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

gray100 · Jun 19, 2010

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

While the Anglican communion bickers amongst itself whether my sexual orientation is 'moral' and whether people like myself should be granted the full range of civil rights given to other human beings, I have to put up with it in the privacy of my own home. If you can imagine what it is like to put up with discrimination and having it shoved in my face all the time, in the newspaper headlines, TV news, and on the radio, you can begin to understand what I mean about gay people being treated like punchballs and guinea pigs in a controversy they do not wish to be part of.

MKJ · Jun 19, 2010

I find myself wondering if many people have actually bothered to read the Windsor Report, which covers a lot of the same ground that has been discussed here, in some detail.

wayseer · Jun 19, 2010

gray100 said:
While the Anglican communion bickers amongst itself whether my sexual orientation is 'moral' and whether people like myself should be granted the full range of civil rights given to other human beings, I have to put up with it in the privacy of my own home. If you can imagine what it is like to put up with discrimination and having it shoved in my face all the time, in the newspaper headlines, TV news, and on the radio, you can begin to understand what I mean about gay people being treated like punchballs and guinea pigs in a controversy they do not wish to be part of.

Thank you.

I take your points which have some validity.

However, at least the Anglican communion is acknowledging that there is a problem. Many other churches have not reached that threshold as yet.

Whatever happens in the privacy of your home is something beyond the auspices of the Anglican communion.

The other alternative is to maintain the status quo. Is that what you are proposing?

On the other hand, it appears you are not an Anglican so I really don't understand you position vis a vis the Anglican communion.

Polycarp1 · Jun 19, 2010

Phinehas2 said:
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 dont 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 dont 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.

Phinehas... we have been at odds before in this and other areas of CF. I want to ask three questions of you, not polemically but because they seem to me to get at the root of these disputes.

1. What precisely do you understand Lambeth 1.10 to be? As in, what effect does it have on, say, the Anglican Church of New Zealand/Aetoeroa (to pick a church at random that is not in the middle of the disputes)?

2. What do you believe the limits of national autonomy and autocephaly to be in the Anglican Communion? E.g., what authority does a Primate, say ++York, have in, for example, the Scottish Episcopal Church? Does the Lambeth convocation of all (or almost all) bishops have authority that an individual primate does not?

3. What authority does ++Rowan have over the member churches of the AC outside England? How precisely can he "correct them or discipline them" as you suggest he should?

These are not asked to provoke argument or lay traps. They're a good faith effort on my part to understand what you're suggesting, to "reach across the battle lines" and see what it is you conceive should be done. I'll humbly and gratefully appreciate a serious answer.

gray100 · Jun 20, 2010

wayseer said:
On the other hand, it appears you are not an Anglican so I really don't understand you position vis a vis the Anglican communion.

I take that as an invitation for me to go and sling my hook.

And yes, I have been part of the Anglican church for most of my life.

Thanks for responding anyway.

Phinehas2 · Jun 21, 2010

ebia

The global communion has handled it, Lambeth 1.10., Windsor etc, the revisionist simply have taken any notice.

Phinehas2 · Jun 21, 2010

Polycarp1,
There is no need for me to answer any of your questions as they just indicate exactly the lack of acknowledgment of authority either of the scripture or the church. The Communion as a whole produced Lambeth 1.10, how come you and the likes of the TEC don’t seem to know what it means?

Polycarp1 · Jun 21, 2010

Phinehas2 · Jun 21, 2010

Polycarp1,
Lambeth 1.10 does say ‘in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage’. It does say ‘recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships.’ ‘rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture’
and
‘cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;’
Where is the insult, if you don’t accept what Lambeth 1:10 says then that’s the case.
As to serious dialogue, I do not accept rank disbelief of the scripture as affirmed by Lambeth 1.10 as serious dialogue but rank disbelief.

ebia · Jun 21, 2010

Phinehas2: you will note from earlier in this thread that I have not supported the recent action by TEC and have supported Windsor, the Pentecost response by +Rowan and the potential Covenant. However, I find little in your posts that allows for a useful, respectful, dialog about any aspect of the issue.

Phinehas2 · Jun 21, 2010

ebia,
There is no aspect of the issue that needs discussing, discussion rather than acknowledgment and compliance is all that is lacking.

ebia · Jun 21, 2010

Phinehas2 said:
ebia,
There is no aspect of the issue that needs discussing, .

Then what are you hoping to achieve in posting in a discussion thread on a discussion forum?

kiwimac · Jun 21, 2010

The Anglican communion is not the RCC. We have every right to discuss and to decide for ourselves whether or not to comply.

ebia · Jun 21, 2010

kiwimac said:
The Anglican communion is not the RCC. We have every right to discuss and to decide for ourselves whether or not to comply.

"we"? I didn't think you were in the Communion.

kiwimac · Jun 21, 2010

The OCC has been in full communion with the AC for over 100 years.

Phinehas2 · Jun 21, 2010

'we' ah no I am not... was baptised and confrimed in Anglican church in the past

ebia · Jun 21, 2010

kiwimac said:
The OCC has been in full communion with the AC for over 100 years.

Yes, but being in full communion with, is not the same as being part of the Anglican Communion (TM).

ebia · Jun 21, 2010

Phinehas2 said:
'we' ah no I am not... was baptised and confrimed in Anglican church in the past

Unless you self-identify as a member of an Anglican, Old Catholic, or associated church then you post here as a guest.

RestoreTheRiver · Jun 21, 2010

Polycarp1 said:
This returning of insult for attempt at serious dialogue is why STR has become nowhere most practicing Anglican Christians would find comfortable. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have any desire to correct the problem according to the rules.

I agree that the tone of this discussion has become inappropriate. If I have said anything to contribute to the downward spiral, I do apologize. As you say, surely we can disagree without resorting to insults.

Michael

higgs2 · Jun 25, 2010

The real question is "when will TEC say enough is enough". We need to walk away from where we are not wanted. I cannot see that not being part of the "AC" will diminish TE, the gospel, or our love for Jesus. It will free up time, resources and people to do the work that God has given us to do, instead of tap dance around trying to please those who will never accept us. It's time to go.

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

gray100

Guest

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

gray100

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Phinehas2

Guest

Senior Contributor

Phinehas2

Guest

Senior Contributor

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Senior Contributor

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Phinehas2

Guest

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Contributor

not a nutter

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency