[blockquote] the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishop and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. [/blockquote] Note that ENS is already beginning to talk in the plural sense.
The ENS story links to Bp Saul’s statement of support. It includes this sentence:
“I trust you will join me in forgiving their transgressions, putting all recriminations and bitterness aside, and wishing them well as they continue their spiritual journeys in another community of faith.”
Yeah, right. He doesn’t say for how long he’s put recriminations aside. A couple of minutes? He, Beers, KJS, et al likely have the scripts written and are about to start cutting loose with them.
Does not this indicate implicitly that that TEC is no longer part of the Anglican Communion (“different community of faith”)? If clergy can move between different churches in the AC, why not a Diocese? But if TEC is no longer in communion, only then does the renunciation claim make any sense.
Nothing KJS does will make the slightest bit of difference. If she deposes +Schofield, it won’t matter, because he will continue to be an Anglican bishop…..as he was in TEC. She’s barking at the moon.
If she deposes +Schofield, it won’t matter, because he will continue to be an Anglican bishop…..as he was in TEC.
I am glad that ENS has set the record straight. People like Cennydd (quoted above) have been led to believe a lie. As the article mention, ++Venables, +Lyons and +Schofield all led people to believe that the ABC was in favor of this action when in fact he was definitely not (see the quote in my signature line). Even after the Advent letter, +Schofield never addressed the fact that he and the other bishops misrepresented the truth. He simply changed the ABC to a weaker ‘other Primates.’
I find it very difficult to understand why so many people (this is a broad group, not limited to bishops) find it necessary to misrepresent the facts in order to justify their decisions. Would it not have been more honest to simply say “We are in the midst of a crisis and the lines are being blurred each and every day. We believe that we will be the true representatives of the Anglican Communion, but there is some disagreement.”? That way you follow your beliefs without misleading people. Look at AMiA, they never tried to convince people that they were a part of the AC.
I find it very difficult to understand … find it necessary to misrepresent the facts in order to justify their decisions.
Are you asking this from a secular point of view or a Christian point of view? From a secular point of view we look to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The right to freely practice a religious faith is a guarantee. From a Christian point of view, all the vast majority of the Diocese wants is the right to retain their churches. They built them. They supported them. They want to continue the practice of their faith in them. Either way, the logic is a no brainer. The descenters are being given charitable consideration. You have to move out of the moral or the ethical to make your case.
If the ABC is afraid to act, the Communion will act without him.
As to rebuilding SanJ from the continuing Episcopalians: We have read frequently that the emptied churches will be rebuilt wi th new congregations. Has anyone ever checked to see whether these churches have in fact retained or acquired parishioners? In theory, there are a lot of empty churches, or so nearly empty that they cannot possibly be maintained. Has TEC actually had any success here. LM
My question is “Why do spiritual leaders need to misrepresent the truth to get people to follow them?”
If the ABC is afraid to act, the Communion will act without him.
Since that is factually impossible, I doubt you will see it. The ABC is the Anglican Communion. The rest of the former AC may act, but then they would simply become a new denomination – probably called The Nigerian Communion.
#9: Can you cite instances where spiritual leaders are misrepresenting the truth? The ABC has said contradictory things so using him for a proof text may present problems. As for the Anglican Communion needing the ABC, for reasserters it is rather like Israel needing temple worship to survive. Jews did not stop being Jews in exile. God is no respecter of persons and the ABC, despite his many fine qualities, surely is no exception.
What is truth? John 18:38. ++Gregory is not in anyway trying to insert himself structurally into the US. The orthodox are symbolically being burned at the stake, not for heresy, but actually the opposite. The GS are sympathetic and want to give them temporary safe haven. In these arguments, Christian behavior always trumps political power and polity.
I am just a lay person. It is not my place to be dropping names on T19, so I will not. I do know from discussions with some of the major players that what you wish to be the truth is not an accurate representation. Yes the ABC states he doesn’t want cross-province interventions. But he cannot stop a parish or diocese from asking for safe haven. It has always been a Christian principle to offer safe haven or sanctuary. A primate’s first loyalty is to God and the faith.
Can you cite instances where spiritual leaders are misrepresenting the truth?
The list is basically any leader who has claimed that secessionists from Canada and TEC are still members of the Anglican Communion. Some, but certainly not all, are: The woman from the Anglican Diocese of VA. who wrote a letter to influence parish voters, +Minns, +Akinola, +Anderson, +Schofield, +Venables, +Lyons. Of course this list is not exhaustive.
As for the Anglican Communion needing the ABC, for reasserters it is rather like Israel needing temple worship to survive. Jews did not stop being Jews in exile. God is no respecter of persons and the ABC, despite his many fine qualities, surely is no exception.
