I don't really understand what is happening.
This must be a very sad period for the Episcopal Church in America. (Irrespective of who is right or wrong).
I remember my grandmother and the years she spent working for the Anglican Church.
And to imagine there are many people like my grandmother in America .....
Good words, Jake, you have long been putting the pieces together.
I do, though, take exception with the notion that the ABC has given the green light for this. The dioceses are certainly spinning that the ABC said this was ok, but what did his paper actually state? Let's take a look:
"Future Directions
The idea of a 'covenant' between local Churches (developing alongside the
existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local
Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an 'opt-in' matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The 'associated' Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the 'constituent' Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible."
The language being used by the dioceses is that by their fiat they are constitutive and TEC is not.
This is not the language of Williams' paper.
He lays out in a clear progression, backed up by the Consultative Paper at Anglican Communion HQ laying all this out, that this is a dleiberative process with him convening it. It begins at Lambeth 08, resulting sometime thereafter, in Churches or some parts, being constitutive or associative.
Nothing he said noted that any of this was to be done apart from and proceeding from, the covenant process, which, again, TEC has signed onto. Apart from TEC, no other body apart from Lambeth itself has signed on.
What did Williams say?
"It isn't a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences - and that actions believed in good faith to be 'prophetic' in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences."
These schismatics would do well to heed his words.
So long,
Farewell,
Auf Wiedesehn,
Good-bye....
My heart hurts. It really, really hurts. This is such a boundary violation. I agree with Jake. ++Rowan has to have known this was coming.
What will the Anglican Mission in America and similar folks do? They left already - presumably if they try to rejoin under the Network, there might be some conflict with whoever is doing their oversight now (Uganda, I think, does the local AMIA oversight).
Ellie said, "I agree with Jake. ++Rowan has to have known this was coming."
Ok, let's this follow that idea.
If he knew this would happen, why would he twist ++Griswold and (+)+Schori's arms to get them to twit the HoD to agree to a time out and the Covenant proposal?
I think I may have underestimated Williams.
Nancy,
The AMiA is not in communion with Canterbury, as I understand it.
For a more thorough discussion of this classification, you may want to read Anglicans Online's research.
Well, RMF, why would he twist ++Griswold and (+)+Schori's arms only then to send us the message that our resolution was inadequate? That's really what yesterday's statement made clear.
Click my homepage for "Anglicanism for Dummies".
RMF,
I think that Dr. Williams underestimated the resolve of the extremists. And I fault him for it because many have been spelling it out for him for some time.
But, to give him the benefit of the doubt, possibly we need to fault his staff, some who are leftovers from George Carey's time.
What am I suggesting? That the majority of the correspondence that he receives, or at least that makes it to his desk, is from the extremists. Personally, I don't think this is accidental.
If indeed Rowan didn't mean to inspire all this, then it reminds me of the old fable of the frog who carried a scorpion across a stream.
As I said in another thread, it's entirely possible that Rowan gave them the OK for all this, considering how eager he has been to accomodate them in every other way.
But if he did not, and this is all a crude attempt to force his hand, then he needs to act, first by refusing the ALPO requests and strongly censuring those who made them, and then by going after the Minns consecration.
Unfortunately, he doesn't have the guts for such decisive action, and the extremists know it. They have made him nothing more than their mascot.
Williams' double talk and attempts to avoid reality are giving the green light to anarchy. If you want to understand the unreality of his behavior here, go back and look at the way he handled the Jeffry John matter. When he initially approved that appointment he had to know that the furor would be comming. When it hit he acted like why is everybody angry with me and then dumped on John. The man is what my grandmother would have called an educated fool.
Jake, where did you find the APO info? I have good friends in San Joaquin (God bless them), and they weren't aware that John-David had asked for that. I haven't found it on Google.
Not doubting you; just want to read his words for myself.
As Jim Naughton over at blogofdaniel/Daily Episcopalian put it, why would ++Cantaur go to all this trouble to expel TEC when he could just say, You are not in Communion with Canterbury?
What has resulted from all of this?
1. TEC has signed on to the Covenant process.
2. We have agreed to exercise restraint.
3. We have said we regret and apologize.
4. ++Cantaur has clarified we need a Covenant, at the end of which, a church may opt in and be classified constitutive or associative.
5. In his reflection, ++Cantaur mentioned separation or looseness at some time in the future, as a result of varying degrees of agreement with the Covenant.
6. The schismatics, seeing the words "separation," went hog wild, and in defiance of the clear language and purpose of the Covenant reflection, have declared themselves the constituent Episcopals and ask Rowan to suborn this by having him declare them constitutive.
Here is the question: How is he going to suborn action that directly contravenes what he said only just yesterday? These diocese have not even waited for the discernment of ++Cantaur's own brain trust.
On the other hand, TEC has said, we look forward to the brain trust's discernment, and by the way, we like the ida of a Covenant (A166).
Guess which Episcopals look more constitutive?
It seems to me that Prior Aelred is right (again). The schismatics took the bait. ++Cantaur knew they could never stand waiting so long to write a Covenant the end result of which might just be TEC in the AC. They are primed. So in the meantime, keep TEC in the fold, twist our arms, and by God he did. Then, issue the reflection, with just enough language to prime the pump, and watch the mice take the cheese.
He can ask them now--how, by short circuiting the Covenant process I have convened and laid out, are you being constitutive?
How long will it take the ABC to speak on this? Probably as long as it takes the Communion to come to a wider consensus on issues that divide us-- never. He's had ample opportunity to deal direclty and openly with Nigeria and for whatever reason he has clearly refused to do so. Silence = Complicity in my playbook.
So how long are we in the TEC going to wait for the ABC to intervene before we take matters into our own hands?
I'd like to believe that ++Griswold is already on the hotline to Lambeth, but my previous disappointments lead me to consider that is not the case.
And does anyone know what is happening (or will happen) to the Via Media parishes in those diocese that have asked for APO? Is dumping them on existing TEC bishops part of the plan?
RMF
Well, that is simply a hopeful perspective.
The extremists do have a record of shooting themselves in the foot. Not that I'm advocating bloodshed, but that would certainly make things a bit clearer as to who is giving the relationship a high priority, and who sees it as simply a means to an end.
RMF said: He can ask them now--how, by short circuiting the Covenant process I have convened and laid out, are you being constitutive?
I wonder if he'd do so. We'll see how this all plays out.
LJ
Jake said,
"Well, that is simply a hopeful perspective."
Heh heh, it is. I ground my hope in an odd story, a story ending like this:
"I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?” So the last will be first, and the first will be last.’ "
Peace!
I think what the extremists are doing is exactly what they did to the Windsor Report--turn recommendations (now called "reflections") in a work in progress into a hard and fast done deal. They succeeded in making Windsor only apply to us and they succeeded in giving it a force way beyond what it seems was originally intended.
And now they want to give the tiers the force of a completed process without waiting for any of the committees or drafts to even be written. This gives them the advantage because only the anti-TEC parts seem to be in play now. Anything that could reflect badly on the extremists or give them tough choices or in any way change their behavior just won't get in the final covenant once the coup is complete. Those parts of the "reflections" which could be interpreted as criticism will be dropped and conveniently forgotten.
If Griswold, Jefferts Schori, and/or Canterbury don't make strong statements and really start court proceedings, church discipline, and all the rest against these guys then TEC will be living with a bee in its bonnet for decades to come. They will never really leave us--will always be around to disrupt--if the split isn't orderly and has imput from all parties on an equal basis and isn't just a coup where they get everything they want without significant opposition.
Just look at Congress and the "Presidency" for an example. The same people made the plans for both takeovers...and have little regard for rules, laws, convention, or democracy. They just want power and property--all of it--and they "swift boat" anyone or any organization (like TEC) in opposition.
Enough is enough. It's time to declare vacant the Sees of EVERY diocese which has requested ALPO. Put in interim bishops, elect new Standing Committees, and declare TEC open for business again in the affected dioceses. If the bishops and committees want to disassociate with TEC, let them stop pussyfooting around and just go.
RMF, I like your perspective. However, I'd like to offer an additional matter for all of us to consider, which is quoted, with some edits, from an e-mail I sent today to the head of the Standing Committee in my Diocese (which is Network but, as of this writing, has not yet opted out).
The executive summary is that some of us on the liberal/progressive side of things have been known to take the bait as well, and we should beware of doing so:
-- Quote --
What the Archbishop of Canterbury has actually asked of the American
Church, in his June 27th message, is reasonable. I believe the
American Church ought to accede to his requests, and I believe the
American Church would already have done so, were it not for the
Network's bullying and overreaching demands.
Examples? Here are three:
1) Everyone in the Network, from Kendall Harmon on down, persistently
misrepresents the Windsor Report as calling for a moratorium on the
ordination of gay and lesbian persons at all levels of the clergy. The Windsor Report does not. It might be that the Network wants such a moratorium, but the Windsor Report does not call for it. The Network is bullying and overreaching.
2) Bishop Duncan demands at GC 2006 that the Episcopal Church endorse a
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as the price of remaining
in the Anglican Communion. The Network is bullying and overreaching.
3) Archbishop Akinola (suborned by the Network) demands that the
Episcopal Church oppose civil rights for gay and lesbian people as the
price of remaining in communion with him. The Network is bullying and
overreaching.
