[blockquote]I cannot support or sanction such actions[/blockquote]
Ah, but note that he does not say what he CAN do, nor what he DOES do. He only says what he CANNOT do.
He does not say that he opposes such actions. He does not say such actions should cease. He does not say those who perform such actions are being naughty. In other words, full steam ahead on such actions!
[blockquote]”…in line with what successive Lambeth Resolutions and Primates’ Communiques have declared,… and the clear directions of the Windsor Report.”[/blockquote]
For some reason, who knows why, he forgot to mention about how the Dromantine and DES communiques changed the Windsor Report’s handling of this issue.
Oh well, I guess he is simply too busy with all the Lambeth Conference preparations. You know, the same Lambeth Conferences that make all those resolutions, like Res. 1.10 of 1998. The [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2008/1/21/ACNS4361]Lambeth Conference[/url] is that “[c]onference [that] has never been a lawmaking body in the strict sense and it wasn’t designed to be one.”
A disappointing reply by Canterbury, but hardly surprising. His refusal to take strong, clear, decisive actions only cedes the initiative to others who won’t be so hesitant. A mild statement of disapproval such as this won’t keep the Global South leaders from continuing to get out in front and lead.
Leaders lead; that is the way they serve. To abdicate the role of a leader in a severe crisis like this (as ++Williams has done) is to turn over the reins to someone else. In the end, I think that’s a blessing in disguise. The GS primates have stepped into the vacuum and will now exercise bolder and stronger leadership. Thanks be to God!
I think that certain parties to the current troubles would have had serious reservations about the irregular nature of the Council of Nicea, which purported to be an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.
After reading this thread and others, does anyone have a clue on how the agenda might be hijaaked by a working majority, or conversely straight jacketed so that nothing can be decided? I’d also note that the vast majority of prior Lambeth Convention resolutions were of the Motherhood + Apple Pie sort, with only the rare one being like 1998’s 1.10. So agreeing to disagree and then talk about it seems to be difficult, on an historical basis.
Ah, but Brother Michael, he will. Those bishops, priests, deacons and lay people ar no longer a members of the Anglican Communion. That’s all we really ask.
Reminds me of the story of the Confucian standing on a river bank watching someone drown and arguing with himself about if he should rescue the person uninvited – or even discussing with himself if this person were actually in trouble. These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop. The man seems out of touch and to have a death wish for the Communion. What might survive under his direction will be worth little in the end if it is led by the ilk of our ECUSA leadership.
[blockquote] These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop. [/blockquote]
This statement is very key. It hits the nail right on the head. The ABC is either in denial about this being how serious the situation is (both in Canada and the USA), or else he, himself, is a heretic and doesn’t have the guts to tell it like it is. I really don’t know which it is at this point. All I do know is that #20’s statement above is the total truth.
We all need to keep declaring the truth clearly and forcefully. We are soldiers of God. If we keep His armor on and keep up the good fight to serve His TRUTH, as the Bible tells it, He will deliver us. Let’s all keep praying, having faith, and not giving in to the fear mongering the heretics are trying to enforce. I know Jesus works all things out for the good of his people. We may never see that good until we’ve crossed over, but we will see it. The faith we’re being asked to keep is not a shallow faith, but a TOTAL faith in Him. I believe he’s testing that faith is all of us right now. Will we stand up and fight for the truth, no matter how hard it gets, or will we give in to the pressures of Satan’s followers?
I was 8 years old playing around the swimming pool of a large resort. I jumped into the pool where it was deeper than I thought, I couldn’t touch bottom and I couldn’t swim, and I started thrashing around trying to reach the edge of the pool.
The kid I was playing with came up to the edge of the pool, looked down on me thrashing around, and said, “Rolin, are you drowning?
I was rather too busy to answer him. I finally thrashed my way to the edge of the pool, worked my way to the shallow end and dragged myself out, exhausted. I never much liked that kid after that.
I wonder if his first name was Rowan?
