss 1,950 years of the sensus fidelium, then anything else is fair game as well--in which case my question is "Why bother?"

If Scripture and Tradition are dismissed as without authority, then you're left only with Reason. And Reason must have first principles in order to operate. The question then becomes : what are those first principles? Our Special Feelings?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
And I'd trust human reason over Scripture and Tradition...er...about as far as I could throw it.

Aside to fletcher christian - I don't really think Big Ian's too hot on Tradition, although I'm happy to bellow "NO!" if it makes you feel better!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I'd trust human reason over Scripture and Tradition...er...about as far as I could throw it.


But you do, Matt. Every time you read the Bible, you use your reasoning powers to make sense of it. Reason isn't an alternative to revelation, it is the way we perceive revelation.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I'd trust human reason over Scripture and Tradition...er...about as far as I could throw it.


But you do, Matt. Every time you read the Bible, you use your reasoning powers to make sense of it. Reason isn't an alternative to revelation, it is the way we perceive revelation.
That is why Scripture, Tradition and Reason are all important. We percieve revelation via reason testing it through the lens of tradition. Innovative interpretations of Scripture should be treated with scepticism and given time to be tested.

That is why the issue of sexuality and new interpretations of scriptures about this as traditionally understood should be given time to be tested before being accepted by the Church. Hence the call for a moratorium.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But I wouldn't trust my 'reasoned' reading of Scripture over that of the Church - as Fr Weber has indicated.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
Matt

That, in a rather tortured and incomprehensible way, is what I was saying [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Mogwai (# 13555) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I'd trust human reason over Scripture and Tradition...er...about as far as I could throw it.


But you do, Matt. Every time you read the Bible, you use your reasoning powers to make sense of it. Reason isn't an alternative to revelation, it is the way we perceive revelation.
That is why Scripture, Tradition and Reason are all important. We percieve revelation via reason testing it through the lens of tradition. Innovative interpretations of Scripture should be treated with scepticism and given time to be tested.

That is why the issue of sexuality and new interpretations of scriptures about this as traditionally understood should be given time to be tested before being accepted by the Church. Hence the call for a moratorium.

That seems reasonable in itself, but isn't it an ultimately cosmetic approach, given the large numbers of gay people who work in the anglican church?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Matt

That, in a rather tortured and incomprehensible way, is what I was saying [Hot and Hormonal]

No, no, no - you said it much better than me!
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Also, this "innovation" has been tested in the TEC for, what, 40 years now and if anything, has gained more acceptance.

It isn't just an "innovation" in the TEC anymore. Other denominations like the ELCA, UCC, UCCanada, Uniting Church Australia and numerous Protestant bodies in continental Europe already adopted it. This innovation is fairly widely accepted in many mainline Protestant seminaries (at least in North America) and is starting to trickle into even more conservative universities and seminaries. Even Rowan Williams advocated for it before he become ABC.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Also, this "innovation" has been tested in the TEC for, what, 40 years now and if anything, has gained more acceptance.

It isn't just an "innovation" in the TEC anymore. Other denominations like the ELCA, UCC, UCCanada, Uniting Church Australia and numerous Protestant bodies in continental Europe already adopted it. This innovation is fairly widely accepted in many mainline Protestant seminaries (at least in North America) and is starting to trickle into even more conservative universities and seminaries. Even Rowan Williams advocated for it before he become ABC.

Against the backdrop of nearly 2,000 years, 40 years is still a very short time.

I seem to recall that Arianism was quite popular in its day, as well. Not that I'd classify the "innovation" as on a par with Christological heresy, but the Arian example does demonstrate that widespread acceptance of error doesn't make it any less an error.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Fr. Weber:

Rites for the making of brothers have existed in the church much longer than forty years. What do you make of them?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Fr. Weber:

Rites for the making of brothers have existed in the church much longer than forty years. What do you make of them?

