Will the Archbishop of Canterbury finally say "enough is enough"?

[ebia]

If nothing else, this thread has reminded me that I do need to go back and read the proposed Covenant again. I've read bits of it, and commentary on it, but we are all going to be faced with discussing and debating it at very levels over the next couple of years and I suspect there is precious little idea out there about what it entails (and most of that is probably grossly inaccurate). Some school-holiday reading I suspect, if I can finally get Jesus of Nazareth finished by then.

 

[wayseer]

So, what is wrong with differences?

I rail against particular Abps but would severing connection make any contribution to the coming of the Kingdom?

I had always respected the Anglican communion in being able to accommodate difference without having to resort to ecclesiastical authority.

The other aspect is, just where does ecclesiastical authority draw its 'authority'? I asked this question previously but it was deemed a 'statement of position'.

 

[ebia]

So, what is wrong with differences?

Many things we can agree to disagree on, but some we cannot. That hasnt' changed.

I rail against particular Abps but would severing connection make any contribution to the coming of the Kingdom?

If we don't share anything in common then the connection is pretty meaningless. Most members are looking for something more substantial than just a shared name (well, we don't even share that really) and a big, expensive party for our bishops in Canterbury every tenth year.

I had always respected the Anglican communion in being able to accommodate difference without having to resort to ecclesiastical authority.

It's been able to do that because of self-restraint. When the self-restraint stops carrying on as before ceases to be an option.

The other aspect is, just where does ecclesiastical authority draw its 'authority'? I asked this question previously but it was deemed a 'statement of position'.

I don't think that's a helpful way of looking at it. What's happening is not a top-down approach, but a community of member bodies agreeing to be mutually accountable in a formal way because the previous informal way has suddenly stopped working.

We already have that in Australia in a much stronger form, in the federal structure of the Anglican Church of Australia.

 

[MKJ]

So, what is wrong with differences?

I rail against particular Abps but would severing connection make any contribution to the coming of the Kingdom?

I had always respected the Anglican communion in being able to accommodate difference without having to resort to ecclesiastical authority.

The other aspect is, just where does ecclesiastical authority draw its 'authority'? I asked this question previously but it was deemed a 'statement of position'.

What do you understand the point of the Communion to be? Why do you think they bother to get together to pass motions and make decisions, if they are meaningless? If beliefs are irrelevant, why not ask the Baptists to join us, or the Freemasons for that matter?

 

[wayseer]

Many things we can agree to disagree on, but some we cannot. That hasnt' changed.

Apparently it has changed.

If we don't share anything in common then the connection is pretty meaningless.

But we do share much in common.

It's been able to do that because of self-restraint. When the self-restraint stops carrying on as before ceases to be an option.

'Self-restrain' may have been appropriate when letters were written on parchment and carried by horse and rider - lots of time for self-reflection. We no longer live in such a world.

I don't think that's a helpful way of looking at it.

Perhaps not - but the issue needs to be acknowledged for in the end there will be some form of 'authority' imposed and applied.

 

[ebia]

Apparently it has changed.[/quote[
No it hasn't - there have always been limits. All that has changed is that in the past when the Communion has said "this is a limit, please step back from it" that has been enough, restraint has been shown. This time the Communion said "this is a limit, please step back" and they kept going.

But we do share much in common.

Somehow, at some level, we have to have a shared vision of what essentials we must hold in common are. Unless you want to try to define Anglicanism as "whatever overlap there happens to be between the national churches of England, Wales, TEC, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Uganda, Singapore, Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa,...". But we've never defined ourselves in that way in the past. We've always regarded some things as essential, even while avoiding defining what that is any more than is necessary at any given moment and retaining a provisionality over even that. So we are back to "adiaphora" - what do we have to share in common and what is adiaphora? Each member cannot decide that for themselves unilaterally - that is inherently a decision the community makes.

'Self-restrain' may have been appropriate when letters were written on parchment and carried by horse and rider - lots of time for self-reflection. We no longer live in such a world.

Self-restraint isn't optional - it's essential to living in a community, let alone a community trying to base itself on the Kingdom of God. We have active programs in schools to try to teach young people self-restraint; why on earth would you think a global community could possibly operate without it?

Perhaps not - but the issue needs to be acknowledged for in the end there will be some form of 'authority' imposed and applied.

It's the authority of any fellowship deciding as a fellowship what the boundaries of that fellowship are. No National Church is obliged to sign the Convenant, but those that do are choosing to form a fellowship of mutual accountability. Which is part of the essence of being People of God, so that should not, in principle, be a problematic thing to do.

 

[gray100]

I certainly hope he does not. There is no need to apologise for the ordination of homosexual priests / bishops.

I totally agree. And the sooner the liberal wing splits from the conservatives, the better.

