Human sexuality was the first order of business at the 2009 Primates’ Meeting at the Helnan Palestine Hotel in Alexandria, Egypt. The primates devoted their first business session to discussions over the effects the disputes over sexual ethics had had on the life and mission of the church.
Following prayers and Bible study, the Primates began work at 11:00 with five presentations from the Primates of Canada, the United States, Uganda, South Africa and Burma. The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had asked each to address the question “What impact has the current situation had on your Province’s mission priorities?”
This had elicited a “very interesting discussion” the primates’ spokesman Archbishop Philip Aspinall of Australia told reporters, noting there had been a “huge diversity” of responses. However, primates questioned by ReligiousIntelligence.com reported that there appeared to be little shifting of views as the discussions were predominantly restatements of opinion, rather than a conversation. While there had been “much talk” there seemed to have been “little listening,” one primate observed.
Prayers for the meeting can be found here.
Why was Prime Bishop-elect Malecdan denied a visa by the Egyptian government? Did it relate to the Episcopal Church of the Philippines’ protest of the enforced disappearance of James Balao?
Listening process via TEc = I talk, you agree! If you don’t agree with my view, then you haven’t been engaging in the listening process.
[i] The primates devoted their first business session to discussions over the effects the disputes over sexual ethics had had on the life and mission of the church [/i]
So much safe for the Rowan-ECUSA alliance that letting the primates discuss the substance of those disputes.
BTW, didn’t the Lambeth indabababble already discuss this question?
[blockquote]US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori spoke of the unique polity of The Episcopal Church …. She noted that the issues had been under discussion for many years and had been given a thorough theological airing. [/blockquote]
Has anyone else seen the “thorough” theological airing? I thought TECs attempt for find any theology for their desires had been roundly greeted with derision!
“She [Schori] noted that the issues had been under discussion for many years and had been given a thorough theological airing. She also noted The Episcopal Church could not be bound by decisions made by bodies other than its General Convention.”
===================================================================
“…and had been given a thorough theological airing.”
Realllly. It was more like an agenda to make VBGR a bishop was overtly and covertly pursued by radical revisionists.
Approval of VGR’s election and his consecration were accomplished without resolving the issues involved, either at the national church level or that of the Anglican Communion.
“…The Episcopal Church could not be bound by decisions made by bodies other than its General Convention.”
Does this mean that ECUSA operates independently from its fellow national churches?
If so, I take this statement to mean that ECUSA sets the terms for her membership in the Communion, regardless of the approval of the other churches in the communion. And, by this statement, Schori is really saying that ECUSA IS NOT A FULL MEMBER of the Communion.
If fact, ECUSA can be considered to NOT be a member of the Anglican Communion.
Ms Schori:
[blockquote] She noted that the issues had been under discussion for many years and had been given a thorough theological airing.[/blockquote]
Kendall+:
[blockquote]We made a theological decision with essential no theological discussion. [/blockquote]
Whom do you believe?
Perhaps she meant dredging up the shellfish argument, yet again? Or how about “God doesn’t make mistakes.” Let’s see, there is also, “homosexuality is found in nature” argument (just ignore the fact that there is also polygamy and eating one’s offspring.) Or perhaps she meant repeatedly bringing up these silly arguments in a random order constitutes theological airing?
How many times do we have to listen to this?
[blockquote]US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori spoke of the unique polity of The Episcopal Church[/blockquote]
Oh God!
[blockquote]that had led to the lawful election of a partnered gay man as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.[/blockquote]
Make her stop!
[blockquote]She noted that the issues had been under discussion for many years[/blockquote]
Someone! Stop her!
[blockquote]and had been given a thorough theological airing.[/blockquote]
I can’t take any more! Please! Make her stop![/blockquote]
[blockquote]She also noted The Episcopal Church could not be bound by decisions made by bodies other than its General Convention.[/blockquote]
AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!
You know, I still have great difficulties pinning down the doctrinal position of ECUSA that is causing the fuss (“fuss” being a very small word to describe the devastation of the past few years). What exactly is the formal theological point (or points) embraced by The Episcopal Church in the United States from which so many are distancing themselves? I realize that this is a basic question that may reveal a great deal of ignorance on my part, but I keep looking for the smoking gun, and all I find are anecdotes about this incident or that incident. I don’t want to hear about some priest in Escanaba who is interested in Buddhism or a book that some semi-retired Bishop wrote years ago. Tell me what the formally adopted theological/doctrinal positions of the Episcopal Church are that are causing the splintering of the Anglican Church. Is it possible that the theological position of the Church is remains faithful to the creeds and that this all was a big Roseanne Rosanadana (sp?) “never mind.”
[i] How many times do we have to listen to this? [/i]
Until we submit, depart, or die.
“Is it possible that the theological position of the Church is remains faithful to the creeds?”
NoVAScout, with respect, you haven’t been shopping many TEC congregations recently. I have, and regardless of the what TEC may or may not have officially denied or proposed at Gen Con, it’s parishes and clergy are denying and proposing ALL SORTS of stuff. It gets one to wonder how soon that STUFF will get pushed through Gen Con. I suggest.. very soon.
NoVa Scout – ever read the Constitution of the USSR? It allowed for free elections and all kinds of representation, yet I don’t think the “subjects” of the Communist Party would have said that since their Constitution was so well written, they didn’t need to overthrow their government. From your comment above:
You’re right – other than, perhaps, the 1994 resolution allowing for abortion, the theological/doctrinal positions of the Episcopal Church are very well written, but as we all know, it’s actions, not words, that matter.
#4 “Has anyone else seen the “thorough†theological airing?”
Margaret,
Drop me a line. I’ll send you some links.
By now, it should be apparent beyond all shadow of a doubt that Schori and Company don’t care about what Scripture says, nor what the rest of the Communion says. Their precious “polity” is all that matters. It’s a matter of “stay off our turf, and shut up…..we don’t care what you say! We’re doing things our way.”
“She [Schori] noted that the issues had been under discussion for many years and had been given a thorough theological airing. She also noted The Episcopal Church could not be bound by decisions made by bodies other than its General Convention.â€
I thought until I read the above that I had managed to achieve some sort of calm and serenity vis a vis the situation in which I am compelled to minister, but when I read what Mrs Schori is alleged to have said my blood pressure went up several notches. It would be wrong of me to accuse her of bald-faced lying. In order to lie, a person must know what is true. I do sincerely believe that she does no longer knows what is true and what is not, and unfortunately has become convinced of the truth of something which is really a lie.
I sure hope someone is on site who can point out this blatant lie to the rest of the assembly, with documentation!
[blockquote]What exactly is the formal theological point (or points) embraced by The Episcopal Church in the United States from which so many are distancing themselves?[/blockquote]
NoVa Scout, the “points” from which “so many” are distancing themselves (both within and without The Episcopal Church) are more a matter of praxis than of formally (or more precisely, legislatively) stated theology; viz., the election and consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire. Moves to created rites for blessing same-sex unions, even on a diocesan level, come very close to establishing the theology that leads to this praxis as a matter of liturgical fact. (We might also observe that the national leadership of The Episcopal Church have issued doctrinal studies – for example, [i]To Set Our Hope on Christ[/i] – that have sought to justify the change in praxis regarding human sexuality.)
As to the importance of this change in praxis as it relates to change in theology and the authority of the fundamental sources of Christian theology and practice in the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by the Tradition of the undivided Church ([i]the[/i] Anglican theological touchstone, if honored more in the breach than in the keeping at times), well, I direct you to pretty much everything written by the reasserters, or theological conservatives, for the past twenty years on the issues at hand. (Or, for that matter, to pretty much everything written by the reappraisers on the issues at hand in defense of the alterations in praxis.)
Concerning the thorough state of airing in Mississippi:
The diocese had a theological study for committee for this subject. The committee was balanced in its membership. They would bring in two speakers from opposing sides of the spectrum for the priests to hear. One year they brought in Frederick Borsch and some new guy named Robert Gagnon. Gagnon carried the day. The diocese disbanded the committee. Despite the fact that the committee had paid a professional to record the debate, the diocese would not distribute the recordings.
Practically speaking, many Anglicans have, since way before the present controversies, expressed Calvininst and Pelagian heresies and lived by them despite the formularies of the Church.
RE: ““Has anyone else seen the “thorough†theological airing?â€
Now see . . . this is the word “theological” again. “Theological” according to revisionis is “we feel bad.” “Theological” is “shellfish argument.” “Theological” is “how dare you, you homophobe.”
“Theological” is “polyester and cotton.” “Theological” is “Paul didn’t know about loving same-sex relationships.” “Theological” is “Jesus never said anything about same-sex relationships.”
“Theological” is the rather amusing “To Set Our Hope On Christ.”
