Read it all. This is sad but also very predictable. What is particularly lamentable is how blatantly American-centric this piece is, with so little attention to what has been occurring and why.
For example, there is no mention of most of the central argument of the Primates Tanzania Communique.
One would have thought that might have mattered since the communique said in part:
21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.
22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”. The primates stated in their pastoral letter of May 2003,
“The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.”.
23. Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention8 does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report.
24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.
What the communique went on to say was that “interventions” would need to continue unless certain conditions were met, and given the House of Bishops’ aggressive rejection of the pastoral scheme proposal and failure to provide any adequate alternative that will actually deal with the real need involved that did not happen. There are also same sex blessings in various dioceses which continue to occur with official knowledge and in a number of cases sanction, in spite of now nearly incessantly pleas from other Anglicans throughout the globe that they cease.
So the Episcopal Church still has not done what it has been asked to do by the Anglican leadership, and what is occurring is entirely in accord with the Tanzania communique. None of this is mentioned by the official TEC house organ, and the sound of one hand clapping continues–alas–KSH.
The polarization continues obiviously. What’s new about the global south statement is how far it is distancing itself from Canterbury. It seems inevitable now that there will be a real schism and at least Rwanda, Nigeria and Uganda will be forming another Communion with their N. American branches. There really isn’t anything in the way of a compromise or compliance that TEC could do that would persuade the African missions in the U.S. to pack up and go home now is there? If Bp Robinson offered to resign in return for an end to the interventions do you think that would stop them? I doubt it.
There is room in the statement for Canterbury if he wants to use it.
It is not inevitable. Nothing this side of glory is inevitable if God is in charge.
I do believe that a number of global South leaders would come to Lambeth and stop “interventions” if TEC stopped both things they were requested to stop until a new consensus emerges in the Communion, and if there were a genuinely supportive “pastoral scheme” that actually dealt with the real need.
But even so, dmitri, in a situation with the deterioration so great, it doesn’t help to say “well if I do what is asked that really won’t be enough for him/her anyway.” One does the right thing because one is called to do the right thing–and Ephesians 5 makes clear that being subject one to another is part of being the body of Christ.
TEC’s leadership continues to make choices to make the situation worse–Executive Council recently, or the huge Virginia lawsuit launch, for example. This continue to rob the communion of the room needed for any real reconciliation to occur.
I think thye true spin is in Kendall+’s essay. For example:
Next:
What the communique went on to say was that “interventions” would need to continue unless certain conditions were met, and given the House of Bishops’ aggressive rejection of the pastoral scheme proposal and failure to provide any adequate alternative that will actually deal with the real need involved that did not happen. There are also same sex blessings in various dioceses which continue to occur with official knowledge and in a number of cases sanction, in spite of now nearly incessantly pleas from other Anglicans throughout the globe that they cease.
All of this has been addressed ad nauseum in other official TEC releases and the issue of SSBs is even addressed (yet again) in the text of the ENS article.
So the Episcopal Church still has not done what it has been asked to do by the Anglican leadership, and what is occurring is entirely in accord with the Tanzania communique. None of this is mentioned by the official TEC house organ, and the sound of one hand clapping continues–alas–KSH
The ENS article has not statement in it that is untrue. It lays out the facts and even links to appropriate texts. The real spin seems to be the “power and coercion” being tried by the GS Primates steering committee.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [i]
I am not convinced that the ABC will side with the innovationistas. Not really a tough choice: 1) the dying TEC, the already plummeting statistics won’t compare to those after the formal break starts, and 2) over half the world’s Anglicans. How about following the money? The TEC will quickly become as financially bankrupt as they are theologically.
There are two ways to get someone to move to another place, get behind and push versus walk ahead and pull. The GS are seemingly moving the church back into the path from which it strayed and are intent on pulling.
Some have drawn an equivalency with the attempted communion direction changing by the TEC of the communion and the GS. This equivalency is about as false as those who try to equate the “border crossing” and the defiance of Windsor.
The GS are simply filling the leadership vacuum, bringing the communion back to path mapped out by scripture and tradition.
