This is a critical time – A Statement from the Global South Steering Committee
London, July 16-18, 2007
1. We are grateful for the prayers and witness of the millions of Anglicans around the world who live out their Christian faith in complex and sometimes hostile situations. Their lives and witness offer hope to a world that is in desperate need and we have been greatly encouraged by their testimony. Their commitment to the ”˜faith once and for all delivered to the saints’ deepens our determination to stay true to the biblical revelation and our historic tradition.
2. We reaffirm our dedication to the vision of the church that has a passion to reach all those who have not yet come to a saving knowledge of Christ and one that is truly good news for the poor and freedom for those who are oppressed. We are saddened that the actions of a small part of our Communion family have caused such division, confusion and pain and we are grieved that our witness to the oneness of Christ and his Church has been sorely compromised.
3. We in the Global South remain committed to the underlying principles and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various Communiqués that we have issued, especially the statement that was produced during the most recent Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam. It was the result of enormous effort and heart-felt prayer and we remain convinced that it offers the best way forward for our beloved Communion. In particular, we are hopeful that the development and endorsement of an Anglican Covenant will help us move past this debilitating season into a new focus of growth and missionary zeal.
4. We were distressed by the initial response of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA issued on March 20th, 2007, reaffirmed by the Executive Council on June 14th, 2007, in which they rejected the underlying principles and requests of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We urge them, once again, to reconsider their position because it is their rejection of the clear teaching of the Church and their continuing intransigence that have divided the Church and has brought our beloved Communion to the breaking point. Without heartfelt repentance and genuine change there can be no restoration of the communion that we all earnestly desire and which is our Lord’s clear intent.
5. We have also been pained to hear of the continuing and growing resort to civil litigation by The Episcopal Church against congregations and individuals which wish to remain Anglican but are unable to do so within TEC. This is in defiance of the urgent plea agreed to by all of the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. This approach to use power and coercion to resolve our current dispute is both enormously costly and doomed to failure and again, we urge the immediate suspension of all such activities and a return to biblical practices of prayer, reconciliation and mediation.
6. Because of the categorical rejection of the unanimously agreed Pastoral Scheme and the urgent needs of the growing number of congregations now linked to various Provinces in the Global South, we have had no choice but to provide additional episcopal oversight from the concerned Provinces. We believe that failure to do so would have resulted in many individuals and congregations lost to the Anglican Communion. The rejection of the proposed Pastoral Scheme has also had a profound impact on those dioceses that had requested alternative primatial oversight. We are aware that they are exploring various ways in which they can maintain their Anglican identity apart from The Episcopal Church. We are encouraged by this and also that they are working together within the Common Cause Partnership to avoid unnecessary fragmentation. We recognize that this is a temporary measure and look forward to the time when it is either no longer necessary or they are all part of a new ecclesiastical structure in the USA.
7. We are aware of the anticipated visit by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC to the September meeting of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA. Sadly we are convinced that this decision, made jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chair of the ACC, undermines the integrity of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We believe that the Primates Meeting, which initiated the request to the TEC House of Bishops, must make any determination as to the adequacy of their response. We strongly urge the scheduling of a Primates’ Meeting for this purpose at the earliest possible moment.
8. We have also noted the decisions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada and are dismayed by their unilateral declaration that ”˜same-sex blessing is not core doctrine’. While we were grateful for the temporary restraint shown in not proceeding with any further authorization, we have observed that a number of the bishops are continuing to defy the recommendations of the Windsor process. We are exploring the possibility of additional pastoral provisions for those who want to remain faithful to Communion teaching and have been affected by the continuing actions of their own bishops.
9. We are concerned for the future of our Communion as a truly global fellowship and our witness before the world as a respected ecclesial family within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In regards to the proposed Lambeth Conference in 2008, we are concerned that the publicly stated expectations for participation have changed its character and function. It is now difficult to see it either as an instrument of unity or communion. At a time when the world needs a vision of reconciliation and unity, our failure to restore the ”˜torn fabric’ of our Communion threatens to show the world a contrary example.
