Windsor/Eames discussion

[Albion]

I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary with that parish. If it leaves the Anglican Communion because of gay unions, it will just be one of many around the world, both Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, to do so. If you meant that it would cease to be Anglican at all, preferring to be some kind of Protestant or non-denomionational church, that would be less common, but this has happened too.

 

[ahab]

I thought the Windsor report was designed to be the way forward and that there would be a moratorium on same-sex blessings. If the General Synod of Canada for example decides to go ahead with same-sex unions or blessings then surely it will be the local self identified evangelical Anglican church that will remain in the communion and the Canadian province that finds itself suddenly out.

 

[Albion]

Nothing that happens outside the province can absolutely force any province to do anything it doesn't want to do. Not Lambeth, the Windsor Report, or anything else short of kicking the Anglican Church of Canada out of the Anglican Communion. Few expect that such a thing would happen any more than with ECUSA. As a result, it is up to the parish to act; the diocese is safe innovating whatever wants.

 

[PaladinValer]

Ahab, only the ABC decides who is in Communion with the AC and who isn't. Not anyone or anything else.

 

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,

Thats right and ABC asked for the Eames commission, so as I was saying about the Windsor report.

 

[PaladinValer]

That's false logic, Ahab. It implies that the ABC will automatically agree with 100% of everything in the ++Eames' Report. And even if he did, the way you state your prepositions makes for a logically-unsound conclusion.

 

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,

That's false logic, Ahab. It implies that the ABC will automatically agree with 100% of everything in the ++Eames' Report. And even if he did, the way you state your prepositions makes for a logically-unsound conclusion.

I thought that the primates would now discuss the way forward in February based on the Windosr report.

As to 100% agreement, well they may agree on a moritorium but not on restricting alternative eposcopal oversight but I hardly think that is realistic. However the if there is a moratorium adhered to and other provinces do refrain from offering alternative episcopal oversight then I am hopeful. Do you agree and are you hopeful?

 

[Polycarp1]

The Bishop of a given parish's diocese is the one person with the authority to determine standards of belief and practice for that parish and that diocese. If he agrees to bring in another bishop to provide oversight for parishes in disagreement with him over certain issues, as Gene +Robinson did in offering to bring in Dan +Herzog for conservative New Hampshire parishes, I have no problem with "alternative episcopal oversight." But if someone means by it that a parish gets to pick and choose which bishop it will have for visitation and ecclesiastical authority, then I'm steadfastly opposed to it in those terms.

Ahab, would you be so kind as to explain why the Evangelical Alliance was opposed to Jeffrey John becoming a bishop? And if you choose to detail your own stance, that would be appreciated but not something I'd demand. Bluntly, given Canon John's personal morality, I can presently only see their opposition as bigotry, but I'm open to understanding better their position, if there is some justification I'm not clear on for their opposition.

 

[PaladinValer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jeffrey John is a celibate homosexual, yes? If so, I believe the actual Lambeth opinion is that celibate gays, lesbians, or "homosexual-slanting" bisexuals have no bars in becoming bishops. Why indeed then for the opposition? The Vatican Church has no bars either, if memory serves me correct.

Are we to become a pietist (and therefore, montanist [ICK!]) Church? I refuse to recognize a Church that believes personal holiness validates one's holy orders or is what it takes for one's consecration of the Bread and Wine as valid.

If there be, in fact, one aspect of Christianity I am adamant of, it is my stance against heresies. And I recall no Ecumenical Council about sexual orientation yet I do remember one rejecting Donatism and Montanism as anathema.

And until such an Ecumenical Council be held, I will admit that perhaps my views be at least heterodox, but not heretical. That requires an Ecumenical Council.

In addition, the Windsor Report asked for the ECUSA's and ACoC's regret for their actions, which has been done. Regret, however, doesn't mean an admitance for wrong on the issue, but on the effect of the action.

 

[Albion]

I didn't follow that situation very closely, but perhaps John was opposed on account of his public utterances or policies advocated, rather than because of his own personal sexual orientation?

 

[CSMR]

He was opposed because of his revisionist teaching and also because he failed to express any sort of repentance for his non-celibate period.