[size=1][u][url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/]from the rabbit hole[/url][/u][/size],
The AC now seems to exert about the same level of influence as Barney Fife (y’know, Andy Griffith’s bumbling deputy on the old Andy Griffith show) running around telling his prisoners the rules of the prison, and then repeatedly acting shocked–shocked!–when they steal the keys and let themselves out, completing ignoring him and his badge. Unfortunately, the Anglican Communion has no one in charge as competent as Andy Griffith, who could always be counted on to set things right. Poor Barney has as much authority and influence as can be mustered at the moment…
The big question, of course, is not what Rowan Williams says, but whether he withdraws JDS’s Lambeth invitation. Because no matter what Rowan Williams says, if he maintains Schofield’s invitation, he is sanctioning the Southern Cone’s presence in the USA. On the other hand, if Rowan withdraws Schofield’s invitation, then he is using a double standard and Matt Kennedy is quite correct.
Re #20: [blockquote]These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop.[/blockquote]
Have we been reading the same news over the past five years or so? The overwhelming bulk of the congregations that have left TEC were in rather conservative dioceses where nobody was being prosecuted or persecuted. (Obviously, there are a few exceptions, but they are exceptions.)
The beginnings of the AMiA were in South Carolina, which was and is solidly reasserting (ask their Canon Theologian, our Genial Host). The beginnings of CANA were in Virginia, whose bishop has a long-standing policy against gay blessings and the ordination of sexually-active unmarried persons. Rio Grande had an unquestionably orthodox (actually, Catholic) bishop, yet it has lost its largest congregation.
Hardly any departing congregation outside of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, and a few other dioceses have any credible claim of having been persecuted. In almost all other cases, this is about people leaving TEC because they wanted to, for legitimate reasons of conscience perhaps, but still because they wanted to and not because they had to. To say that they faced “spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop” goes beyond hyperbole into the realm of the Orwellian Big Lie.
If you are going to throw around that sort of accusation, please give concrete evidence that any of these reasserter-majority dioceses are run by “unbelieving bishops,” as distinct from bishops whose only crime is to belong to TEC.
[blockquote]These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop.[/blockquote]
I concur. Of course reasserting parishes that survived TEC to face the present imbroglio are located within dioceses that historically, at least, permitted some reasserting presence – that is a far cry from making such a diocese “conservative.” Of course, “liberal” dioceses have eradicated or diminished their reasserting parishes.
What is the evidence of the “bulk” reference? About 1/3 of AMiA churches are located in the states of North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado – which have only one ACN bishop among them (i.e., and one who rejects realignment.) I’m not even sure the AMiA reference is appropriate, in that many of their churches are new plants that seek oversight from Rwanda.
I suggest starting with our host’s series on [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8457]differentiation.[/url] A “conservative” church bound to a “liberal” denomination is weak if its [i]best[/i] response to worried parents or donors is “yes, but at least we have a good bishop, for now.” Of course “conservative” churches are leaving – as they lose people, they lose viability. At least [i]some[/i] laity find the arguments for staying unconvincing. And for those churches remaining and fighting within TEC, the tools for differentiation are limited in availability and effectiveness.
[blockquote]”…whose bishop has a long-standing policy against gay blessings…”[/blockquote]
As for Virginia, well, everyone knows the score. Blessings [url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=16067]occur[/url] without consequence.
[blockquote]I cannot support or sanction such actions[/blockquote]
Ah, but note that he does not say what he CAN do, nor what he DOES do. He only says what he CANNOT do.
He does not say that he opposes such actions. He does not say such actions should cease. He does not say those who perform such actions are being naughty. In other words, full steam ahead on such actions!
Not exactly endorsing a certain “sensible way forward”. Hmmmmm.
Peace,
I find this a little confusing:
[blockquote]”…in line with what successive Lambeth Resolutions and Primates’ Communiques have declared,… and the clear directions of the Windsor Report.”[/blockquote]
For some reason, who knows why, he forgot to mention about how the Dromantine and DES communiques changed the Windsor Report’s handling of this issue.
Oh well, I guess he is simply too busy with all the Lambeth Conference preparations. You know, the same Lambeth Conferences that make all those resolutions, like Res. 1.10 of 1998. The [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2008/1/21/ACNS4361]Lambeth Conference[/url] is that “[c]onference [that] has never been a lawmaking body in the strict sense and it wasn’t designed to be one.”
Hope that clears things up.
😉
Once again decisive, forceful leadership from “da man.” How I wish he realized he is no match for the job and resign.
