Executive Council has called for a reconciliation-oriented conversation with members of Common Cause Partnership, according to the two top officials of The Episcopal Church. They spoke to members of the media Oct. 23 during a brief conference call at the conclusion of the council’s four-day meeting in Helena, Mont.
The council approved a resolution from its Committee for National Concerns, said Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies. Mrs. Anderson said the resolution is based on council’s belief that talk of irreconcilable differences is a contradiction of the Christian gospel.
Would the Executive Council be open to recommending that . . .
— the House of Bishops rescind its purported deposition of Bp. Duncan?
— ECUSA terminate or settle its lawsuits against orthodox diocese and parishes?
— GC 2009 be allowed to vote on unqualified accession to a proposed Anglican Covenant?
Given the relatively long and consistent history of “misspeaking”, double-dealing, and other devious behavior on the part of more than one Presiding Bishop and their Executive Councils, one might do better to bet on the chances of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus entering into dialogue.
“Come into my parlor,” said the spider to the fly . . .
I agree with Irenaeus. The three points he stated should be preconditions to any discussion. TEC has a history of negotiating in bad faith; ask Bishop Peter Lee and my fellow Anglicans at Truro, The Falls Church, and the other Anglican Virginia defendants.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”
How many times…..will people be fooled by the invitation to stop what they are DOING and spend time TALKING about – well, about whatever it is that TEC will deign to talk about. Make no mistake, they and not CCP will frame the debate. This is likely nothing but a set trap, following on the last 35-40 years’ efforts constructing the trap.
It seems a bit of a giveaway that they announced this magnanimous reconciliatory stance to the media – if they were sincere, they would have approached CCP quietly about it, and a joint decision arrived at could then have been announced to the media.
“Mrs. Anderson said the resolution is based on council’s belief that talk of irreconcilable differences is a contradiction of the Christian gospel.”
Ms Anderson and others in the “progressive” camp do not know what they are talking about. They think that the “irreconcilable differences” we conservatives cite are merely relational differences that can be settled by mutual listening, greater understanding, and forgiveness of injuries. Would that all we had were relational difference! The truth of the matter is that the “irreconcilable differences” are differences of belief. If Jesus is truly the Son of God incarnate in human flesh, who gave his life as a ransom for sin when he died on the cross, and who rose from the dead physically and ascended into heaven to reign over his Church and to plead their cause at the bar of judgment, then those who deny any or all of these things have set themselves against the truth. The things they teach cannot be reconciled with what the Bible teaches and what the Church has taught over the centuries.
Any organization that tries to teach two opposite and contradictory things has no message and has no hope of lasting. Either we have a common mission or we do not. There is only one Gospel, and anything else cannot be reconciled to it.
1st rule of politics: Don’t negotiate with terrorists.
2nd rule: If they want to talk it means they are weak, or think they are. The only “talk” should be their terms of surrender. All other talk is merely foreplay to capitulation. Peace comes from strength.
3rd riule: dead enemies can’t threaten. An oldie but goodie.
It may well be that ECUSA’s leadership is in some sort of extremis or approaching extremis and they are trying to use ‘reconciliation’ as a means of ‘buying time.’
I do not see ECUSA’s leadership as being willing to ‘cave in’ regarding any of its various ‘innovations’ of the past several years. All of their signals and actions to date have been those of a radically committed hierarchy bent on imposing its will on ECUSA.
My gut feeling is that ECUSA’s current revisionist leadership is NOT EVER to be trusted.
So, my answer would be to set ‘no nonsense’ conditions for any sort of attempt reapproachment by ECUSA and to adamantly stand by those pre-conditions.
It may just be that there is a ‘rising dissatisfaction’ among a significant number of ECUSA’s bishops regarding what the revisionists have done to ECUSA that is triggering this ‘make nice’ overture.
The real opportunity here may be that Common Cause advocates can ‘link up’ with these dissatisfied bishops and with them strengthen Anglicanism’s ability to bring about a real reformation of Anglicanism in the United States.
Maybe this is starting to happen. Maybe that has triggered this “reconciliation’ talk. Who knows?
“…talk of irreconcilable differences is a contradiction of the Christian gospel.”
Translation: Just believe what we do and there would be no division!
