What an odd little article. However, we know historically that the left does not do two-way communication. If they did Gene Robinson would never have been consecrated.
#2–Thanks. That article pretty much proves how the left has no intention of dialogue. It is exactly what I found in TEC when I was still in leadership: “You are so incredibly wrong, and we are so incredibly correct, the dialogue will consist of you listening to us until you change your mind or leave.” Apparently when we leave we are still bashed. Reading that article makes me so incredibly happy I don’t have to put up with TEC anymore!!!!!!!
As David Keller and David Wilson+ have rightly noted, it’s the zealous crusaders on the Left who have been the most guilty of avoiding real dialogue. For them, the rightness of their “progressive” cause is self-evident, and needs no argumentation. The clashing of mutually imcompatible paradigms is clearly illustrated in the sort of rants that we see in the critiques by Hensman and Lionel Deimel. It’s no wonder that so little worthwhile communication takes place across the divide.
The chasm between the worldviews of the Ekklesia crowd and GAFCON makes the Grand Canyon look small. Such a chasm is unbridgeable. You might as well try to build a bridge across the Atlantic Ocean.
And as for the assertion that Paul Perkin “trashed” the CoE, I was pleasantly surprised at how positive he actually was, seeing the glass as half full, and with lots of potential for the orthodox cause in England. However, Perkin’s strong support for the controvdersial, polarizing new initiatives associated with the AMiE will be what really rankles the Liberals (on both sides of the Pond). Clearly, the days when Liberals could often block and thwart all church planting initiatives by conservative evangelicals are coming to an end. To which I say: Hurray!
The manipulation of language in that article is stunning and is an excellent example of the tactics that reach far beyond Anglican matters. It is the evil that declares closed any discussion of same-sex marriage, abortion, human origins, or whatever the not-liberal-at-all left wants to claim as beyond discussion.
Of course. There are matters beyond discussing. Forty years ago, the moral status of same-sex acts was one of them.
#6
Luke
+Bill Atwood’s Ecclesia and this Ekklesia are two different organizations. One is orthodox and based in the USA and one is revisionist and based in UK. It’s a wee bit confusing
Ms Hensman writes:
[blockquote] “Yet many Anglicans who seek full inclusion of their lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) brothers and sisters on Christ, or who have a different view of the atonement or people of other faiths…” [/blockquote]
The second point is a touchstone. Almost always, I find that the fundamental belief of any liberal is rejection of the atonement. Perhaps because it drives home how bad our sin really is, that someone must die to pay the price. Most liberals find the mere suggestion offensive.
Thanks for the reference to Lionel Deimel’s blog, #2. An interesting quote:
[blockquote] “It is unclear how much of a threat the GAFCON movement is to the Anglican Communion, but bitter experience has taught me that threats from the right are best recognized and attended to.” [/blockquote]
True. Fortunately, most of his liberal cronies just laugh us off. The longer they do that, the better.
Lionel certainly is perceptive:
[blockquote] “This is a clear shot across the bow of the Anglican Communion as we have known it and an indication that GAFCON, if it doesn’t want to form its own communion, at the very least intends to ostracize some churches of the existing communion.” [/blockquote]
He’s not dumb, this man.
But one of his other comments is not so perceptive:
“Oh, and GAFCON wants to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims. Good luck with that. I see martyrs in the future.”
In future? Lionel is clearly unaware that African Anglicans (who make up the majority of Gafcon) have been taking the gospel to Muslims for years now, and a great number have already suffered martyrdom. I suspect the point of the Gafcon communique is that outreach to Muslims will become a priority of the western members as well as the African members.
Okay, so a brickbat for Lionel on that last one, but a bouquet for this:
[blockquote] “The implication is that the Church of England is not an expression of authentic Anglicanism. England is the next target for the ecclesiastical subversion suffered by The Episcopal Church in recent years.” [/blockquote]
Its been a target for some years Lionel. Its no secret. But its the liberals in CofE who are starting to bring it to reality. If the leadership of CofE had shown a modicum of moderation and reasonableness, “ecclesiastical subversion” in England would not even be seriously discussed at Gafcon.
