The work of amending the Constitution and Canons of the Southern Cone in order to regularize the admission of parishes and dioceses beyond South America is about to begin, according to Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables. The Primate of the Southern Cone made a visit to the Diocese of Fort Worth for a series of meetings with clergy and lay leaders May 2-4.
“The Anglican Communion in the United States has been hijacked,” Bishop Venables said, by an Episcopal Church leadership that doesn’t “mind what happens as long as they control it.
“I am astounded that in America, the land of the free, so many people have been robbed of their freedom,” he said.
Bishop Venables’ visit began with a private meeting of diocesan clergy at the Church of the Holy Apostles in Fort Worth on May 2. The following day, Bishop Venables met with a convocation of elected clergy and lay delegates to the diocesan convention. The convocation also included about 130 visitors who were granted seat, but not voice. There was no voting. On Sunday morning, Bishop Venables preached at St. Vincent’s Cathedral, Bedford, and again later during Evensong at St. Andrew’s, Fort Worth. At each stop on Sunday he answered questions from those present.
Bishop Venables said,
“I believe that the division at the present moment is about how we define Christianity: that God has spoken, that [the Bible] is the word of God, that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God, and that he is the only means of reconciliation with God. That marks the foundational truth of true Christianity.â€
………………………………………………………………………………..
That’s it ‘in a nut shell.’
Amen, Your Grace.
“Breaking Up Because Nobody is Leading”
That’s the truth. Speak it loudly enough to be heard across the Atlantic. Rowan fiddles while the Communion burns.
[blockquote]I am astounded that in America, the land of the free, so many people have been robbed of their freedom,†he said.[/blockquote]
Yep! You’d a thunk it!
I am not the least bit surprised that our archbishop has stood up for Christ and His Church and “told it like it is.” It is humbling and uplifting to be in his presence as I was April 29th in Fresno. And in connection with that: If he and Katharine Jefferts Schori ever met one-on-one in debate, there’d be no contest…….he’d win hands-down……..and I think she knows it!
Personally, I doubt that he’d give her the time of day!
#5 not much of a claim though (and I dont doubt his magnificence- it is just that if KJS met most of the members of my congregation and dare i say (and sincerely mean it) youth group- she would lose hands down. Becuase they would adovcate a faith that has endured the years and she would wiffle and waffle with little coherence in regards to matters of orthodoy and faith.
Before you can have a debate you must at least agree what you are debating about otherwise “winning” is meaningless.
I appreciate what the Bishop is saying and doing.
I must quibble with (a) his exegesis of Genesis 2 and (b) his use of Matthew 4. Focusing on (a) for years I assumed with everyone else that the serpent opens with a question. It is not. The Hebrew construction – and I have searched the various grammars – is not interrogative. But more like “So then God said…” The issue is not doubting what God says. The issue is the prerogative to change what God says – and this continues through the dialogue with the woman. She changes in small but significant ways what God has said and done so far. The result is devastating. But “doubt” is not the issue. The same I think is true in Matthew 4.
Great sermon. Lousy exegesis.
#6 Your congregation and youth must have a good teacher. ; )
Rick, I think the distinction between a question and a distorted restatement (for it the the serpent who first distorts God’s command) in Gen 3:1 is rather miniscule, as the serpent intended either way to provoke doubt of what God had truly, Gen 3:4. Doubt is very much the issue.
The major problem in any debate with KJS et al no matter what is debated or by whom or what the evidence presented or the outcome, they would still believe they won the debate, are still right and the other person did not sufficiently and truly ‘LISTEN’ (TM).
[blockquote]The Hebrew construction – and I have searched the various grammars – is not interrogative.[/blockquote]
John Skinner ([i]Genesis[/i], The International Critical Commentary, 2nd ed.) translates the verse, “Ay, and so God has said . . .†and suggests that the sense is “a half-interrogative, half-reflective exclamation, as if the serpent had brooded long over the paradox, and had been driven to an unwelcome conclusion.â€
[blockquote]The issue is not doubting what God says. The issue is the prerogative to change what God says – and this continues through the dialogue with the woman. She changes in small but significant ways what God has said and done so far. The result is devastating.[/blockquote]
The serpent misquotes God—“You shall not eat from [i]any[/i] tree in the gardenâ€â€”and in exaggerating the original prohibition provokes inquiry and criticism. The woman is drawn, Bonhoeffer says somewhere, into the first conversation about God.