10. We remain committed to the convictions expressed in the CAPA report “The Road to Lambeth” and urge immediate reconsideration of the current Lambeth plans. It is impossible for us to see how, without discipline in the Communion and without the reconciliation that we urge, we can participate in the proposed conference; to be present but unable to participate in sacramental fellowship would all the more painfully demonstrate our brokenness. The polarization surrounding the Lambeth meeting has been exacerbated because we are also unable to take part in an event from which a number of our own bishops have been arbitrarily excluded while those whose actions have precipitated our current crisis are included.
11. We have received requests from around the Communion to call a gathering of Anglican Communion leaders. We expect to call a Fourth Global South Encounter to bring together faithful Anglican leaders across the Communion to renew our focus on the apostolic faith and our common mission.
12. This is a critical time for the Anglican Communion and one that will shape our future for many years to come. We are praying for all those in leadership that the decisions made and the actions taken will bring glory to God and encouragement to all God’s people. We are hopeful for the future because our confidence is not in ourselves but in Jesus the Christ who gave his life that we might have life. (see John 10:10)
Hmmm … “Global South Steering Committee” then “London?”
Well, I’m grateful that’s the only incontinuity I see in this document (refreshing non fudge, know exactly where they stand talk — no fudge). It’s a strong statement.
Note the open (and justified) distrust of ++Canterbury.
Agreed that it is certainly a strong statement from the Global South. Readers might be interested a discussion between me, Father Radner and others found here regarding agreement in the GS or lack thereof. I would be interested in who comprises the GS standing committee.
I was struck by this statement about Lambeth 2008, “It is now difficult to see it either as an instrument of unity or communion.” Ouch.
Also, regarding statement 7, the GS leaders anticipate whitewash of an entirely inappropriate response by the HOB to the DeS communique by the the ABC, ACC and primate standing committee which will not include ABp Orombi but will include…Katherine Jefferts-Schori. The GS make it clear that they primates in totality not the left leaning Orombi-reduced Primate standing committee is the ultimate judge of the adequacy of the HoB response.
My question of who comprises the standing committee was answered already by “Nasty, Brutish & Short” over at Standfirm:
President: Most Rev’d Peter J. Akinola, Primate of All Nigeria
General Secretary: The Most Rev’d John Chew, Bishop of Singapore
Treasurer: The Rt. Rev’d Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Diocese of Egypt
Most Rev’d Emmanuel Kolini, Province of Rwanda
Most Rev’d Drexel Gomez, the Province of the West Indies
Most Rev’d Bernard Malango, Province of Central Africa
Most Rev’d Gregory Venables, the Province of the Southern Cone
Someone posed the question of whether all were signatories. I would like to know ABp Gomez’s stand on the statement.
Am I mistaken, or is this the first time the GS AB’s have openly mentioned the possibility of a new Province in North America?
#6
See the Kigali Communique, para. 10(c).
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/printing/kigali_communique/
Very interesting.
Here is something else.
The members of the “Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consulative Council†are:
Katherine Jefferts Schori—Americas
Mouneer Anis—Middle East, West Asia and Egypt
Luke Orombi—Africa
Phillip Aspinall—West Asia
Barry Morgan—Europe
Archbishop Orombi has stated that he will not attend, because it undermines the Dar es Salaam communique.
So . . . based on Point #7 above, does this also mean that Archbishop Anis will also not attend the shindig in New Orleans, based on the statement from the Global South Steering Committee???
Inquiring minds wish to know.
I personally hope that he will not attend.
It appears that the ongoing dialog so much beloved is about to end, and sooner rather than later. The picture I have is the GS Primates essentially establishing a parallel province by fiat by the end of this year, or at least setting the machinery in motion to do so. This will leave +Cantuar in a very difficult position, to say the least. Additionally, the brush fires we have seen in North America are going to become a widespread forest fire. Not a pretty picture, but a path which TEC, knowingly or not, set out upon years ago.