Few in the American church would accede to demands 1 and 2, and almost none would accede to 3. Thus the Network makes demands of the American Church, in the name of the Anglican Communion, that do not represent the mind of the Communion and that few or no members of the American Church would be willing to accept. This is not negotiation in good faith. This is bullying and overreaching.
Worse: these and many other such demands made by the Network have
ensured that when the Archbishop of Canterbury requests we join in
discussions with the rest of the Churches to develop an Anglican
Covenant, what we hear are demands like the three above. We hear the
Archbishop of Canterbury saying that we must accede to peremptory and
morally unacceptable ultimatums if we wish to remain in the Anglican
Communion. That is not what he is saying, but, thanks to the Network,
that is what we hear.
We are right to refuse the Network's morally unacceptable ultimatums. We would be wrong to refuse the Archbishop of Canterbury's requests.
It is difficult to imagine that SOMEONE in charge did not anticipate this...so what's the plan? Ignore it and hope it goes away? That hasn't work too well so far.
If, heaven forbid, but not beyond the realm of possibilities, there is no plan of response, now is not the time to wait to form committees, developing talking points, etc.
When forced to, you had no problem taking a "Damn the torpedos" attitude in Columbus, Bp. Griswold. Let's see it again, but this time point it in the right direction.
(Re: San Joaquin)
Well. Here we have it, then. Thank you.
I don't know how I missed that before, on their website.
There is not going to be any forceful leadership from Williams and Griswold. The pot is simply going to be allowed to boil over while they stand helplessly by uttering platitudes. The outcome will be a long series of ungly battles in civil court over real estate, pension rights, etc. It will be the savings and loan crisis with smells and bells.
WOW!
This topic exploded!
So much for my hope of a respite after GenCon06 (how naive!)
RMF -- could you tell my Abbot & the novitiate that part about me being right?
TEC wants to be in Communion -- if "they" don't want to be in Communion, it can't be forced (the Bishop of Indianapolis pointed this out by quoting Yogi Berra, "If people won't come to the ballpark, you can't force them to stay away."
And I might add to ALL the leaders of the Anglican Communion, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it."
I'm with you, Karen, and I know that one of my friends-in-exile agrees with you. (The other, I can't speak for.)
On the Diane Rehm Show tomorrow
10:00 Presiding Episcopal Bishop-Elect Katharine Jefferts Schori
The first woman to lead the Episcopal Church talks about divisions in the church and her vision for the future.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/...06/
29.php#11030
Have we been completely hoodwinked?
Here's part of Pittsburgh's statement:
...RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, pending final ratification by its 141st Annual Convention, withdraws its consent, pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, to be included in the Third Province of the Episcopal Church, seeking emergence of a new Tenth Province of the Episcopal Church which is fully Windsor compliant, positioned with that part of the Episcopal Church determined to maintain constituent status in the Anglican Communion...
A 10th province...a bizarre idea, unless it was previously agreed to by someone in authority.
It would allow the extremists to keep their property and pensions, request ALPO, and not have to be contaminated by the rest of TEC, yet still legally be members of TEC.
By the way, I found out about Jefferts Schori being on the radio in the comments to this diary
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...6/28/205630/
909
Jake --
I'm skeptical -- the C of E has continued to resist a "Third Province" solution to women bishops -- I suspect that they are just making things up (certainly ++ Frank's response doesn't seem to support the notion)
My only hope is that there is a group of Chancellors and Canon Lawyers out there with all the paper work ready. (And how many bishops does it take to issue a presentment?) With this acceleration on things, I sure hope someone is ready to manage it at a moment's notice.
The Daily Episcopalian blog has printed a response to ++William's missive by the Archbishop of Cape Town. ++Ndungane is highly critical of Williams and all in the Anglican Communion who would seek to impose their sense of "orthodoxy" on sister churches. It is the strongest statement supporting the Episcopal Church and the autonomy of the provinces I have read from a Primate. Perhaps some will listen to him!
http://blog.edow.org/weblog/
2006...wn_re.html#more
Matthew --
My favorite story about ++Ndungane comes from St. Tutu (no surprise) -- Ndungane was being criticized for some decisions he had made & Tutu said, "He has a much more difficult time than I ever had -- he has many different, complex issues to deal with -- all I had to do was be opposed to apartheid and I knew that I was in the right."
Totally off topic but so funny: here's a post about that perennial object of fascination among the orthodox--anal sex--that is so fevered and bizarre that even the people at T19 don't know quite what to make of it. Amazing but true!
Think of this as a bit of comic relief.
This is right out of a really good miedieval schism with primates and anti-primates. They should be hurling anathamas at any moment.
Perhaps those of us who may be relegated to "Associate" status within the A.C. should form our own more cohesive communion among ourselves.... The only question is, what to call it and who the grand poo-bah should be.
Any ideas?
Seems obvious to me Matthew, The World Wide Episcopal Communion. Where communion is open to all baptized Christians. Nigeria may apply for observer status based on our historical ties.
"Church stuff" versus the Gospel -- It all makes me very weary.
A few years ago, I became a refugee from a conservative, Protestant US denomination, since my same-gendered sexual orientation was considered to be evidence of my "reprobate mind" and "separation from God". Yet, immediately after being fully authentic, opportunity after opportunity to share my faith in words and actions with people whom I would never have met had I stayed within "safe" evangelical walls came to me.
As I review the "conservative" (dislike the "handles") Anglican websites, I see very little interest in listening to such experiences of fellow believers. When one knows God's peace, how does one respond to a fellow Christian who says that cannot be true or can't be bothered to listen?
I guess you share the peace and then move on to follow God.
heh. the "amazing but true" post at T19 is deleted. It must have been pretty bizarre and graphic.
Nancy, it was ingenious, in a way. Very brief summary here, as the original post was at least a thousand words.
It began with the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which, according to the poster, asserted that gay men are defined by anal sex. Then it discussed how gaeity is really all about anal sex, which is a very dirty, dangerous thing. Then it argued that if anal sex is dirty and dangerous in a western world with soap and water and hospitals, then how much worse must it be in Africa, where such things are less plentiful?
Therefore, Gene Robinson bears moral responsibility for African AIDS.
Yes, that's pretty much the shape of the argument. I really wish I had saved it, because it was truly one of the most deranged things I have ever read.
Well, this comment on T19 says more because the anal sex part has been deleted:
"Who cares what They do anymore.
"There are now 4 dioceses now asking for “Alternative Primatial Oversight.”
"You only need 4 dioceses to form a new Anglican Province.
"We are Outta here!!!
"Go for it!!!"
Here is another goodie--an excerpt from the AAC's press release on the Newark nominees:
"We are shocked that just one week after the close of General Convention and one day following release of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement on the Communion’s future, the Diocese of Newark has sent a clear and defiant message nationally and internationally that there will be no turning back."
AAC
Anyone reminded of Casablanca:
"I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" --Renault
Yep, bizarre, even by the standards of Freeperdom. (www.freerepublic.com , home of frothing-at-the-mouth political conservatives - the sort who believe former Pres. Clinton ordered 30 people killed in Arkansas as governor, and that Hillary C. is simultaneously a frigid lesbian and a heterosexual slut).
So, here's a funny story related to the above. Please forgive the graphic content.... (now you'll be sure to read it).
A senior priest I know some time ago was asked to baptize the baby son of a lesbian couple at an urban Anglo-Catholic church. He preached a liberalish sermon on the Spirit doing a new thing and creating new family constellations. As he was shaking hands with folks after the liturgy, a very conservative parishioner came up to him and said, "Do I understand by your sermon that you are endorsing anal intercourse?" (Keep in mind that the parents of the newly baptized were lesbians!)
And the priest's response was simply, "Well, I don't know. How do you find it?"
++++++++++++++++++++++
He later opined that we as human beings are far too interested with other people's orifices and what they do with them....
There's your thought for the evening.
New Here:
My favorite part of the deleted T19 argument was that the "gay lifestyle" could not exist without modern Western medicine.
Which, of course, explains why there were no gay people before the advent of modern, Western medicine. None. Right?
Over in another forum, once upon a time, we used to call this kind of fallacy, "the explanation that explains too much."
The thing that I find intriguing about these dioceses requesting ALPO from Cantaur is their haste to declare themselves "constituent" members of a Communion based on a covenant that they haven't even seen yet.
Now, given who looks to be handed the task of producing said covenant, odds are that they're right and that the covenant will end up having some kind of language about the authority of traditional interpretations of Scripture, or some such, which everyone will know really means, "No gays."
But there is still that delicious, if small, possibility that the contract they've signed without reading will bind them to things they never intended!
Joe Hauptmann, how about the "Affirming Communion of Anglicans"?
Yeah, Ross. There were no homos in ancient Greece and Rome, because there was no modern medicine.
You know, I have been to many, many gay sites where people didn't discuss buttsex anywhere near as much as they do on the religious fundamentalist sites. If the subject were off-limits, Virtueonline would waste away for lack of participants. They are truly fascinated by it.
Interesting point, also, about the covenant that no one has seen yet. The "orthodox" do all kinds of things that do not pass muster in the "Global South": ordain women, allow the divorced to serve as clergy, etc. There are all kinds of interesting possibilities here.