So I mean, in one sense — sure there has been a thorough “theological” airing! ; > )
Why heck — I just did it myself.
RE: “Despite the fact that the committee had paid a professional to record the debate, the diocese would not distribute the recordings.”
Heh.
Heh heh.
I didn’t know that Jill.
# 18 And I’m quite sure there were excellent reasons for not doing so, aren’t I?
Sarah,
While you have provided a very thorough and very helpful summary of the deep and profound theological airing that led TEC to its most biblical, catholic, and orthodox (as certified by many qualified to do so) decision, you forgot the most deep and profound reason of all–the one that caused erudite and learned theologians with Ph.D’s from the great universities of the world to bow their heads in awed and humble submission:
“Ask me about Gene!”
13. Susan Russell wrote:
#4 “Has anyone else seen the “thorough†theological airing?â€
Margaret, Drop me a line. I’ll send you some links.
You heard it here, folks.
Susan Russell will send sausage to Margaret.
No matter what theological discussion or airing has taken place, no matter how long it has been done, it is impossible for any Christian institution to come to a valid conclusion contrary to the universally expressed mind of the Church as shown in the Bible, the historic Judaeo-Christian tradition, and above 90% of Christians worldwide. To harbor an idea that a dying boutique faith community like TEC have some special knowledge which supersedes the Mind of the Church is a sure and certain indication of Montanism. Besides, we all KNOW that, however they might twist the meanings of words in order to affirm the Creeds, these people are also Arians whose intellects are infected by the Pneumatic Heresy as well. “Hear what the Spirit is saying to God’s people.” Hah!
Yum, TEc sausage: more filler than meat wrapped in an attractive casing.
I guess she has some left over from Ground Hog day.
#25 A Senior Priest says:
“Universally expressed” and “above 90%” are not synonomous.
Correction: Sexuality tackles Anglican primates. Pinned in the first ten seconds.
Well, at last, the PB is speaking clearly. I suppose if there has in fact been a thorough theological airing of the matters of human sexuality, as she says, then she presumes the time for dialogue is over. Some of us have seen this as the fact for awhile.
How much more clear can she be than if she were to use these words: Those of you who object to the de facto acceptance of the “new” teaching on human sexuality have two choices. You may leave for a more agreeable group – there are a few out there (we have a list at 815 if you like). Or, you may remain in TEC as a sign of our theological “diversity”. Who knows, we may cast you a pitiable glance from time to time, wishing you had also received a fuller dose of the special revelation that God has granted us.”
Besides this, the arrogance of “explaining” the polity of TEC to the Primates of the Communion. Does she think they are uneducated? Does she really suppose that after numerous Primates’ Meetings, a Lambeth Conference, an ACC meeting (or two?), and numerous contacts within the GAFCON movement, that these primates do not understand how TEC works? They understand just fine – and they are appalled because of it. Maybe they look at the membership loss of TEC, standing at roughly 1000 a WEEK (ASA) over the past several years, and they see quite clearly the inherent problems with our polity.
It’s no wonder she uses the word “bound” to describe TEC’s intransigence. Why should TEC be bound by anything other than self interest – certainly not the boundaries of Scripture, nor the boundaries of catholic faith and order have reined in the trajectory of this “boutique faith community” (thanks, A Senior Priest!). This self-centered justification (we know best) is so un-Christian, it’s painful to watch.
I pray daily for faithful Christians who remain in TEC (myself included), that courage to stand for the faith once delivered will prevail in words and deeds.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. Paul’s Church, Durant, Iowa
#27, let’s not desperately grasp at straws here by trying to find loopholes and insignificant exceptions. You know what I mean. People who supposedly do theology yet feign to not know what “universally expressed mind of the Church” means really need to go back to the basics before engaging in theological discussion. Those people and institutions who oppose it, like minor faith communities such as TEC, the UCC, and the Metropolitan Community Church (which are all in an irreversible death spiral, a sure sign of divine displeasure – being pruned from the True Vine) aren’t prophetic, but heretical ipso facto. Their attempts to justify their deviation from the elementary truths of the faith by pretending to divine inspiration fool no one. As well, if one adds in the nonChristian religions… Sunni and Shia Islam, Buddhism (even HH the Dalai Lama), Hinduism, the religious opposition to the TEC’s departure from the Great Tradition would be so vast, proportionately, as to constitute virtual (if not actual) unanimity. Res ipsa loquitur.