They look like familial adoption ceremonies to me. I don't find Boswell's arguments to the contrary very convincing.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I'd trust human reason over Scripture and Tradition...er...about as far as I could throw it.

You illustrate the problems that arise when you forget that Scripture and Tradition only ever refer to what has been constructed by human reason. Ink on paper has no intrinsic meaning.

I agree any individual's conclusions in isolation should always be suspect. But so should any claim that is based on selective reasoning, in particular in this case with regard to choice of basic assumptions. There is no inherent meaning associated with Scripture and Tradition, so any argument that assumes there is will be groundless.

[cross-posted]

[ 16. December 2009, 17:00: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Against the backdrop of nearly 2,000 years, 40 years is still a very short time.

This would only make a difference if conclusions arrived at 2000 years ago were verifiable, ie: it were possible to conclusively determine if something was 'of God'. It's not.

Other things being equal, we have precisely no less cause to believe new thinking about God is correct today. I would have thought we also have good reason to prefer it because we have 2000 years' worth of additional knowledge with which to work.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Against the backdrop of nearly 2,000 years, 40 years is still a very short time.

This would only make a difference if conclusions arrived at 2000 years ago were verifiable, ie: it were possible to conclusively determine if something was 'of God'. It's not.

OK--so you think it's all made up, or at least open to question, anyway. But that's not the argument that we're having, at least not as far as I can see. Both sides of the discussion seem to take for granted that Scripture and Tradition possess authority; the disagreement seems to be how it is mediated by Reason, and whether Reason is competent to overrule either or both. And further, whether Reason is obliged to consider the history of reception and interpretation of that Scripture and Tradition.

I'm really not sure how the One-Note Empiricist Samba is relevant to the discussion, let alone helpful.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm really not sure how the One-Note Empiricist Samba is relevant to the discussion, let alone helpful.

I guess that depends if there are only two sides to the discussion. Either way, you were still using a baseless argument in support of a discriminatory position that I like to oppose if the opportunity arises. Perhaps this thread is not just for your benefit?

[ 16. December 2009, 17:42: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm really not sure how the One-Note Empiricist Samba is relevant to the discussion, let alone helpful.

I guess that depends if there are only two sides to the discussion. Either way, you were still using a baseless argument in support of a discriminatory position that I like to oppose if the opportunity arises. Perhaps this thread is not just for your benefit?
It isn't baseless. It just has a 'base' - a premise - that you reject.

The problem is that different camps are speaking from different discursive fields, using different language assumptions. Dave - you are as guilty of using unprovable assumptions as anyone else - you just happen to like yours.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm really not sure how the One-Note Empiricist Samba is relevant to the discussion, let alone helpful.

I guess that depends if there are only two sides to the discussion. Either way, you were still using a baseless argument in support of a discriminatory position that I like to oppose if the opportunity arises. Perhaps this thread is not just for your benefit?
Two men are playing chess in a room. A third man walks in, scoffs "Stupid game," and overturns the table.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I'm not sure how the numbers game changes anything. If 40 isn't long enough, what is?

Certainly "innovative interpretations" have taken hold faster than that. The Reformation, which changed a whole bunch of established beliefs on theology and morality as well as the Biblical interpretation that supported it, started with a single paper on a cathedral door.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm not sure how the numbers game changes anything. If 40 isn't long enough, what is?

Certainly "innovative interpretations" have taken hold faster than that. The Reformation, which changed a whole bunch of established beliefs on theology and morality as well as the Biblical interpretation that supported it, started with a single paper on a cathedral door.

It's just perspective. The Reformation took place over a couple of centuries, and one could argue that it's still in process (it was underway before Luther's gesture, btw). And the Arian controversy I referred to earlier took a good amount of time to work itself out as well. I think it's a bit premature to appeal to the judgment of history on the issue, that's all.