Great piece, Kendall. I think most reasserters in ECUSA recognize ENS for the corporatist house-organ that it is, and saw the spin of their statement. But I’m glad you articulated it all the same.
#3, there is mention of the Tanazania Communique, but ONLY to the extent that it butresses ECUSA’s position. The vast majority of the Communique, with which ECUSA by and large strenously disagrees, is not referenced in the article.
I believe this is what Kendall meant.
[i] Comment edited by elf. Off topic. [/i]
[i] off topc. [/i]
Truly a vertiginous article from ENS. “Forces” that “oppose” the Episcopal Church! Treason! To to the Tower with them! Off with their heads!
#3, there is mention of the Tanazania Communique, but ONLY to the extent that it butresses ECUSA’s position. The vast majority of the Communique, with which ECUSA by and large strenously disagrees, is not referenced in the article.
I believe this is what Kendall meant.
By the “vast majority of the communique'” that isn’t mentioned are you referring to the ENTIRE communique’ which is clearly linked in the article? So the entirety is there and clearly linked.
As to what Kendall+ meant, I can only go by his words highlighted in BOLD:
For example, there is no mention of the Primates Tanzania Communique.,/b>
Kendall,
I believe in your headline you meant to write “spin” not “counterspin”. Because, otherwise, it is the GS steering committee that is spinning to begin with. Which is what I believe. It is predictable that the Episcopal Church would not stand by and being a punching bag. (Likewise, why should it roll over when its property is taken?) It’s predictable it would remind Episcopalians of its side of the story. It’s only sad if you don’t share its convictions on justice. Love justice.
Let’s not forget that the GS is useful to the forces that oppose the convictions of the Episcopal Church. If they weren’t what evidence is there that they’d take an interest in the GS? Historically it was the inclusive side of the Anglican Communion that was attempting – ineffectively I’ll concede – to empower the Global South in the instruments of the instruments of the communion. The disaffected in the US took a local issue and globalized it for their own purposes.
Though I disagree with the steering committee, I certainly celebrate that the GS is no longer rubberstamping on the sidelines of the communion. The ENS report takes the GS seriously. That’s hardly what you labeled “American-centric.”
An affirmative defense to Godwin is the truth of the statement. Here we have an organization that is using coercion to gain power and when it does not get what it wants, it claims that God sent it. ++Akinola has been accused of rigging elections in his home Province-if that isn’t a power grab, what is? They move in under the guise of concern (although I do believe that some genuinely believe this and are not making a bid for power (++Orombi, ++Mouneer)) and begin to dreate a state within a state. ++Canterbury isn’t stupid and he’s not going to be bullied. In the end, he’ll be a Churchhill threatening to set fire to the English Channel rather than accept a GS power grab
John Chilton (#11) … No, I think Kendall hit it spot-on — and Mainstream Episcopalians are saying “Glory, Halleluhjah!” that ENS and the Nat’l Church office is finally getting on the ball and countering the “spin” we’ve been getting from schismatics and GS for lo these many years. Bravo/a 815, Mary Frances, Jan Nunley et al …
And Kendall, of course, is absolutely right as well that “Nothing this side of glory is inevitable if God is in charge.” Even the coming of this long desired schism is not inevitable if those insisting on capitulation and compliance to their worldview and hermenutic would put down the sabers and take up instead the traditional value of anglican comprehensiveness.
One does indeed do “…the right thing because one is called to do the right thing.” And choosing communion with those with whom one diasgrees, for all its messiness and challenge, seems to me the right thing … the better portion … in contrast to choosing the dogged insistence on comformity displayed in this latest GS missive. Hard to imagine that will ever change? Remember … “Nothing this side of glory is inevitable if God is in charge.”
I see the GS’s setting up alternate “lines of communion” as a an act of search and rescue. It’s a reaction to the irresponsible initial actions of TEC. It’s as if TEC has set their own house on fire and the GS is attempting to save those whose lives are in danger. The two seem to be equated in the original Windsor document. The truth is they are not equal. There would be no GS reaction without the TEC’s initial and continuing actions. The GS will continue in their godly attempts to rescue those who desire to be rescued as long as TEC is intent on burning down their own house. Pyhhric victory indeed!