You know, for all of this talk of "doing something about these folk", I think the right thing to do is to *not* do something. This seems to me like they're just egging on 812 hoping that they'll do something rash.
Now, if Duncan et al were to actually *do* something, that'd be a different story. Right now, they're just hoping to force 812 to do something so they can keep playing the victim.
Please don't feed the trolls, ++Griswold and ++Schori.
Sounds like it's time to dust off the theme music from the Twilight Zone. Next thing you know, we'll be seeing gouls outside the plane's window and blaming Akinola for that too. Someone get Bill Shatner on the phone.
Sorry this is off topic ... but
June 28, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
INTEGRITY APPLAUDS INCLUSION OF GAY CANDIDATE IN LIST OF NOMINEES FOR BISHOP OF NEWARK
Integrity applauds the Diocese of Newark for offering a stellar slate of qualified candidates to replace retiring Bishop John Croneberger . and is delighted that the listincludes the Reverend Michael Barlowe, an openly gay priest who has been in apartnered relationship for 24 years. Today's list, released less than a week after the Episcopal Church passed a resolution calling for "restraint" in the election of any bishop "whose manner of life" might cause "challenge" to the greater communion isreceived by Integrity as a tremendous sign of hope for the Episcopal Church and for its commitment to the full inclusion of LGBT people in the Body of Christ.
"The resolution passed on the final day of our General Convention contained veiled language calling for the discrimination against gays and lesbians in this church," said Integrity President, the Reverend Susan Russell. "We are very pleased that the Diocese of Newark has declined to be bullied into bigotry..
"We recognize that had the language in question been in place prior to the election of our Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori we might not be preparing to celebrate the gift of the first female Primate to the Anglican Communion," Russell continued. "Our prayers will be with the Diocese of Newark, that they may be given the same faithful courage in electing their next diocesan bishop as the Episcopal Church was given in electing our next Presiding Bishop."
Your definition of 'extremist', used multiple times, seems to encompass those whose viewpoints are held by most of the Anglican world.
Do you not see an issue with this? Is that what you intend? Or is this just name-calling?
Seems to me like you yourselves are holding the extremist viewpoint and are projecting onto others. Just my 2p.
Dear New Here,
You're right! Why do the heterosexual wonderboys think about LGBT sex obsessively over at the shock, awe and OUTRAGE hangouts? They adore upsetting themselves while discussing us and *it*...I'm baffled by their sexual quirk/twisted fascination and find it kinda embarrassing...maybe I'm confused but I don't think most LGBT people think/talk about heterosexual sex.
Anyway, thank goodness there are those Storks delivering all those blessed babies so we don't have to "pry" extra much into their REAL origin.
Holy vaca amigos, I mispelled San Joaquin earlier...sorry. I also mispelled Martin Mynns but that was no mistake...Y you ask? Because I think he is inverted.
I can't spell in Spanish or English...perdóneme.
Yes, Peter, I refer to the AAC/Network crowd as "extreme conservatives," to differentiate them from "conservatives," of the old school variety which have always been part of Episcopal congregations (maybe CS Lewis conservatives makes it clearer?).
This new breed of conservative has very little in common with the older version, thus the new label. For short, I refer to them as "extremists."
Since these same extremists refer to me as apostate, heretical, pagan, alien, Satanic, and other choice descriptions, I consider consistently referrring to them as simply "extremists" as using quite a bit of restraint.
Now, now; just today I saw someone posting very charitably on T19 that the majority of us may honestly be unaware that we are tools of Satan.
Ah...so we are just "fools for Satan"?
I feel so vindicated!
Some in the RCC are gloating about the disarray of Anglicanism -- wrongly, for Anglicanism is in far better shape. The RCC is a paralyzed and silenced Church, bereft of the basic daily bread of meaningful liturgy. Discussion is painful and calls on vast resources of patience and charity, but it is a condition of health.
On the ABC I wrote this in response to Brown's critique in The Guardian today:
I don't see how the Archbishop's thoughtful survey of the problems could be called the work of a humanist mole. It holds more reproach to Akinola than to Robinson. And it compares the ECUSA rather than the conservatives with prophetic martyrs ready to take risks -- but warning them to "count the cost".
Contrary to the claim that ++ RW has alienated his gay friends, I still hear him spoken of very warmly by his gay or at least gay-friendly friends; though some clerical ones express unease about how his stance may be evolving in a conservative direction. He may have alienated Peter Tatchell etc., but I think most people would say that his stance is not at all anti-gay, but simply expresses patience with the vast majority of Anglicans who are not yet ready for openly gay bishops etc.
The point is that there is grave tension between two causes, both of which might be considered sacred: the advancement of glbt people within the churches and the unity of Anglicanism (and of Christianity -- there is an ecumenical dimension to this). An Archbishop can hardly decide to dump the latter cause for the former, especially when he is bound by consultation with other Anglican leaders.
I just hope that the Anglican Communion remains a place of open discussion, such as we direly lack in the Roman Catholic Church. Only through infinite patience and forgiveness and a trust in rational argument and Spirit-led reading of Scripture can the truth about the disputed questions and the corresponding right practice come to the fore.
Truro and Falls Church are planning on leaving. Now actually leaving would be an action to which +Lee (who is supposedly in negotiations with them) and 812 would have to respond to. Perhaps TEC should appeal to the panel of reference about the incursions into our dioceses, as useful as that would be...
"Perhaps TEC should appeal to the panel of reference about the incursions into our dioceses, as useful as that would be..."
That's a very good idea Patrick. Here in FL, one good sized Network church left TEC in January but claims they own the property, which clearly belongs to the diocese. They appealed to the POR, who took months to respond. In the meantime, our bishop has taken legal measures to remove them from the diocesan property, after months of trying to deal with them out of court. The POR requests that there be no court involvement in cases that they take up, so our bishop is now holding off on his legal remedy. Which raises an interesting point - what authority does the POR have anyway? I don't think that it was ever the intention of the POR to become involved in property disputes! Once again, the Network being bullies and overreaching, all the while claiming that they have the ABC's blessing!
So, why not turn the tables and appeal to the POR about violations of diocesan boundaries? Its right there in the Windsor Report.....
Anna
Akinola: "I will be appointing episcopal visitors from among already consecrated bishops..."
Could this mean "secretly consecrated bishops" who are already here and under dual authority?
I have reason to wonder this.
And if so, how is that part of the overall plan?
From Pittsburgh's statement:
seeking emergence of a new Tenth Province of the Episcopal Church which is fully Windsor compliant,
"Emergence" might be the key word. It sounds to me like they plan to proceed with setting up another province, and talk like they're acting in accordance with the ABC's directions, just like they've done before. Then, they'll claim the ABC's blessing on it -- just like they've done before.
Fr. Jake you are heavily quoted at Thinking Anglicans today.
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/
Nothing is sadder than the exodus of congregations from underneath American dioceses for Nigerian oversight.
But isn't this as clear an example of an episcopate out of touch with its membership as one can find. Isn't "out-of-touch" the words you apply to the heirarchy of the Catholic church when they won't adopt currently fashionable social and cultural currents re. abortion, birth control, married priests, etc.?
If you think Nigerian Episcopalians are tough on homosexuality - wait until the Muslims gain a real foothold in America (about 15-20 years maybe less). Then, you will wish you had allies - then you will see that maybe compromise would have been better than your current position - fanaticism, liberal fundamentalism, and purging of heretics.
Patrick,
A couple of times you've referred to TEC national offices as "812." Sorry to be picky, but it's "815" - as in The Episcopal Church Center, 815 Second Ave, New York, NY 10017.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Fr. Jake Goodness ;)
Right-wing racists like Puck should find another site to post on!
Gee Kurt I'm flattered - but enough about me - what say you of my argument?
I agree with Spirit of Vatican II above. I think the Roman Catholic Church is a pressure cooker about to blow. It is only the iron clamp of its own authoritarianism that keeps it from boiling over, and which drives all the dissident elements further underground insuring an explosion at a later date. Compared to that situation, the Anglican Communion is a model of health.
I think that the response to all these Network bishops calling for ALPO should not be presentments. I think Jim Naughton is right, they would use a trial as a megaphone and a passion play. The response should be offers of alternative episcopal oversight to the Via Media and liberal parishes in their dioceses.
What I find so striking about the past few days since the end of the Convention, is that the most strident complaints about the Episcopal church have all come from the USA. The CAPA statement was not nearly as ferocious as I had expected. And Nigeria bishoping Marty Minns is not exactly a surprise. Pittsburgh and Abuja have been broadcasting such a plan for a long time now.
I'm prepared to cut ++Cantuar some slack in all this. He hasn't exactly given the Network folk their hearts' desire, or any kind of green light to do anything. If he did indeed feel that the Episcopal Church went too far, then he could simply say to it, "I don't know you anymore" and be done with us, but he hasn't. If anything, he's issued an invitation to the TEC to participate in the covenant process (which I'm not happy with, but that's another soapbox). He is in an extremely difficult and delicate situation, as others such as Spirit and Mr. Carpenter have pointed out. He must balance his own sympathies with a prophetic movement on behalf of lgbts with the basic duty of his office to hold the Communion (where the majority feel alienated by this movement) together. I think what he wants from us is to give the rest of the Communion some breathing space, some time to catch its breath and catch up with us.
