The Jerusalem meeting was called after several African leaders said they would boycott the Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade global gathering of more than 800 Anglican bishops hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lambeth, which is scheduled for July 16-Aug. 3, has traditionally involved passage of resolutions on major issues facing the Anglican churches. In 1998, a conference resolution reiterated that homosexual practice is not compatible with Christian teachings.
This year, Lambeth has been restructured to focus on small-group discussion and will not involve resolutions.
“You have a family in crisis … and they structured the meeting so that the crisis will not be addressed,” says Dr. [Kendall] Harmon. “They basically want to punt the ball down the field for another 10 years, but that never works.”
The Rev. Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., who is on the Lambeth planning committee, counters that, “Bible study and groups which call for genuine discussion on difficult issues provide much greater opportunity to deal with the question than passing resolutions in a body of 800.”
[blockquote] [b] Says Dr. [Kendall] Harmon. “They basically want to punt the ball down the field for another 10 years, but that never works.” [/b] [/blockquote]
A complete mis-characterisation. Actually, Dr. Harman, we’ve decided to play another game, since TEC cheats and makes up their own rules.
[blockquote] [b]”The North American initiative will only make a current hot zone much hotter,” says the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a US traditionalist. “They are basically saying that they intend to compete for the Anglican franchise of North America.” [/blockquote] [/b]
We’ve decided to open a new franchise that offers food that doesn’t kill people. Instead, we are offering the Bread of Life and Living Water from which people don’t leave still thirsty.
“Bible study and groups which call for genuine discussion on difficult issues provide much greater opportunity to deal with the question than passing resolutions in a body of 800.”
=============================================================
So far, the revisionists’ “genuine discussion” has consisted of delay, persecution of individual orthodox Anglicans and parishes, property law suits, ‘spin-doctoring’ that often approaches outright falsehood, further same-sex “blessings,” et cetera.
What will further “discussion” yield other that further attempts by the revisionists to aggressively advance their agenda?
Oops.
Please change
“What will further “discussion†yield other that further attempts….”
to read
“What will further “discussion†yield other than further attempts….”
Dr. Harmon, at Plano-West you spoke of a ship and an iceberg. The ship is sinking, and yet you seem to refuse any assistance from passing boats…even ridiculing their attempts for rescuing souls that were tossed into the water. Why? Are you intending to go down with the ship?
I don’t think the metaphor holds, #4. I understand Dr. Harmon is going to give TEC every oportunity to repent and return to the fold. When it slips beneath the waves, the lifeboat, i.e. the orthodox alternative, will still be here and will welcome his considerable talents with open arms.
To continue the metaphor: for some, parts of the ship have already sunk below the water. We had a choice of jumping ship or getting in to the life boats. Ridiculing those who have come of offer safety and refuge does not make sense even if your on part of the ship that is still above water. It’s still a dead and dying ship.
In order for TEC to repent, it would first have to acknowledge it has done someone wrong. It repeatedly has said that WE are the ones in error and ignorance. They have no intention of turning back. Kendell knows this. But, as least as far as this blog is concerned, he has said preciously little or noting in over 4 years about why he continues to remain part of an apostate denomination.
I apologize for the typos above. It’s late on Sunday.
Daniel Lozier’s question above has puzzled me as well. I have assumed that I have misunderstood where +Harmon stands in relation to TEC. But now I have to ask: What is that relationship?
Bye the by, what do you supposed the ABC is thinking at this very moment? Larry
Daniel Lozier, you do realize that in talking about the folks wanting to punt the ball down field another 10 years, Kendall was talking about LAMBETH, not GAFCON? I see no ridicule of GAFCON in anything Kendall said.
Read it again.
Greetings
The question to Dr. Harmon by Messrs. Lozier and Morse is, of course, Dr. Harmon’s to answer or not. Nevertheless, people will speculate.
I think the charitable speculation would involve his ecclesiology, and particularly his view of his relationship to his diocese and bishop (rather than to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society). Consider which diocese and bishop those are, what their recent history has been, and what their position might be a year or two from now.
I believe Dr. Harmon hails from New York, but I am sure that he is familiar with South Carolina history. A reasonable man might draw from that history the purely political lesson that promiscuous fire-eating (as it was once called) is not always the best way forward for any cause.
None of the above is intended as criticism. In my own humble (and very irrelevant) opinion, Dr. Harmon is simply exercising a commendable prudence in a situation that could very easily go completely out of control.
regards,
JPB
Daniel, I don’t think I have read anything critical of GAFCON by Kendall, and I was certain you misinterpreted his comment above.
The situation in S.C. is going to be, well, “hot” as Kendall put it. Since +Lawrence went to GAFCON he has put his leadership on the line by supporting an event that has just declared schori and her cabal as null and void. If he is to avoid the fire of TEo’ retribution he is going to have to forcefully and unambiguously denounce the Jerusalme Declaration, something I strongly doubt he is inclined to do. I rather think he knew what he was doing when he went and that this would be the probable result. In my estimate S.C. has, for all intents and purposes, now joined the insurrection.
What unhistorical restraint on their part to be so late to the ball. 😉
You speak reasonably #10, and may be right on the target. And yet, and yet, it is often said that those who sup with the devil need a very long spoon, an unusually sensible piece of advice, and +Harmon is keeping table for company of who spice their fish with brimstone. Well, I do hope that +Harmon will speak clearly. This is not, please, an accusation or a denigration, but the wondering of a hayseed in Maine. Larry
Dear Elves, No, I certainly did not understand that Dr. Harmon was referring to LAMBETH, not GAFCON. I apologize if I misunderstood.
Again, Dear Elves, my apology: I did NOT understand Dr. Harmon was referring to Lambeth. My House Church was gathered around the computer and reading over my shoulder when I typed the mis-statement above. I have re-read his comment and see that he was indeed talking about Lambeth, not GAFCON.
I believe my reading of his 2nd statement was correct.
Larry Morse 12 says:
Take a moment to consider (small-c) catholic ecclesiology. My understanding of that subject is pretty rudimentary, but as a priest, however active and distinguished, to whom is he more closely tied according to catholic ecclesiology? His own bishop and the historical communion of bishops, or some transient geographical “polity”?
It is possible (and I say no more than that) that Dr. Harmon’s ecclesiology counsels him to respect the traditional (small-e) episcopal structures of the church, even if the persons temporarily occupying positions in that structure are unworthy, or even actively evil (which is rather strong language). The PB will not be the PB any more after some term of years (I forget how many); the (small-e) episcopal structure of the historic church is quite ancient, and I suspect that anyone calling themselves Anglican would have some kind of committment to its preservation.
I am not a reappraiser nor am I in any particular sympathy with them. I do not say that the ancient episcopal structure of the church should tolerate evil or unfit bishops. I do suggest that a reasonable person may be willing to endure such for a time if need be to preserve the ancient structures of the church. One can wash the baby again, regardless of how filthy the bathwater has become. [One must not, of course, let the baby actually drink the filthy bathwather.]
The above are simply my own unschooled thoughts, and have no necessary relation to what Dr. Harmon actually thinks. He will speak for himself when and if he so chooses.
regards,
JPB