I think it is a mistake for ++ Orombi and +Anis to boycott the meeting in New Orleans. Their presence would give some comfort to the Windsor Bishops there and they could ask some pointed questions of the HOB rather than just sit an make approving noises like the rest of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and ACC. While I certainly understand their position, given the fact that the meeting is going to take place, I think they are making a mistake.
There is really nothing new in this statement. It’s value is that it pulls together various pronouncements already made so one can see them in one place. It makes it clear that the GS leaders are working toward realignment in NA to create an alternative Anglican (Reformed) Church that would be recognized by the ABC and Lambeth, and that TEC should be removed from the AC. An Anglican Covenent to the GS leaders’ liking will enable them to achieve the latter. If the ABC and Lambeth do not follow this course, then the GS leaders will form an alternative Anglican Communion, and we will have a major schism.
I am convinced that realignment will take place. The question is, will the various GS provincials that have established bridgeheads in NA be willing to relinquish authority and allow an independent province to be formed of their different members of the alphabet soup? There is a real question, which Fr. Radner raised along with many others, whether such a body would have staying power on its own.
As for the second stage, there could well be a split in the Communion, because I think that other provinces are unlikely to acceed to the demands of the GS leaders all the way. So, it remains to see to what extent this may be a bluff. My own intuition is that the GS leaders are quite serious about this.
As a member of TEC who has no intention of leaving (I’m a “centrist” despite the “liberal” brush I’m often tarred with on this blog), I can live with a realignment that does not result in the expulsion or demotion of TEC in the AC. I would be deeply saddened by a schism of the AC itself.
A strong statement, agreed. This part in particular highlights — as though it needed highlighting — why the Windsor Process isn’t working:
As reasserters see the situation, TEC has fallen into sin, and the solution is repentance. As reappraisers see the situation, we have a disagreement about doctrine and practice, and the solution is either a way of coming to an agreement, or a structure for allowing conflicting doctrine and practice to continue within the communion.
It’s no wonder the discussions have been largely fruitless. We haven’t even been able to agree on which discussion we’re having.
Evan, Truth Unites and Divides posted this quote over at stand firm which addresses exactly your concerns:
[blockquote] Thus it must be said that in spite of (and even because of) one’s commitment to evangelism and cooperation among Christians, I can visualise times when the only way to make plain the seriousness of what is involved in regard to a service or an activity where the gospel is going to be preached is not to accept an official part if men whose doctrine is known to be an enemy are going to be invited to participate officially. In an age of relativity, the practice of truth when it is costly is the only way to cause the world to take seriously our protestations concerning truth. Cooperation and unity that do not lead to purity of life and purity of doctrine are just as faulty and incomplete as an orthodoxy which does not lead to a concern for, and a reaching out towards, those who are lost.
Francis Schaeffer, Appendix C, The Practice of Truth, in The God Who Is There.
[/blockquote]
As to the statement being issued from London:
1) It is fairly central geographically and has excellent flight connections. When you’ve got folks coming from as far apart as Singapore and Argentina, London is a pretty good middle ground.
2) I imagine quite a few of these leaders were invited to the Oxford Consultation held in Britain the previous week, so were in England anyway. I don’t know that, but I’m guessing. Certainly Abp. Drexel Gomez was in England any way as he was a speaker at the CoE Synod.
Matt, I honestly have no idea who (if anyone) among the GS Steering Committee was present in Oxford. I certainly didn’t claim all were there. Perhaps none were there. It’s actually not important. I was just making a point that London was a perfectly reasonable meeting point for a number of reasons. Personally however, I don’t think attendance at the consultation means that one necessarily shared the ACI’s perspective. Perhaps in fact it may have been important to have some leaders there who don’t share the ACI’s perspective to offer critique?
Anyway, nevermind. Not important. And don’t want there to be a tangent discussing this further.
Let’s keep the focus on the content of the document.
