Windsor/Eames discussion

[CSMR]

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.)

This seems to me the only acceptable course of action. If a man takes multiple wives, they are still wives, and he is bound by marriage and therefore must not divorce any of his wives. Would you have him throw out all his wives, or all but one?
I think that if the church in Kenya put in place any other policy it would be very reprehensible.

 

[AveMaria]

This seems to me the only acceptable course of action. If a man takes multiple wives, they are still wives, and he is bound by marriage and therefore must not divorce any of his wives. Would you have him throw out all his wives, or all but one?
I think that if the church in Kenya put in place any other policy it would be very reprehensible.

Ahh, but you see, I'm not out there insisting that the Anglican Church of Kenya change this policy or start insisting men throw out their lives. I recognize that their culture is vastly different than my own, and sexual standards are extremely different. (I've read that if a wife is thrown out, her only way to survive is to become a prostitute, unless a relative takes her in). In short, I'm not judging their culture nor insisting they change it because it offends me.

 

[CSMR]

I don't understand what you are saying. You were claiming their policy (of not insisting polygamous men get rid of some of their wives) is wrong, weren't you? That's the point I was disputing. Are you now saying that they are right but nevertheless offend you? There is no arguing over feelings.

 

[AveMaria]

I was refraining from expressing any judgement upon the policy, but using it as an example of cultural relativity, and I suppose, by extension, ethnocentrism.

I've been trying to refrain from mentioning whether or not polygamy and/or this particular policy offends me (because I think it is a moot point to this discussion, as well as being an issue with no clear answers), and I apologize if my phrasing was unclear.

I said "I'm not judging their culture nor insisting they change it because it offends me." - That would have been better phrased as "I'm not judging their culture nor am I insisting they change it." I stuck on the "because it offends me" as a potential justification for me to hypothetically insist that they change their ways.

It's late...(er...early...er...late? not sure which) and I'm probably making even less sense.

 

[julian the apostate]

or,,, we could accept a certain logic and say:

keep your wives, but you must remain celibate with all but one (the first)

why isnt that considered?

ps
did you know that there was polygamy in jewish culture for centuries after christ

 

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,

Jesus went against cultural relativity, and so consequently the NT apostles and disciples had to also. So do we if we are to follow Jesus. However, this is all meaningless as it has nothing as far as we are aware to do with the Eames/Windsor report.

 

[Albion]

Hi AveMaria,

Jesus went against cultural relativity, and so consequently the NT apostles and disciples had to also. So do we if we are to follow Jesus. However, this is all meaningless as it has nothing as far as we are aware to do with the Eames/Windsor report.

Everything considered, don't you think that the Eames report and the whole process was just a way of buying time for ECUSA and the ACOCanada in the hopes that the heat will die down as it did before when women were ordained, and that neither of them has any intention of doing anything in the end but stay the course they are on while citing the autonomy of each AC province?

Don't you think also that the ball is really in the court of the Africans and Southern Cone, the majority of AC provinces around the world that is? They have to either accept an AC that is little more than a forum for exchanging ideas between different churches of differing beliefs or to form a new one. I can't see any way that such sharply divided constituencies will find any accomodation with each other on this.

 

[ahab]

Hi Albion,

Obviously.

As to polygamy, the report does mention it in item 23 of section A "These matters are highly sensitive and emotionally charged, and come in the wake of various other related debates in the Communion, in relation (for instance) to polygamy and to the remarriage of divorced persons."

What people fail to realise is that polygamy and same-sex sex have never been acceptable teaching, same-sex sex is now being promted as acceptable by some revisionists and now its being brought back into line those revisionists are trying to claim they object to polygamy. They can object to polygamy when they are back in line on the same-sex sex issue.

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,

Obviously.

As to polygamy, the report does mention it in item 23 of section A "These matters are highly sensitive and emotionally charged, and come in the wake of various other related debates in the Communion, in relation (for instance) to polygamy and to the remarriage of divorced persons."

What people fail to realise is that polygamy and same-sex sex have never been acceptable teaching, same-sex sex is now being promted as acceptable by some revisionists and now its being brought back into line those revisionists are trying to claim they object to polygamy. They can object to polygamy when they are back in line on the same-sex sex issue.