There are matters of opinion and matters of fact. The ABC is the ONLY person who determines who is a member of the Anglican Communion. This is not up to any one else. It is an indisputable fact. It would be like us trying to change physics by saying that a majority believes that the world is made up of mustard rather than atoms. Can’t be true. Former members of the Anglican Communion will not stop being Anglican or Christian in exile, but they will no longer be members of the Anglican Communion.
The issue isn’t about politics or parsing words. The concern that I have raised is that the good intentions of those orthodox Primates and the supporters are marred because they are simply not telling the truth. What I ‘wish’ to be the truth is irrelevant. What is entirely relevant is the factual situation. Those who have attempted to remain in the Anglican Communion by ‘joining’ another Province have done exactly the opposite. The facts are that their bishops are not recognized as bishops of the Anglican Communion by ++Rowan. This does not mean that they are wrong-it simply means that they are claiming to be members of the Anglican Communion and they are not. It is on the basis of this misrepresentation that many have left their Province, and that is morally wrong. If you base your argument on following the Truth, then let your followers make decisions based on fact, not on your misrepresentations and wishes.
Brian and Robb: I think the real question is not what the Anglican communion is but what it may become. Is not the ABC leading us to a place where the votes of a majority of primates will determine polity to those who subscribe? I understand the reasoning behind the Catholic idea that the ABC is a primate of primates, but he himself has indicated that the Communion is not a papal-like construction.
The problem is one of overlapping jurisdictions. Even if Canterbury chose to have the Primates vote, he would still need to choose which Province he is in communion with. For the definitive review of the issue, see:
One Adam 12,
As they (used) to say in Marin County, “I resonate with your comment.”
Still, with all the attempts made over the last 25 years to classify and determine the hallmarks of the Anglican Communion, it would appear that the first issue “What is it?” or “Who are we?” has yet to arrive at consensus. Jettisoning that quest to move on the question, “What shall we be?” will only bring the former lack of consensus forward and further complicate the discussion — which I think you will agree is quite obvious.
Merry Christmass.
Yes, Adam #16, and if TEC was under the jurisdiction of the Holy See of Rome, discipline would have come so fast that they wouldn’t have known what hit them. Then, we would never have to deal with these complex issues.
And Brian, communion is really a word about who in the global community feels a common bond as brothers and sisters in Christ. That is one of the truths for which I’m speaking. For me, little “c” is more important than capital “C” (communion).
[blockquote] the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishop and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. [/blockquote] Note that ENS is already beginning to talk in the plural sense.
…still in the Briar Patch,
Good heavens! Mary Frances sure gave the ” ” keys a workout.
The ENS story links to Bp Saul’s statement of support. It includes this sentence:
“I trust you will join me in forgiving their transgressions, putting all recriminations and bitterness aside, and wishing them well as they continue their spiritual journeys in another community of faith.”
Yeah, right. He doesn’t say for how long he’s put recriminations aside. A couple of minutes? He, Beers, KJS, et al likely have the scripts written and are about to start cutting loose with them.
w.w.
Does not this indicate implicitly that that TEC is no longer part of the Anglican Communion (“different community of faith”)? If clergy can move between different churches in the AC, why not a Diocese? But if TEC is no longer in communion, only then does the renunciation claim make any sense.
Nothing KJS does will make the slightest bit of difference. If she deposes +Schofield, it won’t matter, because he will continue to be an Anglican bishop…..as he was in TEC. She’s barking at the moon.
If she deposes +Schofield, it won’t matter, because he will continue to be an Anglican bishop…..as he was in TEC.
I am glad that ENS has set the record straight. People like Cennydd (quoted above) have been led to believe a lie. As the article mention, ++Venables, +Lyons and +Schofield all led people to believe that the ABC was in favor of this action when in fact he was definitely not (see the quote in my signature line). Even after the Advent letter, +Schofield never addressed the fact that he and the other bishops misrepresented the truth. He simply changed the ABC to a weaker ‘other Primates.’
I find it very difficult to understand why so many people (this is a broad group, not limited to bishops) find it necessary to misrepresent the facts in order to justify their decisions. Would it not have been more honest to simply say “We are in the midst of a crisis and the lines are being blurred each and every day. We believe that we will be the true representatives of the Anglican Communion, but there is some disagreement.”? That way you follow your beliefs without misleading people. Look at AMiA, they never tried to convince people that they were a part of the AC.
Brian:
Are you asking this from a secular point of view or a Christian point of view? From a secular point of view we look to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The right to freely practice a religious faith is a guarantee. From a Christian point of view, all the vast majority of the Diocese wants is the right to retain their churches. They built them. They supported them. They want to continue the practice of their faith in them. Either way, the logic is a no brainer. The descenters are being given charitable consideration. You have to move out of the moral or the ethical to make your case.
If the ABC is afraid to act, the Communion will act without him.
