On Sunday, Archbishop Thabo Makgoba said the synod’s resolution might be seen as tame, but he saw it as “an important first step to saying: ‘Lord, how do we do ministry in this context?'”
“I’m a developmental person. I don’t believe in big bangs. If you throw a little pebble into water, it sends out concentric circles and hopefully that way change comes from that,” he said.
He said the issue of same-sex partnerships has led to a schism in the Anglican Church in the United States. He wanted to avoid the issue becoming a source of division in the Anglican Church in southern Africa.
“In South Africa we have laws that approve a civil union in this context, but not in the other countries within our province. In central Africa and north Africa, both the Anglican Church and the state say ‘no’.
[blockquote]Asked how close the voting was, Makgoba replied: “I am not one for numbers, but for the quality of the debate.[/blockquote]
I would really like to know what the numbers were.
So much for TEC taking unilateral actions putting us at loggerheads with the rest of the WWAC. Maybe it’s time for a new talking point.
Susan: Did you actually read the resolution which passed in South Africa? If the same resolution had passed at GC09 instead of the one that did, in fact, pass, conservatives would most probably have regarded it as a victory. The question, of course, is do the words of the resolution have any real meaning, or will the liberals simply do whatever they wanted to do in the first place, and claim the resolution as their justification?
#2,
Here’s another talking point:
We cannot break God’s laws, they are unbreakable; we only break ourselves and others when we attempt it.
Here’s another from the Catechism:
‘Sin is any want of conformity to the Word of God.”
Here are a few talking points from the Bible:
“Those who love me will keep my commandments.”
“Those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its sinful desires.”
“Do not use your freedom (won by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ) to indulge the sinful desires of the flesh.”
There are more talking points here:
Romans 1:18-32
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Then there is the evidence in CDC, health department, police statistics, medical and psychology research and clinical medicine.
Here is another new study just out:
http://transfigurations.blogspot.com/2009/08/study-homosexuals-twice-as-likely-to.html
If every province voted as S. Africa has, it would not change anything. God’s word is a factual statement of what is true, real, good and not good, and that does not and cannot change. It cannot be repealed by the Episcopal GC or any South African body, the entire world or even you.
South Africa hardly represents the WWAC.
South Africa has been in the pocket for Trinity Wallstreet for a long time. I imagine they will be part of the TEC (the Episcopal Communion) like Brazil and Mexico. However, they will be seen to have chosen poorly. The monies for political influence in the Anglican Communion is drying up fast.
Note the actual text of the resolution:
I am not naive enough not to realize the intent behind this resolution. It is a political step in a direction which the Church in South Africa ought not to go. But this resolution does not authorize SSB’s and it does explicitly call for “due regard” to be taken of the mind of the Anglican Communion. Had this resolution been substituted for that which TEC passed at GC’09, you can be sure that the remaining conservatives would have seen it as a major tactical victory, while Integrity would have been beside itself with anger. The South African bishops could – consistent with this resolution – simply restate 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10. The significance behind this resolution is what is unspoken (sort of like the enforcer bully holding the tire iron and asking you – “are ya sure you got a good view of the robber?”).
So it seems disingenuous at best for Susan Russell to point to this as evidence that South Africa is simply following TEC’s footsteps with this resolution. The important question is, of course, what pastoral guidelines will be issued.
I’m not asserting that South Africa is “following TEC’s footsteps” — I’m asserting that there is a diversity of response to the G&L baptized across the WWAC and that fact needs to be represented in the discourse as we move forward.
This resolution would [b]not[/b] have been a step forward for TEC … we moved beyond this years ago. However, it is being experienced as a step forward by those committed to the fuller inclusion of all the baptized in the Body of Christ IN South Africa — and for that we rejoice and are glad in.
Susan: You stated earlier:
So the fact remains that TEC is indeed taking “unilateral actions” and the actions by South Africa accentuate these unilateral actions. The clear difference is that TEC is going forward UNILATERALLY while South Africa is “taking due regard of the mind of the Anglican Communion”.
Your posting #2 remains disingenuous.
#7, assuredly there is a diversity of response across WWAC; would that BOTH sides, especially including TEC, take notice of that and tailor their resolutions to that notice, not specifically ignore that diversity and then try to riggle out of what they have done by word-smithing. You rejoiced after GC2009 – crowed might be a better term – while the PB and HOD Pres were burning the midnight oil trying to convince the rest of the WWAC that TEC had not gone back on the moratorium that the AbofC so vehemently asked TEC not to repeal. My own bishop came home to Atlanta and said nothing has changed … but you clearly thought a lot had changed, in spite of the pleas of so many in the WWAC. TEC appears to most of the rest of the WWAC to be going on its merry way, with little regard for the WWAC and the majority opinion that what TEC is doing is wrong. So in summary, I want to say that the diversity of opinion the other way from your way of thinking needs to be represented in the discourse of TEC, and in your own discourse, especially since in WWAC you are in the minority and you are the ones changing the centuries of teaching and tradition, with reason being very suspect.
jamesw … With all due respect, “due regard of the mind of the Anglican Communion” does not necessarily mean compliance with the opinion of the majority. Re-read D025 and note that it STARTS with “due regard” to the Anglican Communion. In fact, it’s actually entitled “Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion.”
You know, all this wordsmithing and obfuscation seems to be done in order to appear to be saying one thing, while the speaker’s intentions are another thing; something which TEC has become increasingly proficient in over the years. That sort of behavior is, in my opinion, simply dishonest. Whatever happened to “Let your ‘Yes’ be yes, and your ‘No’ be no”? Or does that depend on what the meaning of the word “let” is?
Susan, do you have any due respect for Jamesw? Seriously, because if you don’t then don’t use the phrase, even if attempting a correction you consider valid.
Susan: You continue to be (in my opinion) disingenuous. What TEC said was “we want to be part of the Anglican Communion” then proceeded to act unilaterally in a way that showed NO “due regard” for the mind of the Anglican Communion. What South Africa did was to call for as yet unknown pastoral guidelines, but asked that the bishops, when drawing up these guidelines, do so with “due regard” for the mind of the Anglican Communion. There is a world of difference.