Susan, it’s not about being in Communion with those who do not agree with us. If folks in the Episcopal Church are so shortsighted as that, and if they believe true Anglicans in America are so bigoted and intolerant as that then there will never be the reconciliation. Have fun with your social club, and may God himself be the judge between our parties.
Perhaps, John Chilton is write. “The ENS counters with spin” would be more appropriate.
“traditional value of anglican comprehensiveness” More spin. Would Cranmer or J.C. Ryle defending those that try to corrupt the Christian [i]worldview[/i] with their [i]worldly view[/i]. Any reference of tradition by the reasserters is patently silly.
(Should be “Chilton is right” not “write”. Fingers apparently typing homonyms.)
I object to the elves cleaning up the arguments of Brian in #3. Let his comparison of the Global South to Nazis stand. (He persists in it in #12.) Chris #8 and my #7 pointing out the inanity of the other sides discussion is not “off topic.”
Kendall and others, even though nothing is “inevitable” this side of glory, does anyone here really think TEC is going to get a clue? Doesn’t Susan Russell’s latest “post and run” bear this out? I’ve asked Ms. Russell questions on the blog before – she always posts once and then leaves.
I think Ms. Russell’s post lauding the actions of people like spin-mistress Jan Nunley makes it clear. I would totally faint if the “inevitable” didn’t eventually happen.
“And choosing communion with those with whom one diasgrees, for all its messiness and challenge, seems to me the right thing”…
Really? Is Susie saying she’s willing to now comply with the Windsor Report, or am I just smelling spin and double standards again?
I still think it’s quite wrong for Kendall to put out such ‘steering’ headlines. It’s a quite elementary confusion between ‘news’ and ‘opinion’. But as for the ‘opinion’, Brian has a feisty response.
robroy
Elf Lady must be in charge today. elfgirl is generally more open.
[i] Brian, you’re correct. Elf Lady is here. In the old blog when the word Nazi was posted the comment went into moderation[/i]
I think TEC has stolen the mantra of angry talk-show host Michael Savage: “Borders, Language, Culture.”
I agree with Susan+ that the GS statement is more saber-rattling. And I agree that Kendall’s headline is accurate. The GS statement is full of spin.
We shall see to what extent the statement of the Steering Committee accurately represents all of the GS primates. I would like to know if all of them were consulted and learned of the contents of the Statement before it was issued, and how many if any other than the SC members signed on.
We’ll see how far these folks play chicken with the ABC. So far, he has tried to be flexible, but at some point he may, if not set fire to the Channel, play the Roman general and draw a line in the sand. If ++Akinola and ++Orombi and their HOB do not come to Lambeth, they will have cut themselves off from a communion-wide opportunity to address these matters face to face. I really think that would be a foolish step to take.
The headline is quite accurate in that ENS is trying to spin against the stream of the Steering Committee statement and some of the early reception thereof. I meant that much of the argument of Tanzania was ignored, and have amended the text to this effect. I did not want to have to point out that they even stooped to trying to use even Tanzania only to their own ends, thereby completely distorting the overall impression of what Tanzania sought to argue for.
Brian, I am sorry that you are not seeing the degree of distortion and misrepresentation in the ENS piece. Part of the truth masquerading as the whole truth is an untruth.
It’s unfortunate that a clear and forceful statement by men fully dedicated to protecting that precious faith once delivered to the saints is perceived as a hollow, empty threat of military force, or flamboyant blustering.
The GS statement is neither.
NancyNH, get used to the one sided listening process. We get [i]listened at[/i] by Susan Russell. I posted to her site twice in my most reserved language and got banned. In contrast, in this site, the elves kindly edit out statements by Brian that make him appear foolish.
Those that dismiss the GS statements as spin or saber-rattling are kidding themselves that they these leaders of Christian faith won’t deal harshly with the corrupters of the church.