Sounds like they’re starting to realize they’re in trouble …
None of the above.. This “invitation’ is simply to cover any concern the ACC, and the ABC have in regard to KSJ’s attempt to delay discussing the Covenant.
“See we’re busy talking, we do not have time to discuss the Covenant and pursue this (probably at your suggestion), at the same time.”
The only way I could be persuaded to support any such thing as this, would be IF the discussions were in a public forum, what’s the odds of that happening..
Grandmother in SC
Good point Grandmother (#11.).
I was focused on North America and not the ‘big picture.’
1) I punch you in the face and knock out three of your teeth.
2) You ask me to talk with you about it and I refuse
3) I am told I am not a Christian since I have refused.
4) Tec, you don’t fool anyone but yourself.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t +Duncan a leader in Common Cause? I don’t understand how 815 will reconcile with him after deposing him. And beside that, there still doesn’t seem to be any inclination on the part of 815 or TEC to compromise. I’m certain, for example, that some dioceses will be either promoting or even passing same-sex legislation this fall at their councils…that doesn’t sound like compromise to me. This dog probably won’t hunt.
I would agree with most commentators here that this TEC proposal for reconciliation discussions with the CCP is almost certainly not being offered in good faith. My guess is that TEC is looking for another public meeting at which they offer CCP a “poison pill” deal, which is rejected, and then TEC claims to the Anglican world that CCP refused to negotiate.
That being said, just because TEC is calling for such talks in bad faith, doesn’t mean that CCP and conservatives can’t respond to this call in good faith, but cautiously and wisely. I think that CCP should positively respond without preconditions of result (they will be used against them). Rather CCP should agree to talks, but not to a “summit” or set meeting; and that these talks should be private and not publicized. This would prevent TEC from having a “show meeting” in which they can make their false offer only to have it rejected. If TEC is not willing to private negatiations that can’t be part of a “show and tell”, then they are clearly not acting in good faith. Second, CCP should insist that Rowan Williams and at least some of the GAFCON primates be also involved.
Then, if TEC is willing to engage in private negotiations, I think that the talks should focus on 2 things, and 2 things only: 1) protection for conservative parishes and dioceses still in TEC; and 2) some form of Canterbury recognition for the CCP. There should be NO discussion at all of discipline for TEC.
My reasoning is as follows: If the ABC recognizes the CCP, he implicitly recognizes its bishops, thereby implicitly NOT recognizing TEC’s purported depositions. This would also grant Communion recognition to the CCP. Once a non-TEC jurisdiction in the USA is officially recognized, it really doesn’t matter what TEC does anymore, because its days will be numbered in the Communion. And that is why, BTW, I think TEC’s offer is made in bad faith, because TEC knows that any “reconciliation” would necessarily involve a second jurisdiction and TEC also knows that as soon as it agrees to such, it has lost everything.
I’d be willing to talk with most anyone as long as I gave up nothing of substance by doing so.
Why would ECUSA want to have this dialogue? Here are three possibilities:
#1—VULNERABILITY
ECUSA recognizes it’s in trouble. GAFCon is moving to recognize Common Cause as an Anglican province, and a majority of Global South provinces will ultimately do the same. ECUSA’s “ministry of litigation†has been costly and largely unproductive. It has weakened ECUSA financially and will damage ECUSA’s reputation. Canterbury may eventually recognize that it can champion ECUSA only at the risk of forfeiting effective leadership of the Anglican Communion.
#2—DELAY
ECUSA may hope to use the dialogue to forestall recognition of Common Cause as a province: Very likely, but to whom would “ongoing dialogue†make any real difference? GAFCon provinces don’t care about ECUSA’s dialogues, processes, and indaba-babble. Moderate provinces already have plausible excuses for not recognizing Common Cause: e.g., wait for the covenant; get approval from the Anglican Consultative Council. Global South provinces that are willing to buck Canterbury and recognize Common Cause will do so; those who aren’t, won’t.
#3—SOWING DISCORD
ECUSA may hope to divide Common Cause, but has little prospect of doing so through this dialogue.
_ _ _ _ _
What would the Common Cause Partnership have to lose by talking with ECUSA?
Not much that I can see. Common Cause could specify that the conversation not limit either side’s freedom of action. Alternatively, it could insist that ECUSA suspect all legal and disciplinary action against the orthodox.
