I wonder what the response would be if people knew that the assumption of communique is faulty from the beginning, namely that the Primates have absolutely no right or legitimate authority to “demand” anything in the first place. It’s hard to reach any place where we can walk together when things are intentionally set up to fail.
#2 – They did not demand. They asked. TEC said no. People know that. Consequences will follow. TEC has no right or legitimate authority to demand they not.
#2 I think #4 rather nailed it, don’t you? The problem with your reasoning is that the freedom you embrace for TEC exists elsewhere. Those who fancy themselves “activists” seem always surprised by consequences from the other direction. It is part of their inherent childishness. “You won’t tell me anything…” Well in fact…
#5 No, I do not think so. I was responding to what Margaret #1 indicated was the question posed in the Church Times; she used the word “demand.” Folks want honesty and clarity? The honest and clear thing to say is that regardless of the actual word in the communique, no one, from either end of the spectrum or inbetween, has any illusions about whether they were “requests” or “demands.” The word “request” was a very thinly veiled, politically correctly worded, demand. If not, why all the hoopla? If not, why the commentary about “consequences”? I’m not commenting so much on the EC’s freedom as I am on the consequences that *everyone* experiences when those who cry “orthodoxy” claim power and authority for themselves that they otherwise do not legitimately have. No one wins in that situation, including the ones who perpetuate such coercion. Their need for repentance is very bit as great as those on whom they would exact consequences. There is a better way and that is to hold true to the breadth that has always characterized the Anglican tradition. For anyone to be diminished, from the EC to the GS, dimininshes us all and worse, diminshed the witness to the savior Christ found in the many diverse faces across the Communion. The problem is that such “demands”, by whatever word you use, diminishes even those who do demanding. I think *that* about nails it, don’t you?
Bide your time MercyMike; you probably can relax and enjoy the victory. No reason to get exercised now.
Re “walking together”, there’s the old idea of the fox and the rabbit walking together… and of which “converted” which. Orthodox and apostate simply cannot walk together… the orthodox leave or become apostate. No middle way; the middle way is just slightly less apostate than the left way.
#9 Are you referring to me? The guy who blogs by the name of MercyMike lives in England and I didn’t see him comment here; I live in Indiana. Two points: 1) I refer back to faulty assumptions, i.e. the (astoundingly errant) charge of apostacy; no one is denying Jesus as the incarnate, crucified and risen savior, etc. It would seem to me you could expend time and energy far more constructively than going out of your way to foster a crisis mentality; and 2) If you can’t embrace the (classical Anglican) via media, I would suggest that you might be happier in some tradition other than the Anglican one. I certainly would not be happy in an “Anglican” tradition that bears no resemblance to anything ever understood as Anglican.
#10 Twilight Zone…yeah, I think *that* about nails it!
The (UK) Church Times has as its question of the week —
Has the US House of Bishops responded adequately to the Primates’ demands?
At the moment only 28 people have voted and it is split 50/50. People might like to go there and vote:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/question.asp?id=45141
I wonder what the response would be if people knew that the assumption of communique is faulty from the beginning, namely that the Primates have absolutely no right or legitimate authority to “demand” anything in the first place. It’s hard to reach any place where we can walk together when things are intentionally set up to fail.
Good summary of +Stanton’s much better document. Too bad they didn’t figure out how to format columns;)
#2 – They did not demand. They asked. TEC said no. People know that. Consequences will follow. TEC has no right or legitimate authority to demand they not.
#2 I think #4 rather nailed it, don’t you? The problem with your reasoning is that the freedom you embrace for TEC exists elsewhere. Those who fancy themselves “activists” seem always surprised by consequences from the other direction. It is part of their inherent childishness. “You won’t tell me anything…” Well in fact…
Excellent use of a graphic organizer to compare/contrast what was asked for and what was done. Clean and straightforward.
Even us simpletons can follow this document 🙂
#5 No, I do not think so. I was responding to what Margaret #1 indicated was the question posed in the Church Times; she used the word “demand.” Folks want honesty and clarity? The honest and clear thing to say is that regardless of the actual word in the communique, no one, from either end of the spectrum or inbetween, has any illusions about whether they were “requests” or “demands.” The word “request” was a very thinly veiled, politically correctly worded, demand. If not, why all the hoopla? If not, why the commentary about “consequences”? I’m not commenting so much on the EC’s freedom as I am on the consequences that *everyone* experiences when those who cry “orthodoxy” claim power and authority for themselves that they otherwise do not legitimately have. No one wins in that situation, including the ones who perpetuate such coercion. Their need for repentance is very bit as great as those on whom they would exact consequences. There is a better way and that is to hold true to the breadth that has always characterized the Anglican tradition. For anyone to be diminished, from the EC to the GS, dimininshes us all and worse, diminshed the witness to the savior Christ found in the many diverse faces across the Communion. The problem is that such “demands”, by whatever word you use, diminishes even those who do demanding. I think *that* about nails it, don’t you?
Bide your time MercyMike; you probably can relax and enjoy the victory. No reason to get exercised now.
Re “walking together”, there’s the old idea of the fox and the rabbit walking together… and of which “converted” which. Orthodox and apostate simply cannot walk together… the orthodox leave or become apostate. No middle way; the middle way is just slightly less apostate than the left way.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
#8 “Their need for repentance is every bit as great as those on whom they would exact consequences.”
I fully agree with you there.
But to be fair, haven’t we entered the Twlight Zone of cause and effect?
#9 Are you referring to me? The guy who blogs by the name of MercyMike lives in England and I didn’t see him comment here; I live in Indiana. Two points: 1) I refer back to faulty assumptions, i.e. the (astoundingly errant) charge of apostacy; no one is denying Jesus as the incarnate, crucified and risen savior, etc. It would seem to me you could expend time and energy far more constructively than going out of your way to foster a crisis mentality; and 2) If you can’t embrace the (classical Anglican) via media, I would suggest that you might be happier in some tradition other than the Anglican one. I certainly would not be happy in an “Anglican” tradition that bears no resemblance to anything ever understood as Anglican.
#10 Twilight Zone…yeah, I think *that* about nails it!
Yes, MM.
Whoooshhh!
In faith, Dave (Former Episcopalian of 51 years, now RC)
Viva Texas