Rod Thomas, of orthodox Anglican group Reform said: “Only 34% is needed to block this when it returns from the dioceses. For the first time, it can and will be blocked by both fully elected houses.
“In the clergy only a further 1.81% is needed, and that’s just one person. There are 21 new evangelicals on this new synod, and one out of a possible 58 undecided is a given!”
He said the outcome of the elections suggested that the Bishop of Fulham, John Broadhurst, had been “too early” in making his decision to join an ordinariate in the Roman Catholic Church.
Although I don’t have an opinion of my own on whether Broadhurst should or should not have taken the path he has, I do have an opinion on whether it was “too early.”
Despite Rod Thomas’ optimism, it seems to me that the issue has moved beyond theological dialogue about whether the principles are right or wrong, and it is now purely a matter of political power. That’s lamentable, as those of us on this side of the pond have learned with regard to TEC politics.
I won’t begrudge Reform’s intention to play the power game (it’s hard to avoid in politics, after all), and I do hope they’re successful. But I also would not be surprised that many will leave the kind of Church where might makes right.
Just thinking… to put it another way: if the reasserters suddenly gained a majority in TEC tomorrow, deposed Bp Robinson et al, ceased all lawsuits, and passed a resolution banning SSB and gay clergy… I would not be in a hurry to re-join TEC. It would seem to me only a matter of time before the wheels turned and we’d be re-living 2003 all over again. Because the controlling bodies are primarily political ones, not pastoral.
no. 2 i believe that if it happened that the orthodox took over again i am sure they would take steps to ensure that the libs never got a foothold again. and…i would return to the beloved church that i knew.
My understanding is that one of the catholic aspects of anglicanism is that we are unable to revise the faith received.
Votes attempting to do so are ultra vires – not the proper subject matter of synods and conventions.
Of course, my perspective is not held by those intent on crafting their own religion.
🙄
[blockquote] He said the outcome of the elections suggested that the Bishop of Fulham, John Broadhurst, had been “too early†in making his decision to join an ordinariate in the Roman Catholic Church.[/blockquote]
I disagree. This depends on whether or not he was convinced that Rome’s claims and doctrines are true. If so then he is late. If not then he should not be going there at all.
RE: “It would seem to me only a matter of time before the wheels turned and we’d be re-living 2003 all over again. Because the controlling bodies are primarily political ones, not pastoral.”
Yikes. It appears that Connecticutian did not learn the lessons of TEC.
*Every single institution or organizational structure* — every single one — has “only a matter of time” before those opposed to that institutions’ mission make a play for the power of the institution. Including ACNA.
Further, the “controlling bodies” of every single institution or organizational structure are political — indeed, they are *meant to be political*. That is how humans in organizations make decisions — through political controlling bodies. Being “political” is neither good nor bad — it is neutral.
All of this is true — and being played out before our eyes — in ACNA as well. It’s just that it’s far better hidden, and no organized lay leadership has organized to expose those political decisions and publicize them.
I agree with #5 above. If you’re not ready to accept all that the Catholic Church teaches, then don’t come into full communion with her since that would be a lie.
ISTM that the decision would include considerations of degree, importance, and one’s willingness to submit for any delta.
I’m not convinced that it is OK to believe 40% of current anglican teaching and remain anglican, on one hand, but that you must be convinced of 100% of catholic teaching before contemplating swimming the Tiber, on the other.
Sarah, you jump to conclusions. I have sadly and painfully learned the lessons of TEC, and concede your point. That doesn’t mean we can’t lament the reality that we both witness. Christ did not die so that I could be a member of an “institution or organizational structure.” The Church Militant certainly and necessarily entails structure, order, organization, and instituion, I agree. But when the political process takes center stage, and becomes the primary locus of “hope”, something’s amiss. And that’s as true for ACNA as TEC as COE.
If I could borrow a concept from Paul (1 Cor 6), the very fact that we pin our hopes on democratic power means we have been completely defeated already.
Back to the object of this story, I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the decision to leave for Rome (or ACNA or AMiA…) I’m simply saying I could understand why one would leave that sort of Church for one where democracy hadn’t usurped the Holy Spirit (in one’s perception.)
RE: “Christ did not die so that I could be a member of an “institution or organizational structure.â€
Christ died to redeem us from our sins, and with that redemption allows us to live fully human lives — which includes organizing ourselves and using the political process. Human beings were made to organize, and I do not see anything intrinsically wrong with political action within organizations.
The public nature of TEC’s political machinations are not accidental — they were, in fact, heightened by human beings who were using the process to publicize the current leaders of TEC and their pernicious evil.
The RC’s will go through that — and have gone through that in the past. They’re currently in the lower end of the cycle now, but it will come back around, assuredly — because it is made up of human beings who organize and engage in politics.
Same with ACNA.
Right now, TECusa is in that heightened part of the cycle — as well it should be — and thank God that the current leaders and their perfidy is being exposed. Such exposure is doing *incalculable* damage to their efforts. I don’t think they can imagine — from a marketing/branding/sales perspective — just what the past years have done to them. Since the majority of our Fearless Leaders are not in the business world and don’t have such experience, I expect they’ll always remain so blissfully ignorant.