As for all the obsessions with butt sex over on the right-wing websites, all I can say is,
The closet door is open and we're all looking in.
Thanks for being picky, David - my brain wasn't working right, I guess. :)
My question: can the Episcopal Church plant bishops in dioceses in Africa, and even in England for those who feel oppressed or abandoned by their bishops?
I'm not suggesting this kind of escalation of hostilities, but what's good for the goose....
"If you think Nigerian Episcopalians are tough on homosexuality - wait until the Muslims gain a real foothold in America (about 15-20 years maybe less). Then, you will wish you had allies - then you will see that maybe compromise would have been better than your current position - fanaticism, liberal fundamentalism, and purging of heretics." Puck
What Allies? Lunatic conservative Nigerian Anglican radicals who would stone me to death right NOW if they had the chance (and steal my property)! I'm appauled by your constant attept at "all knowingness" Puck...now you've given dates for the turban/bearded wearing "murderous heathen ones" to take-over (when you're not worried about the Jews doing the same or LBGT citizens not contributing enough MONEY to society so your kid can have more supportive "perks"). That is, of course, when your not preoccupied and mucking around with what Gay people are doing in Bath houses after they urinate on Churches. Good grief Puck!
What is it exactly that you're afraid of Puck? Is it that your fragile IDEAL of a Pasterized, Homogenized, Pristine Heterosexual world where you "control" all YOUR imagined "wrong" cultural/social influences (genetic?) with FEAR, loathing, and crimes/laws against humanity isn't gonna work out? Or are you merely a supremacist of some accross-the-board hate mongering sort?
Isn't "liberal fundamentalism" an oxymoron?
What arguments?
Leonardo> What is it exactly that you're afraid of Puck?
I'm afraid that a church I love is dying. And I'm here to ask you fanatics who want to kill it to stop.
Leonardo> turban/bearded wearing "murderous heathen ones"...Jews doing the same...LBGT citizens not contributing enough MONEY...Gay people are doing in Bath houses..urinate on Churches...Pasterized, Homogenized, Pristine Heterosexual world...with FEAR, loathing, and crimes/laws against humanity...supremacist of some accross-the-board hate mongering sort?
Gracious - all that? Why I'm just a harmless old sprite - more mischevious than malevolent.
I'd like to be the first to urge Jake not to punish Leonardo for his ad hominem attacks on Puck. We can disagree with Leo's message, but admire his passion. (I for one am rarely passionate about anything, except perhaps Bordeaux. Got a couple nice cases in Calais a few weeks ago.)
Jane boatler asks, My question: can the Episcopal Church plant bishops in dioceses in Africa, and even in England…?
The ECUSA has a long and despicable history of planting dioceses within the boundaries of legitmate bishops, including overseas. That’s why the selective brouhaha over African “incursions” into the US (ignoring the Church of South India’s activities) is so ridiculous.
Latest Statement from Akinola
http://za.today.reuters.com/news...NS-
20060629.XML
Some further reflections on ++Cantuar's statement:
He doesn't exactly fault the Episcopal Church for ordaining a gay bishop (which is fine, because I'm not sorry about it anyway). What he really faults the Episcopal Church for is being precipitate in its actions; a just complaint, though I wonder just what the folks in New Hampshire were supposed to do about it. Our church, with its tradition of diocesan independence, has a long history of precipitate actions.
If he harshly reproves anyone, it is Akinola and his ilk, if implicitly. The language condemning homophobia is pretty strong. I don't quite see eye to eye with him over a seperation between "political" considerations of justice and "religious" considerations. To me, those 2 things are inextricably bound up together and always have been.
As for the 2 tier "constituent" and "associate" solution that he raises, I don't exactly read him as endorsing it as a preferred solution to the present impasse. I think he raises it as something that could come to pass. As a solution, I think it's a terrible idea. It relegates entire national churches to a second class status and does nothing to address divisions within churches.
As much as the Network folk may be trying to put a spin on this statement, I didn't see anything in it that gave them much of anything. While they may be squealing like delighted children on Christmas morning over on that side, I read ++Cantuar as faulting the Episcopal Church for being rash, inconsiderate, and untidy in its actions; not for ordaining queer anybody to anything. He is amazed (as I must confess I was) that we went ahead and consecrated a gay bishop without settling first the whole marriage controversy. I must admit that he has a point. The marriage/union issue affects lgbt Christians far more directly than having a gay bishop.
However, the Holy Spirit is not obliged to be tidy.
I read the Archbishop's statement as once again trying to hold the Communion together by walking the Canterbury tightrope. I can't see any other alternative for him.
Nobody is sadder about our relationsip to the Nigerians than I. I don't think Nigerians are at all like Anglicans - and their intolerance towards homosexuality is one of the reasons. I'm as much a sinner as any one of you. But then I still believe in the doctrine of orginal sin.
My problem with you have never been who/what you are - it is what you are saying - it is that you are seeking to normalize a relationship that traditionally is sinful (from a secular POV all morality is bio-socially based - and barrenness in a church that desperately needs to uphold families and children should be considered sinful).
I am a traditionalist. Nobody thinks like me - not just here - also in my church. We traditionalists have learned (from necessity) that you have to live with people with whom you disagree.
You need to learn the same thing.
It isn't just me you are hurting - it is an episcopate who generally shares your opinions and often your lifestyles - they will lose their flocks if you kill our church.
From ENS:
Dioceses and congregations, however, do not officially "leave" the Episcopal Church simply because leaders or any number of members depart, said the Rev. Jan Nunley, deputy for Communication at the Episcopal Church Center in New York. "Parishes are created by dioceses and dioceses are created by action of the General Convention," she said. "People are free to leave," but congregations and dioceses continue within church structures.
Nunley confirmed that the Episcopal Church's elected leadership may, if necessary, declare a diocese vacant, and that in such a case the Presiding Bishop would call for the election of a new diocesan bishop, among other actions.
Puck,
If you're still sticking to the Pissing on St. Patrick's story despite all the evidence to the contrary, then I have to conclude that you're delusional about a lot of other stuff.
Off Topic:
Jake, what's with the banner on your site...you have gone back to using the word "heretical".
I see that Puck is still preoccupied with begetting children. Gay people don't want heterosexual people to stop procreating!! Have as many children as you like.
Jake made reference to how he (and we) are often labeled "satanic." Maybe "satanic" is not such a bad appellation after all. When we consider that the term "Satan" means "adversary" in the Hebrew, I guess you could interpret "satanic" as an extremist opponent's expression of "seeing red" when viewing their progressive adversary. Also, to be considered "satanic" means that one's opponent is clothing them in an aura of perceived power (however infernal it may be)-- a left-handed compliment and an indication that deep down they *fear* us. And for good reason: progressives are the instrument for change, transformation, and renewal; a threat to the Pharisees of the status quo.
Puck - I started coming here during the convention so have missed a lot of the earlier conversation. I am in one of the most liberal churches in one of the most liberal diocese and in all honesty the LGBT issue only comes up when we have to chose a new rector. I now we lost one or two families over the issue of inclusion, but that was nothing compared to the 1/3 we lost during a major building project. The anger I hear at Jake's feels more light hurt than hate. I also visit StandFirm on a reguler basis. Although the site owner seems to try and keep it fairly objective, the comments however are often quite hateful. It is hard to enter into dialog with people who do not believe I am a Christian just because I disagree on this one issue. I have no doubt that our parish will remain Episcopal, but this will cause a lot of pain to our members who came to us because before they came to America they were Anglican. This is a painful time for everyone and I wish we would all put away our salt shakers.
Just Stopping By,
After reading Maury's comment, I'm considering adding "Satanic" as well.
Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name...
To add the term Satanic reminds me of what we call the Great Libertarian Macho Flash. That is when the little old lady comes up to you and asks what Libertarians believe you say "Fuck the state". It is a short answer, it makes you feel good and it is technically correct. It also assures that you will never win her over or anyone else she talks too. Jake-please resist the temptation.
All this talk about a Tenth Province "emerging" brings to mind those apocalyptic hallucinations of horny beasts "emerging" from the soupy seas of chaos (Revelation 13). If I remember correctly, one of them even looked "lamb-like"--a sure sign you can't always trust those shepherds with crooks, vestments and other sheep-controlling paraphenalia; sometimes mitres can hide emerging horns beneath!
The idea of there being an evil entity devoted to the fall, destruction, and eternal torment of humanity is very non-scriptural. The only extended description of the person of Satan in the Bibile, IIRC, is found in the book of Job, where he is a member of God's heavenly court, and is arguably the prototypical Devil's Advocate. He also clearly does not rebel against God, but follows God's instructions.
Our "traditional" description of Satan as God's and Humanity's eternal enemy is arguably an import from some form of Zoroastrianism, and approaches a bitheism in it's more extreme forms.
And most of what people say they know about Satan today is largely cribbed from "Paradise Lost"
Andrew Greeley played with these issues in an literary, rather than explicitly theological way (though he mixes the two) in his Angel trilogy. Good reading if you are into speculative fiction.
I think the definative statement can be found in Calvin and Hobbes, where Calvin asks Hobbes if he believes in the devil. Hobbes asks if Calvin means an all-powerful creature who leads humanity into destruction and evil. When Calvin says yes, Hobbes replies that he isn't sure that we need the help. I think we do just fine sowing discord and hatred on our own, unfortunately.
