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

[ebia]

I cannot see that not being part of the "AC" will diminish TE, ...

If that's true - that you (and TEC generally) don't see being part of the global community as a good and important thing than that pretty much answers most of the questions. If "what we do as individuals" overrides how we relate to each other as a community then its definitely time to leave. But IMO that's the putting the cart before the horse.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

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.

I believe that this will happen at some point, as we have two communions now, in all but name. Meanwhile, my experience as a vicar in the AMiA is that we put very little time and energy into discussing these issues in our church life. Instead, our focus is on fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

I believe that most TEC parishes are, likewise, focused on vision and mission--given the great divide as to what it is that the Holy Spirit is saying to the church today.

Perhaps it is past time that we brought that same focus to STR. At the least, perhaps we should agree to set aside the unending discussion of issues where we all know our positions; and all know that we are not going to pursuade one another to any meaningful change.

And, at the very least, we can surely agree to be civil--and to gently but firmly disuade any non-Anglicans--especially those who do not choose to uphold this foundational premise--from debating here.

Michael

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

gray100,

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

 

[higgs2]

If that's true - that you (and TEC generally) don't see being part of the global community as a good and important thing than that pretty much answers most of the questions. If "what we do as individuals" overrides how we relate to each other as a community then its definitely time to leave. But IMO that's the putting the cart before the horse.

Well that depends on you you view the church. Because my view is very, very broad and includes those who would exclude me. But the AC is changing into something new, and I don't see that it furthers the commission and command of Christ.

 

[higgs2]

Yes, our TEC parish doesn't talk or think about this stuff much either.

I believe that this will happen at some point, as we have two communions now, in all but name. Meanwhile, my experience as a vicar in the AMiA is that we put very little time and energy into discussing these issues in our church life. Instead, our focus is on fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

I believe that most TEC parishes are, likewise, focused on vision and mission--given the great divide as to what it is that the Holy Spirit is saying to the church today.

Perhaps it is past time that we brought that same focus to STR. At the least, perhaps we should agree to set aside the unending discussion of issues where we all know our positions; and all know that we are not going to pursuade one another to any meaningful change.

And, at the very least, we can surely agree to be civil--and to gently but firmly disuade any non-Anglicans--especially those who do not choose to uphold this foundational premise--from debating here.

Michael

 

[ebia]

Well that depends on you you view the church. Because my view is very, very broad and includes those who would exclude me. But the AC is changing into something new, and I don't see that it furthers the commission and command of Christ.

Your view of church seems very broad but very thin - it includes everybody but means very little. (Which is what tends to happen when inclusion overrides all other considerations.) Others have a view that inclusion to be meaningful has to be inclusion into something a bit more substantial. Ultimately, if there are no boundaries, inclusion itself becomes meaningless.

 

[wayseer]

Well that depends on you you view the church. Because my view is very, very broad and includes those who would exclude me.

Such is hardly an accurate definition of 'church'.

But the AC is changing into something new, and I don't see that it furthers the commission and command of Christ.

In what way is the Anglican communion 'something new'? Unless you elaborate I have no idea of what you might mean.

 

[higgs2]

Such is hardly an accurate definition of 'church'.



In what way is the Anglican communion 'something new'? Unless you elaborate I have no idea of what you might mean.

I disagree. The Church includes all Christians. Or call it the Body of Christ if you like.

And the AC is moving towards the direction of a central authority, and membership "tiers".

It does not matter. We wish them well. And love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. But there seems to me that there is no point in continuing to try to belong to a group that really does not want us. And that's fine. A parting of the ways will be painful,but in the long run probably best for everyone.

 

[ebia]

I disagree. The Church includes all Christians. Or call it the Body of Christ if you like.

And the AC is moving towards the direction of a central authority, and membership "tiers".

That's a misrepresentation on both counts. The Anglican Communion is moving to a structured means of calling members to account to the global community (from an unstructured means that has ceased working). And because that is a change - a formal bonding of what has previously been informal - it has to be optional.