 

[Albion]

He was opposed because of his revisionist teaching and also because he failed to express any sort of repentance for his non-celibate period.

That seems to clear the matter up.

 

[Polycarp1]

He was opposed because of his revisionist teaching and also because he failed to express any sort of repentance for his non-celibate period.

That is, in fact, the sort of answer I was looking for -- an explanation of why the stance they took on someone that appeared to be complying with their expectations. Do you (or another person familiar with the John controversy) have more detail on "his revisionist teaching" to share?

 

[ahab]

Hi Polycarp1,



Yes I know what the Episcopal has become. The break with the gospel was rightly such an issue that the Eames commission was set and the report now given with a view to unity. Now I’m not entirely happy with the report, but it gives the opportunity for the way forward. I have stated a couple of its proposals with hope, but I detect a negative reaction.

Ahab, would you be so kind as to explain why the Evangelical Alliance was opposed to Jeffrey John becoming a bishop? And if you choose to detail your own stance, that would be appreciated but not something I'd demand. Bluntly, given Canon John's personal morality, I can presently only see their opposition as bigotry, but I'm open to understanding better their position, if there is some justification I'm not clear on for their opposition.

One thing that is amazing to me is how many Christians now seem unable to separate what is the truth from what we feel. If we discuss what the truth in the gospel is someone cries 'judgement' or 'bigotry'. Jeffrey John is teaching falsely on the issue according to Lambeth 1.10 which is the standard teaching for the Anglican communion. Thats your chruch as well. This isn’t to do with the Evangelical Alliance. If you think its bigotry then can I suggest you pray and seek the grace to overcome your feelings and look to the gospel given to us.

Do you (or another person familiar with the John controversy) have more detail on "his revisionist teaching" to share?[/QUOTE]

No! the Windsor report was a way forward and not about same-sex sex. If you dont understand the teaching then just accpet that it is so Lambeth 1.10. If you want to discuss it there are such threads on the General Theology section.

 

[Polycarp1]

Hi Polycarp1,



Yes I know what the Episcopal has become. The break with the gospel was rightly such an issue that the Eames commission was set and the report now given with a view to unity. Now I’m not entirely happy with the report, but it gives the opportunity for the way forward. I have stated a couple of its proposals with hope, but I detect a negative reaction.

This is exactly why I felt I was no longer welcome here. The first line of your answer is most emphatically a condemnation of a church in its own congregational forum, a violation of the rules. But of course it will not be dealt with as such.

One thing that is amazing to me is how many Christians now seem unable to separate what is the truth from what we feel. If we discuss what the truth in the gospel is someone cries 'judgement' or 'bigotry'. Jeffrey John is teaching falsely on the issue according to Lambeth 1.10 which is the standard teaching for the Anglican communion. Thats your chruch as well.

This isn’t to do with the Evangelical Alliance. If you think its bigotry then can I suggest you pray and seek the grace to overcome your feelings and look to the gospel given to us.

You are determined to read the guidance of the Lambeth Conferences as Curial encyclicals from an Anglican pastiche of Vatican II -- and no matter how many people try to explain autocephaly to you, you won't hear it. I AM looking at the Gospel, and I'm seeing people prooftexting from Paul to deny the very teachings of Jesus Christ. And I'm flat-out disgusted with it.

I had resolved to give CF another try -- that maybe I might actually witness to the grace of God mediated through our Lord and Savior here. But it's turned into a place where we discuss the pilpuls of the Law and how it teaches us to reject our fellow men -- and the Lord who taught us otherwise will judge it accordingly. (Matthew 25)

Do you (or another person familiar with the John controversy) have more detail on "his revisionist teaching" to share?[/QUOTE]

No! the Windsor report was a way forward and not about same-sex sex. If you dont understand the teaching then just accpet that it is so Lambeth 1.10. If you want to discuss it there are such threads on the General Theology section.

In other words, I'm to take it elsewhere, because there's no room for me in this forum any more. So be it.

May you, Ahab, receive more mercy than you show me.

Ave atque vale, CF friends.