Is your quiver truly full, Puck? I expect 8 or 10 kids, or however many your wife can produce without dying of it. And I don't want to hear excuses about how you can't afford them. Plenty of people have brought up large families in 3 room apartments.
Men are more than inseminators, and women are more than breeding cows.
Is the celibate religious a misguided tool of Satan? Was Paul totally off his rocker when praising celibacy as a valid state?
Are barren wives cursed of God? And how come no religion has condemned the HUSBANDS of barren wives - husbands who may have low and slow sperm?
Surely we have more spiritual gifts than the ability to produce more soldiers for the Lord so as to kill more of the other tribe of the moment (Muslims, in this day).
Jake,
I've got enough problems living here in Sodom-by-the-Hudson, and being of the Baal-worshipping liberal persuasion in most things political and some things religious, and being an Evil-Offspring-of-Satan gay man in a partnership. Don't make my life any harder here by sticking the "Satanic" red flag up there just to get the Crazy People all frothing at the mouth. Infuriating religious right-wingers is about as much sport as dynamiting fish in a cattle tank.
Sheesh! even here in New York, the building at 666 Fifth Avenue had to turn off its big red neon 666 sign because of all the negative press attention. The building houses some publishing companies, a few financial firms, some law offices, maybe a dentist or 2, but nothing more particularly wicked than usual.
This whole situation is verkakte enough! Don't make it an even bigger mishegoss!
Joe, It was just a passing thought...would be too misunderstood. But, the best way to disarm those casting stones is to claim their worst label at the outset. Leaves them with little or nothing to say.
Just a reminder (not directed at Joe):
I delete comments I don't like. It is a totally arbitrary decision, based on my mood at the moment.
If you don't like the way I run things, I draw your attention to the link in the upper right hand corner, which reads "Get your own blog."
All of this underlines an essential dishonesty in the Windsor Report that has carried over into the reflections from the ABC. They both pretend that the problem is not gays refusing to stay in the closet, but rather that a part of the Communion (i.e., an independent church folowing its own canonical due process) acted without sufficient consultation (whatever that is supposed to mean).
CAPA & the Network have never bought into that nonsense -- they have always said that their objection concerned Biblical teaching.
The proposed solution that ignores the actual situation really has no chance of improving things (IMHO).
This thread is getting scarier and scarier.............
On the Satan subject - Proctor and Gamble, makers of Crest toothpaste, used to have a logo of the Man in the Moon. For reasons totally unclear to the sane portion of the population, some fundies decided that the logo really depicted Satan, and they tried to boycott P&G, unsuccessfully, I might add. This has gone down in the long annals of oddities in Cincinnati OH (home of P&G).
We need a new anthem/pop song for the LGBT - "Weeeeee are toothpaste.."
It is a totally arbitrary decision, based on my mood at the moment.
That's why it's best to get your ha'porth in when it's sleepy time in New Jersey! Living in the ABC's home town does make that easier, of course.
I've always appreciated Walter Wink's take on evil and the powers and prinicipalities, which, to simplify, is basically that old cliche, "As above, so below."
When evil is present in the physical realm, it is safe to assume it is also present in the spiritual realm.
What is damaging is the duality that is often passed off as Christian theology; the notion that somewhere there is a bout of cosmic fisticuffs going on, and there is some concern that evil might win.
My take is more along the line of Irenaeus, who insisted on speaking of human progress, rather than human perfection, and refuted the notion that evil springs from a place where God is not.
"They appealed to the POR, who took months to respond. In the meantime, our bishop has taken legal measures to remove them from the diocesan property, after months of trying to deal with them out of court. The POR requests that there be no court involvement in cases that they take up, so our bishop is now holding off on his legal remedy."
Would someone please explain what the POR is and what it does.
Panel of Reference, set up by Canterbury to advise him regarding various problematic developments in the Communion.
What it does: to date, nothing.
Irenaeus just had a feast day, which I spent in London. Today of course is the feast of Sts Peter and Paul. I went to see the nuns at the abbey at Minster in Thanet, where there were more than the usual contingent (It's a HD of obligation for RCs in the UK, so I had to wuggle around to get a seat.) During the bidding prayers, Sister Benjaneez prayed for Taffy, "at this time of crisis in his communion", which I thought was rather oecumenical of her. Naturally, I demurred, electing instead to breathe a small prayer for Jake and any posterds who generally agree with him (excepting of course those from illegitimate dioceses that ought to be suppressed).
Click my homepage for "The Gay Agenda". Tongue in cheek, natch.
"What it does: to date, nothing.
Jake | Homepage | 06.29.06 - 1:01 pm | #"
Which is probably better than having it do something!
Perhaps it leaves them nothing to say, but it seems to improve their aim with the stones. It seems to me the auduence you should be trying to reach is not the stone throwers, but the crowd gathered to watch the stoning.
Which is why I refrained from adding more controversial language.
But, I went back to "heretical" following GC, as I'm strongly opposed to their final actions, as well as the responses from Canterbury and various Priamtes. It signals to visitors that they will not find the Anglican party line affirmed here.
It also serves as a warning that we sometimes wander wide in our theological discussions. Such conversations may be uncomfortable for some folks.
When I was going through EFM, the end of the year report asked what we had learned, we responded that we had learned several useful heresies. The problem I see as one not closely involved in the LGBT inclusion movement is that to the rest of us, it seems fairly obvious what you want to do, but the only ones spending any time explaining why, are the neopuritans.
I question if dismissing their opponents as heretical apostates who have rejected the bible and the tradition as really an "explanation" that any thinking person would take seriously, which is usually as far as most of the extremists go, from what I've seen.
We've actually spent a fair amount of time attempting to explain our position here. As an example, you might want to consider the discussions of Gays and the Future of Anglicanism. The links are found at the top of the side bar.
There has been an outpouring of writings on theology and pastoral care vis-a-vis LGBT persons. Try these from Countryman: "Dirt, Greed, and Sex" and "Gifted by Otherness". There are a large number of other authors, many of whom participated in that book promoted by Jake in the right hand corner of the blog "Gays and the future of Anglicanism".
Harumph. I still wonder why so many Episcopriests have time to blog. Maybe there'd be less rancour in the ECUSA if the clergy just did what they were paid to do, like read MP and EP daily in their churches, instead of feeding their addictive behaviour of cyberwrangling. I wonder how much of this "crisis" in ECUSA is really the product of tendentious padres with too much time on their hands?
> It signals to visitors that they will not find the Anglican party line affirmed here.
I agree with Jake here. Acknowledging heresy is acknowledging that you are of a different faith. That totally disarms critics such as me.
If we are of different faiths then we have nothing to argue about - except perhaps who owns the name and that's not really important. I hope you aren't staying just because it's a job with a pension and a health plan. I would suggest William Melnyk took the appropriate path when he left the faith - and as I understand it he is doing quite well today. He probably has a larger following than he would have as an Episcopal Priest.
I hope this isn't OT: just to comment on +(+)Katharine's interview on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) this morning---
In general, I think +KJS rhetorical manner is pitch-perfect for These Times: soft-spoken, but VERY DIRECT (w/ one exception I'll note below). The woman knows when to shut up which is very, very REFRESHING for persons in positions of power. She's unvarnished without being rough, as it were (as much as I love and appreciate ++Frank, over-all, his Philly blue-bloodishness could be quite cloying at times :-/)
When DR asked her about the ALPO dioceses, she said that members may leave, but dioceses and parishes are tied to the General Convention Church. DR: "So they can't leave, AS a diocese?" +KJS: "No, they can't." Period. End of story. Moving on!
While the majority of the callers were hurt LGBT/allies (go us!), she fielded one conservative call at the end, re same-sex blessings . . . and knocked it out of the park! (Baseball reference, for our fur'ners here ;-p)
How can we (TEC) knows that God approves (of same-sex blessings)?
+KJS then responded in terms of BCP marriage: [para.] "Well, how can a priest knows that God approves of an opposite-sex couple? The priest counsels them, and then uses his/her best judgment, that this is what the couple is called to do . . . but then the couple actually marries themselves, while the priest only pronounces the Church's blessing. Seen in this light, we in TEC have discovered how different kinds of couples may be a blessing in the life of the Church." [that paraphrase is getting really loose in my memory at the end---Sorry!]
But on the whole, a Really Good answer, and very good performance in the first full-length interview that I have heard of her.
Now, Quibble 'n' Bits:
* I do wish she were a little more Christocentric in rhetoric, especially re mission and the "MDGs".
Why do we serve? Because the UN told us to? Because it assuages our liberal guilt?
No, because we serve others In Christ's Name . . . we serve/love Christ in the least of these (etc. etc.: you get my point)
She's going to be open to charges (unfairly, I have No Doubt) of seeing the Church as "just another social service organization", if she doesn't start Jesus-ing up her speech! ;-D
* Lastly, the single exception to the directness of her rhetoric: the use of the HORRIBLE phrase "The Reality is" "the Reality of the matter" "the Reality of the situation"
(Surprise, surprise: she used this one to explain to the gay callers her support of B033)
+Kate, REALITY IS WHAT WE CHRISTIANS ***CHOOSE*** to make it: it's not handed down from On High *cough* Canterbury *cough* (When I hear the word "Reality", I know that blather is a-comin'). You have that natural "a squid is a squid" thing workin' for ya: don't make the mistake of believing that "Reality" dictates that a squid be an octopus!