Oh goodie! An opportunity for more talk! Just what we need. Good grief! On another note, Ms. Anderson said: “talk of irreconcilable differences is a contradiction of the Christian gospel.” So, now suddenly we’re troubled by contradictions of the Christian gospel? If she wants to discuss contradictions of the Christian gospel I can think of some MUCH more obvious ones to begin with!
DOA.
Bonnie Anderson is right! “Irreconciable Differences” is a contradiction in the Christian Gospel. So, is TECUSA ready to embrace the Christian Gospel as lived out in the Anglican Communion? Are they prepared to repent of the schism they have caused and make restitution for the harm the have done to TEC, its members, congregations, and dioceses as well as make restitution to the rest of the Anglican Communion for fomenting schism and heresy? Is TEC ready to discipline all bishops and priests who teach that Jesus is just one way to God or that Jesus is not uniquely and fully divine and fully human? Are they ready to discipline all clergy who intentionally offer Holy Communion to the unbaptized? Are they ready to discipline priests and bishops who bless same sex unions or allow same sex unions in their dioceses?
Before TEC and CCP are reconciled to each other, they both need to be reconciled to God.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“Don’t negotiate with terrorists” —#7
This misstates the wise traditional precept: Don’t make concessions to terrorists.
Let’s say you’re the governor of a state. A vicious gang has just taken over the state prison and made hostages of 100 guards. The gang demands that you give its members safe passage to Venezuela. It threatens to cut one guard’s throat every hour unless you negotiate.
You need time to mobilize your SWAT teams and lay plans to retake the prison. Will you start talking? Why not? Negotiating gains you time. The more time goes by, the better prepared you can be and the more the gang faces fatigue and possible disunity. Why pass up that opportunity?
The key is to end the rebellion without letting the gang go free. “We won’t talk” doesn’t further that goal.
In comment #15, the last sentence should state that Common Cause “could insist that ECUSA SUSPEND all legal and disciplinary action against the orthodox.”
Will this be the usual Stalinist reconciliation or are we moving toward a final solution sort of reconciliation? Because the only reconciliation ECUSA/TEC/GSS/EO-PAC is interested in at all with anyone is everyone believing as they do…and they’ve got the actions to prove it and the irreconcilable differences agenda that YOU WILL BE RECONCILED TO un du vill LIKE it!
Nuts.
“Will this be the usual Stalinist reconciliation or are we moving toward a final solution sort of reconciliation?”
ECUSA lacks power to effect either one.
Football….Charlie Brown….Lucy wearing an ovenmitt.
Intercessor
“Dear (+)Bob, I know you wouldn’t show when we had pre-determined to depose you (in order to better steal the property of The Diocese of Pittsburgh…) but won’t you come and talk with us about reconciling? Can’t we just bury the hatchet and be friends?”
I can’t decide if this political posturing emanates from an extreme hubris laden delusion or just an evil malevolence. In the past, I have never accused the leadership of TEC of intentional evil. I have always thought they were doing what they thought was right, if perhaps acting very badly and unchristian in the process. But this strikes me as more than a little insane, whatever the cause.
This is the same Executive Council that has bound the Episcopal Church to membership in the RCRC, (Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) without the approval of Church members, so it behooves the CCP to be carefully study what they are proposing: [blockquote] Executive Council has called for a reconciliation-oriented conversation with members of Common Cause Partnership [/blockquote] This sounds like they are talking about reconciliation with individual members of Common Cause Partnership, not reconciliation with the Common Partnership itself. Does this sound familiar: “individuals may leave but congregations may not leave”.
The Lambeth Converence of 1998 called for discussion with the “continuing churches,” and the General Convention of 2000 authorized the ecumenical office to begin such. The churches that accept the Affirmation of St. Louis (the ACC, ACA, UEC, and others) declined the invitation but the REC and APA accepted. Three meetings were held, but the dialogue was suspended after GC 2003.
I think that a meeting of representatives of the General Convention and of Common Cause would be a good thing – if for no other reason than to identify the items that are important to both. Iraenaeus in comment 1 above indicates some of them.
I have previously indicated what I think are some elements of a possible agreement between those who for conscience sake accept and those who for conscience sake reject the authority of General Convention. As I see it such an agreement might include:
(1) Common recognition that there are several authentic expressions of the Anglican heritage in the United States and other places where churches are represented in the General Convention. These include the General Convention and the Common Cause churches as well as others.
