on Saturday, 13 February 2010 at 8.35 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Canada, Church of England, ECUSA
The synod debate on ACNA has produced these reactions from Americans who support ACNA:
Does anyone see the irony in the
” biblical ” church of North America boasting it has been ” recognised” by the Church of England.. a denomination that grants pension rights to gay partnered lovers!
For once Matt Kennedy is right. I thank God that he is.
This reminds me of a cartoon I saw once, in which a very happy boy is eagerly clawing through a pile of manure and shouting, “There’s just got to be a pony in here somewhere!”
These ACNA guys are cheap dates.
I wonder what color the sky is in ACNA’s world?
Robert Williams’ remarks, though telling, apply also to his own Roman Catholic colleagues. Would Rome fancy UNION with the same Church of England?
Personally, I don’t see the latest initiative of the Church of England in granting pension rights to clergy civil partners as betraying the Gospel.
I wonder, Robert what your own R.C. Bishop might have to say about your concern with Anglicanism?
I read this on another blog yesterday. I apologize that I cannot remember which blog or who wrote it.
How would you feel if you asked someone to marry you and they responded; “I affirm that you want to marry me”?
Self-delusion appears to be the stock in trade of the American right these days.
‘ I am writing literally in the air ‘ Philip Ashey.
This much at least seems to be true and receives internal confirmation by the flights of fantasy he writes here.
Philip Ashey seems delighted that, as he sees it, Synod has recognised ACNA and TEC as ‘members of the Anglican family’. But why ? He and his ‘ACNA’ co-religionists had this already, before leaving TEC ! There was no need to pull out for that !
He seems to be saying, something like, ‘now we can all live together as members of the Anglican Family’ Now ? It was always possible -just needed self-discipline, humility, generosity and imagination and empathy.
All the trouble they’ve gone to and caused — all for nothing.
What’s so bad about the ACNA? They’ve provided a home for conservative Christians that TEC wouldn’t. At least now fighting between the to groups can end and we can focus on more important things like evangelism.
Brian, ACNA’s like a skin condition that festered. You finally got rid of it at a tremendous cost, then it appeared somewhere else on the body.
‘They’ve provided a home for conservative Christians that TEC wouldn’t.’
Posted by: Brian Knight on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 at 9:44pm GMT
My understanding of the matter, is that they had a TEC home and reviled it, and abandoned it, taking with them TEC’s buildings…They wanted the place all to themselves.
Isn’t that a little harsh and a bit unchristian. These people no matter whither you disagree with them or not are our brothers and sisters in Christ. What is so bad about the ACNA, it’s a home for the conservative Christians that wont that don’t feel welcomed in TEC.
Brian Knight: “What’s so bad about the ACNA? They’ve provided a home for conservative Christians that TEC wouldn’t.”
What’s so bad about ACNA is that they tell you lies like the whopper about how they weren’t allowed to be conservative in TEC.
Yes Brian, I admit to being a bit unchristian and harsh towards ACNA in my attempt to be a back-of-the-classroom smart-aleck, but in truth ACNA is a cult, denomination or branch that has basically founded on it’s disgust of a part of the human race. That’s also a bit unchristian. And remember, it is their “feeling” ‘unwanted’ in the “liberal” EC. I do not believe for a moment (and I can provide evidence of my own diocesan toleration of their antics for the past twenty years) that they were actively kicked out. They walked, plain and simple, then go whining… Read more »
How do you expect them to continue on with TEC when they reject so much of what TEC has accepted. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad to see them go but I’m glad that they have left and continued on following Christ. After all isn’t he what we should focus on rather then attacking others. Maybe the attacks on our brothers and sisters in Christ should be what we should give up for Lent.
Brian Knight asked: “What’s so bad about the ACNA?”
Let me count the ways, Brian:
1. They conspired to create a putsch in TEC;
2. They conspired to take property that was not theirs;
3. They lied to people who had legitimate differences with TEC’s propehetic actions in order to exploit those differences;
4. They lied to other Provinces of the Anglican Communion in an effort to malign TEC;
5. They conspired with some Central African Provinces whose actions against their own people could most charitably be described as deplorable and un-Christian.
That will do for now.
“Maybe the attacks on our brothers and sisters in Christ should be what we should give up for Lent.” – Brian Knight, on Wednesday – Precisely, Brian. Now why doesn’t the hierachy of the Anglican Church in Uganda and Nigeria (prime promoters of the ACNA syndicate) listen to your wise counsel? Only they will probably continue their antipathy to the LGBT community through all the Seasons of the Year – Lent or not. I’m looking forward to Maundy Thursday, and the Canticle: “Where charity and love are: there is God” and especially the verse which begins thus: “Let all malicious… Read more »
As Canon Perry wrote in his solid rebuttal of the ACNA lies, one of the consequences of leaving is that you leave.
I have no issue with them leaving.
I have an issue wiith them lying.
The claim that they were “forced” to leave or were thrown out is a lie from start to finish.