[Observation apropos of nothing: a couple of time since +KJS's PB election, I've heard MSM commentators make the mistake of saying that her oceanographic specialty was "squids and oysters", not squids and octpuses (or is that octopi? My dictionary says both! *g*). Anybody else hear "squids and oysters" and think maybe---consciously or unconsciously---said mistaken analyst was somehow picking up the infamous (homoerotic) "Deleted Scene" from Spartacus, re snails and oysters? No? Guess it was just me... ;-)]
Prior Aelred noted, "that a part of the Communion (i.e., an independent church folowing its own canonical due process) acted without sufficient consultation (whatever that is supposed to mean)."
And, of course, that's what the ALPO dioceses are doing now. They are splitting from TEC in various ways and asking for "consitutent status" without even waiting for a first draft of the Covenant to be written. Certainly they, by not going through the process first, have "acted without sufficient consultation" in regard to the whole Communion. But, of course, they will be the first to sign on to a Covenant (if it is ever written) to make other members do that.
On another, political, blog we call this kind of hypocrisy "IDMIYOAR"--"It doesn't matter if you are a Republican." This seems to explain why the press is silent when Republicans are caught doing what they have just accused Democrats of.
I guess we're just in the throes of another round of IDMIYAABB: "It doesn't matter if you are a 'Bible- believer.'"
Puck,
When I say the creeds, I don't cross my fingers.
But, when I read the bible, I don't see it as giving me permission to execute my disobedient children or tell women to shut up.
The literalists, imo, who are trying to make the bible their God, are more inclined towards heresy.
If you are a literalist, then, yes, we are of a different faith. But please, spare me the false accusation that I don't believe in Jesus, or the resurrection, etc.
Puck - "I agree with Jake here. Acknowledging heresy is acknowledging that you are of a different faith." and
"I hope you aren't staying just because it's a job with a pension and a health plan."
I apologize to the rest of the people on this thread, I thought Puck was interested in dialog, It seem I was mistaken.
Disclaimer: I would like to make clear that my question upthread,
can the Episcopal Church plant bishops in dioceses in Africa, and even in England for those who feel oppressed or abandoned by their bishops?
was partly tongue-in-cheek, but in no way was it intended to give you, radicalfeministpoet, ammunition for your side. I agree with almost nothing you say.
Peace. No offense intended, just making my position clear. :o)
Jake, exactly what would be involved in bringing presentments against these bishops and declaring their sees vacant?
JCF -- any Real Player links to the +yet 2 B+ Jefferts Schori interview?
TWO important sites for all true Anglicans!
Where my heart is:
Affirming Laudianism
AND a "Contintental religion"
Frankly Unfirendly Catholics
And future historians will ask - what was the tripping point for this crisis?
(The consecration of an openly gay man as the Bishop of New Hampshire).
We were "fudging along" in a typical Anglican fashion until that event.
In the future, when our minds are less heated. We will ask ourselves deep questions like:
What is the root cause of this crisis.
1. Our understanding of the Bible.
2. The Bible itself.
3. Lack of Communication.
Did we communicate effectively? Did the part of the communion with the most access to the print and electronic media drown the geniune concerns of the majority - until it became to late.
Are all conservatives bigots? (Even if so it takes more than 24 hours to transform a "conservative" to a "progressive" - and vice versa).
As things stand, the Anglican Communion has successfully warded off a change.
What change? A change proposal that ultimately seeks to undermine 2000 years of understanding on the issue of homosexuality.
But why was this change resisted? The Church successfully dealt with slavery and is jolly well on its way towards successfully dealing with the role of women. But what makes this issue so contentious?
Is it the "ick factor"? (As Jake once suggested). That suggests that the "conservatives" are not intelligent enough to intepret scripture, it puts conservatives into a box (fundamentalist, closed mind, uncritical).
Nothing can be further from the truth. Conservatives (at least some) are critical people.
The pulse of the progressives can be felt by reading the latest writings from leading liberal theologians and observing the latest trends in secular society. (When secular sociey was ready for women rights and gay rights - so were the "progressives").
Conversely, you can feel the pulse of the "conservatives" in the Anglican Church by observing the latest trends in "Evangelical / Charismatic World". (Many evangelicals don't have problems with female pastors - so the conservatives do not have a united position on this issue). However, "Evangelicals / Conservatives" are united in their opposition to same sex marriages and gay ordination.
So why was the woman issue different? Because secular society, theologians and the evangelicals / charismatics had a greater degree of agreement on this issue than say - homosexuality (where there is little or no agreement).
Want to know when the entire Anglican Church will be ready for homosexual marriage / clergy? (When the evangelical / charismatic world is ready for them - highly unlikely, ever).
"The Church successfully dealt with slavery..."
Only 150 years ago, Chike, right here where I live, people like you were bought and sold as livestock with the blessing of the church.
The Church "dealt with" this injustice only because "radicals" introduced the "innovation" of abolitionism. Prior to that time the church endorsed slavery and even participated in the slave trade. Those who opposed slavery were accused of departing from the traditional understanding of scripture.
Churches in the U.S. split over the issue, and a black denomination, the Reformed Episcopal Church, came into being because South Carolina Episcopalians did not believe that African Americans were worthy to be ordained.
Change comes only because some people are willing to push the boundaries of current practice. Societies--and churches--need that tension between tradition and innovation in order to grow. Otherwise they end up frozen in time.
A purely conservative church will be more like a fly in amber than a living, growing institution.
Not to quibble too much on a minor point, but the PB-elect prefers to be called Katharine, not Kate or any other permutations. She also prefers to be called "Jefferts Schori" rather than "Schori." I mention this only because some of the T19 and Stand Firm commenters have been referring to her with dimunitives, which is a way of dismissing powerful women.
Not that anyone is doing that here: far from it. It's just that I know +Katharine slightly and want to speak up for her preference in nomenclature.
Jane boatler may one day realise that very few of us agree with what we say. Yet we say it nonetheless.Very few people agreed with John the Baptiser, and look what happened to him.
It's absolutley absurd to complain about "foreign" bishops "poaching" in the US, when that's exactly what the ECUSA has done for donkey's years. It's also racist to moan when reactionary black Africans do it, but not moderate Indians.
On an unrelated note, there is such a thing as magnaminity in victory, and many of you in ECUSA--I cannot say "us", for I live in the UK, and am in any case nothing but magnanimous--have made a poor showing of it. And the world notices. It's one thing to say, "We've won, we've changed the church and now have [women bishops/gay marriage/metaphorical understanding of the resurrection/etc, etc]." It's quite another to say, "...and anyone who wants to leave the church they signed up to, or were born into, or were ordained in, has to leave naked and without a pension." Isn't it enough to win? ECUSA has changed forever, and for that we may rejoice. But why be meanspirited about it? WHy not celebrate and show mercy to the vanquished? Let the reactionary homophobic literalists keep their stained glass and pensions---after all, they didn't change, did they?
Sometimes I wonder if the revolution was worth it. Is this the sort of people I had in mind when I wrote the gay agenda?
Gassho.
I can't believe I just read that. The REC was a black church formed because blacks couldn't be ordained?
Didn't someone mention recently that Episcopos know nothing of their own history?
Even a troll can be half right now and then.
I misremembered the bit about the REC. They were not founded as a black denomination, but they did offer a home to black Espiscopalians after the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina refused to ordain black clergy.
As a result, there are 32 REC congregations in the Charleston area.
Here's another account:
The expansion of the REC into the Southeast resulted when emancipated Episcopal slaves were not openly received in Charleston into the parishes. Men called into holy orders were not admitted into any Episcopal seminary, except the Reformed Episcopal school in Philadelphia. Consequently, in a dramatic moment, Bishop Stephens of the REC, himself former president of the Citadel and renowned Confederate officer, took up the cause of these estranged Episcopal blacks and personally led them into the REC. The denomination is still approximately 20-30% black because of this unique historic event....
Half right? Try one and a half.
New Here,
I was trying to present what I feel are the facts of the matter.
1. "Conservative Anglicans" do not listen as much to Oxford Canon Theologians as they listen to Rick Warren and the Evangelicals.
2. The colour and flavour of "Conservative Anglicanism" reflects evangelical influences.
3. "Conservative Anglicanism" follows the trends in the Evangelical World. (The evangelicals have been sympathetic to the plight of women in the church - so the Conservative Anglicans can tag along with that).
4. "Progressive Anglicanism" takes its bearing from liberal theologians and trends in secular society. (Spong comes to mind).
5. There are loads of issues on which both the Evangelicals / Charismatics and the Progressives agree.
6. On these issues there is no problem.
7. There is a lack of a central "validating figure" in Anglicanism.
8. The "progressives" look to liberal theologians (including Spong) to validate their views, while the "conservatives" look to evangelical / charismatic and conservative "theologians" to validate thiers (Rick Warren included).
9. The ABC is unwilling or unable to validate any theological point of view on this issue.
10. As a consequence, this issue has been taken out of his hands, and probably out of the hands of the leading figures within the Anglican Communion.
