Windsor/Eames discussion

[PaladinValer]

Albion, the ABC has little power in terms of authority over other provinces other than his own. The one power is does have, however, is quite potent. It is only in his judgment whether a province is in Communion with him (and thus, the Holy See of Canterbury and the entire AC) and who isn't.

 

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,



It is obviously possible in this autocephalous Communion, as a province has rejected Lambeth 1.10 (even after the primate agreed to it) However that rejection has caused the communion to be impared in so much as the majority quite rightly can not tolerate such a departure from the gospel given, hence the Eames commission and the Windsor report.

Can you please expalin to me what value you believe the Windsor report is then, and are you supportive of its recommendations?

 

[AveMaria]

I've got the strangest feeling of deja-vu. . .

 

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,I think you are right. I have the feeling I shouldn't be pursuing this either as the thread is about evangelical Anglicans.

 

[Albion]

Albion, the ABC has little power in terms of authority over other provinces other than his own. The one power is does have, however, is quite potent. It is only in his judgment whether a province is in Communion with him (and thus, the Holy See of Canterbury and the entire AC) and who isn't.

I think you've said it well there, Palladin. There is--we might say--leverage and influence that is consequential, but specifically, the ABC has no authority outside England. That's what I was suggesting.

On the other hand, if being in communion with the ABC loses its appeal because the Anglican Communion is seen as having lost credibility, then he loses his leverage along with it.

 

[Polycarp1]

Hi PaladinValer,



It is obviously possible in this autocephalous Communion, as a province has rejected Lambeth 1.10 (even after the primate agreed to it) However that rejection has caused the communion to be impared in so much as the majority quite rightly can not tolerate such a departure from the gospel given, hence the Eames commission and the Windsor report.

Can you please expalin to me what value you believe the Windsor report is then, and are you supportive of its recommendations?

Good and valid question, Ahab.

It's my understanding that most Anglicans share my personal feeling that the unity of the Anglican Communion is something precious that should not be quickly discarded, by the throwing of anathemas back and forth like a bunch of particularly irritable 4th Century Greek bishops.

To be in union with Canterbury means that you can go virtually anywhere in the world and be able to enter and receive communion in an Anglican church with a sense that you are "home" there as much as you are in your own parish church.

As noted by PV, the present mechanism has only advisory roles for "Anglican Communion officials" -- the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is the sole person who has any authority whatsoever beyond his own province, and that authority consists entirely in deciding with whom he will be in communion. Granted he will seek advice on this, and listen seriously to that advice, the final decision rests in him (and of course with those with whom he is willing to be in communion, to accept that relationship -- that choice is a two-way street).

The Eames Commission and the Windsor Report it produced were intended to recommend ways in which "impaired or broken communion" could be avoided -- by recommendations as to actions which could be taken by both sides in disputes such as the past women's ordination issue and the present gay bishop/blessing of gay unions issues.

It does not itself carry any authority whatsoever over any church in the Anglican Communion. But it was requested and is being given serious consideration by Abp. +Williams.

I think it may be important for all of us to look at the issue from both sides, and I am going to violate the verbage of Rule #4, though not its intent, enough to state the issues as I understand the two sides to see them. I want to stress that this is not done to start the morality-of-homosexuality debate in this forum contrary to CF rules, and I would hope that nobody is interested in trying to take up that debate. My intent is to make clear what exactly the two sides in this issue, which is causing serious rifting in our Communion, are saying, simply so that we can get beyond that to the issues of how Anglicans deal with the question of unity-in-disagreement.

Most of the African Bishops and Evangelical minorities in the "older" churches hold that the elevation of practicing gay persons (or persons who are not in what they believe to be a state of repentance for past gay activities), and the blessing of gay unions, represent a condonation of a state of serious sin in which they feel they cannot acquiesce.

The leadership and majority of the American and Canadian Churches, and I believe the CoE and a few other "older" Anglican churches, take the view that the commitment to love one's neighbor as oneself, and one's fellow Christian as Christ loved us, mean that any action that relegates gay members of our church to a second-class status, in which their love and desire for holy union with the beloved, and their ability to minister in Christ's name, is not given equal status with the equally sinful and equally forgiven straight majority. As such, they feel that the actions called for by conservative Christians and their fellow Anglicans identified in the previous paragraph are a violation of their commitment to "seek and serve Christ in all men and women, loving one's neighbor as oneself."

That to me is the bottom-line stance of the two sides. As noted, they are not put up for discussion (forbidden by the CF rules) but simply as an assertion of my understanding of the stances taken on the underlying issue that led to the Eames Commission and the Windsor Report. How to live together as one Communion holding those separate views is what the Eames Commission was tasked to figure out. I personally feel they failed in their task, that they did not provide adequately for the moral stances of either side -- what they proposed was a compromise that injures both sides' moral judgment, and further damages the time-honored principle of autocephaly, which we inherited from the Orthodox and which is important to all our churches.