–elfgirl
Sorry, but this is the obvious next step of the Oxford Gathering. We have all been tireless in calling for a Primates Meeting. +Gomez and +Anis were both at Oxford. As were +Kwashi, Greene+, +Nazir-Ali, +Scott-Joynt and many orthodox. I can assure you the next Camp Allen meeting will have this, and contingency plans for ways fully to communicate with all the Primates in respect of TEC’s response, at the forefront. More than that cannot be said. Oxford was an uplifting and mission-orientated event, and all who were there avoided tendencies one can see in the US zone: conservative divisions. I am unaware of any major divides within +Gomez and +Anis, Davie+, Radner+, Dakin+, Seitz+, Turner+, +Nazir-Ali et al. Good and serious conversations. Lots of prayer and praise. Promises to hold one another in God’s grace. May God continue to uphold the Communion in the name of His mission.
Thanks Dr. Seitz. The info as to who among Global South and other orthodox leaders were in Oxford is useful, especially since it was I who perhaps (unwisely?!) introduced the subject of the Oxford gathering into this thread.
–elfgirl
Fine, Matt. Of course the Oxford gathering did not issue in this direction….
I am still curious as to my question above, if anyone knows the answer to it.
Based on the statement in the Global South Steering Committee communication that the meeting with the HOB in New Orleans by the Joint Standing Committee “undermines the integrity of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué” does this also mean that Archbishop Anis will not attend the meeting in New Orleans, based on the statement from the Global South Steering Committee of which he is a part???
Two quick points. First, a quick primer on Arabic names. +Anis, should read +Mouneer. As a general rule Arabs do not have family names as we do in the West. Bishop Mouneer’s given name is Mouneer. His father’s name is Hanna (John) and his grandfather is Anis. We should not use Anis as if it were a family name, it’s his grandfather’s given name (I believe). Second, he is, as everyone here knows, as firmly orthodox as they come. At the same time, I think he will give the ABC the benefit of the doubt. If the ABC thinks it’s important for the members of the Primates Standing Committee to be in New Orleans, I strongly suspect that +Mouneer will be there. He does not share the mistrust of the ABC that some CAPA and Global South Primates seem to have. I haven’t asked him about this directly, but I think he agrees with the ABC that it’s important to go the last mile for the sake of reconciliation.
Hi Bob (#11). You mention that the Global South wants to create a Reformed church in the North American realignment. In posts on other threads you’ve reiterated this and clarified that by “Reformed” you mean an extreme Puritan/Calvinst church.
This would mean that the Global South hopes to create a church that will exclude all conservative Anglo-Catholic parishes. This strikes me as unlikely. Probably the GS hopes to create a church that embraces both Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, and provides room for conservative A-C theology and practice (e.g. A-C traditionalist parishes that believe in the Real Presence will be welcomed into the realignment).
RE: “At the same time, I think he will give the ABC the benefit of the doubt. If the ABC thinks it’s important for the members of the Primates Standing Committee to be in New Orleans, I strongly suspect that +Mouneer will be there. He does not share the mistrust of the ABC that some CAPA and Global South Primates seem to have. ”
Hi Chris Taylor — I am confused then, by his being a part of the statement above from the Global South Steering Committee. He is a member of the Global South Steering Committee. That committee stated above: “that the meeting with the HOB in New Orleans by the Joint Standing Committee “undermines the integrity of the Dar es Salaam Communiquéâ€.
So how can he sign on to a statement that says that the Joint Standing Committee meeting undermines the integrity . . . and then also attend the meeting as a member of the Joint Standing Committee?
Sarah, Is it legitimate for Jefferts-Schori to participate as a member of the Primates Standing Committee at the HOB meeting or will it be her alternate?
Sarah: While I would hope that +Mouneer would not attend TEC’s HoB meeting in September, I think he could justify attendance. It is very possible that Mouneer might think that Rowan Williams has undermined the DES Communique by agreeing to meet. But that decision already been made by Williams. Mouneer’s choice now is whether or not to attend anyway. He could reason that he can do more good by attending then by not attending. I would disagree with that decision, but I could see someone holding it.