11. This is just a skirmish in the battle between two schools of thought in Christianity.
a: The conservative school of thought (I use this expression for lack of a better term to use).
b: The "progressive" school of thought.
12. We have dealt with / are dealing with the following issues successfully.
a. Slavery.
b. Women rights.
c. Poverty / Social Justice
13. We have problems with the following issues.
a. Biblical intepretation / Biblical Authority.
b. Gay rights.
c. The Divinity of Christ.
14. Are these problems insurmountable? Are we converging or are we moving in divergent directions on these issues? How near to the core of Christianity are each of these issues?
15. Whatever happens we must always seek to understand and seek to be understood. There has been so little understanding.
Isn't it enough to win? ECUSA has changed forever, and for that we may rejoice. But why be meanspirited about it? WHy not celebrate and show mercy to the vanquished?
rad, what have we won? I, for one, am not smug about a "victory". What should we be magnanimous about? The ABC seems to have sided against ECUSA. How does that make us the victors? Who are the vanquished? What did I say that was meanspirited - that I didn't agree with you? Churches change all the time.
I've had members leave a congregation. Never had one ask for all their donations back, or the stained glass window they gave in memory of Aunt Mabel.
It would seem the same premise would apply regarding dioceses and parishes who decide they cannot be contaminated by the impurity of Episcopalians.
Go with God, but leave the keys on the desk.
Thank you Chike for the last posting. It was excellent and I have copied it for further reflection. If TEC and the Church of Nigeria ever get back on speaking terms, I hope you are part of the conversation.
"It would seem the same premise would apply regarding dioceses and parishes who decide they cannot be contaminated by the impurity of Episcopalians."
I know that the civil law issues on the legal relationship between dioceses and parishes have been tested in court. Is there any case law to follow in terms of the dioceses and the national church? Which would be the legal corporate entity?
referring to her with dimunitives, which is a way of dismissing powerful
...which was really sort of my intention, Karen. When she stands UP for those-whom-God-made-gay, she's Presiding Bishop-Elect Katharine Jefferts Schori: God bless her! :-D
And if she sells us queer Episcopalians out (especially in such a patently passive-aggressive way as "The Reality of the situation is..."), then she's +Kate (or perhaps +Katie, if not to be confused w/ Tom Cruise's baby-mama! :-p)
OK, OK: I won't do it again... ;-/
Oh, nearly forgot: here's the link! Listen to +KJS on Real Audio
(Go to http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/ to find it also on Windows Media)
*****
A change proposal that ultimately seeks to undermine 2000 years of understanding on the issue of homosexuality.
{sigh}
:::puts on best Ronald Reagan voice:::
Chike, there you go again. >:-/
Would YOU please explain to me, how a concept less than 200 years old, can have an "understanding" that's 2000 years old? Would you explain that, PLEASE???
Chike, you write:
"Want to know when the entire Anglican Church will be ready for homosexual marriage / clergy? (When the evangelical / charismatic world is ready for them - highly unlikely, ever)."
and
"(Many evangelicals don't have problems with female pastors - so the conservatives do not have a united position on this issue). However, "Evangelicals / Conservatives" are united in their opposition to same sex marriages and gay ordination."
Yet a mere fifty years ago, and certainly 100 years ago, almost all "Evangelicals/Conservatives" were united in opposition to ordaining women.
So how, absent being able to read the Mind of God, can you be so very certain that it is "highly unlikely" that "the evangelical / charismatic world" will "ever" be ready to ordain open, non-celibate LGBT people?
PS - And be ready to bless same-sex unions?
Thus spake the ambitiously named, self-proclaimed "radicalfeministpoet" (who, in my brief reading here, appears to be neither particularly radical, nor particularly feminist, nor particularly poetic):
"The ECUSA has a long and despicable history of planting dioceses within the boundaries of legitmate bishops, including overseas. That’s why the selective brouhaha over African “incursions” into the US (ignoring the Church of South India’s activities) is so ridiculous."
Girrrrrl, please. You've asserted repeatedly that ECUSA/TEC has boundary-crossed, but I haven't seen a single example actually cited by you yet. Care to share? (And btw, by stating "including overseas," you imply that some of these instances occurred within ECUSA's own territory -- so in what manner would there be a boundary crossing?)
As for CSI in the USA, I repeat: Oh, please. That's a pretty disingenuous claim, considering that CSI's presence on U.S. soil occurs with TEC's prior approval, and is almost wholly aimed at serving Indian nationals and Indian-Americans resident here, unlike CANA (which has removed the "Nigerian" from its name, and will now be ordaining a white boy American as its resident bishop) and the other recent boundary-crossings. To compare CSI with the actions of ++Nigeria, ++Uganda, et al. is to compare apples and oranges.
Girrrrrl, please.
Nadine,
I should not attempt to predict the future. (I agree with you on that).
What I was trying to point out was that there are two (sometimes conflicting) schools of thought that guide Anglican revelation of scripture.
1. The Evangelical / Charismatic.
2. The Progressive.
If both schools of thought agree on a issue - it is usually settled in Anglicanism.
Please understand that Evangelicals / Charismatics / Pentecostals are a relatively new phenomenon in Christianity (just like the progressives). They were amongst the first to give prominent positions to women (and blacks) in the Church. (There are several women in leadership positions in "Mega Churches").
Why do I say the event is unlikely - Evangelical theology is bible centered (frankly speaking, the bible does not give a lot of room for movement on that issue). When presented with homosexuality, evangelicals see it as a disorder that can be healed - and they are no strangers to faith based healing.
Most Anglicans have Evangelical orientation / sympathies (and this is irrespective of what the most prominent theologians in the most prominent seminaries write).
Most Anglicans are people of the Book.
In attempting to communicate with people of the Book, the progressives frequently go outside the book or beyond the book. This is the same problem the Democratic Party has with "values" voters.
Where is our common frame of reference?
But they say it is all about feeding the poor and social justice. It is not all about feeding the poor and social justice! It is also about the Book!
If the progressives spoke the language of the evangelicals, if they could "get Jesus", we would be having a different discussion now.
But when they first of all hear of Spong's theses, the rejection of the resurrection by the Bishop of Durham and challenge to the authority of the Bible as a preamble to gay ordination / same sex marriages.
I bet you their minds are closed to "progressive arguments".
(But can progressives honestly speak the same language as evangelicals?)
Chike, thank you, that is a wonderful elaboration upon your point. And we would agree that we progressives have not done a very good job at making our theological case using a common language with evangelicals. (We'd also agree that it's not *all* about feeding the poor and social justice.)
Btw, I would add to your analysis a third style of Anglican scriptural interpretation, albeit one perhaps more important in the USA and England than some other provinces: a catholic reading. Such a reading would fall somewhere between the progressive and evangelical, and off a bit to the side. (Seriously.) Hence, it may not be solely a question of convincing all evangelicals, but rather of persuading enough evangelicals and catholics that the balance of interpretation reaches a tipping point.
And while I note that your skepticism is warranted as to whether such a thing can even be done, I think that history shows that it can be (e.g., as seen and still unfolding with respect to reception of the ordination of women), and that evangelical thought/language can itself change from within its own camp (notwithstanding claims to a sort of eternally unchanging Truth, e.g., the "the faith once delivered").
Some day, perhaps not so many decades off, what is today thought "progressive" will be routine among evangelicals (and catholics too).
The ABC has not given the green light for this. Surely it looks rather as if it is an effort to preempt and spoil the ABC's constructive proposals?
Please take my contributions with the due grain of salt. As a non-Anglican I find all this supremely confusing, but fascinating, and I just pipe up here to practice trying to get a hold on it.
Chike talked about the divinity of Christ. I think that most of the rejection of this doctrine comes from a poor understanding of it. I've written reams on the topic myself, but am not very happy with my present state of understanding. See http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...ioning_bac.html and http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...nation_and.html
and
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...ompletenes.html
and
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...fying_th_1.html
and
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/resea...jt_4/
Oleary.htm
Chike:
"What change? A change proposal that ultimately seeks to undermine 2000 years of understanding on the issue of homosexuality."
Understanding that was painfully inadquate, as documented in Mark Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology.
Call it rather a change that DEVELOPS the Church's teaching on sexuality (shades of John Henry Newman).
The only difference you can point to from the other issues you mention is one of degree -- concerning the speed of change, the numbers ready to change, and the divisions in society and church.
As a late FYI, the Windsor Report analysis conveniently disregards the changes to the report made by the Dromantine Communique - but I suppose that just a minor fact that could interfere with the story.
Nadine writes that I have asserted repeatedly that ECUSA/TEC has boundary-crossed, but I haven't seen a single example actually cited by you yet. Care to share? (And btw, by stating "including overseas," you imply that some of these instances occurred within ECUSA's own territory -- so in what manner would there be a boundary crossing?)
I don’t dispute that Nadie may not have “seen a single example” that I’ve given, but they’ve been given aplenty, unless Jake’s had his finger on the delete key again. ECUSA has planted dioceses in many areas where legitmate bishops resided: California, Colombia, Haiti, etc, etc—the leist goes on and on. Some remain part of ECUSA, while others, like the self-styled “Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil” (whose website currently features a pic of Kate Shori) have been given the freedom to function as pseudo-independent puppet churches. Again, Episcopos don’t seem to know their own history.