As to rebuilding SanJ from the continuing Episcopalians: We have read frequently that the emptied churches will be rebuilt wi th new congregations. Has anyone ever checked to see whether these churches have in fact retained or acquired parishioners? In theory, there are a lot of empty churches, or so nearly empty that they cannot possibly be maintained. Has TEC actually had any success here. LM
Cole
My question is “Why do spiritual leaders need to misrepresent the truth to get people to follow them?”
If the ABC is afraid to act, the Communion will act without him.
Since that is factually impossible, I doubt you will see it. The ABC is the Anglican Communion. The rest of the former AC may act, but then they would simply become a new denomination – probably called The Nigerian Communion.
#9: Can you cite instances where spiritual leaders are misrepresenting the truth? The ABC has said contradictory things so using him for a proof text may present problems. As for the Anglican Communion needing the ABC, for reasserters it is rather like Israel needing temple worship to survive. Jews did not stop being Jews in exile. God is no respecter of persons and the ABC, despite his many fine qualities, surely is no exception.
I am quite confident that the ABC will be shouting to the GS, “Hey, you guys,…wait for meeee!”
Brian,
What is truth? John 18:38. ++Gregory is not in anyway trying to insert himself structurally into the US. The orthodox are symbolically being burned at the stake, not for heresy, but actually the opposite. The GS are sympathetic and want to give them temporary safe haven. In these arguments, Christian behavior always trumps political power and polity.
I am just a lay person. It is not my place to be dropping names on T19, so I will not. I do know from discussions with some of the major players that what you wish to be the truth is not an accurate representation. Yes the ABC states he doesn’t want cross-province interventions. But he cannot stop a parish or diocese from asking for safe haven. It has always been a Christian principle to offer safe haven or sanctuary. A primate’s first loyalty is to God and the faith.
Can you cite instances where spiritual leaders are misrepresenting the truth?
The list is basically any leader who has claimed that secessionists from Canada and TEC are still members of the Anglican Communion. Some, but certainly not all, are: The woman from the Anglican Diocese of VA. who wrote a letter to influence parish voters, +Minns, +Akinola, +Anderson, +Schofield, +Venables, +Lyons. Of course this list is not exhaustive.
As for the Anglican Communion needing the ABC, for reasserters it is rather like Israel needing temple worship to survive. Jews did not stop being Jews in exile. God is no respecter of persons and the ABC, despite his many fine qualities, surely is no exception.
There are matters of opinion and matters of fact. The ABC is the ONLY person who determines who is a member of the Anglican Communion. This is not up to any one else. It is an indisputable fact. It would be like us trying to change physics by saying that a majority believes that the world is made up of mustard rather than atoms. Can’t be true. Former members of the Anglican Communion will not stop being Anglican or Christian in exile, but they will no longer be members of the Anglican Communion.
Cole #12
The issue isn’t about politics or parsing words. The concern that I have raised is that the good intentions of those orthodox Primates and the supporters are marred because they are simply not telling the truth. What I ‘wish’ to be the truth is irrelevant. What is entirely relevant is the factual situation. Those who have attempted to remain in the Anglican Communion by ‘joining’ another Province have done exactly the opposite. The facts are that their bishops are not recognized as bishops of the Anglican Communion by ++Rowan. This does not mean that they are wrong-it simply means that they are claiming to be members of the Anglican Communion and they are not. It is on the basis of this misrepresentation that many have left their Province, and that is morally wrong. If you base your argument on following the Truth, then let your followers make decisions based on fact, not on your misrepresentations and wishes.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (the ABC) is NOT the Anglican Communion. But the Anglican Communion is not the Anglican Communion without Canterbury.
RGEaton
Brian and Robb: I think the real question is not what the Anglican communion is but what it may become. Is not the ABC leading us to a place where the votes of a majority of primates will determine polity to those who subscribe? I understand the reasoning behind the Catholic idea that the ABC is a primate of primates, but he himself has indicated that the Communion is not a papal-like construction.
Adam
The problem is one of overlapping jurisdictions. Even if Canterbury chose to have the Primates vote, he would still need to choose which Province he is in communion with. For the definitive review of the issue, see:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3096
One Adam 12,
As they (used) to say in Marin County, “I resonate with your comment.”
Still, with all the attempts made over the last 25 years to classify and determine the hallmarks of the Anglican Communion, it would appear that the first issue “What is it?” or “Who are we?” has yet to arrive at consensus. Jettisoning that quest to move on the question, “What shall we be?” will only bring the former lack of consensus forward and further complicate the discussion — which I think you will agree is quite obvious.
Merry Christmass.
RGEaton
Yes, Adam #16, and if TEC was under the jurisdiction of the Holy See of Rome, discipline would have come so fast that they wouldn’t have known what hit them. Then, we would never have to deal with these complex issues.
And Brian, communion is really a word about who in the global community feels a common bond as brothers and sisters in Christ. That is one of the truths for which I’m speaking. For me, little “c” is more important than capital “C” (communion).
I stand by what I said in post #5.