Of course the primates have a choice as to whether they establish outposts in the US. There is no urgency here. Anglicans in America managed quite well without bishops for almost two hundred years. Having decided to ignore the parts of Windsor they found not appropriate, they have put themselves in the same category as the Bishop of New Westminster. This is tragic.
If the traditionalists in the US and some of their supporters abroad alienate the rest of the moderate and conservative constituency in the Anglican Communion, the results will be dreadful. Th present crisis began years ago when the Canadian and US Churches broke ranks and went alone on the question of the ordination of women. Wherever one stands on that issue it remains true that the method of unilateral action seemed then to work.
If overseas Provinces defy Windsor and the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury and continue to plant rival communities here, they will have no moral leg to stand on as things develop.
Two comments: first to John, #23. I agree that some Anglo-Catholic traditionalists will join with the evangelicals. However, the commentary I’ve read from reasserters and the GS supporters leads me to believe that the kind of “reformed” theology expressed in a strict interpretation of the 39 Articles is likely to be normative.
#28, wvparson: I agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, I think the GS leaders will continue to defy Windsor and the ABC because they are determined to create a rival Anglican body that they will sponsor for membership. That’s why I think a tragic division of the AC is growing more likely. I’m not certain that the GS leaders have had a moral leg to stand on for some time, certainly not those who have defied boundaries and made excuses for their actions; and who have refused in any real way to carry out the listening project called for in Lambeth 1.10, the resolution they are so fond of referring to (read some of the empty statements on the AC website). Another clue is to listen to their language: the words are sin, punish, expel and their synonyms. These are not people who will accept anything short of capitulation and penance. But it has gone too far for that sort of response, and the voices calling for reasoned discussion grow weaker, because it doesn’t appear that anyone will listen. It seems to me that we are now down to naked power plays, mostly appearing (presently) in the form of fights over property.
++Mouneer Anis will attend the New Orleans meeting of the HOB; ++Luke Orombi will not.
+JLI
This approach to use power and coercion to resolve our current dispute is both enormously costly and doomed to failure
It always amuses me that they don’t see the irony in statements like this. It’s sad to see a document designed to use power and coercion against the head of the Communion actually criticizing us for doing it. Well, it is all wasted energy anyway. The ABC will not discipline and the GS Primates made it quite clear that they couldn’t continue unless that happened (although I am sure many of them will find ways to coexist!)
Thank you, Bishop Iker, for letting us know!
Thanks, Brian, #32, I agree wholeheartedly. To comment further, the paragraph 5 from which you quote is an obfuscating reference to the steps that dioceses have taken to protect the property which belongs to the diocese under the Constitution and Canons from dissident groups who want to leave and take the property with them. The “powe” they exercise is theirs under both civil (in the vast majority of cases) and church law. But “coercion” hardly fits here. TEC is not forcing anyone to stay; anyone is free to leave. TEC is insisting that congregations (or portions) wishing to leave cannot take property that is for the use of future as it has been for past and present generations of worshipers.
But those leaving know that starting all over again is a costly venture; however they would rather spend whatever they can muster on litigation than on seeding a new church plant. They can look around and see that in the denominations composed of former Episcopalians so many congregations are still worshipng in rented quarters (e.g., Adventist churches), even after many years.
I wonder how many of these new CANA, AMiA, etc. congregations have asked their provinces for assistance, such as national TEC provides for starting congregations? I would suspect that if they did the answer would be “Sorry, but we don’t have the resources; you’re on your own.” So, it’s not surprising that these GS leaders would make some kind of point about these property disputes.
I recommend July 21 critique of this statement at the Inclusive Church blog: http://inclusivechurch.blogspot.com/.
