Noteworthy for Bishop Howe’s declaration that the Communion Partners had raised no objection to Global South recognition of ACNA so long as similar recognition were accorded those within TEC who had distanced themselves from recent developments. I suspect that will make Central Florida’s relationship with 815 go from cool to icy, but good for him for saying it.
[urlhttp://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I agree. Alas, If only Mark Lawrence+ could have spoken as well. I am pleased with both short talks by Duncan++ and Howe+. I am very glad that they expressed quite clearly an acknowledgement of the recent hurtful actions by TECUSA but also appreciate continuing recognition and support from many across the Anglican world esp the Global South. I think John Howe’s + last sentence says it best. Nicely done, both of you.
For those who may have trouble watching videos, Cherie Wetzel includes these talks and others in one of her most recent reports: http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=6988
I was really encouraged and challenged by the words of the Coptic bishop who also spoke Thurs. afternoon. And +Peter Jensen had a memorable quote about submission to Scripture.
Back on topic re: +Howe and +Duncan, I’m so glad that there seems to have been a recognition of the fundamental unity of ACNA and Communion partners by the Global South leaders, a recognition of their Communion with the orthodox who have stayed, as well as those who have left. I pray we will continue to guard and work to further that unity here in N. America.
Also, in case it is not clear. The ‘associate’ status given to CP and ACNA for this event consisted of/was limited to two representatives. +Howe and +Lawrence represented the CP Group in its entirety: Bishops, Rectors, Parishes.
PS–The Revd Chuck Alley (St Matthews, Richmond) was also present as ‘CP chaplain’ and is preaching and teaching in SE Asia in conjunction with his invitation. As many of you will know, this is a grueling trip, so please keep them all in your prayers (and thank God for West Coast departures to SE Asia…).
And, it’s hard to know what ‘dropping the hammer’ entails and would cost. +Howe, +Lawrence, and the other CP Bishops have not done anything actionable vis-a-vis the canons and constitution. The latitude operative within TEC’s non-hierarchical system compares favorably for the CP group in ways that are not true elsewhere in anglicanism nor in many US denominations. To create provisional bishops and dioceses does not solve the problem, costs lots of money, and will not succeed.
Plus, the CP statement and position are not going to blow over because the GS meeting, like CP, is not going anywhere.
Let’s continue to pray for +Howe and +Lawrence, CP and all. We are thankful they had such wonderful teaching and “encounters”. May they and we honor God with our actions.
I was especially pleased that Archbishop Duncan acknowledged how inviting them to the meeting brought a pain with their presence. It also sounded like there were some attending who were advocating a revisionist agenda that Archbishop Duncan was offering caution about.The tone of both Duncan and Howe was one of humility and gratitude. I am proud of their public conduct and of Bishops Howe and Lawrence.
Do we know that the pain was due to revisionists in the GS? I could more easily imagine pain because the GS has its own concerns and some resented the presence of so many from outside the GS (hence Duncan’s reference to Gospel over geography). But I am sure we will have an explanation in time. It was a remarkable event and we shall now see how the irenic but clear declarations influence the major decisions yet to be made, that will determine the character of the Communion.
#11. seitz,
I don’t understand your comment if it is referring to my comment (#9.) Bishop Duncan was talking about the representatives from North America reminding the Global South of the division in the communion by being there and thus bringing that pain with them. This comment is unrelated to the fact that there was a comment by Bishop Duncan cautioning that some at the meeting were making comments he heard at GenCon 20 years ago. I am also heartened that Bishop Duncan would call up the CP Bishops to stand and comment with him.
I think there is more too it than that. There was apparently a tough final day as the communique was being banged out. As I said I think in time we will learn what was being referred to.
As for CP. CP was invited by the hosts to attend. ACNA and CP were given two associates a piece (it turns out that Canada was represented by the US branch of ACNA). These two entities met on several occasions with the GS leadership to explain how they understood the challenges. On the final day, consistent with this, they were again called on to speak, and did a fine job. “Bishop Duncan did not call up CP Bishops.” They were both called up by the GS leadership. The cordiality was noted by all.
#13. Seitz,
[blockquote]Bishop Duncan did not call up CP Bishops.[/blockquote]
Archbishop Duncan, “I’d like to ask all of the North American Associates just to come up and stand with us.”
But you make it sound like Duncan invited Howe to make a speech he had prepared at the request of the hosts! The point I thought was obvious. The GS hosts set up ‘associate’ status’. ACNA and CP sent representatives. They met with the leadership, the civil leadership, and their integrities were explained and respected. If you are saying, Duncan thought it best that CP not come up and talk after ACNA had talked, with one side sitting down and the other then replacing them, well I guess that could be a conclusion. Makes a certain sense, esp since CP had two associates and ACNA had them and also two others (Ashey and Blenkinship). It was perhaps a little less pedantic to have one group follow the other.
I am far more curious about Duncan’s reference to causing pain and how that would relate to progressivism in the GS — the latter is not a category I am aware of. But having spent time at conferences with folk from Asia, Australia, NZ, there was often a complaint that their region was not taken seriously for its own sake, and also, that they resented the problems in TEC driving everything.
The good news is that the matter is easily cleared up, by those who know Duncan and might have been present on the final day when the issue arose.
Noteworthy for Bishop Howe’s declaration that the Communion Partners had raised no objection to Global South recognition of ACNA so long as similar recognition were accorded those within TEC who had distanced themselves from recent developments. I suspect that will make Central Florida’s relationship with 815 go from cool to icy, but good for him for saying it.
