Tuesday, 18 April 2006

response from AAC to Special Commission report

Updated Wednesday
The American Anglican Council has issued a press release, which contains a fairly detailed commentary on One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call.

Earlier responses to this document were linked here. Note in particular the analysis of Ephraim Radner which is rather more constructive in its approach.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez has expressed some views too, as reported by the Bahama Journal in Fears Of Anglican Split Persist.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 at 10:03pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA

The Grapes seem to be sour this year ;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 at 10:31pm BST

I thought the AAC put this very well: “Moving Slowly with Caution Isn’t Stopping”... Sums up my thoughts after reading their proposed resoutions.

And what about this: "some in the Episcopal Church began embracing revisionist theology that challenged basic tenets of Christian faith, such as the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, and the authority of Scripture".

No-one's forced to be Christian and follow Christ, but the Church's leaders *are* supposed to defend the church from error and sin. Why weren't such anti-Christian teachers ejected long ago ?

Posted by: Dave on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 at 10:51pm BST

This is no more than could have been expected. The issue is not about sexuality or orthodoxy, but power and authority and money and property. The AAC wants to be the Anglican 'brand' in the USA. I am, I guess, glad TEC keeps trying to reach out to these folks, in good faith efforts, but I also think the endeavor is ultimatly futile.

And as a lesbian priest, I am coming to resent TEC using me and the rest of us glbt members of the Body of Christ as bargaining chips in a game in which the other side has no intention of fair play.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 at 2:05am BST

Take note of the way in which the AAC unilaterally ups the ante. They try to claim that the Primates' Communique' (from Dromantine, presumably) is a document having the same force as the Windsor Report, which they treat as an ultimatum directed at the Episcopal Church, though neither one nor the other is the case. I suppose all this logic-chopping results from their need to find a plausible reason (plausible, at least to them) for schism. They've made up their minds, and there's really nothing anyone can do to stop them at this point.

Posted by: Charlotte on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 at 4:35am BST

Surely the most painful dilemma for the delegates to the near future General Convention is the patent demonstrations from rightwing believers that nothing short of complete agreement, conformity, or submission will actually serve.

This of course is a strategy which handily puts the burdens of choosing upon General Convention, instead of bringing the grim power plays of our current realignment campaign into the glaring light of day.

So, I guess I recommend: Let us choose. Let us make an honest representation of where we really stand on including LGBTQ Folks, and then let the rest of the Communion respond. If we can bring ourselves to resolve against priests and bishops who are honestly gay among us, then let us do so. That by itself will not be enough for the Rightwing Believers. If we can bring ourselves to resolve against gay couples in committed covenants, perhaps also committed in parenting to their children, then let us do so. That by itself will not be enough for the Rightwing Believers. If we can bring ourselves to say that Queer Folk are still best understood by our believing communities, as filth and as danger, then let us do so. By itself, even that will not be enough for the Rightwing Believers.

If we can bring ourselves to condemn customary historic Anglican leeway, in favor of the much hyped New Anglican Conformity, then let us do so.

Now we are starting to get close to what the conservative campaign for realignment seeks. Our dilemma is that the new conservative Anglican believers will accept nothing less than our return to the most traditional forms of condemnation against Queer Folk. Still, we might clearly say that we are not against basic human rights for all LGBTQ citizens, nor pledged to any particular ancient or modern negative version of supposed LGBTQ incompetence or defect.

If we can resolve to do the above, conforming, then maybe we can also assist by going two steps further.

One step might be that we could spell out the discipline that we think is really best, so far as dealing with Queer Folks, inside and outside of the churches. I still think we can take clear stands on those issues, even if we resolve to return to 1492 on the other issues.

A second step might be that we could spell out the litmus tests of due public repentance that we will now need to verify that Queer Folk are conforming to the reasserted strictures against their bodies, relationships, and commitments to one another. This will not all simply go back into some equivalent to the former Anglican status quo, which was various forms of a Don't Ask, Don't Tell sort of approach.

If we can go backwards in clear resolve at the next General Convention, I for one think it would be quite a nice witness to do so with as much kindness as possible. Public occasion of the due repentance called for, along with some sort of roomy times and places for Queer Folk to get their various belongings together, say their goodbyes, and actually leave - well all that would be most welcome.

I have made many friends in and among the churches, and I am not leaving them, even if our shared worship shall in future be limited to interfaith gatherings where even Unitarian Universalists, Buddhists, or unbelievers are welcome. I am still following Jesus, even if I am being asked to leave. That is just how it really is.

Thank goodness. Thank God.

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 at 8:10pm BST

"Our dilemma is that the new conservative Anglican believers will accept nothing less than our return to the most traditional forms of condemnation against Queer Folk."

Only that it all happened within my own lifetime.

If you look at the 1966 New Catholic Encyclopaedia, you will find in the beguining of the article Masturbation the real "traditional" claim that the word malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9 means "masturbation", and if you look in Pater Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testamen of the same year, you will find the new, anti-modern claim that it means catamita; passive gay man instead.

Conclusion: The hetero-sexualizations of 2nd Millennium neo-platonist academic theology were homo-sexualized only 40 years ago.

Whatever it is, it is not traditional.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 at 10:59pm BST

Memo to AAC/Network leadership: Show some spine and leave...without the property and money.

Everything you want to know about the AAC/Network leadership you can read in the January 2004 Chapman Memo exposed by the Washington Post. All this blah-blah-blah about orthodoxy, the Faith once received, etc. is a smoke screen for a Keystone Cops sort of bungled power grab.

GC 2006 ought to send this Rebellion packing. Don't back down an inch. Earlier posts are correct: The neo-Puritans have no interest in unity or reconciliation--all they want is a purified cult. I really do hope the Via Media groups roll out some presentments against Duncan and the others involved in this botched coup. It's time to hold this crowd accountable for the evil they done.

Posted by: peter on Thursday, 20 April 2006 at 1:51am BST

Hmm. Lots of ranting and raving in the responses so far, and so it goes. Still, for the most part it all continues to be a bit more redolent of whimper than bang.

If it is to end, at least try to stand up like "persons" of faith and say "here I take my stand, I can do no other!" Some libs seem to have achieved this level of commitment. At least they seem to actually BELIEVE in something, even if they are dead wrong. Please, no more whimpering about how mistreated you are and how you've been abused by 'dem bad ol' conservatives (who you outnumber and outpower in ECUSA by an overwhelming margin), and how the "broad" via media is broad enough to accommodate all viewpoints (or none at all) as long as they don't conflict with yours. Please STAND for something!

Let's at least have people that clearly stand for something on both sides (not just on the traditionalist side)--people that are willing to take a stand and arrive at a clear decision. Please, no more "conversations", no more committees, no more deferring the issues 'til later, no more Episcopal fudge.


Posted by: steven on Thursday, 20 April 2006 at 4:29pm BST

Intgrity USA has issued a more detailed response to the commission report. It should be accessible on the Integrity web site and I hope soon here.

Posted by: Cynthia on Friday, 21 April 2006 at 5:27pm BST

But, I like fudge. It's creamy and chocolatey.

The problem, of couse, is that the Anglican Communion has no authoritative structures. Every statement must be expressed as the opinion of the authors propounding it.

It may be fudge, but it's appropriate fudge.

Posted by: ruidh on Friday, 21 April 2006 at 6:19pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.