(2) Common recognition that all US Anglican and Episcopal churches, both those represted in General Convention and others, have a place in the common life of the Anglican Communion including Lambeth, the ACC, Primates meeting, etc.
(3) Common recognition that the ordained ministers of all these churches share in the apostolic ministry. The General Convention rescinds all “depositions for abandonment” and authorizes GC bishops to issue letters of transfer at the request of individual clergy when endorsed by the receiving bishops. Lay people to receive letters of transfer on request.
(4) Property disputes to be settled by arbitration. All property lawsuits to be dropped.
(5) GC and other churches agree to do as much in common as conscience will permit, exchange visitors to all conventions and other meetings. Continuing committee to meet regularly to recommend common action and encourage communication among churches.
What is one to make of this? The moderator of CCP is Bishop Duncan which in an outrageous travesty Mrs Schori was prepared to sacrifice any pretence of lawfulness to depose. Mrs Schori said she would telephone Bishop Duncan before deposition but did nothing of the sort.
I imagine Bishop Duncan and others would be willing to pick up the phone or attend meetings with a defined agenda rather than just ‘listening’ or ‘conversation’ otherwise it is likely that we are just seeing more attempts to draw in the ABC into TEC propaganda like the Hiltz proposal put forward by ACoC.
The current US province has some serious questions to answer posed by Lambeth and the Instruments regarding Covenant, persecution of conservatives, their theology and discipline and APO. We have seen nothing but the desintegration of their polity into lawlessness, canon-abuse and persecution. They are going to have to do better than this because frankly no one believes a word they say.
The ABC would be pretty foolish to go along with this but we have seen some pretty foolish things.
Thanks Pageantmaster:
[blockquote]The current US province has some serious questions to answer posed by Lambeth and the Instruments regarding Covenant, persecution of conservatives, their [lack of]theology and discipline and APO. We have seen nothing but the desintegration of their polity into lawlessness, canon-abuse and persecution. They are going to have to do better than this because frankly no one believes a word they say. [/blockquote]
Pageantmaster, we know the party in power has absolutely zero inclination whatsoever to answer these serious questions. Answering them must to be a precondition to any “dialogue” (the progressives mean monologue, do they not?).
To our progressives in the audience:
And all the foregoing would be reason to enter into dialogue because…???????
No, Common Cause has no reason to talk to TEC and plenty of reason not to. Clearly, nothing that will benefit CC will come from such palaver, and there is real potential for harm as many have noted above. I’ll say it again: Lie down with dogs, rise with fleas.
Still, I have a hunch that this gambit – it is surely no more than that – is a sign that some in TEC, more aware of the real world – have realized that CCP is too close to home, too much the dangerous protection of a bishop whom they know they have wronged, too likely to have broad support in America, too likely to act as a magnet for dissident TECians who have not yet left. In short, I intuit real fear at last; the ship is sinking and they have become aware that only the rats are staying with the ship. I suspect also that Schori’s bad judgment has finally begun to make old friends increasingly wary because the law of diminishing returns has clearly set in. Larry
I do believe it would be a better Christian witness to at least sit down and find areas where we could work together on projects, similar to what we do with Baptists, Lutherans, Jews and Roman Catholics.
Some of us in continuing churches still have friends inside TEC, some who are in agreement with us, but not willing to leave, and others who believe in the innovations that have transpired.
Christian charity always calls us to reconciliation. Certainly not capitulaton or compromise with the Gospel, but the strident and angry tone of this thread does not sound like WWJD.
The timing of this is certainly interesting, given Bob Duncan’s recent visit with the ABC. Certainly Common Cause should be willing to have discussions. During those discussions, they should be clear that the minimum conditions of “reconciliation” would be:
1) Abiding by each of the conditions of the DES Communique–to the letter, including the cessation of all (not just public) blessings of same-sex unions and ordinations of gay clergy; cessations of all lawsuits, and returning of all property to those forced out; appointment of a genuinely orthodox Primatial Vicar (chosen by Common Cause) who would report directly to a representative of the ABC and the Primates (himself chosen in full consultation of and with approval of Common Cause); publicly affirming the Lambeth Conference 1998 1.10 as the official teaching of the Episcopal Church.