 

[Phinehas2]

I totally agree. And the sooner the liberal wing splits from the conservatives, the better.

Yes, form a new religion, it is fundamentally different from historic apostolic Christianity

 

[gray100]

Yes, form a new religion, it is fundamentally different from historic apostolic Christianity

So you are saying that the church has nothing new to learn, does not need to change and should remain as it was in apostolic times?

 

[wayseer]

I totally agree. And the sooner the liberal wing splits from the conservatives, the better.

Anglicans are somewhat more tolerant than you might acknowledge.

 

[gray100]

Anglicans are somewhat more tolerant than you might acknowledge.

As I feel I am being used by the Anglican Church as a punchball, while it sorts out its internal affairs, the tolerance you speak of I do not find particularly reassuring.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

So you are saying that the church has nothing new to learn, does not need to change and should remain as it was in apostolic times?

The Holy Spirit makes all things new, not new things.

Michael

 

[Phinehas2]

gray100,

So you are saying that the church has nothing new to learn, does not need to change and should remain as it was in apostolic times?

RestoreTheRiver is correct, the Holy Spirit makes all things new, not new things. The church has nothing to learn that is contrary to what the Holy Spirit has revealed in scripture. Christ said it is finished and done.
There is a new liberal gnosticism around that is fundamentally a humanism and counterfit christianty

 

[ebia]

There's a perfectly good other thread for carrying on the pantomime over whether homosexuality is sinful ("oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't", repeat ad-infinitum). This one is specifically about +Rowan's response to TEC's recent consecration.

 

[Catherineanne]

I totally agree. And the sooner the liberal wing splits from the conservatives, the better.

It is not that simple. I am socially liberal, but liturgically far more conservative. Which means that I am perfectly happy with women priests and bishops, and with any adult:adult sexual orientation, but on balance I prefer my priests with vestments, and an appropriate proportion of candles, incense, bells and whistles.

The Anglican Communion cannot be split cleanly into two in the way you suggest. If there is a splinter, the effect will be as on a windscreen; fracture into a thousand pieces.

The only way to retain the integrity of any small part is to retain the integrity of the whole at least on the level of respect and understanding. If fracture is now happening, one thing is certain; it is not the wish of + Rowan, and he has spent the past few years doing his utmost to prevent it. If anyone can hold the communion together, he can. Sadly, it looks now as if, in some regions at least, nobody can.

This is not the same thing as fighting for gay rights, or any other issue. It is about the stronger in faith making allowances for the weaker, so that we all travel together, and learn from one another.

 

[gray100]

It is not that simple. I am socially liberal, but liturgically far more conservative. Which means that I am perfectly happy with women priests and bishops, and with any adult:adult sexual orientation, but on balance I prefer my priests with vestments, and an appropriate proportion of candles, incense, bells and whistles.

I can relate to much of what you are saying here. I consider myself to be socially liberal, theologically progressive, but conservative on the major tents of the Christian faith, such as the creeds. So I can understand that the problem is not quite as straightforward as it first seems.

Imagine what it is like for gay people who have become 'guinea pigs' in this controversy, who open their newspapers, switch on their televisions, and repeatedly hear the Anglicans bickering over whether or not they should be fully included within their church and I think you can appreciate why folks like myself are inclined to think that enough is enough.

 

[Phinehas2]

ebia,

There's a perfectly good other thread for carrying on the pantomime over whether homosexuality is sinful ("oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't", repeat ad-infinitum). This one is specifically about +Rowan's response to TEC's recent consecration.

Which is a penalty because homosexuality is sinful and they are ordaining sin promoting bishops.

 

[Phinehas2]

CatherineAnne,
What I do agree with you on is the way Rowan Williams has tried to keep the communion together, he has shown great integrity on his part. What I would question is whether that does him any credit. Scripturally in a dispute the matter is taken to the elders, in this case the majority gave rise to Lambeth 1.10. Lambeth 1.10 has been ignored by the TEC and liberals. So the TEC and liberals not only do not believe the scripture on homosexual practice, but they don’t believe it on the authority of the church leadership either.
The leader is supposed to teach and correct according to the apostolic faith once delivered. These TEC people don’t even believe the apostolic faith once delivered when it comes to matter of sexual relations, they think they know better. But the ABC should be correcting them or disciplining them, even expelling them (1 Cor 5) … long time overdue.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
Which is a penalty because homosexuality is sinful and they are ordaining sin promoting bishops.

Never-the-less we don't need two threads flogging that particular dead horse, but there is scope for a discussion about how the disagreement is being handled in the global Communion.

 

[wayseer]

As I feel I am being used by the Anglican Church as a punchball, while it sorts out its internal affairs, the tolerance you speak of I do not find particularly reassuring.

I must missing something. In what way are you being used as a puchball?