Does he support radical and non-synodic departures from “the Faith once given” by a national church?
Will he say,
“I cannot support non-synodic departures from ‘the Faith once given’ by a national church?”
Bet he never will if that national church is doing something radically progressive.
A disappointing reply by Canterbury, but hardly surprising. His refusal to take strong, clear, decisive actions only cedes the initiative to others who won’t be so hesitant. A mild statement of disapproval such as this won’t keep the Global South leaders from continuing to get out in front and lead.
Leaders lead; that is the way they serve. To abdicate the role of a leader in a severe crisis like this (as ++Williams has done) is to turn over the reins to someone else. In the end, I think that’s a blessing in disguise. The GS primates have stepped into the vacuum and will now exercise bolder and stronger leadership. Thanks be to God!
David Handy+
I think that certain parties to the current troubles would have had serious reservations about the irregular nature of the Council of Nicea, which purported to be an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.
After reading this thread and others, does anyone have a clue on how the agenda might be hijaaked by a working majority, or conversely straight jacketed so that nothing can be decided? I’d also note that the vast majority of prior Lambeth Convention resolutions were of the Motherhood + Apple Pie sort, with only the rare one being like 1998’s 1.10. So agreeing to disagree and then talk about it seems to be difficult, on an historical basis.
sorry wrong thread…
Once again, the only thing he remains definitive on is interventions – can’t be done.
Yet, Brian, he will do nothing to stop them.
10- and I’m sure ++Hiltz will love appealing to the Panel of Reference to get any ‘interventions’ [i]defined[/i], let alone reversed.
Any reader can see that the AoC refused to do either.
Ah, but Brother Michael, he will. Those bishops, priests, deacons and lay people ar no longer a members of the Anglican Communion. That’s all we really ask.
13- you still owe me stock predictions on tomorrow’s markets, oh great predictor of the future.
What is the ABC willing to do? Apparently, the answer is “Nothing.”
Cennydd, but he does it so well!
It is quite amusing to note that ++Williams used the word “sanction”.
The word sanction, of course can have two different, and exactly opposite meanings:
“to authorize, approve or allow”
OR
“to impose a sanction on; penalize, esp by way of discipline”
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanction)
It would have been elegant if the letter just said, “I cannot sanction such actions”, a phrase capable of two exactly opposite meanings.
Alas, the use of the word “support” (support or sanction”) makes it clear which meaning the writer intended.
I think…But, hmmm, considering who wrote it…does it?
Well, at least Rowan’s consistant – he won’t do nothin’ ’bout nothin’!
So, on to GAFCON!
Reminds me of the story of the Confucian standing on a river bank watching someone drown and arguing with himself about if he should rescue the person uninvited – or even discussing with himself if this person were actually in trouble. These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop. The man seems out of touch and to have a death wish for the Communion. What might survive under his direction will be worth little in the end if it is led by the ilk of our ECUSA leadership.
#20 states:
[blockquote] These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop. [/blockquote]
This statement is very key. It hits the nail right on the head. The ABC is either in denial about this being how serious the situation is (both in Canada and the USA), or else he, himself, is a heretic and doesn’t have the guts to tell it like it is. I really don’t know which it is at this point. All I do know is that #20’s statement above is the total truth.
We all need to keep declaring the truth clearly and forcefully. We are soldiers of God. If we keep His armor on and keep up the good fight to serve His TRUTH, as the Bible tells it, He will deliver us. Let’s all keep praying, having faith, and not giving in to the fear mongering the heretics are trying to enforce. I know Jesus works all things out for the good of his people. We may never see that good until we’ve crossed over, but we will see it. The faith we’re being asked to keep is not a shallow faith, but a TOTAL faith in Him. I believe he’s testing that faith is all of us right now. Will we stand up and fight for the truth, no matter how hard it gets, or will we give in to the pressures of Satan’s followers?
Something to think about,
Mugsie
Eww, frianm, you just gave me a flashback.
I was 8 years old playing around the swimming pool of a large resort. I jumped into the pool where it was deeper than I thought, I couldn’t touch bottom and I couldn’t swim, and I started thrashing around trying to reach the edge of the pool.
The kid I was playing with came up to the edge of the pool, looked down on me thrashing around, and said, “Rolin, are you drowning?