Carrying on as before isn't an option - it ceased to be an option as soon as one part of the community carried on with an action that the rest of the community had called on them to stop because at that point the relationships within the community were substantially altered.

 

[Skipton]

The church that Christ sees includes all believers, He said His followers are believers. That doesnt include disbeleif disguised as 'interpretation'

 

[wayseer]

I disagree. The Church includes all Christians. Or call it the Body of Christ if you like.

I'm somewhat confused then as to why you see yourself 'not included'.

And the AC is moving towards the direction of a central authority, and membership "tiers".

Where is this 'centralized' authority?

Authority can only become 'centralized' is others give it such authority or that it seeks such authority to the exclusion of others. I see nothing of that nature in the wind.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

Your view of church seems very broad but very thin - it includes everybody but means very little. (Which is what tends to happen when inclusion overrides all other considerations.) Others have a view that inclusion to be meaningful has to be inclusion into something a bit more substantial. Ultimately, if there are no boundaries, inclusion itself becomes meaningless.

Michael

 

[higgs2]

That's a misrepresentation on both counts. The Anglican Communion is moving to a structured means of calling members to account to the global community (from an unstructured means that has ceased working). And because that is a change - a formal bonding of what has previously been informal - it has to be optional.

Carrying on as before isn't an option - it ceased to be an option as soon as one part of the community carried on with an action that the rest of the community had called on them to stop because at that point the relationships within the community were substantially altered.

Well. TEC leaving won't diminish you all or us so it's win win. And just wait, there will be proposals for central authority and tiered membership. my prayer is that we will move past that and continue on with our mission to love and serve the Lord without these distractions.

And it's funny no one tsk tsk's over the global south churches who have swooed inton the US and attempted to take not only parishes but entire diocese, even though they were asked not to.

 

[higgs2]

I'm somewhat confused then as to why you see yourself 'not included'.



Where is this 'centralized' authority?

Authority can only become 'centralized' is others give it such authority or that it seeks such authority to the exclusion of others. I see nothing of that nature in the wind.

I do see myself included. And TEC. That is why I don't think TEC leaving the AC does not mean "that you (and TEC generally) don't see being part of the global community as a good and important thing". Because leaving AC, where we are not wanted anyhow, does not mean we are leaving the global community, as we are members of the Body of Christ.

I don't know what type of centralized authority will be proposed.

 

[higgs2]

The church that Christ sees includes all believers, He said His followers are believers. That doesnt include disbeleif disguised as 'interpretation'

Anglican or Old Catholic?

And welcome.

 

[ebia]

Well. TEC leaving won't diminish you all or us so it's win win.

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

And just wait, there will be proposals for central authority and tiered membership.

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.

my prayer is that we will move past that and continue on with our mission to love and serve the Lord without these distractions.

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.

And it's funny no one tsk tsk's over the global south churches who have swooed inton the US and attempted to take not only parishes but entire diocese, even though they were asked not to.

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.

 

[wayseer]

I do see myself included. And TEC. That is why I don't think TEC leaving the AC does not mean "that you (and TEC generally) don't see being part of the global community as a good and important thing". Because leaving AC, where we are not wanted anyhow, does not mean we are leaving the global community, as we are members of the Body of Christ.

'Not wanted'? Am I missing something? Is that your personal opinion or is it that reason your communion is leaving?

What do you mean when you say; 'I don't see myself included'?

 

[ebia]

Because leaving AC, where we are not wanted anyhow, does not mean we are leaving the global community, as we are members of the Body of Christ.

What does it mean to talk about a community where there is no mutual accountability?

Aren't you in danger again of making the community inclusive by making the word community meaningless?

 

[higgs2]

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.

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.

Tell me about Rwanda and the Southern Cone.

 

[higgs2]

'Not wanted'? Am I missing something? Is that your personal opinion or is it that reason your communion is leaving?

What do you mean when you say; 'I don't see myself included'?

I *do* see myself included in the Body of Christ.

TEC is not leaving at this point. But they are getting disinvited to even the most minute AC events and groups. I know of a conservative bishop who was kicked off the AC committee on developing relationships with the Methodists. How petty.