Saturday, 31 March 2007

what the ACI is saying

Members of the Anglican Communion Institute have published several essays recently.

Ephraim Radner, who also made a presentation to the House of Bishops on the Proposed Anglican Covenant published
What Way Ahead? and
What Way Ahead – Part Two.

Christopher Seitz has written
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion and also
The Pastoral Council and the Primatial Vicar.

Comments on the above:
Jim Naughton The latest from Ephraim Radner and ACI leader’s parish joins Church of Nigeria
John Chilton Quote of the day :: Ephraim Radner and Quote of the day :: Christopher Seitz
Nick Knisely More on Seitz’s argument regarding historical precedence

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 6:41pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA

Thank you for the link. I've also focused attention on a paragraph in Seitz's essay, here

Posted by: John B. Chilton on Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 9:33pm BST

The argument seems to be that in order to operate under a communion that is functioning in a way that it should not, The Episcopal Church has to alter itself so that it functions in a way that it has not.

Er, well the first should not be happening and the second won't happen.

Or else there should be a different US Episcopal Church, in order to conform.

Is the Communion going to set up many other provinces in its new function and image, then? (Answer from Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) - Yes...)

Posted by: Pluralist on Sunday, 1 April 2007 at 1:37pm BST

Two of the papers refer to Sarah Hey's comments. Could anyone kindly point me in the right direction to her comments? They appear to be pertinent.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Sunday, 1 April 2007 at 9:35pm BST

On this whole thing, I have found myself thinking about the feared power broker within the family. The dreaded sibling or in-law that makes the meeker members' lives a misery. I once had an in-law who systematically went about destroying and poisoning my then husband's interpersonal relationships. After several years, I tried to explain what she was doing and asked her to desist. She went feral.

My then husband tried to placate her and she demanded an apology and an undertaking from me that I would refrain from such behaviours. My response was that I acknowledge the behaviours were unacceptable and could see that they had hurt other peoples' feelings. I was quite happy to apologise and agree to a minimum conduct of behaviour, provided she was prepared to do in kind.

She again went feral and said that she would never apologise to "that woman" but that I should to her. I told my husband that I refused to be bound to a code of conduct with no in kind level of behaviour required from her. She would make my life a misery and I would be powerless to defend myself.

She told my husband it was me or her. I told my husband it was his business or her, I did not have enough energy to deal with two black holes. He chose the business.

To this day the relationship was never healed as she has never apologise nor agreed to a mutual minimum standard of behaviour.

Some people just make your life a misery e.g. spending most of a conference adjourning to work out the next passages of hate and separation for the next session. These are behaviours require forgiveness. They show a lack of faith in God, who tells us that we each live and die to our own sins (Ezekiel 18).

It is a fractal pattern, from dysfunctional families, to dysfunctional parishes, to dioceses, to global communion.

My other contemplation this week has been that major conflicts can not be resolved where treachery is rampant. The only way that treacherous behaviours could have become so entrenched is if souls have lost their fear of God. It is only the fear of God that prevents the sociopaths from recruiting and openly acting out their hate crimes. When there is the fear of God, we see random isolated incidents, we don't see orchestrated violence and intimidation.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Sunday, 1 April 2007 at 9:57pm BST

Sarah Hey writes for Stand Firm.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 1 April 2007 at 10:37pm BST

This is a nice article

I don't know which Sarah Hey article they were referring to, but here are the two most recent from Stand Firm's website:

Note to bloggers. If you are going to refer to an article/comment/paper as being significant. Please post a link. There's an awful lot of information out there and it is easy to lose the needles in the haystacks. It also doesn't hurt to quote the key passages, as articles have a propensity for disappearing (my observation is the more telling the point the more likely it is to disappear). This is also the main reason I use Thinking Anglicans - neither I nor others can "doctor" what was written at the time. For better or for worse. Sometimes I blush, but I also apologise. The record shows that those who lose many of the points neither blush nor apologise and later try to pretend that the debate and point never occurred.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 2 April 2007 at 12:11pm 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.