Today, we feel that the Episcopal Church is viewed by the public through a blurry lens. Their view is distorted by the prominence given in the media to the dispute over wedge issues like gay bishops and female clergy. Press reports of the Lambeth conference or the General Convention inevitably play up these rifts. One might think that all mainstream Episcopal congregations spend most of their time in church discussing how to advance gay and female clergy. For the mainstream congregations that we are familiar with the reality is completely different. Our services focus on the Gospel and the life and teachings of Jesus. We feel that many breakaway parishes don’t believe this reality, which is an example of the sort of accusation of false motives and hidden agendas that Guinness decries in his Manifesto.
The rift in the global Anglican Communion can and must be repaired through civil dialogue. This dialogue is impossible when parties refuse to show up at the table as happened at Lambeth. The differences among the vast majority are not as great as portrayed. We and other prominent Episcopalians will release a “Statement of Beliefs” that explains exactly what the beliefs of mainstream Episcopalians are. Among these beliefs are, not only that the risen Christ is “the way and the truth and the life,” but also those values that Jesus lived out. He embraced the outcast and downtrodden, believed in inclusion far more than exclusion. He despised most hypocrisy and sanctimony. He believed in equity and justice and Christians making the most of their gifts in service to God. Surely, that represents a common basis for belief far greater than the sum of those points on which we differ.
But as we have seen, while the reasserters believe in both the redemptive quality of the incarnate God on the cross and in the resurrection, AND the social action call of the Gospel, the same is NOT true of reappraiser theology, which reduces Jesus to merely one way among many, with no need of repentance from sin.
In this case, there IS no common ground, because one side, the reappraisers, have rejected the holiness of the cross and resurrection.
Peace
Jim E. <><
Another insult-
Re: “The rift in the global Anglican Communion can and must be repaired through civil dialogue. This dialogue is impossible when parties refuse to show up at the table as happened at Lambeth.”
My question:
1. Did the ABC and the planners of the Lambeth NOT clearly state that the Conference was NOT going to discuss and resolve on the issue dividing the Communion.
Like most of those who followed the goings on at the Lambeth Conference, gathering hundreds of adult men and women from all the world and subjecting them to down-right manipulation and some insulting process, otherwise known as Indaba, was as low as this Communion and the ABC could go, in my humble opinion.
For David Abshire and Ian Markham to write and blame those who did not show up for a Conference whose outcome was already planned, desgned, and engineered is like adding salt to an open wound.
Final questions: What cross are the authors refering to?
Are some of the bishops at the Lambeth NOT openly denying the Cross in their preaching, writing, and by their public and private actions?
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
Fr. Kingsley, Amen!!!
BINGO, Fr Kingsley!
“Are some of the bishops at the Lambeth NOT openly denying the Cross in their preaching, writing, and by their public and private actions”?
Yes, sir, starting with the presiding bishop of TEC.
Through civil dialogue? What will civil dialogue do when the issues re intractable and the opponents so for good and sufficient reason? What sivil dialogue will do is use social gesturing to postpone what needs to be done. This is simply another case for vacillation, equivocation, and time-wasting. TEC has worked this ground with enormous success and now we re encouraged to continue this practice in the name of civility? This to-ing and fro-ing would task the patience of a saint. That we should permit it is simply a sign of cowardice; we are unwilling to do what we absolutely know must be done. Bring on GAFCON and its successors and let the right good work begin! Larry
[i]“Are some of the bishops at the Lambeth NOT openly denying the Cross in their preaching, writing, and by their public and private actions�[/i]
What a clumsily written sentence. True some of the bishops are NOT denying the cross, but many others are, as Geek in Dallaas stated, starting with the PB herself.
The whole episode with Spong in the past and the unwillingness to discipline his heresy also shows that many more are willing to throw out the enitre teaching of the Church in the pretense of living in a pluralistic society so “we can all get along”.
And comments by people like Bennison and Griswold shows the low regard for Scripture many Bishops in TEC hold.
No, there is no common ground in the cross to be found among reappraisers and reasserters. We hold radically differing, opposing theology on the topic.
Peace
Jim E. <><
My youngest daughter, the only cradle Episcopalian in the family, moved with her husband and baby daughter to Oregon about 20 years ago. Her letters home and telephone calls after the first few years let me know that something was wrong in Oregon in ECUSA. They moved from church to church trying to find a church where there was good, sound teaching. Their final visit to an Episcopal Church came when during the sermon the preacher asked the question, “So, what is so special about the Virgin Birth?” They left in the middle of that sermon never to return. Finally, they and their now college graduate daughter have joined a Roman Catholic Church, and while, she says, she cannot subscribe to all their beliefs, it is beginning once again to be a pleasure for Sundays to come. One does wonder what took them so long — not many people would go that long without bailing out.
[blockquote] Furthermore, much of what Martin Luther meant by “Sola Scripta” was that Christians were redeemed by their observance of the scriptures alone, as opposed to paying monetary tribute to the corrupt 16th century church hierarchy, who promised favor with God in return. Luther was standing against corruption, not non-literal translations of the Scriptures. [/blockquote]
Luther believed that Christians were redeemed by their observance of scripture alone?? What happened to justification by faith? It seems to me that a lot of questions could be raised about the content of this article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q
#10: The “indaba” approach has its roots in the African village community gathering everyone in the village community to have their voices heard on a subject requiring 100% involvement. The intended end of “indaba” is to address AND RESOLVE the issue that gives rise to the gathering.
Now: Labeth ’08 spent over a week in “indaba”s which never even addressed the communion-splitting problem of TEC/ACC defiance of all accountability to the AC. It was clear that the ABC preferred no decision, no real deliberations that would give clarity…just endless process…and that was tightly controlled to rule out “grasping the nettle”. Furthermore, to call the gathering of 600+ bishops a “community” is a pretty big stretch. So…”indaba” was a hoax.
As to the origin/intentions of Lambeth conferences, they most assuredly do include the need to directly discuss and work toward resolving a presenting problem. Read the history of the conferences for details!