2) Declaring the deposition of Bob Duncan and John David Schofield to be null and void.
3) Recognizing the legitimacy of the votes of the dioceses of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin to remove themselves form the Episcopal Church; ending all lawsuits against those dioceses; recognizing those dioceses as the legitimate Anglican sees in those areas, asking Jerry Lamb to come home, and foreswearing any future hostile moves against the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh; affirming that any future dioceses who vote to leave TEC and join Common Cause are within their rights to do so.
4) Clearly affirm TEC’s willingness to abide by a future Anglican covenant.
5) Issue a full and public apology for all lawsuits and depositions against clergy and parishes who have departed TEC for other Anglican provinces, and send individual letters of apology to each clergy deposed for “having abandoned the communion of this church,” with clear acknowledgment that all such depositions were null and void.
6) Remove ordination restrictions from those postulants who wish to attend Trinity School for Ministry or Nashotah House, or who are graduates of these schools, that are simply based on their wishing to or having attended those schools.
Given that no differences between Christians are irreconcilable, TEC should have no problem meeting these conditions.
RE: “But refusing a request for talk makes clear a particular faction’s unwillingness to compromise.”
No it doesn’t. It merely means that people want to be good stewards of their time. I’m sure that any offers that TEC wishes to make would be happily received — and even negotiated — in writing by post.
On a broader note, there’s only one reason why Executive Council would vote for this resolution regarding “dialogue” — something’s going on behind the scenes for which and for whom they wish to posture.
There’s nothing immoral about that, of course — just as there’s nothing immoral about TEC bishops being given crib sheets for their “indaba” groups at Lambeth.
It’s just something to quietly acknowledge and note, and then move on with whatever it is one is planning.
#27 Hopper: TEC, under Schori, is lawless. This is the woman who ordered a halt to negotiations in the VA departures. If she wouldn’t even allow the directly affected parities to negotiate, why would anyone trust her to show good faith now?
Common Cause does not seek to be the only province in North America. TEC is disappearing just fine without any help.
[i]Mrs. Anderson said the resolution is based on council’s belief that talk of irreconcilable differences is a contradiction of the Christian gospel.[/i]
“Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take [Mark] because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in that work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.†Acts 15:37-40
Perhaps it is [b]continuing[/b] to talk when differences are irreconcilable that is out of line with the Gospel, if for no reason other than it is a waste of time when the church needs to be strengthened.
No talks now! Get the North American Anglican Province up and running; then from the strength of facts on the ground, invite TEC to talk about that reality.
34, I might add: Immediatly recognizing that they are in full communion with Anglican parishes in the US, rescending all depositions, and that reconciliation would not mean that their current property ever becomes property of TEC.
Hopper [#27]: Well put.
Christopher Hathaway [#7]: Hey, tough guy, tell us what makes you such an authority on dealing with terrorists.
I agree with every post above that TEc cannot be trusted and this new path is a set up to make them look good and the CCP look bad. That is what will happen ….CCP says t[i]”Thanks, but no thanks”[/i] and TEc comes away in the eyes of the rest of the world looking good and CCP looking bad. CCP says, [i]”Okay will talk!”[/i] and TEc still comes out looking good and CCP gets hood-winked! It’s a win win situation for TEc and a losing situation for CCP in the eyes of whom it may count. So to me since CCP can’t come out on tiop of this scenario I would just continue on with the set up of the North American Province and let the chips fall where they may and continue the good work they have begun and let TEC continue the bad work they do.
Along with many who see this as a move to prolong the talking period for TEC’s own edification, I was struck by the following:
[blockquote]”Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said she was expressing nothing new when she said earlier in the week that she would “strongly discourage†General Convention from voting on a final form of the proposed Anglican Covenant in July 2009, if the final draft is released in May 2009. She said she has made the same remark for several weeks in various locations, and that she has not encountered any resistance to her plans.[/blockquote]
What seems clear to me is that TEC would be able to use this “reconciliation-oriented conversation” as a roadblock. This would allow even less time to fully read and respond to the Anglican Covenant because in reality TEC knows that a three month time period between the release of the Covenant in May and the GC in July should be more the sufficient time for it to be read and digested fully by those who will vote on it.
Please, massa, please……..don’t reconcile me no more. I swears I be good.
the snarksterâ„¢
When Bonnie Anderson was in liberal heretic heaven (Grace Cathedral, S.F.) she noted in the “Forum” there that she described herself as a recovering Roman Catholic (see ENS Article).
