Personally, from the liberal standpoint, I think a split would be an excellent idea, and I think it is ultimately inevitable.

Should this surprise anyone? This unholy alliance between Bob Duncan and his new-found friends in Africa has always been about Bob Duncan and property. They can package things like AGI with all the high and mighty language of piety and orthodoxy that they want, but when light is shed upon it, AGI, NACDAP, etc. is--quite frankly--evil. Mainstream Anglicans will see this for what it is--a work of cowardice and deceit.

It is truly amazing how far outside the sphere of traditional and official Anglican relationships this initiative falls. How could the ACC be ignored when it is the only consitutionally created and most representative instrument of unity of the Anglican Communion? How could a recognizably Anglican entity be created outside the authority or influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury? What is the historical precedent within Anglicanism for confining most authority to primates? After all, the Primates Meeting is the most junior of instruments of unity and was created solely for the purpose of "offering mutual support." As I understand it, in the oldest provinces of the Communion, primatial authoirty has always been checked by Synod, Convocation, or the State. As one raised in the American South, this intitiative strikes me as if the Confederate States of America were attemtping to claim to be the "Real" United States when they seceeded in the 19th century.

Dirk+

If realignment is necessary this is a start. ECUSA did not listen to the warning and went ahead with their new thinking. They have put the AC in crisis. This is a way to move forward. All involved are not going to change their minds on all sides of the homosexual issues.

I have to agree with Merseymike & Peter & Dirk+ on all of this -- it has been clear all along that the extremists are not interested in any dialogue or compromise -- they have never concealed that fact that it is repentence & conversion or "walking apart"

There will be advantages & disadvantages on both sides, of course -- however, there is no denying that the refusal of African bishops to accept any funds from the Episcopal Church is tragic (although tragic seems an inadequate word) -- would they refuse a free gift (no strings attached) from say, the atheistic People's Democratic Republic of China?

Article IX is typical language for a charity under US tax law (501(c)(3)). It is required by the IRS if you want to be a tax exempt charity.

I am guessing that this is an "interim" proposal that will be later more elaborate after the schism is final - note however the "interim" solution in the UK House of Lords lasted about a century, so whether anyone ever gets around to involving the laity more is open to debate. I suspect also that the "orthodox" movement sees the church as a gift of God, so having it governed by the Primates, as successors to the apostles, is not a problem. The ACC involves the laity, and is not just the apostolic successors.

I come down on the other side, but I understand the internal consistancy of the "orthodox" arguement.

OK, let's start asking some serious questions. Can anybody show the provenance of this document? If not, why are we giving it such emphasis?

I am confident that the document came from an African source. The person who obtained it from that source is not, so far as I know, willing to go on the record about it. Certainly, that person was not willing to do so as of a couple of days ago. A little publicity may bring more facts to light. I have no reason to believe the document is not legitimate. It is certainly consistent with facts in the public record.

It's a start I guess. Why didn't Stephen Bates do a bit of question asking in the direction of Akinola or Gomez? Seems a bit sloppy to me. Has anybody actually heard anything from them about it? Has anybody actually *asked* them anything about it?

Bates might have; in his report he wrote:

"One of the archbishops, the Most Rev Drexel Gomez, primate of the West Indies, said yesterday: "There is a group which is supposed to be meeting here in July to discuss the possibility of forming something but I was not aware of the name."

If it's true it seems a ridiculous idea to me. If there's going to be a split why should the traditionalists be the ones to split off?

In any case it all sounds a bit rich to me. Gomez is named but claims not to know anything about it. Amercian conservatives are mentioned by the PEP report but deny it according to Bates. There might be something of truth here but there's clearly more going on than meets the eye.

Again, I see referrence to the "Instruments of Unity", and wonder, with the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, when the historic instruments, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, got replaced by the current "instruments"?

I don't, and have never thought, that its about 'splitting off', simply 'splitting'

this feels like disinformation on the part of the Pittsburgh PEP's (entirely consistent with who they are)... I (like Peter above) would like to see the document.