(Which moral beliefs changed, by the way? I can't think of any offhand...)
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
The Arian controversy and arguably the changes due to Protestant reformation are far more complex than this. They also touched on creedal matters. Also, the Lutheran Church still uses the original documents Luther wrote (Large and Small Catechism, etc.) which include pretty large breaks from Catholic theology made over a short period of time.

We have 40 years of witness by gay and lesbians persons. Do their/our witness and relationships exhibit the fruits of the Spirit to the same degree as everyone else, or not? Isn't the Christian response to take the most charitable and inclusive path possible while working through discernment?

[ 16. December 2009, 18:46: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are four conflicting versions of the gospel in the Bible; the early church didn't seem to think it was important to come to one interpretation of the foundational events of Christianity. There has never, ever been agreement among Christians on one interpretation of those events or of the Bible. You're not talking about reality, Numpty.

But Ruth, the conflicts in those four versions are relatively minor. I can't imagine that the early redactors & compilers of those texts missed the variations, yet they treated all four of them as equally authoritative.

If the argument that Paul's references refer to cultic practices is granted, there is still the difficulty of the church's reception of the text. Until the last few decades, the church has interpreted them as a condemnation of same-sex sexual practices, no matter what the context. If you can dismiss 1,950 years of the sensus fidelium, then anything else is fair game as well--in which case my question is "Why bother?"

If Scripture and Tradition are dismissed as without authority, then you're left only with Reason. And Reason must have first principles in order to operate. The question then becomes : what are those first principles? Our Special Feelings?

And what of slavery, or usury? How many churches pay a housing allowance now instead of granting a manse? Mine does, and people like it that way. The purpose of such an allowance is to allow a minister to actually own her home and have a mortgage, just like everyone else.

Or in the case of the Reformation Churches, married clergy? The Church has been discerning the Will of the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. Shock, horror, the process continues!
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
It goes beyond that.

We have resolutions from the earlier part of the 20th Century which forbade divorce in all cases but infidelity and questioned whether the innocent party in a divorce due to infidelity could be remarried.

We well as repeated condemnations of the use of artificial birth control. Both of these were based on what seemed like clear teaching in Scripture. The Anglican Communion did not abandon Scripture when these teachings changed. It isn't doing so now. Scripture is just as important as it was before - all that has changed is interpretation. Interpretation has always changed. The Bible isn't made of stone. It is a living document.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
It isn't baseless. It just has a 'base' - a premise - that you reject.

If you can show there is any substance to the premise, I'd be happy to agree.
quote:
Dave - you are as guilty of using unprovable assumptions as anyone else - you just happen to like yours.
Not all unprovable assumptions have equal validity. Again, show how claims to the effect that God objects to gay sex within a committed relationship are more reasonable than my view that this has nothing whatever to do with God, and I'd welcome the new information.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Two men are playing chess in a room. A third man walks in, scoffs "Stupid game," and overturns the table.

That's not how discussions work here. But given your game looks like justifying prejudice and misinformation, I might still want to overturn the table if I could.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Fr. Weber:

Rites for the making of brothers have existed in the church much longer than forty years. What do you make of them?

They look like familial adoption ceremonies to me. I don't find Boswell's arguments to the contrary very convincing.
Which, of course, perfectly explains not only their quasi-matrimonial structure, but why they quietly disappeared: familial adoption is never necessary anymore. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I'd trust human reason over Scripture and Tradition...er...about as far as I could throw it.


But you do, Matt. Every time you read the Bible, you use your reasoning powers to make sense of it. Reason isn't an alternative to revelation, it is the way we perceive revelation.
Of course we use reason when we engage with scripture, but it is not reason alone that produces valid interpretation. Valid interpretation requires illumination by the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Of course we use reason when we engage with scripture, but it is not reason alone that produces valid interpretation. Valid interpretation requires illumination by the Holy Spirit.

And you believe that only people who accept your interpretation have the Holy Spirit?

Zach
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm not sure how the numbers game changes anything. If 40 isn't long enough, what is?