 

[Albion]

Yours is a reasonable summary of the situation, but in the end there is little to compromise. In my view, the sooner the Anglican Communion is gone or replaced, the better. It is of recent origin, has no real authority, and as for the idea of going anywhere, receiving communion, and feeling at home, well, anyone can commune there even if they are Pagans right now. Beyond that, one doesn't have to go overseas to find a church whose membership in the Anglican Communion is up to date but in which the faith bears little resemblance to that of the Anglican church across town.

Not to argue against your very good post, but here's another POV that is held by many and amounts to recognizing that the unity that is so earnestly talked about in all of this is only a formality.

 

[ahab]

Hi Polycarp1,



The issue of what the two sides believe is not what the Eames Commission and the Windsor Report was about, they have been acknowledged, but the report has recommendations for the way forward. It is not really about “how Anglicans deal with the question of unity-in-disagreement.”
Nor is about your pretending that only a few African Bishops and evangelical minorities believe something, there are plenty in the ECUSA who are not going to associate with a departure from scripture and God’s purpose for us.

The leadership and majority of the American and Canadian Churches, and I believe the CoE and a few other "older" Anglican churches, take the view that the commitment to love one's neighbor as oneself, and one's fellow Christian as Christ loved us, mean that any action that relegates gay members of our church to a second-class status, in which their love and desire for holy union with the beloved, and their ability to minister in Christ's name, is not given equal status with the equally sinful and equally forgiven straight majority. As such, they feel that the actions called for by conservative Christians and their fellow Anglicans identified in the previous paragraph are a violation of their commitment to "seek and serve Christ in all men and women, loving one's neighbor as oneself."

That’s another gospel Polycarp1 and an emaciated one at that. We are called to love God first then love our neighbour, not just love our neighbour as ourselves and tolerate what they propose contrary to God's will and purpose. We are called to be a Holy people set apart for the Kingdom and so are our celibate homosexual brother and sisters in Christ who are not relegated to second class status. How can you demonstrate love with comments like that?. If you want to represent homsoexuals in the church represent them all and better still represent the gospel first) Also there are plenty of ex-homosexuals in our church transformed to the glory of God. When you say Holy union, sin is not Holy and so deliberately promoting sin is not being in Holy union. When you ‘as such they feel’ who are you referring to? Futhermore, forget writing ‘conservative Christians’ Lambeth 1.10 is the what the standard is. Don’t put up these things not for discussion, you will be corrected and rebuked.
Now the Eames commission and the Windsor are because that majority will not and cannot tolerate such a departure from the gospel given to us and so the report has suggested the way forward. So how we live together depends primarily on the issue that caused the commission to be formed in the first place. Will there be a moratorium on same-sex sex blessings and teaching?

 

[Albion]

>>>>>The issue of what the two sides believe is not what the Eames Commission and the Windsor Report was about, they have been acknowledged, but the report has recommendations for the way forward. It is not really about “how Anglicans deal with the question of unity-in-disagreement.”
Nor is about your pretending that only a few African Bishops and evangelical minorities believe something, there are plenty in the ECUSA who are not going to associate with a departure from scripture and God’s purpose for us.<<<<<

Ahab, I also thought upon reading it that the "African bishops" line was an attempt to paint the situation as all hunky dorey save, of course, for a few dissenters here and there. As we know, the majority of the world's Anglicans (who live in Africa) have already been dismissed by liberal ECUSA bishops as too primitive to comprehend the need for following along with whatever the advanced people of the world in the UK, US, and Canada tell them.

 

[afnospam]

... 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.

The UK-based Evangelical Alliance has issued a statement following the decision of Canon Jeffrey John to withdraw from the post of Bishop of Reading, saying that his actions "have averted a situation which might have had catastrophic consequences for unity within the Anglican Communion and for Christian witness in the United Kingdom."

The backgound on Jeffery is that he has said that the church should bless same sex relationships, although he and his partner of 27 years would not go through such a ceremony and he would not perform one himself. The bishop said it was his duty to live by the church's demand for celibacy among the gay clergy as it was "a matter of corporate discipline". Although Jeffery claimed celibacy, he was still in a same sex relationship. He also said it was not a rule which could "hold for long".

I personally thought, that as an Orthodox believer that his withdrawl was one half of the right decision - and I give Jeffery credit for recognizing the issue it would have caused. The other has yet to manifest itself.

 

[ahab]

Hi Albion,

Thank you Albion my friend.

Yes indeed the spin needs stamping out.

Firstly a comment like “any action that relegates gay members of our church to a second-class status” based on “in which their love and desire for holy union with the beloved” “ is not given equal status with the equally sinful and equally forgiven straight majority.” is to misrepresent our homosexual Christian brothers and sisters and our brothers and sisters who have chosen celibacy for the Kingdom. It also somewhat casts contempt on our single and celibate brothers and sisters who for one reason or another would like to get married but can’t.