Impetuous. Insensitive. Egocentric. Churlish.
Yes, this woman is able to “reconcile” with those with differences.
“The view of Duncan, Iker, et al. is not about coexistence and compromise … it is about domination and forced adherence” —Hopper [#27]
Quite the contrary.
— Remember how the orthdodox sought to have their own province within ECUSA—and how ECUSA’s leaders (starting with PB Browning) rejected any such arrangement.
— Remember how rigidly those leaders have insisted that there can be only one Anglican province and one Anglican diocese for any given territory.
— Remember DEPO, that cynical parody of the alternative episcopal oversight called for by the Primates.
— Remember how Bps. Duncan and Schofield let reappraising congregations leave with their property.
— Remember which side has conducted an orgy of depositions and inhibitions, and which has not.
#42–I led the clergy conference in CFL this past week. Several of us agreed that the failure of General Convention to deal with a May released covenant might have a positive outcome. 1) It would allow individual dioceses to see the document and sign on, and 2) so expose the intransigence and autonomous will of a ‘general convention’ modality. Increasingly the question is whether the polity of TEC enables a model of differentiation within TEC and affiliation with the Communion. Even efforts to shut off this route–should such transpire–will now be viewed within the larger context of Communion life and association. TEC must be careful that in the end it gets what it wants and so reveals its gamble: to create a federal association instead of a Communion, and so to be isolated on the terms of its own making.
Thank you for the citations, Irenaeus.
Hopper’s claims of conservative hegemonic overthrow of Episcopalian liberalism might be humorous, had they been written in irony rather than in earnest.
I don’t dispute Hopper’s claims for a moment, if they are intended only to go so far as to claim (rightly) that conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians in Canada and the United States desire the creation of a theologically conservative Anglican province in those countries that excludes those progressive latter-day theologies that contradict historic Christian teaching and praxis – in other words, a thoroughly classically Anglican province in the US and Canada. And, further, that they wish that province to be part of an Anglican Communion that is theological and practically coherent and truly in communion. Those who see a particular practices or teaching – the blessing of same-sex unions, communion of the unbaptized, episcopal and clerical questioning of basic catholic doctrine – as inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ should hardly be expected to draw the ecclesial circle in such a way as invites the consideration of those practices and teachings as equivalent to historic Anglican teaching and practice. (Likewise, those Episcopalians who are convinced that God has called the church to promote blessed homosexual unions, and that this is a matter of prophetic justice, cannot be expected to tolerate the likes of such conservatives as Bishops Duncan, Schofield and Cox.)
My prayer is that this resolution presages some reconsideration on the part of Episcopalian leadership. But my more cynical nature tells me that somebody’s starting to sweat.
Hopper: My point is simply this. TEC clearly remains committed to a course of action which is directly contrary to the mind of the Anglican Communion. Many parishes and dioceses within TEC wish to remain fully Anglican. What I don’t understand is this – why is simply recognizing these above-stated facts and creating an environment for each group to thrive a “threat” to the liberals???
All that I am suggesting is that in this case reconciliation 1) acknowledges that there are two very distinct groups in TEC that are unable to live together at this time; 2) the Anglican Communion creates a safe space for each group; and 3) that the future actions and behavior of each group determines whether that group remains in the Anglican Communion or not. Why is this such a “threat” to liberals? Why do you feel the need for absolute domination of the other side?
Hopper: You said
Why is allowing you to face the logical consequences of your own choices vis a vis the rest of the Anglican Communion being described as “accommodating of [your] own destruction”???
On the surface this may seem like a reasonable request, given some of the previous comments in this thread about conversation with the Continuing Churches. However, most of us have learned in life that past pefromance is a good predictor of future performance. Past conversations with the revisionists have been mostly about keeping the conversation open and delaying any definate actions (like the establishment of another Anglican Province in NA) until thier opposition gets tired and gives in (except for law suits and other punitive measures). I would suggest the following:
If the CCP were to agree to any such meeting:
1. the purpose of the meeting with possible end results clearly established and agreed to before any one sits down. The agenda clearly stated, and items not open for discussion identified (like for example women’s ordination) and agreed to.