ECUSA has never taken episcopacy seriously. You don’t just set up a “diocese” in another bishop’s back garden because you happen to out of communion with her/him. It’s simply not done—yet the EC does it all the time. That’s why it’s ridiculous to whine about uppity black bishops doing the same thing.
Nadie goes on to claim that the “CSI's presence on U.S. soil occurs with TEC's prior approval,” which merely reminds us that any involvement of Akinola et al was likewise invited. Is it episcopal? No. But is it Episcopalian? Oh yes, definitely, yes.
“Go, but leave the keys,” we hear. Is that what inclusion means—keeping the assets? When I wrote the bloody gay agenda, I never envisioned this. We’ve beaten the homophobes. Why do so many of you want to humiliate them as well? (Not to mention control people’s thoughts….)
Forgive my eavesdropping, but I have been looking at both the "progressive" and "traditional" websites of your church for some time now (trying to learn something). I would like to point out one observation here. Whether or not I agree with them, the "traditionalists" come of more moderate than the "progressives". I see more pejorative from the "progressives" than anything else. It really weakens your argument and quite frankly makes you appear to be on the losing side. Please don't take offense to what I say, I am offering this with all Christian love, but maybe you should try embracing the "traditionalists" and practice the love you seem to espouse. You don't have to listen to me - I mean what do I know about anything - but as an excercise why don't you try agruing their point of view for yourself. Look at what they are saying and try to understand them. Then look at some of the responses the "progressives" give. It may be a good experience for all of you. I know it was for me.
I apologize ahead of time if I have offended anyone.
Frankly I've seen some of the "Traditionalists" responces,...and being called akin to Satan isn't what I would classify as being compassionate.
Nadine,
Just a question, where do the "Catholic Anglicans" go to to validate their theological views.
Is it Rome?
Chike,
I suppose you could Google it.
Here you go Chike: www.anglicancatholic.org
Chike,
This link will take you to a list that hopefully will answer your questions.
http://anglicansonline.org/commu...munion/
nic.html
Says RFP: "Again, Episcopos don’t seem to know their own history."
Again -- Oh, please. Humor me, girlfriend. Flesh out a bit more your claims as to California, Colombia, Haiti, and Brazil... Other than *Roman Catholic* bishops, what *Anglican* bishops had dioceses on the ground in those places that got usurped by PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC incursions? Let's see how well you really know your Anglican/Episcopal history, before you go casting more blanket aspersions on what folks here know and what they don't. A little specificity from you is called for if you're going to cast aspersions on TEC's episcopal scruples, as you have.
And then you put this out there:
"Nadie goes on to claim that the “CSI's presence on U.S. soil occurs with TEC's prior approval,” which merely reminds us that any involvement of Akinola et al was likewise invited. Is it episcopal? No. But is it Episcopalian? Oh yes, definitely, yes."
For a purported expert on Anglican/Episcopal history, who condescends to others here, you seem to overlook the matter of jurisdiction. It's one thing for TEC, as a body, acting through General Convention and its subsidiary authorities, to authorize CSI's operation within the USA, which canonically is TEC's territory; it's quite another for individual Episcopalians to issue the invitations to Akinola & Gang. They have no authority to issue such invitations. Apples and oranges, it is.
By your logic, U.S. Roman Catholics could invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint bishops for them instead of the Pope doing it -- and yes, by all means, they certainly could do so, but they'd be no longer Roman Catholics, nor within the Roman Catholic Church.
Your ecclesiology is quite flawed, dear. (And on the basic issue, you're not disputing with me, per se; you're disputing with the Council of Nicea.)
Chike, you ask:
"Just a question, where do the "Catholic Anglicans" go to to validate their theological views."
I see that some others here have already given helpful links; I'd add only that "They don't go to Rome, per se; they go to the Catholic Tradition."
Blessings,
Nadine,
RFP is just a sarcastic interloper who like to get people going.
For her own amusement.
Conoscenzo,
Just so you don't think I'm just blowing steam, Bp.Wimberly of the Diocese of Texas said he was going to remain in TEC, and this is just a sample of the viril posts on virtueonline in answer to this news: Re: TEXAS: "I intend to remain in The Church & The Comm
What a complete Doofus.
God seldom calls people to sit complacently on their butts.
The ECUSA--now not merely "the Gay Church" but the "Butt-sitting Church," the "wait-and-see-ad-nauseum church," the church of "self-justification."
Repent? Change? Convert? Evangelize? From what to what? Instead, the ECUSA's message is SIT ON YOUR FAT, COMPLACENT, SELF-INDULGENT, ALL-INCLUSIVE, NON-JUDGMENTAL, SIN-IS-A-MYTH, PLURIFORM, I'M-OK-YOU'RE-OK, NARCICISSTIC and SODOMISTIC BUTTS!
Continue the work of spreading the Gospel? More like continue the work of spreading HIVAids, STD's, abortion, divorce, depravity and death.
GOSPEL? What gospel would that be. GOD died on the cross so you would know that there was no such thing as sin and that you had no need to change your ways? Good luck selling that to anyone whose pudendum is not gravitating where it doesn't belong.
The ECUSA is now a "faith" to die by, not for.
I hardly think this is a sample of Christian Love.
David,
I hope I didn't give the impression that there weren't issues on both sides. If so I apologize. I have just observed that there seems to be more "heat" from the "progressive" side.
This guy was wrong in his approach - I hope you don't feel this is a jusification to act in kind.
I would hope that you agree, even by definition, that "progressive" implies "change" and "traditionalist" implies "status quo". In my view, at least, when "change" is needed the "burden" is on the one recommending the change.
Change can shake people to the core. They need to really understand the reason for change before they will make it because one never really knows what will happen - you can't unring a bell.
I mean did you ever consider that maybe the "traditionalists" really believe in God and the Bible and that they are just trying to live up to it the way they have always been taught? The ones calling for change should expect it - that is the price to be paid for challenging the status quo - always and everywhere. But the change should be slow and with love. I mean what if your wrong? What if in five years a light snaps on and you realize that you have made a terrible mistake. I know I have in my life.
Anyway, don't mean to lecture. Its not my place. Just thought I would make my observation.
With all Christion Love,
Conoscenzo
Jake:
1. You prove the argument that I have been making for several years now: liberals are about power. Your spiel about presentments shows what you are really about. I'm told that the comments by liberals on the HoBD listserve post GC also validate my viewpoint on this.
2. If Martyn Mimms is a well-known extremist, what does that make you, a lesser known liberal extremist?
3. Alpo = dog food APO = alternative primatial oversight.
Conoscenzo,
I understand what you are saying, I don't consider myself a radical left-winger, I'm more of a moderate with slight left leanings.
I believe the reason for all the "heat", is that people are hurt. I am a cradle Episcopalian, I by no means want to see the church I grew up in break apart & just whither away. But I see the right wing people as very fightening. I grew up in Michigan, and never saw the parishes act so out there, like the Central Florida parishes (at least in my area) do. The parishes in this area are like the Southern Baptist churches I knew in N.C. preaching hate ...and discord for certain groups of people (of which I happen to be one of).
I see change as a good thing, and frankly, I'm tired of not being able to express my true self at a church who accepts me for my true self, not a place I have to hide in, or feel frightened of. And especially not a place that is constantly telling me I'm going to Hell for being who God made me.
I dunno, I can't seem to find the words to explain myself.
David,
OK, I see what you are fighting. First of all, no one can tell you that you are going to hell. If they do they commit the major sin of putting themselves on the level of God. In the same light, no one can tell you that you are going to heaven...same sin.
What people CAN say is that we are all on a path. That path can lead many directions. We need a guide and a compass. Unless we are without sin we cannot know ourselves if we are on the path leading to God - we need something greater than ourselves. I am taught in my church that sin is like veering off the path (its an archery term to mean "miss the mark). As an individual you need to fight that battle on your own (to work out your salvation with great fear and trembling so to speak).
So don't let anyone bother you. It doesn't matter what they say about you. BUT listen to what God is saying. Me, for example, I know some of my sins. I know directly that I am making them. I accept that. I want to change, but I am weak.
But I am not going to tell people that I am not sinning, I am not going to tell people "Hey, this is how God made me so it must be right". That is provocative and can offend people. What I do is work on me. I lead people in my Church where my strengths are. I listen and pray about the things where I am weak - even if I don't agree. I am not always certain. There are some sins I don't understand, but I am not God. So I accept it, pray for God's love and mercy and go on with life.
But here I go again...look, enjoy your life. Don't let people get under your skin. Just try loving them. I know it sounds crazy but if nothing else it feels pretty good and probably makes God smile.
Conoscenzo
I mean did you ever consider that maybe the "traditionalists" really believe in God and the Bible and that they are just trying to live up to it the way they have always been taught?
Conoscenzo: oh, they ABSOLUTELY "really believe [what] they have always been taught" . . . it's just that it's not the Bible! (Have you read the Bible, Con? Ever see anything in it like "no gay marriage" or "no gay bishops" in it? I mean, c'mon!)
Instead, Rodgers and Hammerstein had a pretty good song about them (the "traditionalists"):
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear.
You've got to be taught
From year to year.
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear.
You've got to be carefully taught.
(And for "people whose skin is a different shade" substitute "people with a different way to get laid" ;-/]
Commenting by HaloScan
