Oh I dunno — with six Primates, had they only thought of it they could have announced any number of things, like the Unitarian church, were “constituent members of the Anglican Communion.”
. . . Not [i]credibly[/i], of course, but they could have.
Signed,
The Blonde Buddhist, because I wish to be deemed so, and have announced it
Setting aside deconstructionism, what’s discouraging about this statement is that six Primates whom one would presume are leaders who believe the Gospel would go along with such a transparently obvious propaganda ploy from TEC. I am particularly disappointed in Tanzania and Central Africa, not to mention Burundi who was one of eight Anglican Communion Primates to attend Gafcon 2.
I can assure that the Archbishop of Tanzania does not totally represent the feelings there. Our good friend, +Elias Chakupewa, of Tabora Diocese, Tanzania, is staunchly orthodox, and is greatly successful in adding new converts and new clergy to orthodox Anglicanism.
George Conger talked a bit about this in the most recent episode of Anglican Unscripted — he seemed to believe that West Africa and Tanzania were solidly orthodox, and that whoever replaced the current primates will likely be more oriented towards GAFCON.
One imagines that none of the Primates involved actually buys in to the TEC hype. I am sure the several Primates involved are being called on to explain their participation in this little PR stunt, and their signatures on this document.
RE: “I am sure the several Primates involved are being called on to explain their participation in this little PR stunt, and their signatures on this document.”
Sure. As soon as they understand just how enabling and affirming of TEC’s communion and fellowship this engagement was staged to be, I’m certain they’ll issue a denunciation of their own participation.
Hmmm…. I guess I should note (having taken another look) that although not posted on T1-9 until the other day, Abp. Wabukala’s sermon preceded this rather exploitative bit of journalism from the TEC propaganda machine, having been given in September.
“Oh I dunno—with six Primates, had they only thought of it they could have announced any number of things, like the Unitarian church, were “constituent members of the Anglican Communion.†. . . Not credibly, of course, but they could have.”
Sure. The Anglican Communion has no constitution and none of its constituent provinces ever ceded any power to any particular body over it, so yes these people could say who was in the Communion if they wanted (although this is all hypothetical because they didn’t try).
Credibility would depend entirely on who accepts the claim – many people in the world would find a declaration by KJ Schori far more credible than anything proceeding out of Gafcon (or out of Lambeth for that matter).
But KJS won’t do that, because as soon as she does, she admits that the AC has no actual existence. All she can do is try to preserve the fiction that the ACC or Archbishop of Canterbury have some legal or traditional right to say who is in the AC.
No doubt TEC will be feeling pretty chuffed that five African Primates have yet again publicly stood side-by-side with the Primate of TEC (note the reference to the earlier meeting in May) even though the pronouncement doesn’t say a lot. It is a propaganda coup for them.
But the fact that other Primates get caught up in this sort of thing doesn’t necessarily mean that they accept TEC’s agenda. ++Anis tried for some years to dialogue with TEC. He eventually had to give up, but it became clear that he hadn’t compromised the gospel himself.
I suspect that at least two of these Archbishops are trying to dialogue with western liberals in the same spirit:
1. ++Chama has been saying for years that he doesn’t agree with the homosexual agenda of TEC but also that he won’t break ties with it. He is in a difficult position – the governments in his region are pro the western agenda, but he became elected as Archbishop in 2007 after the Synod deposed his predecessor for being too pro-gay.
2. Last year, ++Yinkah Sarfo of West Africa publicly criticised +Desmond Tutu for stating he would rather go to hell than a “homophobic heaven”. Bishop Sarfo was reported as saying: “We suspect that retired Archbishop Tutu may have collected some moneys from some of the western governments or from gay rights activists to do their bidding but the Anglican Church condemns gay practice”. See http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/ghanaian-anglican-bishop-blasts-tutu-over-gay-support-22369.
Does anyone know who were the two persons who participated by Skype from Bujumbura? Presumably one was Dr Ntahori, but the other?
RE: “But the fact that other Primates get caught up in this sort of thing doesn’t necessarily mean that they accept TEC’s agenda.”
Yes — they just affirmed TEC’s fellowship as a Christian body is all. I have no doubt that all are eminently orthodox.
RE: “she admits that the AC has no actual existence.”
Of course, as somebody who isn’t a deconstructionist, I disagree. The Anglican Communion has an actual existence and a defined identity and some are consciously attempting to deconstruct that identity — because it actually exists and they wish to be a part of that existence — and fill the vacuum with their own preferred identity.
