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

[ebia]

I think that if we are asked to leave, or just excluded to the point of not being there, or if we walk away, in the long run it will be okay.

It won't be the end of the world, but breakdowns in the christian community are never 'okay'.

Tell me about Rwanda and the Southern Cone.

I'm interest in engaging in a dialog, not writing an essay.

+Rowan has made it clear that equal sanctions will apply to all provinces in breach of the Windsor moratoria and asked for clarification from the appropriate bodies where it is unclear if a province is in breach. If the Covenant process goes ahead, one thing that provinces that sign it will be signing up to is respecting geographical juristictions.

What exactly will need to happen if TEC doesn't sign up in terms of incursions into TECs space isn't clear. Neither is it clear what will happen if parts of TEC want to sign up. All that's still to be worked out it seems. Perhaps you would like to express a view on that.

 

[wayseer]

If you neither believe the word about homosexual perversion nor the word of God about obeying those in authority, as in Lambeth 1.10, you will be a rebellious non believer.

Your advice is misplaced. Homosexuality is neither a perversion, except to those who have some hidden fear, nor against the word of God. What we are up against is entrenched archaic thinking such as you have illustrated rather well.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Your advice is misplaced. Homosexuality is neither a perversion, except to those who have some hidden fear, nor against the word of God. What we are up against is entrenched archaic thinking such as you have illustrated rather well.

You're wrong on all counts.
The end.

 

[higgs2]

It won't be the end of the world, but breakdowns in the christian community are never 'okay'.


I'm interest in engaging in a dialog, not writing an essay.

+Rowan has made it clear that equal sanctions will apply to all provinces in breach of the Windsor moratoria and asked for clarification from the appropriate bodies where it is unclear if a province is in breach. If the Covenant process goes ahead, one thing that provinces that sign it will be signing up to is respecting geographical juristictions.

What exactly will need to happen if TEC doesn't sign up in terms of incursions into TECs space isn't clear. Neither is it clear what will happen if parts of TEC want to sign up. All that's still to be worked out it seems. Perhaps you would like to express a view on that.

You don't treat people with whom you really want to have a sincere dialogue in this manner, in my opinion. I really wanted to know what you meant. That felt pretty curt, bordering on nasty.

My opinion is that things will go on as they are. Incursions won't stop either way. The courts have mostly favored TEC on the building and property so far.

 

[higgs2]

You're wrong on all counts.
The end.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it? lol

the end.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

On the contrary, I think it's lose, lose. We are all diminished by a further break in global communion.


The proposals are about mutual accountability. Sure, they will be some kind of structure to enable that accountability, but to call that "central authority" is highly misleading at best. Some will choose to adopt that mutual accountability, others may not, but to call that tiered membership is, again, highly misleading. It's an attempt to play dog-in-the-manger: "we want to be able to do what we think without being accountable to anybody else, so the rest of you mustn't exclude us by making committments to each other." Another demand for inclusivity at the expense of the very thing that makes inclusion of value.


Frustrating as these discussions are, learning to live in community at all scales is just about the most important thing we do. Disregarding the global for the local, or the local for the global isn't an option.


Windsor addressed both. +Rowan's Pentecost letter addresses all who are in breach of Windsor (and asks for clarification where its not clear if a church is in breach of Windsor). My initial posts were careful not to include both sides, and much of what I've said since has been framed in a generic way. But its TEC members/supporters for the most part who have engaged in dialog with me - I'd love to engage in the equally complex dialog about how things can work out for, say, Rwanda and Southern Cone but nobody has picked that up.

Your points are, as always, thoughtful and well reasoned. I believe that ++Rowan's Pentecost letter is a few years too late. Those of us on the Rwanda and Southern Cone side will say that those provinces have a presence in North America only because of the thousands of conservative Anglicans here who found themselves with no viable spiritual home within the communion. From our perspective, TEC departed from the historic faith, and from the majority of the Anglican Communion today. Those who did not choose to go with them on this journey desired a viable means of remaining faithful Anglicans--hence the "incursion" of Rwanda and the Southern Cone.

We cannot now go backward. At least, not easily, by any means. Perhaps more to the point, we will choose so to do--if that means returning to TEC with her present beliefs and direction.

Nor does TEC choose to come our direction. No amount of argument, or appeal, is moving either side. Therefore, while the intent of Windsor, and of the more recent proposals, is "stop right here, and talk and pray through things together", and while this is a noble intent--the fact of the matter is that the separation has already taken place, in all but name.

This fact does sadden me. But, I see no way forward without acknowledging it to be the fact of where we stand.

Michael

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

My edit function doesn't seem to want to work. There is a "not" missing in the sentence that begins "Perhaps more to the point, we will not choose to do so..."

Michael

 

[wayseer]

You are lying, the word of God, according to various translations refers to homosexual practice as detestable and perversion.

Thank you for your kind words - no wonder there are problems within the Church with such entrenched and idealized thinking.

 

[ebia]

You don't treat people with whom you really want to have a sincere dialogue in this manner, in my opinion. I really wanted to know what you meant. That felt pretty curt, bordering on nasty.

