“He [Williams] knows he has to do something because he’s under pressure from all sides,” [Robert Lundy of the American Anglican Council] said. “But unfortunately, the step he’s taken in our view is not strong enough.”
Bishop Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut called Williams’ statement “significant” but “not as punitive as it might have been.”
He said it was an affirmation of the three moratoria, and he made clear that other churches, not just the U.S. Episcopal Church, will be affected for having broken promises as well.
“Many churches across the Anglican Communion because of conscience or their belief in what the holy spirit is up to in their local context have lived beyond the moratoria,” Douglas said. “While the moratoria are still before us, such actions do have some ramifications. … If anything, I question the efficacy of the moratoria.”
Episcobabble award of the day:
So, from this little gem from Ian Douglas, we can be sure that the Holy Spirit may be up to completely contradictory things in different local contexts. In Uganda, the Holy Spirit might be up to the death penalty homosexuality, while in the U.S., the Holy Spirit might be up to gay marriage. Who knew what a wild and crazy guy that Holy Spirit is. Perhaps he is the Trickster god. Who know what he will be up to next?
And what’s with breaking the moratoria becoming “have lived beyond the moratoria”? Sorry officer, I have lived beyond the need for red lights. Or I wonder how now Bishop Douglas would respond to one of his church’s not bothering to pay its diocesan assessment, instead sending a note saying “we have lived beyond our assessment”?!?!?
I mean really. Does this sort of speech really impress anybody?
#1, yes that gem popped out at me too. I’m gonna put an order in for my very own personal, innovative, cooperative Holy Spirit. And come to think of it this means I can have Scripture inspired personally for me.
I just do not see the ABOC letter leading to any change in direction for TEC and her fellow travelers.
Paula:
That train left the station some time ago. Nothing that Rowan Williams can say or do now will lead to any change in direction for TEC. The salient issues are (1) what will happen to the Anglican Communion; and (2) how will the Communion-minded Anglicans in North America be accommodated?
The fact that Douglas spoke of “their [b]belief[/b] in” what the holy spirit is saying makes all the difference. He didn’t say the spirit is different in these places, only that people have different opinions and impute those views to the HS.
The thing that bothers me most about the statement coming from Canterbury is how he equates cross border consecrations with living in open unrepentant sin. I have never heard of “cross border” actions having anything to do with salvation. Living in, approving of, or facilitating unrepentant sin seems to condemn one if I read scripture correctly. What has being on any side of any man made border got to do with it? Living in and continuing to live in sin after knowing the Truth seems a might bit more problem than border crossing. When I talk of Truth, I am talking about Jesus Christ, the Truth.
Sidney: But then Douglas must proceed to the logical end (which he doesn’t address) as to whose belief is correct. And that leads to this question: Is it more likely that the Holy Spirit is revealing some new truth which contradicts Scripture to a small group of wealthy, white, Western liberals, or is it more likely that the Holy Spirit is continuing to say the same thing He always has to the Church Universal? I think that answer is clear.
jamesw,
Some fine observations. Let me amplify them with some further comments. Did you notice that glaring example of Episcobabble in +Douglas’s use of the curious phrase [i]”living beyond”[/i] the moratoria. For a long time, we’ve been treated to drivel about “living into” this or that goal, but “living beyond” rules or requests? What a euphemism for hiding the fact that TEC is willfully flouting what has been asked of it!
Secondly, I find it extremely ironic and disturbing that an unrepentant liberal advocate of the pro-gay, relativist gospel like Ian Douglas should be a member of the international (Joint) Standing Committee while publicly spurning the moratoria. He apparently still wants to retain his seat on that important body, perhaps especially in light of its powerful role in enforcing discipline according to section 4 of the Covenant, despite his change in status from priest to bishop. That strikes me like a commissioned officer in the US military publicly dissing the Constitution he’s sworn to defend.
So where’s the integrity that Douglas blithely invokes with his trite and utterly misleading comment that [i]”we’re trying to live with our differences with integrity and not alienate one another.”[/i] Yeah, right. I’ve seen more integrity in some used car salesmen than in +Douglas.
David Handy+