I agree that KJS et al are not so desperate and anxious as to pretend to be able to announce that an entity or individual is a member of the Anglican Communion. At some point in the future they — or her successors — might be so desperate and anxious, and such an attempt would certainly be a marvelous and wonderful thing to me.
Hmmm…I read it and I saw lots of letters strung together to make words and words arranged to make sentences. There’s basic grammar and all that. But I don’t see a lick of content or sense.
[blockquote] “The Anglican Communion has an actual existence and a defined identity” [/blockquote]
Of course, but then, everything has “an actual existence and a defined identify”, by someone somewhere. Even the world of Harry Potter. That’s nice to know, but irrelevant.
In a real sense, the Anglican Communion only exists in so far as its participants agree to participate. It has no constitution. The “instruments of unity” or “instruments of communion” (take your pick) have never been given authority to do anything, by anyone with authority to grant such authority. In particular:
*The “Lambeth Conference” has no authority to decide anything, just to talk.
*The ACC derives its existence from a Lambeth Conference (see above).
*The ABC has plenty of authority, by tradition and sometimes by law, within the province of England, but none in the AC.
It would be different if the constituent Provinces that make up the AC had ever agreed to cede some sort of power, or authority or existence to Lambeth Conference or the AC generally. But they never have. Early in its existence, Archbishops of Canterbury were at great pains to emphasise this, and now nobody else wants it either. +Williams saw the problem coming, which is why he promoted the covenant for Provinces to sign on to, and probably why he resigned when it was rejected by much of the Communion.
So sure, the AC has existence, but only insofar as provinces participate. And since nobody owns the name, any of them are free to say whatever they like about it. All that matters is whether other people agree with those assertions.
[blockquote] “Of course, as somebody who isn’t a deconstructionist…” [/blockquote]
Oh, you are as much a deconstructionist as anyone else. 😉
Oops, forgot the Primates meeting – the same comment as above essentially applies.
Hence why the past and present ABC could just ignore whatever a Primates Meeting said, when it suited them.
Only problem is (for those who perceive it as a problem) that the ABCs’ behaviour just reminded observers of the fundamental issue: The ABC can do whatever he likes in the Communion; and so can anyone else.
Oh I dunno — with six Primates, had they only thought of it they could have announced any number of things, like the Unitarian church, were “constituent members of the Anglican Communion.”
. . . Not [i]credibly[/i], of course, but they could have.
Signed,
The Blonde Buddhist, because I wish to be deemed so, and have announced it
Setting aside deconstructionism, what’s discouraging about this statement is that six Primates whom one would presume are leaders who believe the Gospel would go along with such a transparently obvious propaganda ploy from TEC. I am particularly disappointed in Tanzania and Central Africa, not to mention Burundi who was one of eight Anglican Communion Primates to attend Gafcon 2.
I can assure that the Archbishop of Tanzania does not totally represent the feelings there. Our good friend, +Elias Chakupewa, of Tabora Diocese, Tanzania, is staunchly orthodox, and is greatly successful in adding new converts and new clergy to orthodox Anglicanism.
George Conger talked a bit about this in the most recent episode of Anglican Unscripted — he seemed to believe that West Africa and Tanzania were solidly orthodox, and that whoever replaced the current primates will likely be more oriented towards GAFCON.
RE: “and that whoever replaced the current primates will likely be more oriented towards GAFCON.”
Sure — but Burundi is “oriented towards GAFCON” — and there he is, enabling TEC leaders in their publicity efforts.
I think Abp Wabukala’s sermon at the CAPA conference is a fitting response.
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/57279/
One imagines that none of the Primates involved actually buys in to the TEC hype. I am sure the several Primates involved are being called on to explain their participation in this little PR stunt, and their signatures on this document.
RE: “I am sure the several Primates involved are being called on to explain their participation in this little PR stunt, and their signatures on this document.”
Sure. As soon as they understand just how enabling and affirming of TEC’s communion and fellowship this engagement was staged to be, I’m certain they’ll issue a denunciation of their own participation.
Hmmm…. I guess I should note (having taken another look) that although not posted on T1-9 until the other day, Abp. Wabukala’s sermon preceded this rather exploitative bit of journalism from the TEC propaganda machine, having been given in September.
“Oh I dunno—with six Primates, had they only thought of it they could have announced any number of things, like the Unitarian church, were “constituent members of the Anglican Communion.†. . . Not credibly, of course, but they could have.”
Sure. The Anglican Communion has no constitution and none of its constituent provinces ever ceded any power to any particular body over it, so yes these people could say who was in the Communion if they wanted (although this is all hypothetical because they didn’t try).