Susan Russell says: “Mainstream Episcopalians are saying . . . ”
[giggle]
Checking back in to see how it’s going this afternoon I do want to offer a couple of notes which I pray the elves’ indulgence as they are not SPECIFICALLY “original post” related: Re: #18 — I appreciate the hospitality of Kendall’s site and want to clarify that while I am a frequent visitor I am an infrequent commenter precisely because I want to support the aim of commenting on the post … not commenting on the commenters. I’m usually happy to engage in offline conversations for those who have questions … give it a try! As for #28 … I’ve yet to “ban” a commenter on my blog … athough I’ve deleted a few comments in my time. Consider it loving the commenter but hating the comment!
Brian, I am sorry that you are not seeing the degree of distortion and misrepresentation in the ENS piece. Part of the truth masquerading as the whole truth is an untruth.
Well that’s the real question. Of course you are right that half truths are lies and actively work against the truth. But the statement is certainly a whole truth – factual in detail with supporting sources (unlike the Global South statement.) My understanding of the “syou object to is the framing of the issues. But look at the intent of the GS statement – to make a unified statement regarding the way forward, including a response to the Lambeth invitations. It is the first GS response to events post-DeS. There is no point in reiterating how they feel about their concerns, the only points to address are the new concerns raised by the GS statement. Those are:
-justifications for new invasions of the US and Canada
-justifications for not attending Lambeth
-their understanding of the HoB and Executive Councils statements
The ENS article responds to each of these new allegations and even reiterates some old points for background. In addition, they link to supporting documents.
It is not spin to answer factual assertions with factual assertions. Just because you or the other orthodox don’t believe them to be true does not make them half-true.
The reality of the situation is that the damage is now irreparable. Since Uganda and Rwanda will not attend Lambeth, the Communion is dead. The ABC will never declare it – he’ll let ++Akinola create a new denomination and express his sadness and regret that it happened. The majority of Anglicans will go with the new Global South Communion and England, Canada, the US, South Africa, Brazil and a handful of others will continue on as the Anglican Communion.
OK
Sorry to keep posting but I am reading the new Harry Potter in between chores and as I was writing my last post, I was thinking that the two sides are like an irresistible force and an immovable object – they really can not exist together. And then the Prophecy from The Order of The Phoenix came to mind:
and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives
[blockquote] Susan Russell says: “Mainstream Episcopalians are saying . . . “
[giggle] [/blockquote]
I got a kick out of that, too. This from the bunch who have redefined ‘via media’ as the ideological locus that is 95% of the distance from wherever Anglican thought is and wherever the bee in the hard-left bonnet happens to be on a given day.
Please put Potter down before you become suicidal, Brian from T19.
It really is amazing that liberals can complain so much about the interventions in America and then say in their next breath that the GS folks are all bluster, posturing, making empty threats, etc. Which one is it?
Sarah Hey has an excellent analysis up on StandFirm about the progressives – the institutionalists and the ideologues. I actually call the ideologues “activists” for they were baptized in the streets of protest, rather than on the rolling hills of the golf course (metaphorically speaking). But I think we see here – with both 815’s spin and others like Susan Russell applauding that spin – that the activists are seeking to claim the institution as representing their activist agenda. Notice too how Susan uses the word “Mainstream Episcopalians” and the flight is on to move the Episcopal Church away from the Anglican Communion (as the recent use of the phrase “communion” to denote “province” by the Bishop of Virginia in his latest correspondence to depose twenty Virginia clergy who moved to a different Anglican province in the Anglican Communion). We do need to be on our guard with the reinvention of words – like “mainstream” or “communion” in these times – both as we prepare for the September 30th deadline, but also because the 815 lawsuits are driving much of ENS communications. Their audience is not the people in the pews, but the judges on the bench. We must not forget that.
To do this, they use terms like “foreign prelates” and crossing “Episcopal Church boundaries” (never mind what that the Anglican archbishops said in their official communique to the Episcopal Church or the fact the Episcopal Church has rejected requests by the archbishops and are now acting unilaterally as though the Episcopal Church is, in fact, its own Communion) – the audience is for the lawsuits so that the institutionalists can hold on to the property. It’s about preserving power and the activists, like Susan Russell, need to have the power preserved in order to make their social innovations legitimate in the eyes of the stockholders, I mean laity (so the money and support will not diminish).