Certainly "innovative interpretations" have taken hold faster than that. The Reformation, which changed a whole bunch of established beliefs on theology and morality as well as the Biblical interpretation that supported it, started with a single paper on a cathedral door.

Revival (i.e. the Reformation) is marked by a return to the ultimacy of scripture; apostasy, on the other hand, is always marked by a departure from the ultimacy of scripture. The question is this: are the innovations of TEC rooted in a return to, or a departure from, a reasonable engagement with scripture in the light of tradition? The answer, I think, is that these innovations do not mark a return to anything. On the contrary, they are an unequivocal departure from what the the traditional, reasonable, and scriptural inheritance of the church.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Of course we use reason when we engage with scripture, but it is not reason alone that produces valid interpretation. Valid interpretation requires illumination by the Holy Spirit.

And you believe that only people who accept your interpretation have the Holy Spirit?
No. I believe that God doesn't contradict himself and that any "interpretation" that rests upon a departure from scripture and tradition for its integrity is not in fact an interpretation, but rather a perversion.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Numpty, who died and made you the Protestant Pope? Except for a minority consisting of a couple of others, most posters here reject your pronouncements.

Let me be clear, my approach to Scripture is analogous to that of Reform Judaism. The Scriptures are a collection of extremely diverse writings produced by an evolving culture, documenting their mythology, nationalistic history and historical myth, their social laws and cultural hang-ups, as well as their evolving religious ideas. There's a great deal of nationalistic violence, fairy tales, and superstition that are distinctly unedifying. The prophets, the gospels, and portions of the collected epistles are of some relevance to the Christian Church in the C21. Most of the rest is a horrid, loathesome excuse for the Israeli persecution, displacement and apartheid of the Palestinians, for the complicity and active assistance of fundamentalist Christians in that Zionist endeavour, for the oppression and homicidal treatment of LGBT people, for the RCC's crimes against humanity in their superstitious prohibition of artificial contraception and prophylaxis against STD transmission, and for their attempts to quash the civil rights of others through their wholesale blackmail and bullying of both their own flocks and civil politicians. It is that version of Christianity that needs radical change, just like the fundamentalisms of Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and nationalistic Hinduism. All of them are completely fucked, mate.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
No. I believe that God doesn't contradict himself and that any "interpretation" that rests upon a departure from scripture and tradition for its integrity is not in fact an interpretation, but rather a perversion.
You insist you have the only correct interpretation, and you insist this interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit. It follows, then, that you have it, and people who don't agree with you don't.

Zach
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
LQ possibly erroneously notes that:
quote:
Well, there is no basis in Anglican polity for such an expulsion.
Well.... there is the case of Bishop Colenso of Natal, but he was only half-expelled-- the ecclesiastical courts turfed him out, but the British civil courts kept him in.
Certainly excommunication of clergy and laics remains at least a theoretical canonical remedy, but that's surely different from revoking the membership of a Province.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No, but neither can we remove orientation from the equation as reasserters would like to do, because once you admit orientation into the evidence, it's much harder to defend a straightforward reading of the relevant texts.

So you're suggesting that the bible's wrong because we've invented the concept of orientation in the last 200 years? That's what it reads like.
I do not believe in the omnicompetence of the Bible. I think that there are limits to which any writings dealing with sex composed without having recognized (not "invented") an innate sexual orientation can be applied. That's not to say I don't believe all Scripture is inspired by God and given for our learning, but I also believe that about Genesis 1, without being thereby committed to accepting it as a literal, historiographical account of Creation. The Bible is "wrong" about rabbits chewing their cud, but I don't see that as detracting from its value. Other Anglicans may believe I'm wrong, that the letter of the Bible tells us all we need to know about sexual ethics. They are entitled to believe that; they are not entitled to impose that belief on Anglicans outside their respective Provinces.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
LSK: I could not possibly agree more.