The TEC will, of course, ignore the GS Statement and self-righteously continue to proclaim itself as a victim. Note the ENS headline on the Statement – that the GS re-affirmed its intent to cross jurisdictional boundaries and intrude on the TEC.
PapaJ
What about the statement: “the GS re-affirmed its intent to cross jurisdictional boundaries and intrude on the TEC.” is false? A plain reading of the communique’ states this quite directly.
Hi Sarah, #24. Although Bishop Mouneer may be on the Global South Steering Committee, I don’t know if he signed that statement about the HOB meeting in New Orleans, or even if the decision was unanimous. We have to remember that he’s wearing two hats here and the decision of the Global South Steering Committee, of which Bishop Mouneer is a member, may make a specific decision on a matter like this that Bishop Mouneer in his capacity as a member of the Primates Standing Committee feels he cannot go along with. If that’s the case, I don’t think that decision on his part should be taken as a significant split within the Global South Steering Committee.
I’m glad that Bishop Iker was able to confirm what I suspected, that Bishop Mouneer will attend the HOB meeting as requested by the ABC. I certainly respect Archbishop Orombi’s decision not to attend, but I would hope that Bishop Iker and other Network bishops might encourage him to reconsider. It just seems like bad strategy for him not to be there and have his firm voice absent at what may prove to be an especially important meeting of American and Communion bishops. I suspect that there may be more to be gained for the orthodox cause by Archbishop Orombi being there than his not being there. At the same time, I also recognize his frustration with these seemingly endless meetings and talk without action. The TEC bishops understand what has been asked of them, the problem is that they do not wish to comply. I suspect that a genuine break of historic significance is coming to the Communion, and in view of that fact it’s not a bad idea to walk the last mile for the sake of unity — no matter how hopeless it seems.
The ABC will not discipline on his own. That’s not what his office is all about. He will not eject TEC from the Communion. If people are holding their breath for that, they’ll be waiting a long time. However, the ABC will also not stop TEC from walking away from the Commonion on its own two feet, and that’s EXACTLY what it’s doing. TEC has already taken many steps in that direction, and I suspect that in Sept. they will take yet another historic step away from the Communion.
In this regard I find it more than a bit ironic that Bob and Brian above are chatting away above so confidently about congregations not being able to have their cake and eat it too. They can either choose their buildings or their understanding of the faith, but not both. I suspect that in many cases Bob and Brian are right. But, what they fail to understand, is that what holds for individual congregations that cannot accept the new theology of the TEC, also holds true for TEC itself! They can’t have their cake and eat it too. The theology of the Commnunion is 100% clear, and that theology is totally at odds with the new theology embraced by TEC. Just as individual orthodox congregations are realizing that they may lose their buildings, TEC needs to realize that it too is about to lose something even more precious than buildings. We will all lose something precious in this process of realignment. For me, as painful as it is to lose buildings, it’s a much greater loss to lose the Communion!
Hi, Chris. I cannot speak for Brian, but I would not agree that congregations are faced with an either/or choice of choosing the property or their understanding of the faith. Rather, their members individually are faced with the choice of remaining with TEC or leaving. I’m not certain what you mean by the “new theology” if it is more than the sexuality issue. However, there are many who oppose the ordination of Robinson and the canons that allow no discrimination toward ordinands on the basis of sexual orientation, who still are going to remain in TEC. It simply is not a matter of abandoning one’s theological principles. After all, that lies at the heart of Anglicanism, and is one of the reasons I love this tradition.
I would also disagree that TEC is walking away from the Communion. The Church has made several good faith efforts and expressed in clear terms its desire to remain in the AC. It has not told ++Orombi or ++Akinola that if they don’t agree, TEC will pick up its marbles and leave; or told them to leave. Far from it. Rather, it is sticking to certain principles in the face of others determined to remove it from the Communion. If it leaves the AC it will be because it has been booted out. I doubt that this will happen; more likely an outcome is that there will be a schism in the AC. But this present situation will continue to be a mess whatever transpires.