I was rather too busy to answer him. I finally thrashed my way to the edge of the pool, worked my way to the shallow end and dragged myself out, exhausted. I never much liked that kid after that.
I wonder if his first name was Rowan?
[size=1][u][url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/]from the rabbit hole[/url][/u][/size],
The AC now seems to exert about the same level of influence as Barney Fife (y’know, Andy Griffith’s bumbling deputy on the old Andy Griffith show) running around telling his prisoners the rules of the prison, and then repeatedly acting shocked–shocked!–when they steal the keys and let themselves out, completing ignoring him and his badge. Unfortunately, the Anglican Communion has no one in charge as competent as Andy Griffith, who could always be counted on to set things right. Poor Barney has as much authority and influence as can be mustered at the moment…
The bottom line in all this is that anything anyone in a position of authority or responsibility says will be spun. Welcome to the post-modern age.
… but what they Do cannot be spun, as acts become Facts.
The big question, of course, is not what Rowan Williams says, but whether he withdraws JDS’s Lambeth invitation. Because no matter what Rowan Williams says, if he maintains Schofield’s invitation, he is sanctioning the Southern Cone’s presence in the USA. On the other hand, if Rowan withdraws Schofield’s invitation, then he is using a double standard and Matt Kennedy is quite correct.
++ Rowan will not withdraw anyone’s invitation. That would be rude, and the tea settings have already been prepared.
20 & 21 show the near-hysterical hyperbole that is being thrown around – spiritual death – indeed
Re #20: [blockquote]These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop.[/blockquote]
Have we been reading the same news over the past five years or so? The overwhelming bulk of the congregations that have left TEC were in rather conservative dioceses where nobody was being prosecuted or persecuted. (Obviously, there are a few exceptions, but they are exceptions.)
The beginnings of the AMiA were in South Carolina, which was and is solidly reasserting (ask their Canon Theologian, our Genial Host). The beginnings of CANA were in Virginia, whose bishop has a long-standing policy against gay blessings and the ordination of sexually-active unmarried persons. Rio Grande had an unquestionably orthodox (actually, Catholic) bishop, yet it has lost its largest congregation.
Hardly any departing congregation outside of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, and a few other dioceses have any credible claim of having been persecuted. In almost all other cases, this is about people leaving TEC because they wanted to, for legitimate reasons of conscience perhaps, but still because they wanted to and not because they had to. To say that they faced “spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop” goes beyond hyperbole into the realm of the Orwellian Big Lie.
If you are going to throw around that sort of accusation, please give concrete evidence that any of these reasserter-majority dioceses are run by “unbelieving bishops,” as distinct from bishops whose only crime is to belong to TEC.
[blockquote]These interventions are life saving necessities and done by invitation because the alternative is persecution, prosecution or even spiritual death at the hands of some unbelieving bishop.[/blockquote]
I concur. Of course reasserting parishes that survived TEC to face the present imbroglio are located within dioceses that historically, at least, permitted some reasserting presence – that is a far cry from making such a diocese “conservative.” Of course, “liberal” dioceses have eradicated or diminished their reasserting parishes.
What is the evidence of the “bulk” reference? About 1/3 of AMiA churches are located in the states of North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado – which have only one ACN bishop among them (i.e., and one who rejects realignment.) I’m not even sure the AMiA reference is appropriate, in that many of their churches are new plants that seek oversight from Rwanda.
I suggest starting with our host’s series on [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8457]differentiation.[/url] A “conservative” church bound to a “liberal” denomination is weak if its [i]best[/i] response to worried parents or donors is “yes, but at least we have a good bishop, for now.” Of course “conservative” churches are leaving – as they lose people, they lose viability. At least [i]some[/i] laity find the arguments for staying unconvincing. And for those churches remaining and fighting within TEC, the tools for differentiation are limited in availability and effectiveness.
[blockquote]”…whose bishop has a long-standing policy against gay blessings…”[/blockquote]
As for Virginia, well, everyone knows the score. Blessings [url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=16067]occur[/url] without consequence.
13- you still owe me stock predictions on tomorrow’s markets, oh great predictor of the future.
DJIA closes at 11463. There’s my prediction.