Secondly the standard of teaching in the Anglican Communion on the issue is Lambeth 1.10 and that was unanimously agreed to by the primates.


Thirdly the ‘breach’ of Lambeth 1.10 has caused a major problem whether certain Anglcans think it should or shouldn’t, it has.

Fourthly, the majority in the Anglican communion is represented by the Africans and the southern cone. This majority is almost unanimous as where they live even the pagans find same-sex sex unacceptable. But also the are huge divisions emerging in USA and UK, so to make out the majority in the communion are for same-sex sex is simply not reality.

Fifthly, it is no good pretending that Windsor gives us a chance to accept each other's actions. The compromise for the majority is a moratorium on same sex blessings and ordinations and to cease episcopal oversight across provinces.

 

[ahab]

Hi afnospam,

Yes that was the issue, the issue was the issue, not the person!

 

[afnospam]

Hi afnospam,

Yes that was the issue, the issue was the issue, not the person!

The qualifications of the person and beliefs are the issue. If he met 1Tim 3:1-7 then, as a person, the issue resolves itself.

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,



Thank you Albion my friend.



Yes indeed the spin needs stamping out.

Firstly a comment like “any action that relegates gay members of our church to a second-class status” based on “in which their love and desire for holy union with the beloved” “ is not given equal status with the equally sinful and equally forgiven straight majority.” is to misrepresent our homosexual Christian brothers and sisters and our brothers and sisters who have chosen celibacy for the Kingdom. It also somewhat casts contempt on our single and celibate brothers and sisters who for one reason or another would like to get married but can’t.
Secondly the standard of teaching in the Anglican Communion on the issue is Lambeth 1.10 and that was unanimously agreed to by the primates.


Thirdly the ‘breach’ of Lambeth 1.10 has caused a major problem whether certain Anglcans think it should or shouldn’t, it has.



Fourthly, the majority in the Anglican communion is represented by the Africans and the southern cone. This majority is almost unanimous as where they live even the pagans find same-sex sex unacceptable. But also the are huge divisions emerging in USA and UK, so to make out the majority in the communion are for same-sex sex is simply not reality.



Fifthly, it is no good pretending that Windsor gives us a chance to accept each other's actions. The compromise for the majority is a moratorium on same sex blessings and ordinations and to cease episcopal oversight across provinces.

All excellent points, and I would ask anyone who disagrees with you to address them directly. By number would be good, too, so everyone can follow easily what is being asserted.

 

[Albion]

The qualifications of the person and beliefs are the issue. If he met 1Tim 3:1-7 then, as a person, the issue resolves itself.

Actually, it's 1 Tim 3:1-7

You can't break off a part of the qualifications from the passage which takes seven verses to outline them.

 

[AveMaria]

So... homosexuality is bad, but it's okay to have multiple wives?

 

[PaladinValer]

So... homosexuality is bad, but it's okay to have multiple wives?

 

[ahab]

Where does the report mention multiple wives and who is promoting that as acceptable?

Where does Lambeth 1.10 and the report mention homosexuality is bad exactly?

 

[AveMaria]

To the best of my knowledge, the Windsor Report didn't mention polygamy (I didn't have time to read the entire, what, 75 pages, and had to skim large chunks).

However, it is quite well documented, that in Africa, practicing polygamists are admitted to the Anglican Church and are not asked to desist from this lifestyle. (Let me qualify this and say that this certainly isn't the case in all areas).

As an example, the Anglican Church of Kenya adopted a position that if a polygamist accepts the Gospel, he (plus his wives and children) may be baptized into the church on the condition that he not take on any additional wives while his present wives are still alive (Translation: If you had 4 wives before joining the church, you can keep 'em. Just don't add any new ones.)

To many, it seems hypocritical to be in an uproar about same sex relationships and yet turn a blind eye to polygamy.

 

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,



Hang on. The Eames commission and Windsor report result from the issue of same-sex sex, not any other issue that someone may be dissatisfied with. So if you aren’t sure please find out and perhaps deal with the issues raised in my post #34 which is relevant to the thread and has kindly been endorsed as excellent by another poster.

If the Kenyan church is out of bounds on its policy then it can be dealt with in elsewhere. What you have not been able to say is whether the Anglican Kenyan church is promoting polygamy. If you wish to make an analogy it ought to be a bit more relevent than that.

Also if you read your scripture you will see that polygamy did exist in the OT and Jesus does rather exclude it comprehensively in Matt 19 and Mark 10 when He refers to Gen 2, but I have heard many a comment that the passage has nothing to do with anything except divorce. However does it carry the same condemnation in scripture as same-sex sex, if so please give the scripture. Otherwise I would say your point, is even more meaningless.

To many, it seems hypocritical to be in an uproar about same sex relationships and yet turn a blind eye to polygamy.

Well to many it seems that some people will try anything to get same-sex sex accepted as gospel.