I would agree that there has been hardening on both sides and that discussion is increasingly difficult. But it is hard for TEC to listen to the constant message of “you have sinned, you must repent in order for there to be reconciliation.” TEC is constantly asked to acceed to the demands of those opposed to its current stance. TEC is saying, “Not so fast, please.” I agree. Diplomats know that in difficult situations you keep talking.
I think that one issue that might be explored when a posting invites it is the differences between a foundationalist (fideistic) theology and a post-foundationalist theology. I think that these two ways of approaching theological reflection and discourse lie at the base of the theological differences and conflicts that have emerged in the Coimmunion. Moments of Spong-bashing (he’s really modernism carried to excess, you know), and new age and neo-pagan name-calling might then give way to serious discussion.
Thanks for your contribution. Bob
Bob, I understand the Orwellian double-speak of TEC enough to understand what could lead you to make the statement:
“I would not agree that congregations are faced with an either/or choice of choosing the property or their understanding of the faith. Rather, their members individually are faced with the choice of remaining with TEC or leaving.”
I understand that, from your perspective, all those congregations that have ALREADY had to make this very choice are no longer congregations, but rather collections of individuals making individual decisions. I realize that from your perspective a congregation is the majority of those worshiping in a particular church building until the second they vote to leave the TEC in favor of the Anglican Communion. At that very instant they cease to be a “congregation” and suddenly become a collection of individuals making individual decisions.
I fear this is precisely the Orwellian mindset that leads you to observe: “I would also disagree that TEC is walking away from the Communion.” My fear, Bob, is that one day, and probably in the not so distant future, you will wake up to discover that you are no longer in a national chuch that is itself an integral part of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
However, by that time perhaps you will have also accepted the “good news” from 815 that TEC is now a global communion in its own right! A remarkable new communion, one that espouses a theology virtually unrecognizable to the vast majority of Christians, living and dead, and one that confuses the zeitgeist of early 21st century North America with the actions of the Holy Spirit. Then again, maybe you’ll figure out that double-speak is double-speak. One can always pray for the second. I will.
Ah, Chris, “double-speak” is the operative word now? May I remind you that in many cases it is not an entire congregation that walks apart and tries to take the property with them, but a majority. Time after time those minorities seeking to stay have been shut out of the church in which they and their grandparents worshiped. Those who leave may form a congregation, and I did not imply otherwise: you read more into my words than I intended. After all, if a herd mentality is not dominating a group, each one (or family) does have to decide whether to stay or leave, is that not so, or do you have some double-speak to add about it?
I’ll stand by what I said about TEC and AC. Put whatever spin on it you wish. Also, TEC does not claim to be a “global communion” in itself; it notes that several of its dioceses are international in location, hence ECUSA no longer correctly characterizes the Church. But then, people like yourself have no stake in accurately characterizing TEC, as is clear from the nonsense you write about its theology.
But, I am not interested in continuing a rhetorical sparring match with you. This is all that I have to say on the subjects. You may have the last word (punch), if you insist.
Lest anyone be tempted to dangle any more baited hooks before me, I’m not nibbling.
Instead I recommend an excellent critique of the self-styled Global South Steering Committee’s statement by the Anglican Centrist, a blogger from my present home state. you can read his expose at http://anglicancentrist.blogspotcom/. And let anyone be tempted to brush him off as a “liberal,” he’s not; I’ve read his stuff and theologically he’s spot on in the middle.
RE: “Lest anyone be tempted to dangle any more baited hooks before me, I’m not nibbling.”
LOL. This said after five hours of nobody responding nor caring.
Just too funny.
And nope — Anglican “Centrist” is just another liberal Episcopalian posturing as a “moderate”. It’s all the rage, and it fools no one, anymore than my suddenly announcing that I’m a “moderate”.
Further . . . I’m not at all interested in BfB’s response, so these aren’t baited hooks, just clarity from yet another reasserter so BfB is crystal clear that nobody’s deceived.