I think we need to take a hard look in the mirror and see what we are doing with the Anglican Communion; I think it is time to remember that we are a “communion” and not simply a “federation” of churches and that, therefore, we do not need a “pact.” What we do need is to deepen the communion beyond the search for power, domination, and control.
Who will hear us? Who can hear the message we have to proclaim, which some want to envelop in the concept of “orthodoxy,” when it is in fact the message of God through Jesus Christ, whose love reconciles us with life, and life in abundance? Our words have been words of division. Yet, in Brazil we sing: “The Word was not made to divide anyone; the Word is the bridge over which love comes and goes. The Word was not made to dominate; the destination of the Word is dialogue.” Who will hear the archbishops/primates, bishops, and priests of the Church?
We are seriously preparing ourselves in Brazil to participate in the 2008 Lambeth Conference because we are certain that this is the space for unity, and we know that unity does not mean uniformity. All of us bishops in Brazil and our spouses are in prayer while we await to meet and be reunited with brothers and sisters who live challenges and in different contexts from our own, knowing that we are united in God’s mission. So we are preparing to share our lives, challenges, and experience of being a Church that lives in missionary expansion. In 1998, the Province of Brazil had seven dioceses. Today, in 2008, we have nine dioceses and one missionary district. Despite the difficulties of two schisms, one in 2002 and another in 2004, we can say “thus far the LORD has helped us” (1 Sam 7:12, NRSV). We therefore desire to devote ourselves fully at the Lambeth Conference to the Bible study groups, to prayer, and to the breaking of bread (Acts 2).
How will we bear witness? Who will hear us? We are not being honest with ourselves. Could it be that we want to propose the path of disunity for the future of the Anglican Communion?
I believe The Episcopal Church of the United States has been showing all of us an example of the path to unity and reconciliation, because they have met all the requests for visits that were made and answered all the questions that were posed. They have spent time, money, and energy to meet the primates’ requests, always with generosity and openness. I think we need to keep in mind that we are Anglican. We are seeing a disregard of our richness and our ethos, that is, autonomy of the Provinces.
The preceeding message was bought and paid for the The Episcopal Church, Inc.
Is this guy a cousin to Griswold? This is bad on so many fronts – “the destination of the Word is dialogue????” The message of God through Jesus Christ is to reconcile us to life???? Oh my.
To use an old adage,
“The acorn doesn’t fall far from the oak tree.”
Kate to Maurico:”The check’s in the mail.”
“The Word was not made to divide anyone; the Word is the bridge over which love comes and goes. The Word was not made to dominate; the destination of the Word is dialogue.†Compare with: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brother and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
The only province to jettison almost an entire diocese now speaks to us about compassion, reconciliation and unity. How about hypocrisies?
The ABC could have said this too: “I believe The Episcopal Church of the United States has been showing all of us an example of the path to unity and reconciliation, because they have met all the requests for visits that were made and answered all the questions that were posed.”
“we do not need a pact,”
Yes, we do need a pact. Up until now, the Anglican Communion has been operating in a virtually boundaryless environment, with nothing but a loose definition of what it means to be an Anglican. In addition, the few boundaries that are there are never enforced. A strong and enforceable “pact” is needed, and fairly quickly.
For those unfamiliar with the situation in Brazil, here is some background from the old T1 blog on Bishop Cavalcanti coming under the protection of ++Venables I think in 2005. And an article from Conger on Recife becoming a Southern Cone extra-territorial diocese in 12/2007. Also from old blog – Kendall’s archive of articles on Brazil/Recife. Sounds like this is a new bishop since Cavalcanti was deposed (at the time it was Orlando Santos de Oliveira Primate of Brasil.
This Primate is in very, ver, very serious denial. Who will listen to him as he asks? I hope no one will!
“I believe The Episcopal Church of the United States has been showing all of us an example of the path to unity and reconciliation?”
What?
Try being a Christian on the receiving end of a Schori-Beers Inc. lawsuit.
DITTO, Phil! And I have serious doubts about this primate’s sanity.
I’ve never read such idiotic balderdash as from this hireling of TEC. He’s completely delusional.
This sort of utter nonsense shows why the current Instruments of Unity have to be reformed. The Primate of Brazil represents a very small province (despite the fact that Brazil is a very large country), and yet Brazil, like Scotland or Korea or Wales or Myanmar, has equal representation with giant provinces like Nigeria and Uganda. It’s time to stop counting the wrong things. It’s time to stop counting provinces, or even dioceses, and to start counting individual Anglicans. It’s time to revamp our international structures (especially the ACC) and make them truly representative.