 

[ahab]

Hi Polycarp1,



Sorry but Lambeth 1.10 doesn’t say anything different from what the position has always been in the Anglican communion. That it has been thought ‘breached’ by the majority is one thing but to insist on it and restate it can hardly be a reason to make you feel no longer welcome.

You are determined to read the guidance of the Lambeth Conferences as Curial encyclicals from an Anglican pastiche of Vatican II -- and no matter how many people try to explain autocephaly to you, you won't hear it. I AM looking at the Gospel, and I'm seeing people prooftexting from Paul to deny the very teachings of Jesus Christ. And I'm flat-out disgusted with it.

I had resolved to give CF another try -- that maybe I might actually witness to the grace of God mediated through our Lord and Savior here. But it's turned into a place where we discuss the pilpuls of the Law and how it teaches us to reject our fellow men -- and the Lord who taught us otherwise will judge it accordingly. (Matthew 25)

Absolutely not, especially in the light of my first paragraph. The communion whatever form it takes is impaired in the form it is in, by the issue of same-sex sex. If you are so concerned with ‘rejection of our fellow man’ however that is supposed to be, then crying bigot doesn’t support your cause. When you read Paul please remember that rather than deny Jesus teachings, Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Himself and the other NT apostles and disciples agree. Furthermore if you mean Matt 25:31 and the sheep and the goats, I am for ever hearing that quoted these days from liberals, many of whom don't believe about eternal life and punishment anyway and others who seem to claim that judgement is based purely on how we must be careful to treat our neighbour even at the expense of God's Word.

In other words, I'm to take it elsewhere, because there's no room for me in this forum any more. So be it.

Except that the Eames commission wasn’t about same-sex sex but about the way forward and we aren’t at liberty to discuss the details in this part of the forum.

May you, Ahab, receive more mercy than you show me.

May God have mercy on us all my friend.

 

[ps139]

In other words, I'm to take it elsewhere, because there's no room for me in this forum any more. So be it.

Polycarp I'll have none of that!
FYI - staff is discussing the issue of "the elephant" right now. Hopefully soon we will have some new policy rather than an all out ban. But understand we're like the Supreme Court and VERY S L O W.

 

[PaladinValer]

Ahab, once again, you obviously have no clue on how the AC works. For the absolute last time, we are an autocephalous Communion. It is a fact, no, a right and privilege, of each Province to accept or reject certain portions of Lambeth.

African primates reject parts willingly as just the ACoC and my ECUSA reject willingly parts of it. Yet we are all still Anglican, whether you like that fact or not. You are not the ABC and you obviously do not have much accurate information on the workings of the AC. And I will also quickly remark that your implied "All-Lambeth-or-not-Anglican" arguments boarder on montanism, which is something that is anathema. We are not pietists here.

Every other AC Anglican has told you this whole shpiel; be we conservative, moderate, or liberal. You may either accept the facts or choose to ignore and/or reject them; that's your God-given choice. But I believe I can speak for a number of us that we are a bit tired of you misportraying the facts of the AC and how it works.

 

[ps139]

Just a pre-emptive mod reminder to keep it civil.

 

[Albion]

Ahab, once again, you obviously have no clue on how the AC works. For the absolute last time, we are an autocephalous Communion. It is a fact, no, a right and privilege, of each Province to accept or reject certain portions of Lambeth.

African primates reject parts willingly as just the ACoC and my ECUSA reject willingly parts of it. Yet we are all still Anglican, whether you like that fact or not. You are not the ABC and you obviously do not have much accurate information on the workings of the AC. And I will also quickly remark that your implied "All-Lambeth-or-not-Anglican" arguments boarder on montanism, which is something that is anathema. We are not pietists here.

Every other AC Anglican has told you this whole shpiel; be we conservative, moderate, or liberal. You may either accept the facts or choose to ignore and/or reject them; that's your God-given choice. But I believe I can speak for a number of us that we are a bit tired of you misportraying the facts of the AC and how it works.

In fact, the power of the ABC and of the Anglican Communion is not as little as you say and not as much as you think he is saying.