If I have to take Numpty's view of the Bible to be a Christian, I'd rather not be a Christian -- thanks all the same.

And about the "ultimacy" of scripture -- what on earth did the early church do, when the Christian scriptures as we know them had not yet been agreed upon and compiled?

[ 16. December 2009, 23:53: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
LQ writes:
quote:
Certainly excommunication of clergy and laics remains at least a theoretical canonical remedy, but that's surely different from revoking the membership of a Province.

Ah. That's what you meant. My response would have been slightly different. I'm not sure if Anglicanism as such features a membership which could be revoked, although that might be said of some of the instruments of the Communion.

Still, individual churches can cut off communion (anathema!! anathema!!) and try to establish a parallel structure (back to Natal! and the diocese of Pietermaritzburg which was erected by the then-CPSA to face down the Bishop of Natal). It's still not desireable, but I think that we have to admit the possibility. The Orthies do it frequently enough, to their discredit.

Not that my opinion is sought by anyone, but I think that there would be more solid grounds to set up a parallel structure in the US on the grounds of their concordat with the Presbies and to challenge the ACofC for its derogation from the apostolic succession in their arrangement with the Lutherans, but everyone seems more concerned with The Issue. O well.

Some Anglican churches apparently have no procedure for ecclesiastical discipline of the laity, which I have found interesting, if illogical.

Might I express my perplexity over this reference to 40 years of debate (until last year it was 30, but that's neither here nor there)? I honestly cannot recall anything at all being discussed anywhere until the very late 1980s. I think I might have seen a reference in an essay by Urban T Holmes in the ATR in 1978, but cannot swear to it--I know that William Stringfellow wrote a privately circulated piece a bit earlier, but I do not think it was much read. That The Issue did not come into my sight means nothing, of course, but it was only with the arrival of the AIDS pandemic that I heard a thing (and that was likely because I was a funding officer of the first AIDS groups in Toronto in 1984, and had a few chats with clerics about it at the time).

Apologies for the digression... I may be too close to a dead horse here... the hosts will rein me in if I am.
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Revival (i.e. the Reformation) is marked by a return to the ultimacy of scripture; apostasy, on the other hand, is always marked by a departure from the ultimacy of scripture.

There are, of course, other interpretations of the history of revival that don't merely generalise from the Reformation as if it were typical. For example:
quote:
Historians reviewing the church's past history often distinguish between times of decline and times of revival. Each has its own unique qualities, but there are common themes. Periods of decline usually contain two. One is the failure to communicate the faith in a way which helps people to make sense of their lives and develop a constructive sense of their spiritual nature. Teachings which once had provided this help become, in a later age, meaningless or oppressive dogmas. The other is an inward-looking mood in the church's leadership. Instead of paying attention to the society around them, and considering what kinds of spiritual help they need, church leaders busy themselves justifying and defending the institutions, teachings and practices they have inherited, thereby making it even harder for ordinary people to find any help in their teachings. Source
Church that is unable to innovate is only marking time, at best preparing for irrelevance, most likely already redundant. That's what you're arguing for, Numpty.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Augustine, if you tossed out TEC for making agreements with PCUSA, then what would you do with the Churches of North and South India, who had clergy on their rolls who aren't in the Anglican Succession?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
To begin with, I'm not tossing anybody out (I have a long list of those who rate a good thrashing, however). I have pointed out the illogic of allowing presbyterally-ordained clergy (even if there are only a very few left in the Indian union churches, as they have been around for a while) from certain Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed churches to operate, while insisting that other Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed clergy must be (re)ordained de novo. Indeed, if a L/M/R cleric moves from one category to the other, they enter into or depart from catholic order through a signature, which raises a whole bunch of questions.

My point was that this is might be a bigger issue that The Issue if we are speaking of sacraments and would therefore more logically be cause for splits etc.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

If I have to take Numpty's view of the Bible to be a Christian, I'd rather not be a Christian -- thanks all the same.