[urlhttp://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I agree. Alas, If only Mark Lawrence+ could have spoken as well. I am pleased with both short talks by Duncan++ and Howe+. I am very glad that they expressed quite clearly an acknowledgement of the recent hurtful actions by TECUSA but also appreciate continuing recognition and support from many across the Anglican world esp the Global South. I think John Howe’s + last sentence says it best. Nicely done, both of you.
For those who may have trouble watching videos, Cherie Wetzel includes these talks and others in one of her most recent reports:
http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=6988
I was really encouraged and challenged by the words of the Coptic bishop who also spoke Thurs. afternoon. And +Peter Jensen had a memorable quote about submission to Scripture.
Back on topic re: +Howe and +Duncan, I’m so glad that there seems to have been a recognition of the fundamental unity of ACNA and Communion partners by the Global South leaders, a recognition of their Communion with the orthodox who have stayed, as well as those who have left. I pray we will continue to guard and work to further that unity here in N. America.
Also, in case it is not clear. The ‘associate’ status given to CP and ACNA for this event consisted of/was limited to two representatives. +Howe and +Lawrence represented the CP Group in its entirety: Bishops, Rectors, Parishes.
PS–The Revd Chuck Alley (St Matthews, Richmond) was also present as ‘CP chaplain’ and is preaching and teaching in SE Asia in conjunction with his invitation. As many of you will know, this is a grueling trip, so please keep them all in your prayers (and thank God for West Coast departures to SE Asia…).
[Comment with off topic speculation deleted by Elf]
And, it’s hard to know what ‘dropping the hammer’ entails and would cost. +Howe, +Lawrence, and the other CP Bishops have not done anything actionable vis-a-vis the canons and constitution. The latitude operative within TEC’s non-hierarchical system compares favorably for the CP group in ways that are not true elsewhere in anglicanism nor in many US denominations. To create provisional bishops and dioceses does not solve the problem, costs lots of money, and will not succeed.
Plus, the CP statement and position are not going to blow over because the GS meeting, like CP, is not going anywhere.
I have spoken quite ill of some actions of Bishop Howe. It gives me great pleasure to be, apparently, wrong.
I am thrilled and happy to be wrong, or, rather, to be corrected, in such cases.
Don
Let’s continue to pray for +Howe and +Lawrence, CP and all. We are thankful they had such wonderful teaching and “encounters”. May they and we honor God with our actions.
I was especially pleased that Archbishop Duncan acknowledged how inviting them to the meeting brought a pain with their presence. It also sounded like there were some attending who were advocating a revisionist agenda that Archbishop Duncan was offering caution about.The tone of both Duncan and Howe was one of humility and gratitude. I am proud of their public conduct and of Bishops Howe and Lawrence.
[Edited by Elf]
Wow. This is exceedingly courageous. This is the kind of leadership that I have expected from bishops and have never seen before.
Do we know that the pain was due to revisionists in the GS? I could more easily imagine pain because the GS has its own concerns and some resented the presence of so many from outside the GS (hence Duncan’s reference to Gospel over geography). But I am sure we will have an explanation in time. It was a remarkable event and we shall now see how the irenic but clear declarations influence the major decisions yet to be made, that will determine the character of the Communion.
#11. seitz,
I don’t understand your comment if it is referring to my comment (#9.) Bishop Duncan was talking about the representatives from North America reminding the Global South of the division in the communion by being there and thus bringing that pain with them. This comment is unrelated to the fact that there was a comment by Bishop Duncan cautioning that some at the meeting were making comments he heard at GenCon 20 years ago. I am also heartened that Bishop Duncan would call up the CP Bishops to stand and comment with him.
I think there is more too it than that. There was apparently a tough final day as the communique was being banged out. As I said I think in time we will learn what was being referred to.
As for CP. CP was invited by the hosts to attend. ACNA and CP were given two associates a piece (it turns out that Canada was represented by the US branch of ACNA). These two entities met on several occasions with the GS leadership to explain how they understood the challenges. On the final day, consistent with this, they were again called on to speak, and did a fine job. “Bishop Duncan did not call up CP Bishops.” They were both called up by the GS leadership. The cordiality was noted by all.
#13. Seitz,
[blockquote]Bishop Duncan did not call up CP Bishops.[/blockquote]
Archbishop Duncan, “I’d like to ask all of the North American Associates just to come up and stand with us.”
But you make it sound like Duncan invited Howe to make a speech he had prepared at the request of the hosts! The point I thought was obvious. The GS hosts set up ‘associate’ status’. ACNA and CP sent representatives. They met with the leadership, the civil leadership, and their integrities were explained and respected. If you are saying, Duncan thought it best that CP not come up and talk after ACNA had talked, with one side sitting down and the other then replacing them, well I guess that could be a conclusion. Makes a certain sense, esp since CP had two associates and ACNA had them and also two others (Ashey and Blenkinship). It was perhaps a little less pedantic to have one group follow the other.
I am far more curious about Duncan’s reference to causing pain and how that would relate to progressivism in the GS — the latter is not a category I am aware of. But having spent time at conferences with folk from Asia, Australia, NZ, there was often a complaint that their region was not taken seriously for its own sake, and also, that they resented the problems in TEC driving everything.
The good news is that the matter is easily cleared up, by those who know Duncan and might have been present on the final day when the issue arose.