If individuals are intent on leaving a province of the Anglican Communion and starting their own church (and that what the Network and AGI are all about no matter how you package it), some steps should precede such a move. First, clergy should renounce their orders. Second, laity should leave their parishes in the hands of the faithful who choose to remain. Those who are leaving should simply leave--period. No property, no pension, no being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, no "church within a church." Anything less frankly lacks integrity. Go in peace, but please just go.

This latest covert move by Akinola, Duncan, & Co. is more of the same. They are living in an alternative reality that has nothing to do with Anglicanism and certainly nothing to do with the Gospel or the mission of the Church.

I'm actually strangely relieved by this (as I usually am by +Bob Duncan: keep talkin' Bob!).

The more I hear, the more it sounds like the creaking rasps of dead-wood, just prior to it breaking off to become yet another (regrettable) Anglican *splinter*.

[Admittedly, a splinter which, in name anyway, may take with it millions of Anglicans *who were never asked*, in any recognizable democratic process, whether they want to separate themselves from Canterbury; S,T&R; Hooker; the Quadrilateral; and faith-seeking-understanding: all that makes us truly *Anglican*]

Time to evangelize the (so-called) "orthodox"! (Time to "meet Jesus again for the first time")

Please grow up and change the record about this talk of orthodox "leaving" a province or starting their own new church.
Those of us who hold to traditional biblical views are really quite weary of hearing your venous misinformation about us not being welcome in your church and how what we hold to is repugnant to the Anglican Church.
Whether you like it or not, in what counts the Anglican Church remains the same - it is those who have denied the authority of Scripture and the established position of the Communion who have split off and are the dead wood - as is borne out in practice by the statistics of death in church attendance.
And I woulnd't mind betting that proportionately more of Akinola's people back him than back Griswold so talk of lack of democracy is a bit rich.

Actually, if not a forgery, this appears to be a fairly innocuous document that was never acted upon. But it looks increasingly like a forgery. Not only do the various orhtodox parties involved seem to have no knowledge of the document, but the document itself seems rather awkwardly and suspiciously phrased. Moreover, Mr. Deimel's comment above, to paraphrase: "I got it from a source I cannot name who won’t go on the record who got it from another source somewhere in Africa, but it sure sounds like something those nasty conservatives would say..." is pretty weak to say the least. This sort of unsourced accusatory reporting is remniscient of CBS and Dan Rather. I hope the "source" does reveal himself or herself because otherwise this looks very very suspect.

It seems that PEP is grinding its anti-Duncan axe all over the Anglican Communion. It can have its "Rah Rah Sis-Boom-Bah" inclusive, dummied-down way. After all America is still a democracy within a republic. However, its total disregard for Holy Scripture, Sin, and the reason Christ came in the first place, will catch up with it. So, Father Lewis, et al, what will you say on Judgement Day?

David

I'd be happy if the fundies went elsewhere. One of the things I treasure about the Anglican Church is the diversity it contains. I am deliriously happy to accept evangelicals in the Church of England, because that tapestry of different traditions is what makes us us -- but there are evangelicals and then there are "evangelicals", i.e. fundamentalists, the kind that don't want to allow anyone else a place at the table. As far as I'm concerned, they exclude themselves.

That is such a hilarious double standard Dave. "I'll be deliriously happy to welcome anyone... provided they agree with me."

How is your position essentially different to those who want to exclude so-called 'liberals'? It's the same narrow-minded prejudice, just using different foundations.

As I said over at TitusOneNine, there is little to surprise me in this document. The AAC/Network has had plans like this in the works for a long time now. I heard a version of an earlier plan for schism preached from the pulpit of my AAC-dominated (former)parish church on the Sunday after GC 2003. The goal of the AAC, as he outlined it from the pulpit, was to split the Episcopal Church, while keeping control of ECUSA assets as far as possible. Nothing material has changed since then, although the scope of the schism keeps broadening.

The question I keep coming back to is: If Bob Duncan and his Rebellion are so unhappy, why don't they just leave? Why would they willingly choose to be hang around and be so unhappy, and make the rest of us unhappy in the process?