Lionel’s final comment is about what he thinks TEC should do:
[blockquote] “My own view is not that the Anglican Communion is too weak, but that it is too strong. I believe that The Episcopal Church should insulate itself from both the Communion and the GFCA. It should reject the Anglican Covenant and declare that, although it will participate in the Anglican Communion, it is not bound by any actions of the Communion. This is a piece of business for the 2015 General Convention.” [/blockquote]
In the short term he is right. But in the long term he is wrong – a strong Anglican Communion, but subverted by liberals, was the best defence they had against orthodox border crossing. ACNA is still small and weak, but it won’t stay that way. And TEC still has plenty of trust funds to pillage to keep itself going, and so far its mainly elderly congregations are surviving. But that won’t stay that way either.
Final point: Savi Hensman concludes her article by saying,
[blockquote] “Even if ‘confessing Anglicans’ are far more righteous and wise than the rest of us, if they fail to address our arguments and just keep telling us how wicked we are because we do not obey them, it is unlikely to win us over to their cause. Surely they should be trying to point out the flaws in our logic?” [/blockquote]
Savi is missing the point – the folks at Gafcon don’t need to “win over” Savi, or “point out flaws in [her] logic”. They would need to do that if they had to co-exist with Savi in the same church, but the whole point of AMiE is to set up means whereby orthodox Anglicans in CofE no longer have to worship alongside of Savi, or take her thoughts into account when planning their ministries.
From Gafcon’s point of view, Savi won’t be an insider for much longer. Just one more of the 53 million people in England and deserving of the same respect and attention that they all do, no more and no less.
What an odd little article. However, we know historically that the left does not do two-way communication. If they did Gene Robinson would never have been consecrated.
Let the pushback begin. Lionel Deimel is also on the warpath against GAFCON. click here
http://blog.deimel.org/2013/10/gafcon-declares-war-on-anglican.html
#2–Thanks. That article pretty much proves how the left has no intention of dialogue. It is exactly what I found in TEC when I was still in leadership: “You are so incredibly wrong, and we are so incredibly correct, the dialogue will consist of you listening to us until you change your mind or leave.” Apparently when we leave we are still bashed. Reading that article makes me so incredibly happy I don’t have to put up with TEC anymore!!!!!!!
Surprise. Surprise. Why am I not surprised??
As David Keller and David Wilson+ have rightly noted, it’s the zealous crusaders on the Left who have been the most guilty of avoiding real dialogue. For them, the rightness of their “progressive” cause is self-evident, and needs no argumentation. The clashing of mutually imcompatible paradigms is clearly illustrated in the sort of rants that we see in the critiques by Hensman and Lionel Deimel. It’s no wonder that so little worthwhile communication takes place across the divide.
The chasm between the worldviews of the Ekklesia crowd and GAFCON makes the Grand Canyon look small. Such a chasm is unbridgeable. You might as well try to build a bridge across the Atlantic Ocean.
And as for the assertion that Paul Perkin “trashed” the CoE, I was pleasantly surprised at how positive he actually was, seeing the glass as half full, and with lots of potential for the orthodox cause in England. However, Perkin’s strong support for the controvdersial, polarizing new initiatives associated with the AMiE will be what really rankles the Liberals (on both sides of the Pond). Clearly, the days when Liberals could often block and thwart all church planting initiatives by conservative evangelicals are coming to an end. To which I say: Hurray!
David Handy+
The manipulation of language in that article is stunning and is an excellent example of the tactics that reach far beyond Anglican matters. It is the evil that declares closed any discussion of same-sex marriage, abortion, human origins, or whatever the not-liberal-at-all left wants to claim as beyond discussion.
Of course. There are matters beyond discussing. Forty years ago, the moral status of same-sex acts was one of them.