2. The participants from both sides need to be agreed to by both sides (we have issues of trust and respect before we can even get started in a conversation)
3. Assumptions clearly stated.
4. An agreement clearly stated as to what is open for discussion and compromise and what is not (why meet if a possible end result that would be beneficial to the CCP is already taken off the table?)5. A time frame for the meeting and a possible end date for implementation of anything compromises agreed to.
In a word, if there really has been a change in heart (on TEC leadership’s part) and an openess to conversation and compromise then is worthwhile.
Another possibility is that TEC is raising this offer as a way of dividing their opponents amonst themselves as they see a definate direction of the establishment of a competing Anglican Province.
#7:
So it’s “terrorists” now, is it? And an implied death threat in the third bit — which no one aside from #27 seems to think is way out of line?
“An implied death threat in the third bit” —#51
No, more bluster.
#52:
Oh, well I guess it’s all right, then.
(Yes, that was sarcastic.)
It seems that liberals has a serious humor deficit, AND they take themselves far too seriously, rather the same way the Pharisees did. I mean, the names Jesus called them, well, it’s scandalous. Isn’t it?
Honestly, a little allusion to the death of one’s enemies should easily be read, mutatis mutandis (a little pompous latin reference for the enlightened few 😉 ), as referring to the non-violent nullification of whatever power said enemy had over one.
Oh, and Irenaeus, I take your point about not making concessions to terrorists, but it seems to me that that is exactly what is implied in the term “negotiation”, for a negotiation without a willingness to make some concessions is really not much of a negotiation.
Death to the infidels 🙂
#54:
Interesting that someone who dislikes comparing one’s opponents to terrorists and implying they should be put to death is therefore a “liberal”, a “Pharisee” and various other names.
I wish you peace, even if you aren’t very deserving of it. Meanwhile this blog is now no longer in my bookmarks, but then again that’s what you wanted, right? An echo chamber of the similarly hateful?
“Meanwhile this blog is now no longer in my bookmarks, but then again that’s what you wanted, right?” —Walsingham [#55]
Not at all.
Christopher [#54]: Your comments are full of bluster, and it stinks.
Well, Irenaeus, it is hard to be whinsomely jocular when dealing with hyper sensitive whiners. Plus, I think your concept of “bluster” is a tad subjective.
Well Hopper,
I do not see any evidence that the Southern Cone, Uganda, Rwanda, etc are coming in to overthrow the Episcopal Church. What I see is a steadily growing number of Anglicans who are leaving the Episcopalian Church individually, in groups and now by dioceses, appalled at the direction the Episcopalian Church has been taking, and are seeking to form a new Anglican province in North America, one that follows 2,000 years of traditional Christian beliefs and 400 years of Anglican structure, and one that rejects the heresies of the EC. The Southern Cone has never, ever made an attempt to force their theology on North America. They -and other Churches- have responded to calls for help from within this country. The CCP is an internal Anglican Partnership, helped from outside but not externally driven. Similarly the Anglican Church in Canada. Why should the EC, with its evolutionary theology and claims to ‘improve’ traditional Christianity, rejecting much of Christianity’s fundamental beliefs, be allowed to reshape belief in the truth and authority of the Bible and belief in the unique Divinity and claims of Jesus. The overwhelming majority of the Anglican Communion reject the EC’s theology and christology.
A last note regarding external influence: every nation on earth is a mission field. The source of missionary output has traditionally been (in the last few centuries) the western churches. The truth is that the mission field is now globally leveled and I can think of no reason on earth why foreign missionaries, be they Chinese, Nigerian, Peruvian or Australian, should not be called to evangelize on the soil of those nations from which so much missionary output came. God knows the need is desperately needed. Destruction of the EC? Domination of the EC? No sir, the EC appears to be doing a good job of that on themselves.
Rather than comment needlessly on the other comments I’m in agreement with, I feel led to offer a link:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/208710?eng=y
This post at ‘Chiesa’ states with crystal clarity what separates some TEC clergy’s party line from the beliefs of faithful Christians still calling themselves Anglican. The catholic approach to Scripture discussed in these paragraphs would make a helpful pre-condition for any talks of the sort proposed to CCP.
No. 44 – I’ve heard the term “Recovering Catholic” used several terms. It is impudent, impertinent, insolent, and obnoxious, and graceless to boot.