Sorry. It wasn't meant to come over as dismissive or abrupt - apologies that it did so.

My opinion is that things will go on as they are. Incursions won't stop either way.

Predicting the future requires too many 'ifs and buts' but I don't think +Rowan will let the incursionists off the hook too easily because he will be very aware that their actions are just as damaging in the long run to global relationships as anything TEC has done - regardless of how justified or unjustified they may have been. There are plenty of instances of dioceses who would love a precident for cross-border incusions - not least Syndey into Canterbury/London.

The courts have mostly favored TEC on the building and property so far.

Fighting it out in court is most unsatisfactory. I hope and pray that if, for example, some CofE parishes wish to take up +Benedict's offer and join Rome that ways can be found to accomodate that better than what has happened in the US, whatever the legal rights might be.

 

[ebia]

Your points are, as always, thoughtful and well reasoned. I believe that ++Rowan's Pentecost letter is a few years too late. Those of us on the Rwanda and Southern Cone side will say that those provinces have a presence in North America only because of the thousands of conservative Anglicans here who found themselves with no viable spiritual home within the communion. From our perspective, TEC departed from the historic faith, and from the majority of the Anglican Communion today. Those who did not choose to go with them on this journey desired a viable means of remaining faithful Anglicans--hence the "incursion" of Rwanda and the Southern Cone.

We cannot now go backward. At least, not easily, by any means. Perhaps more to the point, we will choose so to do--if that means returning to TEC with her present beliefs and direction.

Nor does TEC choose to come our direction. No amount of argument, or appeal, is moving either side. Therefore, while the intent of Windsor, and of the more recent proposals, is "stop right here, and talk and pray through things together", and while this is a noble intent--the fact of the matter is that the separation has already taken place, in all but name.

This fact does sadden me. But, I see no way forward without acknowledging it to be the fact of where we stand.

Michael

See above.

 

[MKJ]

Perhaps we should go back to the traditional ways of dealing with apostate bishops. Then there would be no issues with needing incursions from elsewhere.

 

[Polycarp1]

"Apostate"? Interesting choice of words.

 

[higgs2]

Have you checked to see what the opinion is of the person in your signature?

It won't be the end of the world, but breakdowns in the christian community are never 'okay'.


I'm interest in engaging in a dialog, not writing an essay.

+Rowan has made it clear that equal sanctions will apply to all provinces in breach of the Windsor moratoria and asked for clarification from the appropriate bodies where it is unclear if a province is in breach. If the Covenant process goes ahead, one thing that provinces that sign it will be signing up to is respecting geographical juristictions.

What exactly will need to happen if TEC doesn't sign up in terms of incursions into TECs space isn't clear. Neither is it clear what will happen if parts of TEC want to sign up. All that's still to be worked out it seems. Perhaps you would like to express a view on that.

 

[ebia]

Have you checked to see what the opinion is of the person in your signature?

I'm quite familiar with +Desmond's view on the issue, and regard him as perhaps the greatest Christian of our lifetime. Make of that tension what you will.

 

[kiwimac]

Now, you see that was the way of the 'Old' Anglican church. Truths held in paradoxical tension, no truth less important because it was in such tension but not any more it would seem. I will mourn the passing of this great and marvellous body.

 

[Hisbygrace]

MOD HAT ON

Thread is being temporarily closed for cleanup.
Will be reopened soon.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Hisbygrace]

MOD HAT ON
Thread has had some cleanup and is being reopened. If you find that a post you made has been removed or edited it is because it fell victim to the cleanup. Please remember to abide by the sitewide rules and the House rules for this forum.

House Rules-
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ebia]

Now, you see that was the way of the 'Old' Anglican church. Truths held in paradoxical tension, no truth less important because it was in such tension but not any more it would seem. I will mourn the passing of this great and marvellous body.

I don't think that's changed. There always have been and always will be things that we can disagree about and things we can't. The global concensus is that this is not something we can agree to disagree about in our praxis at this time. That's not the decision I would have chosen to make, but its a decision that necessarly is made by the community, not by each individual.

 

[MKJ]

"Apostate"? Interesting choice of words.

I also considered using truculent, heretical, and heterodox. But I think apostacy is the most appropriate for what I am thinking of, which is individuals who have become heterodox and are trying to use their position in the church to further their views. If they became heterodox and joined the UU I wouldn't be bothered.

But really, what mechanism is there within Anglicanism to deal with such a Bishop? Several bishops back, we had a bishop who didn't believe that Christ was really resurrected from the dead. Among the Catholics there are ways to deal with such a bishop in both the Latin and Eastern churches, and the Orthodox can also do this - either at the instigation of the other Bishops, clergy, or even the laity. My heterodox bishop has since gone on to bigger and better things, which makes me shudder.

 

[higgs2]

I'm quite familiar with +Desmond's view on the issue, and regard him as perhaps the greatest Christian of our lifetime. Make of that tension what you will.

The we agree on something, friend ebia.