The answer I keep coming back to is: Power, Property, and Pension. If it was strictly a theological issues, they would have long ago been gone. So Br. Thomas in a previous posting was right: Bob wants to leave, but won't leave unless he gets to ransack the store and steal as much as he can on the way out. Where is the integrity in that?

I think GC 2006 just needs to lay it down with these people and say: "If you want to leave, there's the door. Goodbye and God bless." Personally, I'd be happy to have Duncan and the leadership of the Rebellion gone. Their sneaky, underhanded tactics are all about darkness, not light. They've forced so much diversion of time, energy, and resources that should have been spent on ministy and mission. That's the evil in this whole thing.

Sneaky? Underhanded? Where was the discussions before GC 2003? The theory was act now talk later. Too late! We are fighting for our life long,family generations, of faithful Episcopalians in our families. We life long Episcopal church goers were appalled and shocked how these changes came about. Now they are trying to blame us for this mess. You can take our buildings with all the gifts we gave in memory of a loved one. You can slander those who love and were brought up in this church but you can't take the church from our hearts and souls. If we have to worship in a parking lot so be it. We will worship the Father, Son & Holy Ghost the Anglican way. It is our hope the faithful will stand firm!

I've never read anything from conservative sources which suggests they wish me to stay within the church with the views I currently hold.

Given that the two sides are unlikely to change their views, surely the question is whether we decide to carry on with the current warfare, or jointly agree to go our separate ways.

If the conservatives wish to throw me out, thats up to them, but I won't be changing my opinions or leaving my partner simply to suit their pre-modern superstitions.

Prior Aelred is right on. On the same subject, yesterday I came across an interesting Letter to the Editor of the Living Church (5 June 05). The writer inquired: "I fail to understand how accepting money from an American diocese, regardless of differences of doctrine, will endanger the immortal souls of suffering (African) children... True charity (a word once close in meaning to love) is freely given and gladly accepted. The charity of American churches expresses their love for those who are suffering, a love that Christ himself demands of us. I worry about the state of the immortal soul of anyone who rejects such love."

jej wrote:

"If we have to worship in a parking lot so be it."

jej, I'm sorry you're hurting; and, I don't mean this in a disrespectful or flippant way, but I'm genuinely curious to know why you're not already out in that "parking lot?" That is, if you're so unhappy, and if you don't agree with the actions of ECUSA, why haven't you already left? What is it you think you are fighting for? What is the outcome you seek? What is it you think will change? What would make you happy?

I'm trying to figure out why Episcopalians like yourself are choosing to stay rather than follow your convictions and leave now. Another question: Specifically, how has the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire impeded your relationship with God? Thanks.

Firstly, that old chestnut: the wicked conservatives "stealing" the property they paid for and maintained. Yawn, to expect conservatives to necessarily abandon what is morally theirs is naive?
Secondly, if it were just about the individual, maybe no-one would be so bothered by the fact that the denomination is apostate and teaching another gospel. However, it is not about "me". It is about faithfulness to God, honouring and remaining faithful to the saints of the past and the faith passed down - and it's about the eternal welfare of others now and in the future. If conservatives just left, they could be like hired hands leaving the sheep to the wolves.
There's two reasons Peter.

the excessive hyperbole over this is astonishing ... I still find the timing of the release of this document by the Pittsburgh PEPs to be interesting ... premeditated and an attempt to disparage Bishop Duncan prior to international meetings. If their heartfelt intent was to further the cause of unity in the church, they would not release such inflammatory and questionalbly documented material at this time. Why is it that only the conservatives are tagged with creating dissension?

I am seeing a disturbing chant: if-you-don't-like-it-why-don't-you-leave. This was held up as the ultimate lack of charity when used by those who did not want the ordination of women against those who did, or those who didn't want recognition of divorce, or permissive use of contraception, or acceptance (read: approval) of abortion. Yet when someone dares to disagree with the grand wisdom of General Convention 2003, the suggestion is, "Don't let the doorknob hit you on your way out."

Remember +Robert Terwilliger: "I'm going to do something far worse than leaving. I'm going to stay."

The wife of the author of "The Chapman Memo" is defending Bishop Duncan?
Oh brother.