Watch very carefully how the word “Episcopal” and “Communion” are being used over the next few months.
Also notice how the Americans love to use the word scheme in the American context, not the British context in which it was written (and again, this points out how non-Anglican the American church desires to be – they are using British English in an American context against the writers of the Comunique). Scheme in the American lexicon denotes an illegal conspiracy to defraud. Scheme in British English simply means “plan.” We ran into this when the Alpha Course got started in the United States and we had to explain to the folks in London that they had to stop using the word “scheme” with Americans. I can remember the first time I heard the word in England and I was shocked that so many people thought schemes were good!
The Archbishop of Canterbury would find no problem in using the word scheme and it is too bad that the Bishop Schori did not warn him that the word would have a completely different meaning in the American context. The Episcopal Church has siezed upon that word and never translate it into the word “plan” because it suits their own agenda to use the word “scheme.” It would be like using the word “fag” – which again, has the worse connotations in the American context (I’m not sure it will make through the elf-filter, but you can see my point) and in England it simply means cigarette. Again, I spent a lot of time getting shocked when I was in school in London when I would hear the word before I found out what the British meant by it.
Words have meanings – especially in courts of law – and right now it seems to me that the lawsuits are driving the ENS spin machine, not truth.
bb
The invasion from Afric is real, substantial and may be permanent. TEC has therefore excellent reason to complain of this invasion, and their “spin” is entirely just to this degree.
And the African agenda must be a complicated matter, not simply a case of giving the orthodox a home of the own. This case is true, but oversimplified. For African Anglicans, this opportunity is a rare one, one not many nations have ever gotten, a chance to bell the cat and walk away safely with the catnip. The temptation here is so strong it would be surprising if agroup did not succumb to it.
Again, the money and power involved is big, perhaps massive. The money that is not flowing into TEC’s coffers will now be flowing into African ones. American churches are a very rich vein to mine.
Third, it is difficult to imagine an African Anglican church looking at American culture broadly without concluding that they are looking at moral decay and corruption. Their entry into American culture will then be seen as (a) an infusion of healthier blood into a decadent society (b) an opportunity for black Americans to be saved from a rotting society by reestablishing a lifeline to their “home.”
Finally, this invasion will give to many in Africa a feeling that their star is rising, that they have momentum, something much of Africa has never had. Since their stand is orthodox and since they are quite willing to get along without the A of C, then there must be a feeling that the Church of England is dying and its new Canterbury will be in Africa. Prestige is as rewarding as money and power and as good a reason as any to press one’s case to the bitter end. TEC must see now that the longer it is intransigent, the more leverage it gives African Anglicanism. TEC is therefore between arock and a hard place, – damned if they do and damned if they don’t – and Africa is not likely to have missed this salient feature. LM
Good analysis of language BB!
The funny thing about SR’s use of the word “mainstream” though is that she doesn’t actually mean it. She knows the progressive activists aren’t “mainstream Anglicans” nor are they even “mainstream Episcopalians”. Even the moderates, who long for all of this to go away and for both sides to be quiet, know good and well that the progressive activists don’t represent anything close to “mainstream” anything, but are in fact truly bizarre.
Of course, neither are Baby Blue and Sarah “mainstream Episcopalians”.
So she said the phrase that she did over on another thread without any thought that any reasserter or moderate reading the phrase would agree. Goodness, I don’t even think that progressives would agree that they themselves are “mainstream” . . .
It’s sort of like the old Pravda saying things like “Millions of Soviet Comrades threw flowers onto the grave of Lenin today . . . ” when all the “Soviet Comrades” know good and well that the flowers were all ordered by the government and delivered in the night via dumptruck. Or like Baghdad Bob saying “the enemy is being destroyed — they are all running back to America even as we speak and none of them are outside the gates of Iraq.”
Neither Baghdad Bob nor Pravda, nor the Iraquis nor the Russians, nor the Americans, nor the world media believed a single word — but it’s just said as a matter of dull ritual.
