IT IS becoming clear that the conservative case is going to be well represented at the forthcoming Lambeth Conference in Canterbury. At least two conservative bishops have confirmed that they will be attending, with the express purpose of promoting their cause.
One is the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, the Most Revd Greg Venables. He told The Times that he would attend both the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in June and the Lambeth Conference in July.
Bishop Venables has been censured in recent weeks for ministering to congregations in Canada and San Joaquin, in the US, without the permission of the Anglican leadership in those provinces, and in contravention of the Windsor process.
He told The Times: “It is clear the division is pretty final. Dialogue is the one thing that is lacking. I don’t think we are going to change people’s minds, but I think it would be wrong for us to get to a point where we acknowledge a division and try to organise it without being together and talking about it.”
[blockquote] Bishop Venables has been censured in recent weeks for ministering to congregations in Canada and San Joaquin, in the US, without the permission of the Anglican leadership in those provinces, and in contravention of the Windsor process. [/blockquote]
“Censured” is the wrong word to use in this report – it connotes a formal reprimand by an authoritative body. It would be more accurate to write that Bishop Venables had been rebuked or chastised by regional primates. It should also be noted that his pastoral oversight has been deeply appreciated by the congregations in provinces which have jettisoned clear Scriptural teaching.
Jettisoned clear scripture teaching? You mean the bit about stoning your disobedient child to death? Or was it the passage declaring charging interest a sin? Give me a break.
In my opinion, “censuring” is too gracious of a response. Someone needs to stop this renegade Presiding Bishop from invading other Provinces. If letters of censure don’t work, time for other forms of restraint to be used.
Jake, in my opinion Venables is doing the right thing. It is you, sir, who are the purveyer of false teaching.
I rejoiced when I heard that Abp. Venables had decided to go to Lambeth! He is unafraid to stand up for Jesus as the resurrected Son of God and will be a powerful witness, as will the other orthodox Anglican priests and bishops who will attend. I’m sure the heterodox attendees are not happy about this. Their fury at what Venables is doing to minister to those he has taken under his wing is directly proportional to their fear of him and the clarity with which he speaks!
RE: “If letters of censure don’t work, time for other forms of restraint to be used.”
Heh heh . . . maybe a Lambeth resolution might do the trick. Or something called the “Windsor Castle Process.”
Good luck! ; > )
Fr. Jake, really, we don’t take that stoning business literally any more; it’s all metaphor. Get with the times already.
Blessings,
T
Fr. Jake, although this is off topic, Archbishop Venables has not read any so-called letters of censure, since none have been sent to him, public proclamations on the internet to the contrary. When one is actually sent to him, he will read it.
As +Greg says, those who expect him and others who proclaim the gospel to be deterred by such proclamations are like the king who had his crown placed on the beach and declared that the tide shall not advance beyond this point.
The Gospel cannot be deterred. It cannot be stopped. It will accomplish God’s purpose. God said it. That settles it.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Nice reduction to the absurd Fr. Jake…sort of like ordaining gay bishops…and while were thinking about it…why not pedophile bishops, or bestiality bishops or cross-dressing bishops or metro-sexual bishops after all Jesus didn’t say anything about that either. Its all just nice metaphor anyway, right? Do you ever read scripture? Like the Book of Acts that describes the compromise at the first council in Jerusalem that enjoined Leviticus 18 on pagan converts. Oh well, let’s just forget about that. It only muddys the water of your cultural captivity and psycho-babble passed off as prophetic (or is that pathetic) theology.
xxx
Where are the elves when you need them? How about commenting on the content of the article instead of Jake-bashing?
That said, it seems to me the timing of these “Yes, I guess we’ll go after all” announcements come interestingly close-on-the-heels of the Bishop of Rome making nice with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps the end of of the Fantasy Island dream of a “post-Canterbury” Anglican franchise? We’ll see …
The gall of Venables is more than I can bear. To think that he is talking to ‘Episcopalians’ telling them that the word of God is the word of God, blessing them and even laying hands on some them and praying for them to be filled with the Holy Spirit is, well, appalling. Doesn’t he know that we reserve the exclusive right to teach and file presentment charges? Where is that stone…
Susan Russell,
Do not mistake the Pope’s 20 minute audience with the ABC for affirmation the continued affirmation of unholy, unhealthy and unScriptural sexual acts and disoriented identities (alias sin). Benedict XVI dealt with that subject quite aptly at the ecumenical prayer service.
Venables actions have become necessary because those departures from Christian doctrine and Scripture.
“In the mean time, the conservative Anglican Communion Institute has argued that Dr Jefferts Schori is liable to presentment because of what it says are her violations of the Church’s canons.”
–The ACI are such legalists. I mean really.
Don’t they know that, “the canons [like the scriptures] say what WE say they mean.” (a direct quote, I am told by a bishop, from the house of bishops.) Now where is that stone…
correction: Do not mistake the Pope’s 20 minute audience with the ABC for *your and others’* affirmation the continued affirmation of unholy, unhealthy and unScriptural sexual acts and disoriented identities (alias sin).
