The theme of the gathering will be Fostering a culture of curiosity, compassion and courage in Christ.
The theme of the gathering will be Fostering a culture of curiosity, compassion and courage in Christ.
Courageous curiosity about any number of things is in order: litigation funding, role of PB as metropolitan, ‘mandatory’ giving, the historical polity of TEC, etc.
And, asking very seriously, what truthful and clear answers or explanations does anyone think “courageous curiosity” is likely to elicit?
What changes are likely to occur because of “courageous curiosity?”
I tend to agree with Sarah on this one. For someone who has left and is now hopefully contented in their new ecclesial home, why would you care what challenges face those wanting to defend the historical polity of TEC? If there are victories on this score in TX, SC, Illinois, it is because effort has been successfully exerted to persuade judges of TEC’s actual polity, against those who want to manipulate it.
But your job now is to create and live within a new polity, and to strive for its successful articulation of the faith, embracing WO, those who oppose it, A-C and evangelical alike. Should there be a filioque clause.etc. There is work enough to busy you on your own coal face.
Lenten best wishes.
Well, I’ll tell you. Unlike Cain, I do have a feeling about being my brother’s keeper.
And, whilst there’s a faint sniff in your post and others recently of “Why don’t you mind your own business?” I think T1:9 has room for all of us.
I care what happens in ECUSA for several reasons.
The “historical polity’ to which you refer is plainly not supported by the facts. It’s not what courts are deciding, it’s what they are recognizing in how Schori, Beers, et al have vigorously twisted history.
1. I have good friends who are still in ECUSA, who have not yet grasped what has happened to their church. I care about them as good souls.
2. For those in ECUSA who know exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, I still have hopes that the miracle that we read in Acts 9: 18 will occur over and over again.
3. And, then, again, there’s Jesus’ instruction clearly related in Matthew 28: 19; surely, you will acknowledge this is applicable to those still in ECUSA?
I don’t see where it is your task to tell me what mine is.
And, now, having given you honest answers to your questions and points, how about you giving me honest answers to my questions above:
1. Asking very seriously, what truthful and clear answers or explanations does anyone think “courageous curiosity†is likely to elicit?
2. What changes are likely to occur because of “courageous curiosity?â€
I await your responses.
Apparently good news coming in from Ft Worth.
News now posted publicly. Praise God.
Amen.
Now, to ward off the appeal.
“The “historical polity’ to which you refer is plainly not supported by the facts. It’s not what courts are deciding.”
See TX ruling.
The amicus brief filed in TX, argued for by counsel, and operative in the decisions rendered explained the historical polity of the church in respect of diocesan association. (AS Haley helpfully provides you a primer at his web site).
The judges have recognized that this polity explicates no hierarchical claim on property and the so-called Dennis Canon implies a trust but does not effect one according to TX law.
This is why where dioceses are plaintiffs, the decisions tilt in favor of them vis-Ã -vis the ‘national church.’ Illinois, TX and SC have all so ruled. SJ is pending.
RE: “What changes are likely to occur because of “courageous curiosity?â€
Enough for some of those of us in TEC to proceed forward. And not enough for the embittered.
RE: “is now hopefully contented in their new ecclesial home . . . ”
Heh heh.