I look forward to hearing what my Bishop, +Bill Atwood, long of Ekklesia, thinks of this article.
#6
Luke
+Bill Atwood’s Ecclesia and this Ekklesia are two different organizations. One is orthodox and based in the USA and one is revisionist and based in UK. It’s a wee bit confusing
David Wilson
Ms Hensman writes:
[blockquote] “Yet many Anglicans who seek full inclusion of their lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) brothers and sisters on Christ, or who have a different view of the atonement or people of other faiths…” [/blockquote]
The second point is a touchstone. Almost always, I find that the fundamental belief of any liberal is rejection of the atonement. Perhaps because it drives home how bad our sin really is, that someone must die to pay the price. Most liberals find the mere suggestion offensive.
Thanks for the reference to Lionel Deimel’s blog, #2. An interesting quote:
[blockquote] “It is unclear how much of a threat the GAFCON movement is to the Anglican Communion, but bitter experience has taught me that threats from the right are best recognized and attended to.” [/blockquote]
True. Fortunately, most of his liberal cronies just laugh us off. The longer they do that, the better.
Lionel certainly is perceptive:
[blockquote] “This is a clear shot across the bow of the Anglican Communion as we have known it and an indication that GAFCON, if it doesn’t want to form its own communion, at the very least intends to ostracize some churches of the existing communion.” [/blockquote]
He’s not dumb, this man.
But one of his other comments is not so perceptive:
In future? Lionel is clearly unaware that African Anglicans (who make up the majority of Gafcon) have been taking the gospel to Muslims for years now, and a great number have already suffered martyrdom. I suspect the point of the Gafcon communique is that outreach to Muslims will become a priority of the western members as well as the African members.
Okay, so a brickbat for Lionel on that last one, but a bouquet for this:
[blockquote] “The implication is that the Church of England is not an expression of authentic Anglicanism. England is the next target for the ecclesiastical subversion suffered by The Episcopal Church in recent years.” [/blockquote]
Its been a target for some years Lionel. Its no secret. But its the liberals in CofE who are starting to bring it to reality. If the leadership of CofE had shown a modicum of moderation and reasonableness, “ecclesiastical subversion” in England would not even be seriously discussed at Gafcon.
Lionel’s final comment is about what he thinks TEC should do:
[blockquote] “My own view is not that the Anglican Communion is too weak, but that it is too strong. I believe that The Episcopal Church should insulate itself from both the Communion and the GFCA. It should reject the Anglican Covenant and declare that, although it will participate in the Anglican Communion, it is not bound by any actions of the Communion. This is a piece of business for the 2015 General Convention.” [/blockquote]
In the short term he is right. But in the long term he is wrong – a strong Anglican Communion, but subverted by liberals, was the best defence they had against orthodox border crossing. ACNA is still small and weak, but it won’t stay that way. And TEC still has plenty of trust funds to pillage to keep itself going, and so far its mainly elderly congregations are surviving. But that won’t stay that way either.
Final point: Savi Hensman concludes her article by saying,
[blockquote] “Even if ‘confessing Anglicans’ are far more righteous and wise than the rest of us, if they fail to address our arguments and just keep telling us how wicked we are because we do not obey them, it is unlikely to win us over to their cause. Surely they should be trying to point out the flaws in our logic?” [/blockquote]
Savi is missing the point – the folks at Gafcon don’t need to “win over” Savi, or “point out flaws in [her] logic”. They would need to do that if they had to co-exist with Savi in the same church, but the whole point of AMiE is to set up means whereby orthodox Anglicans in CofE no longer have to worship alongside of Savi, or take her thoughts into account when planning their ministries.
From Gafcon’s point of view, Savi won’t be an insider for much longer. Just one more of the 53 million people in England and deserving of the same respect and attention that they all do, no more and no less.
Nothing in the article indicated that she had actually been there. It seems like a long-distance thumb-suck.