#2 : Seriously. In all these years no reasserter has ever addressed the questions in your first paragraph. Or have you just not been listening? You realize that you are confirming step #2 in the reappraiser’s 3 step listening process :
Step 1 : Explain your position to the reasserter
Step 2 : Ignore anything the reasserter says that supports their position
Step 3 : Repeat steps 1 and 2 until the reasserter agrees with you
Fr Jake : I spent about 2 years, from 2003 to 2005, dialoging with reappraisers on your site and on everyvoice.net, vigorously trying to understand their point of view. I actually learned some things along the way, the biggest of which for me was that reasserters really do seem to take divorce and remarriage a lot more lightly than same-sex relationships, and there is indeed a double standard in this regard. I even learned that some reappraisers, such as yourself, do not believe that abortion is a perfectly acceptable alternative to raising a child. But mostly, I just learned that our beliefs are way too far apart to happily coexist under, as my former Bishop Bruno put it , this “big, roomy tentâ€. This was hammered into me when I was banned from your site for suggesting that it was hypocritical of you to lambast the (as you called them) “pillagers in purpleâ€, who are providing refuge to reasserters in the Episcopal church, as being non compliant to the Windsor report, while at the same time praising the spread of same-sex blessings in the Episcopal church.
You know that Abp. Venables is not “invading†provinces – he is not actively seeking out North American churches and trying to convert them to the reappraiser point of view – he is instead providing aid to those who request it.
I realize that, like Rev Russell, that this is one of your many drive-by’s – a hit n run so to speak. You will ignore any rebuttals, which validates all the more Step #2 above, and confirms exactly why help from truly Godly leaders like Abp. Venables is so desperately needed.
Fr. Jake, suggest you take time to re-read the passage that deals with “stoning you child to death”. Read it carefully and you will know that it concerns an adult child who is out of control and a danger to the community.
I thought we gave up stoning when we gave up diocesan boundaries.
Let us not forget all those TEC bishops who swore they would not go to Lambeth if VGR was not invited. They have done something of a turnaround too, haven’t they? Assuming, of course, that they all stay invited.
From my own point of view, there is nothing I would like to see more than the arrival of 120 Nigerian Bishops 3 days into the conference. I know that won’t happen, well, unless, of course, in the first 3 days of the conference, ++Rowan actually takes the steps necessary to discipline the TEC bishops who are trying to destroy the Communion.
TJ
I seriously doubt that the “Bishop of Rome” made nice with the ABC. He probably very politly explained by the RCC can not and will not accept communion with Canterbury. As long as the Anglican Communion continues as it has for the recent past, Rome will not be accepting. As for Jake bashing, he opened himself to it with his remarks.
I think it is remarkable that Kendall is open minded enough to allow obvious trolls to post on his site.
I applaud ++Venables for standing for the Gospel, not minding the howling of wolves.
Well, back to the original article, uninformative as it is. This Church Times report makes it sound as if ++Venables, +Iker, or +Duncan would be the only ones representing the orthodox position. Which is nonsense of course.
There will be hundreds of conservative bishops present at Lambeth 2008. But the question was, would there be any representing the so-called “outside strategy?” That is, would any of those engaging in emergency interventions in North America be present? I’m glad that the full range of orthodox views on the best tactical options to take will now be well represented.
Now the question is, how will they relate to their liberal, i.e., heretical foes? Will they shun having communion with them? Will they refuse to exchange the Peace of Christ with them? And so on.
I submit that this is precisely what should happen. In the light of Scriptures like 1 Cor. 5:11; Rom. 16:17-18; and Eph. 5:5-7, I think it would be highly appropriate for many, many orthodox bishops to refuse to share the Eucharist with avowed heretics like New Westminster’s Michael Ingham, not to mention +Bruno, +Chane, +Shaw and so on. Go to Lambeth and then SHUN the heretics.
It would make great theater, a dramatic gesture on the biggest stage we Anglicans have, when the whole world is paying attention (OK, just the most attention it ever does).
David Handy+
If letters of censure don’t work, time for other forms of restraint to be used.
What are you thinking of Jakey boy, a court order? Freedom of religion not a big thing with your crowd?
Where are the elves when you need them?
Bullies and whiners. A stellar responce.
That penultimate sentence of Susan Russel was to be italicised. Let it never be thought that I would ever sick the elves on anyone. I’m a big boy who can handle disagreeable arguments myself without running to mommy.
RE: “I realize that, like Rev Russell, that this is one of your many drive-by’s – a hit n run so to speak.”
Heh — it’s called “counting coup.†It’s a native American custom that is “a nonviolent demonstration of braveryâ€â€”public demonstration in particular—consisting of “touching an enemy warrior, with the hand or with a coup stick, then running away unharmed.â€
; > )