Neil wrote:
"Firstly, that old chestnut: the wicked conservatives "stealing" the property they paid for and maintained."

From the American Heritage® Dictionary: Chestnut, noun: An old, frequently repeated joke, story, or song.

Well, regardless of your attempt to be disrespectful by using this term, it's old and frequently repeated because it's TRUE. Ever since the beginning of the ECUSA in the 18th cent., church property has belonged to the Church as a whole. Every Episcopalian knows, or should know, that this is how it works. When I left my AAC parish in abject disgust, I didn't ask for my offerings back or try & steal a tapestry, some bit of expensive office equip, or whatver as "compensation." You, as I, knew what we were getting in to when we joined the church.

Repeat after me, "We are not Congregationalists."

It seems reasonable to accept that this is a fairly old document. Maybe part of the "plans" referred to by Gregory Venables some time ago. At that time it seemed likely there would be a realignment around some Southern Primates. I would not be very surprised if many, much more detailed, suggestions on how that realignment should be organised exist - and will emerge.
What does surprise me is that anyone should get hot under the collar about their existence.
There are probably a great deal more interesting documents and reports around, I suspect some will contradict public denials and statements from leaders on all sides, this has become a fierce and bitter struggle that will wound us all for a long time to come.

"Where was the discussions before GC 2003?"

jej: huh?

Try thirty years worth of discussion. THIRTY YEARS!

In public (at great cost to those who, early on, argued in favor of LGBT equality-before-God, I might add), with full transparency (and NO "hidden agendas"). Laboring *in the minority* year after year, GC after GC (and never once threatening to make our own "true Episcopalian network" within, nor demanding another bishop from another diocese, in line w/ *our* Biblical beliefs).

Could we have some *fairness* from the ECUSA (now) minority, please?

'Repeat after me, "We are not Congregationalists."'

As we are discovering, if you crush the congregation, you eventually destroy the denomination.

Besides you're not telling me that donors are thinking "I am not giving this money to my parish church for gospel purposes, oh no I'm not - no, I'm giving it to the denomination for it to decide what to do with it - even to deny the gospel with it if it wants. Oh yes, that's fine by me. Of course I'm expecting the money to be used like that. Here, have some more!"?

Dave Rattigan said, "I'd be happy if the fundies went elsewhere. One of the things I treasure about the Anglican Church is the diversity it contains."

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

I love all the diversity which is exactly like me.

BWAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh, that is rich.

36 Posts - gotta be some sort of record!

Anyone else wonder whether this is something to do with "liberal" positioning - in preparation for the ACC meeting and discussions on the orthodoxy/heresy of ECUSA/ACoC's positions on homosexuality next week ?

The groundwork seems to be being done for a "fall out" ?

It is impossible to move in the direction of Christ's gospel of holiness while yoked to persons hell-bent on heading in the direction of sexual depravity and slavery. If the protestant reformation teaches us anything, it is that Christ's Spirit remains upon the faithful when they disentangle themselves from the wilfully disobedient.

When my parish joined the AAC not one person in my family recieved any notification. My mother has served on the vestry and altar guild and I have played (organist) at my church and sang in the choir. I was never aware that we were not giving money to the ERD-which the +Duncan recieved funding from Pittsburgh residents distressed by "Ivan." NO, This was all done in the backroom, doors locked. They highjacked my church of 39 yrs with out us even knowing. I"m was not on either side of this fight. The backdoor dealings made me take a side. As Bishop Johnson said,"what was done at GC2003 was done for all the world to see." What was done at my beloved church was done with doors closed, in secret! We most certainly will split and my home parish will be torn apart. probalby 60% orth 40% Lib. You people need to talk in the light of day. Need a light, Try Jesus. Brightest light I know and best example.

Just a follow up to the highjacking of my home parish.

John 10
The Shepherd and His Flock
1"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep.

Who do you think were the ones who entered my sheep pen (parish)?

"what we do in the dark needs the light of day!"
Henry II, Lion in Winter. Jesus is the light, the way and the truth.

Merseymike wrote:

"I've never read anything from conservative sources which suggests they wish me to stay within the church with the views I currently hold."