So you will only be a Christian if you can believe what you want to believe?? [Paranoid]
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
So you will only be a Christian if you can believe what you want to believe??
This appears to be the main requisite in becoming a matey and clergy person in many of today's church. Seems in many churches Biblical teaching is frowned upon.

[ 17. December 2009, 06:40: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
LSK: I could not possibly agree more.

If I have to take Numpty's view of the Bible to be a Christian, I'd rather not be a Christian -- thanks all the same.

And about the "ultimacy" of scripture -- what on earth did the early church do, when the Christian scriptures as we know them had not yet been agreed upon and compiled?

Um, read the OT scriptures and wrote the NT scriptures? You NT is shot through with OT scripture. Why? Because Christians have, do, and always will uphold them as God's written revelation of himself to humanity. Also, a question. What on earth leads you to think that you have either the right - or even the capacity - to treat scripture like some kind of pick 'n' mix?

Incidentally, I do not consider my view of the Bible to be directly responsible for anyone's identity as a Christian. That is entirely down to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. However, I would tentatively suggest that the genuinely regenerative work of the Holy Spirit would lead a person more towards my understanding of scripture rather than the one that I am arguing against.

[ 17. December 2009, 08:07: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
So you will only be a Christian if you can believe what you want to believe??
This appears to be the main requisite in becoming a matey and clergy person in many of today's church. Seems in many churches Biblical teaching is frowned upon.
I'm not saying I agree with Numpty's interpretation, but I absolutely reject the notion that one is only a Christian if it conforms to one's own worldview. That isn't Christianity, its just adopting a nice warm philosophy for the moment.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
No. I believe that God doesn't contradict himself and that any "interpretation" that rests upon a departure from scripture and tradition for its integrity is not in fact an interpretation, but rather a perversion.
You insist you have the only correct interpretation, and you insist this interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit. It follows, then, that you have it, and people who don't agree with you don't.

Zach

I'm saying that an interpretation must be precisely that: an interpretation. An interpretation is the action of explaining the meaning of something: in this case the meaning of scripture. Therefore, an engagement with scripture is only interpretative if the endeavour starts with scripture (authority) and ends with scripture (ultimacy). Reason and tradition are merely tools by which the interpretive endeavour is facilitated. They cannot validly result in a departure from scripture as authoritative and ultimate in matter of faith. The approach to scripture that is being advocated by some on this thread is not interpretation, it is emendation.

[ 17. December 2009, 08:22: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
No. I believe that God doesn't contradict himself and that any "interpretation" that rests upon a departure from scripture and tradition for its integrity is not in fact an interpretation, but rather a perversion.
You insist you have the only correct interpretation, and you insist this interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit. It follows, then, that you have it, and people who don't agree with you don't.
Whereas you - being so much more humble that I am - would happily admit that your interpretation is wrong and that it didn't come from the Holy Spirit?
 
Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
So you will only be a Christian if you can believe what you want to believe??
This appears to be the main requisite in becoming a matey and clergy person in many of today's church. Seems in many churches Biblical teaching is frowned upon.
If by 'Biblical' you mean literalist and fundamentalist then no, many churches don't do that.

And a good thing it is, IMO, because in gaining Biblical teaching, the Gospel is very often lost.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I'd trust human reason over Scripture and Tradition...er...about as far as I could throw it.

You illustrate the problems that arise when you forget that Scripture and Tradition only ever refer to what has been constructed by human reason. Ink on paper has no intrinsic meaning.


OK, couldn't disagree more: I believe that the Scriptures (and, to an extent, Tradition) were given by God not 'constructed by human reason'. There's absolutely no way I can go along with what you or others here suggest should be our view of Scripture; to my mind, that excludes or at best marginalises God from the picture.

There is no way I can trust my own fallible human reason to come up with a valid interpretation of Scripture; to presume othe