Apparently, I’m a “dissident Episcopalian” under bishops who are “violating the boundaries” of the Episcopal Church. Hmm, I thought I was an Anglican who left the Episcopal Church. Oh, wait. I forgot, TEC never removed me from their membership roles. Is it any wonder I’m still a “dissident Episcopalian” and these bishops are “violating their boundaries” since, apparently, I’m still in an Episcopal diocese, not a Ugandan diocese, like I thought.
Tony
It really is amazing that liberals can complain so much about the interventions in America and then say in their next breath that the GS folks are all bluster, posturing, making empty threats, etc. Which one is it?
It is separate, IMO. The interventions are a problem because they are encouraging people to leave and try to take their property. They do this with false promises. The GS invaders have argued that these people are still Anglican. This issue has been decisively resolved by ++Rowan. The new “Bishops” may indeed be members of their respective Provinces, but they are not Anglican Bishops. So the newly emboldened dissenters are forcing lawsuits which are costly and a distraction.
As for whether or not the GS Primates are “blustering,” the wind has already been taken from their sails. They have used many different valid methods to convince the ABC to discipline TEC and all have ultimately failed. Now they resort to interventions and threats in order to coerce the ABC. This is where they are just blowing wind. For my part, I hardly believe that MOST of what they say are empty threats. I believe Uganda and Rwanda are genuine in their statements.
flaanglican
You are neither a “dissident Episcopalian” nor an Anglican.
A “dissident Episcopalian” is someone working from the inside to effect change. Sarah or Kendall+ or +Iker fit that category.
You are a nondenominational Protestant affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda.
You’ve been reading too much of that stuff from the Vatican, Brian.
And all this time, I thought I was a member of “St. Peter’s Anglican Church.” I’ll contact my Rector immediately and notify him to change all signage and letterhead to read “St. Peter’s nondenominational Protestant Church.”
Thanks for the clarification.
RE: “The GS invaders have argued that these people are still Anglican. This issue has been decisively resolved by ++Rowan.”
Brian’s a smart man and knows better — which means his blurring of the distinction between “Anglican” and “members of the Anglican Communion” is deliberate — and transparently obvious.
The only “issue” that Rowan “decisively resolved” is whether he acknowledges bishops of a province who are not within the geographic region of that province as bishops of the Anglican Communion. He does not. They may be bishops of that province in which they were consecrated but if they are ministering in a place that does not have more than one Canterbury-acknowledged Province, they are not bishops of the Anglican Communion.
He said nothing at all about whether they are “Anglican” and indeed he has been quoted as saying that he considers all sorts of varying groupings that are not in the Anglican Communion as “Anglican”.
Also, I don’t think the GS Primates in question are blustering or “blowing wind” — I think they are merely making their own positions crystal clear. That is the way of good communication and healthy relationships. It is up to the ABC to make his own positions crystal clear, and I have no doubt that someday he will.
After both parties have made their positions crystal clear — standing forthrightly in their own chosen Anglican identity — it will be very clear just who will be with whom.
As I have stated since the close of 2004, I don’t believe that the GS and Canterbury will ultimately be together. I believe that there will be two separate Anglican entities. Of course, I hope for the better, but acknowledge the reality of the probabilities.
The good news is that someday all of this will be over and the two bodies — made up of whatever groups of Anglicans — will go their merry ways. I think the past four years have clarified and encouraged and widened the distance greatly between reasserters and reappraisers. I do not think that the two groups will ever be in communion with one another in any sense at all once this reaches closure.
And Gene Robinson and all the New Hampshire Episcopalians aren’t Anglicans by Brian’s twisted reasoning.
flaanglican
You can have your rector call your church the church of the flying monkeys for all it matters. What is true is true.
Sarah
You are the one creating a false distinction here. I fully agree that they are Bishops in a Church, but to call them Anglican is disingenuous. You can’t be something simply because you want to be called that. The term originates from ecclesia Anglicana meaning the English Church. It refers to those who are memebers of the Anglican Communion. Since these wannabes are not a part of the Anglican Communion, they are not Anglicans
robroy
That does present a special problem and I am unsure of where Canterbury stands on this. If Canterbury recognizes +Gene as a Bishop of the Anglican Communion, but chose not to invite him as a result of the concerns that the other Bishops would havem then he is indeed a Bishop in the Anglican Communion-much like the case with the Bishop of Zimbabwe. If the ABC does not consider him a Bishop in the Anglican Communion, then the See of NH is vacant and TEC needs to have a Bishop appointed.