David Handy+
I think “815 satrap” is a more accurate description than primate. I wonder who was the ghost writer for this. Wow!
Heavens, a moderate from the southern cone. Of course, pretty much every single comment above on this thread confirms the bishop’s statement:
[blockquote]We are not being honest with ourselves. Could it be that we want to propose the path of disunity for the future of the Anglican Communion?[/blockquote]
But I guess it’s no wonder everyone gets so worked up about a moderate voice from south America, since the schismatic movement needs a rich source of draftees.
I wonder, oh commenters, if ABp. Akinola writes something and I comment that it was bought and paid for by IRD, with as little evidence as you have presented here, how long will it take for you to start screaming? For shame!
FWIW
jimB
Umm, jimB, if you go over to your usual haunt at Fr. Jake’s, you’ll see that’s exactly what your side does say about Akinola. For shame?
The word was not made… period. This guy’s a heretic.
Wow. Just when we thought our mouths couldn’t hit the floor again in response to sheer stupidity/blindness/younameit: [blockquote] I believe The Episcopal Church of the United States has been showing all of us an example of the path to unity and reconciliation, [/blockquote] Hello, Bishop, lawsuit and depositions and having properties ripped from underneath you…. that’s not unity and reconciliation.
[blockquote] because they have met all the requests for visits that were made and answered all the questions that were posed. [/blockquote] Whoever the bishop is writing to must be pretty ignorant of what’s going on in the US. Heavens, where is the leadership requested by the DES communique? Perhaps we need to put out an Amber Alert for that Primatial Vicar – suggested but never produced by +Schori. If they really answered ALL the questions, wouldn’t there had been a “yes” or a “no”?
[blockquote] They have spent time, money, and energy to meet the primates’ requests, always with generosity and openness. [/blockquote] Two words keep coming to mind: Either dilusional or deceiving. Guess they are being generous with attorneys and open to anything but the Gospel. Let’s see…Primate Requests – Don’t consecrate Robinson. TEC did. Don’t litigate. TEC did and continues to. Provide alternative oversight. They didn’t. So looking at this particular sentence, you have to really look to see that the statement didn’t say they complied – just met the requests – with defiance. Doesn’t surpise us that Brazil doesn’t want a “pact”. If you don’t agree on the basics, why bother agreeing on anything else…just keep doing what you’re doing.
But it sounds good on paper…to anyone who isn’t in the know.
Hey guys. Ease up. He is just using nuanced and complex theological language. This criticism just shows your ignorance.
Let’s not get diverted into unprofitable speculation over who is bought and paid for, etc. I think that the Brazilian primate believes what he writes, and we need to address THAT. Two thoughts…
First, Andrade claims he doesn’t want an Anglican federation, and yet that is EXACTLY what he is arguing for. He is saying that the only absolute in the Anglican Communion should be geographical jurisdiction, but that there should be no other boundaries. That is a federation, whether he likes to play word games or not. A Communion requires real accountability.
Second, this statement is why the Second Draft of the Covenant (or anything so weak) will never, NEVER be adopted by the Anglican Communion. The liberal Provinces of the AC do not want ANY accountability, even from a very weak and toothless Covenant. You can count on the liberal Provinces opposing any Covenant with a mechanism for accountability. Therefore, the Covenant pushers must realize that for any Covenant to have any hope of adoption, it must BEGIN by being acceptable to the majority of the Global South – which means an accountability mechanism WITH TEETH. Anything else is a waste of time.
Third, this letter confirms my (new) belief that the Global South should boycott Lambeth. Lambeth’s only value is that of propaganda. Attendance gives TEC and Rowan Williams the propaganda victory that “all is well.” Boycott denies this.
What kind of theological and ecclesiological positions would/should, in your view, a new strong covenant stake out? Question for all.
Rick D. Brazil is its own province. It is not part of the Southern Cone.
#23, jamesw,
I wholeheartedly concur with your first and thrid points. I think your second has merit, Bp. Andrade dislikes ANY sort of “pact” or Covenant. But I think the liberal provinces will probably gamely play along with the “process” and then ignore the resulting Covenant, in their usual fashion of giving mere lip service to any AC requests for restraint on their all-important agenda.
#24, rob k,
As I’ve said on other threads, there are at least two absolutely ESSENTIAL points for the Covenant to be worth the effort.