Credibility would depend entirely on who accepts the claim – many people in the world would find a declaration by KJ Schori far more credible than anything proceeding out of Gafcon (or out of Lambeth for that matter).
But KJS won’t do that, because as soon as she does, she admits that the AC has no actual existence. All she can do is try to preserve the fiction that the ACC or Archbishop of Canterbury have some legal or traditional right to say who is in the AC.
No doubt TEC will be feeling pretty chuffed that five African Primates have yet again publicly stood side-by-side with the Primate of TEC (note the reference to the earlier meeting in May) even though the pronouncement doesn’t say a lot. It is a propaganda coup for them.
But the fact that other Primates get caught up in this sort of thing doesn’t necessarily mean that they accept TEC’s agenda. ++Anis tried for some years to dialogue with TEC. He eventually had to give up, but it became clear that he hadn’t compromised the gospel himself.
I suspect that at least two of these Archbishops are trying to dialogue with western liberals in the same spirit:
1. ++Chama has been saying for years that he doesn’t agree with the homosexual agenda of TEC but also that he won’t break ties with it. He is in a difficult position – the governments in his region are pro the western agenda, but he became elected as Archbishop in 2007 after the Synod deposed his predecessor for being too pro-gay.
2. Last year, ++Yinkah Sarfo of West Africa publicly criticised +Desmond Tutu for stating he would rather go to hell than a “homophobic heaven”. Bishop Sarfo was reported as saying: “We suspect that retired Archbishop Tutu may have collected some moneys from some of the western governments or from gay rights activists to do their bidding but the Anglican Church condemns gay practice”. See http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/ghanaian-anglican-bishop-blasts-tutu-over-gay-support-22369.
Does anyone know who were the two persons who participated by Skype from Bujumbura? Presumably one was Dr Ntahori, but the other?
RE: “But the fact that other Primates get caught up in this sort of thing doesn’t necessarily mean that they accept TEC’s agenda.”
Yes — they just affirmed TEC’s fellowship as a Christian body is all. I have no doubt that all are eminently orthodox.
RE: “she admits that the AC has no actual existence.”
Of course, as somebody who isn’t a deconstructionist, I disagree. The Anglican Communion has an actual existence and a defined identity and some are consciously attempting to deconstruct that identity — because it actually exists and they wish to be a part of that existence — and fill the vacuum with their own preferred identity.
I agree that KJS et al are not so desperate and anxious as to pretend to be able to announce that an entity or individual is a member of the Anglican Communion. At some point in the future they — or her successors — might be so desperate and anxious, and such an attempt would certainly be a marvelous and wonderful thing to me.
Hmmm…I read it and I saw lots of letters strung together to make words and words arranged to make sentences. There’s basic grammar and all that. But I don’t see a lick of content or sense.
[blockquote] “The Anglican Communion has an actual existence and a defined identity” [/blockquote]
Of course, but then, everything has “an actual existence and a defined identify”, by someone somewhere. Even the world of Harry Potter. That’s nice to know, but irrelevant.
In a real sense, the Anglican Communion only exists in so far as its participants agree to participate. It has no constitution. The “instruments of unity” or “instruments of communion” (take your pick) have never been given authority to do anything, by anyone with authority to grant such authority. In particular:
*The “Lambeth Conference” has no authority to decide anything, just to talk.
*The ACC derives its existence from a Lambeth Conference (see above).
*The ABC has plenty of authority, by tradition and sometimes by law, within the province of England, but none in the AC.
It would be different if the constituent Provinces that make up the AC had ever agreed to cede some sort of power, or authority or existence to Lambeth Conference or the AC generally. But they never have. Early in its existence, Archbishops of Canterbury were at great pains to emphasise this, and now nobody else wants it either. +Williams saw the problem coming, which is why he promoted the covenant for Provinces to sign on to, and probably why he resigned when it was rejected by much of the Communion.
So sure, the AC has existence, but only insofar as provinces participate. And since nobody owns the name, any of them are free to say whatever they like about it. All that matters is whether other people agree with those assertions.
[blockquote] “Of course, as somebody who isn’t a deconstructionist…” [/blockquote]
Oh, you are as much a deconstructionist as anyone else. 😉
Oops, forgot the Primates meeting – the same comment as above essentially applies.
Hence why the past and present ABC could just ignore whatever a Primates Meeting said, when it suited them.
Only problem is (for those who perceive it as a problem) that the ABCs’ behaviour just reminded observers of the fundamental issue: The ABC can do whatever he likes in the Communion; and so can anyone else.