And continued:
"...If the conservatives wish to throw me out, thats up to them, but I won't be changing my opinions or leaving my partner simply to suit their pre-modern superstitions."

This does put the finger right on the presenting issue for the conservatives. For the conservative view is that homosexuals have dis-ordered affections. They get this view from scripture. Quite rightly, homosexuals are offended by this.

While the conservative view and theology is that all homosexuals are welcome, the Christian hope is that homosexuals will submit to Christ as Lord of their life and turn away from their old way of [homosexual] life because Holy Scripture tells us it is sinful. To turn away from this sin, one must first change his mind that homosexual relations are in fact sinful.

Paul wrote, "...and such were some as you." in reference to the former lives of his disciples being homosexually ordered in one of his epistles. He also referred to idolators, murderers, sexually immoral, etc.

But the conservatives don't stop there. They -- get this -- believe that ALL homosexuals, bi-sexuals, trans-gendereds, lesbians, pedophiles AND heterosexuals (and any other ___sexuals) are objectively disordered, not exclusively sexually, though much disordered affections are there, but in just about every facet of their being.

The primary and most egregious of these is the "natural" disordering to turn away from God toward self. (This is far worse than sexual sin.) Most people are, quite rightly, offended by this. The Christian message of the need for a savior is offensive.

Yet, this offensive message is central to the cross, that Christ had to die for us because we naturally turn away from God to all forms of behavior repugnant to him -- repugnant to him because it leads to our spiritual and eternal death. God deeply loves ALL of us and doesn't want any of us to perish. Cutting ourselves off from God, the source of life and love, does that. The bible broadly calls this sin.

That is why a central feature of Christian religious life is to submit our *thinking* to Christ's Lordship. Part of repentance and conversion is having our very understanding about life and the world changed to be in line with God's.

We of the conservative mind desire to love all sinners, introducing them to Jesus and leading them to lives of repentance, deepened conversion to life in Christ, and of joy. ALL are welcome and ALL are expected to change.

Mersymike, you are right. We conservatives do not want you "to stay within the church with the views [you] currently hold." We want you to stay in the church, grow in your love and commitment to Jesus and learn about Christian transformation -- including your sexuality -- with the rest of us.

We refuse to accept the secular idea that homosexuality is not in need of Christian transformation. Expectedly, the ECUSA presentation at Nottingham, contained no biblical justification for the innovations in ECUSA because there aren't any, at least none that uses a classical Anglican hermenuetic of taking the whole of scripture into account as God's inspired word, containing all things necessary to salvation.

As a conservative, I would never throw out a homosexual from my parish. Neither would I throw out other sinners for being sinful. The church is a hospital for us sinners. Yet, I would also only say that a homosexual could assume posts of leadership like that of a bishop if he or she had turned away from a life of willful rebellion. (Temptation is not willful rebellion.) I can not accept Gene Robinson as a bishop because he refuses to submit his sexuality to the Lordship of Christ. (His advocacy of abortion with Planned Parenthood doesn't help either.) How can he guard the faith from all erroneous doctrine when he refuses to submit his own sexuality to the Lordship of Christ? From his personal experience and secular teachings he claims he knows better than holy scripture and the traditional teachings of the church. This is not just prideful arrogance, it is delusion. He has chosen not the path of wisdom in Proverbs but that of foolishness. The path of wisdom is the one that delights in God's commands.

As such, I am commanded to treat him as a "tax collector and a sinner" -- that is I am commanded to love him where he is and introduce him to Jesus' transforming love.

Instead of putting unrepentant sinners into positions of leadership, we are to evangelize them and try to love them where they are. If they walk away as the rich young ruler did, then we love them and pray for them as they leave. We yet hold hope for them because holy scripture promises that God's Word will not return to him empty.

The conservatives are not about power and property and pension. We are about the abundant joyful life in Christ. Believe me, I would much rather be part of Anglican Mission in America than the mess of ECUSA right now. But God in his wisdom has called me to the Episcopal Church. So here I stand and preach Christ's offensive and transformting love. May we all know it more deeply with each passing day.