RE: “You are the one creating a false distinction here.”
Nope — merely being precise. People can be Baptist without being in the largest group of Baptists [the Southern Baptists]. People can be Anglican without being in the Anglican Communion.
You know it, and I know it.
And oh Brian . . . until you developed your latest fever-pitch fount of bitterness, you were saying it too!!! A year ago, you were saying the same thing.
RE: “You can’t be something simply because you want to be called that.”
Rich — from a radical progressive bent on destroying 2000 years of church history and moral practice.
Tell that to KJS, Brian. ; > )
Sarah
Nope—merely being precise. People can be Baptist without being in the largest group of Baptists [the Southern Baptists]. People can be Anglican without being in the Anglican Communion.
You know it, and I know it.
I don’t know it. Each Baptist is a different denomination, not one denomination. But this is even more pointed a distinction in churches with a historic episcopate. Are you truly going to tell me that Sinead O’Connor is an ordained Catholic priest, just not a Roman Catholic priest? If so, the words become meaningless and confuse the less educated.
I do wish you would pay attention to the long term significance of the African intrusions into American religion. You all spend so much time coorrecting each other, to put it politely, that important matter gets lost. What are Africa’s motives? What do they mean in the short and long term? Is this a wedge, even if not deliberate, that will “globalize” religion and break open “our” religion, something America has that is distinctively our own? Since the numbers (and little by the little) money are running Africa’s way, how can the ABC NOT become marginalized? He clearly does not speak for the AFrica-in-the-US.
LM
Brian, the actions of the GS strongly suggest that their words are not bluster. Akinola said clearly in Pittsburgh that the African church doesn’t need England in order to connect with Jesus. pecusa is playing a game of chicken which has the potential of splitting the Anglican Communion and the interventions may be a precursor to this. Sad to say, the liberals in pecusa don’t care. The entire Christian world could tell them they’re wrong and they would continue on their perverse path. A super-majority of the Anglican Communion, the RCC and the Orthodox have spoken and pecusa moves blithely along in heresy and apostasy. The Africans have made it extremely clear that they will not be a party to pecusa’s ungodliness.
Funny, Brian, I thought we WERE in the Anglican Communion, just not under the auspices of the Episcopal Church. St. Peters Anglican Church, Tallahassee is under the umbrella (as it were) of the diocese of south Rwenzori, Uganda, which is definately a part of the Anglican Communion, ergo, so is St. Peter’s and those members thereof.
TonyinSchismCentral
Brian, the actions of the GS strongly suggest that their words are not bluster.
The part that is bluster, is not that they do not mean it, but rather that it will have no effect. Uganda and Rwanda certainly have heartflet objections. Nigeria wants it for power. But it doesn’t matter because in the end it is all sound and fury signifying nothing.
libraryjim
You are being lied to. It’s sad and I am sorry that your “bishops” lead you to believe this lie. You are certainly a part of the Anglican Church of Uganda, but that is as far as it goes. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not count you or your bishops as a part of the Anglican Communion. Your numbers are subtracted from Provincial totals. But you shouldn’t feel bad, CANA lied like this on a much grander scale and has caused many people following the non-Anglican Communion +Minns nto vote to leave under false pretenses.
Brian,
methinks YOU are the one who is mistaken.
Brian, your words contradict the words of Canterbury. The ABC has said that he does recognize the bishops of CANA and the AMIA. If you want to argue about invitations to Lambeth, then you have to include VGR as a non-bp. Your argument makes no sense given the statements of the ABC.
The ABC has specifically rejected the Bishops of CANA and AMiA, however, no manner of proof will be able to lift the veil from your eyes, so keep believing whatever makes you feel good. If you are interested in being intellectually honest and learning the facts, O would suggest you do the research on the AC website for the official status of these missionaries.
No, Brian, the ABC has publically stated that the CANA and AMIA bp.s are bp.s of the AC. No manner of proof will be sufficient for you, but this is the case.