First, it must include a strong, unequivocal reaffirmation of the authority of Holy Scirpture in Anglicanism. That is, at the least, it must reaffirm what the 1886 Lambeth Quadrilateral says, i.e., that the Scriptures are “the ultimate rule of faith and practice” (the current draft unacceptably nuances this by speaking of the Faith enshrined in Scripture, not the Scriptures themselves, as that rule). More importantly, it must GO BEYOND the Quadrilateral (which liberals blithely ignore already) and reaffirm something of the classical Anglican belief about biblical authority contained in old Article XX of the 39 Articles. In light of the ambiguous status of the 39 Articles today, some such reaffirmation needs to be made, stating explicitly that NOTHING contrary to the clear and consistent teaching of Holy Scripture can be taught as Anglican doctrine. Period. No loopholes.
Second, and more important, the current crisis MUST be directly and explicitly addressed. That is, the Covenant, to be effective, simply must condemn all homosexual behavior, as well as all other sex outside of marriage, as “CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF GOD.” That is, simply reaffirming the language of Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10 is plainly not enough. It’s not sufficient to restate the obvious, that homosexual behavior is “incompatible” with Holy Scripture. Many liberals would cheerfully concede the point, but then immediately proceed to toss the biblical witness aside as a mere product of human ignorance and homophobic cultural conditioning. The Covenant must be so clear and emphatic that it leaves absolutely no room for the pro-gay position in Anglicanism. Period.
That’s what we want. We want a Covenant that no pro-gay liberal can possibly sign. We WANT whole provinces excluded from the AC. At least, I confess that I do. I want the issue resolved NOW. Clearly. Unambiguously. Decisively.
So who cares that lots of western provinces won’t sign it? That’s the whole point. That’s what I want. Maximum differentiation. And if the current Archbishop of Canterbury can’t sign it in good faith, then let him be excluded too. And I mean that literally!
David Handy+
How do you say Baloney in Portugese?
“What we do need is to deepen the communion beyond the search for power, domination, and control” —Bp. Andrade
To hear this from the head of the very organization that persecuted Bp. Cavalcanti and his flock . . . makes me want to puke.
No. 19 – Is it true about Akinola?
NRA – Not for the moment to agree or disagree with your idea of a covenant, but how whould you propose to enforce it, say in matters of proper adherence to the “clear meaning of Scripture?”
[blockquote]I believe The Episcopal Church of the United States has been showing all of us an example of the path to unity and reconciliation, because they have met all the requests for visits that were made and answered all the questions that were posed.[/blockquote]
I think that you guys are maligning Mauricio de Andrade. He is absolutely correct about answering all questions asked of them. When the TEC was asked not to tear the fabric of the Communion, they answered with a big “Up yours.” When asked by DeS not to bless SSU’s, ordain homosexual bishops, and implement the alternate primatial oversight scheme, they answered “Up yours”, “Wait until GC 09 when we repeal B033…Up yours” and “Up yours”.
rob k – funded by the IRD? Not that I know of.
rob k (#30),
Enforcement is, of course, the key, no matter what the new Covenant ends up being like. As I’ve said repeatedly on other threads, I propose the creation of a whole new 5th Instrument of Unity, which I’ve been calling an Anglican Supreme Court. It would be an international blue-ribbon panel of some sort that would have the power to judge provincial actions to be “contrary to Scripture” and thus “unconstitutional” (if you will) and therefore null and void. In order to be effective, this judicial type group would have to be relatively small (it’s hard enough for our nine U.S. Supreme Court justices to decide the tough cases before them), perhaps a dozen or so people would serve on it, elected by the Primates or some such representative group. But the point is that Anglican provinces would no longer be virtually able to do whatever they please. They would become SEMI-autonomous branch operations of a single worldwide Anglican CHURCH. That at least is my dream.
Needless to say, many, many people, even on a conservative blog like this, consider that kind of proposal a utopian dream at best, or an undesirable move in a Romish, over-centralized direction at worst. I’m NOT saying it’s likely anytime soon. It’s not. But you asked me what kind of enforcement mechanism I had in mind, and that’s it. An Anglican Supreme Court, with binding judicial powers over provincial legislative actions. That’s what I want.
David Handy+
“A communion requires accountability?” Certainly………so why does TEC want to remain in the Anglican Communion, since they’re dead set against being accountable to the rest of us for their actions?