Hi, Ahab.

Well, I agree that it's obvious the ball is in the Southern Hemisphere court. What I'm not so confident about is that they see how true this is.

I see the Africans marking time, promising not to do anything REALLY significant except gripe, state their positions, and refuse to accept ECUSA money. Oh, yes, they're starting their own seminaries.

When, I wonder, are they going to put their faith behind their words (as welcome as these have been) and put their strength behind remaking the AC instead of waiting for the next committee meeting, and the next after that, until the liberals of North America and Britain have worn them out with procedures and discussions.

About Polygamy, I think you made a very valuable point there.

 

[ahab]

Hi, Albion,

Well I think that will come February; it will have to. However I think this issue has exposed the liberal/orthodox rift (usually described as liberal/evangelical) there are of course many orthodox ECUSA Christians as well.

 

[Albion]

Hi, Albion,

Well I think that will come February; it will have to. However I think this issue has exposed the liberal/orthodox rift (usually described as liberal/evangelical) there are of course many orthodox ECUSA Christians as well.

I hope you are right, but I'm not so convinced. Before the February do-or-die, it was supposed to be October, and before that it was supposed to be some earlier time which was put off by the establishment telling the Africans that October would settle everything. If February actually does cause something decisive to happen, I will be very surprised. I expect that something will happen, but nothing serious.

Some province or bishop will probably be called upon to do or say something that will supposedly effect a settlement, so then everyone will await the outcome of that. Quite possibly it will said that whatever it is will have to go before the triennial convention.

Even Bishop Peter Akinola seems in his words to have pulled back and, I think, promised that he would not depart from the AC, however this comes out. That is a retreat from what people thought he was promising earlier.

 

[ahab]

Hi Albion,

Ah I see what you mean. Then there will be no communion because it will break down in terms of episcopos. The only ones who will be in communion will be the minority that no one is talking to wherever they are on the planet.

 

[Polycarp1]

This is the story linked to in bjbarnett's "There's No Place Like Rome" thread in this forum.

As you will note, Mr. David Moyer, former priest of the Episcopal Church who was deposed by his bishop after extreme controversy between them, is expecting to be consecrated a bishop in "the Anglican Church in America" -- with traditionalist bishops from other provinces doing the consecrating.

It seems to me, and I'm purposefully "pulling my punches" in the interest of forum amity, that this proposed act is as much a violation of the Windsor Report recommendations as any ongoing "pro-gay" activity by ECUSA and ACC.

I'd be interested in feedback from forum members, and particularly from traditionalists, as to that reaction on my part. ISTM that it's a case of the traditionalists saying to the liberals, "Stop what you're doing, because you're breaking Anglican unity," while being willing themselves to proceed with something that is at least equally violative of Anglican unity. But I'm willing to try to see the other side here.

 

[Albion]

This is the story linked to in bjbarnett's "There's No Place Like Rome" thread in this forum.

As you will note, Mr. David Moyer, former priest of the Episcopal Church who was deposed by his bishop after extreme controversy between them, is expecting to be consecrated a bishop in "the Anglican Church in America" -- with traditionalist bishops from other provinces doing the consecrating.

It seems to me, and I'm purposefully "pulling my punches" in the interest of forum amity, that this proposed act is as much a violation of the Windsor Report recommendations as any ongoing "pro-gay" activity by ECUSA and ACC.

I'd be interested in feedback from forum members, and particularly from traditionalists, as to that reaction on my part. ISTM that it's a case of the traditionalists saying to the liberals, "Stop what you're doing, because you're breaking Anglican unity," while being willing themselves to proceed with something that is at least equally violative of Anglican unity. But I'm willing to try to see the other side here.

I think the answer is not that hard to come by. The AC represents some people and their churches. The Anglican Church in America is not among them. The Windsor Commission concerns what is happening in the Anglican Communion, not in other people's churches.

If Father Moyer were continuing on as a member of a province of the Anglican Communion, you 'd have a point...but as we know, he is a "former priest of the Episcopal Church." You have to see that there is a difference between fighing for control of a single institution and there being separate institutions with different policies.

 

[ahab]

Hi Polycarp1,

yes maybe. And?