Not a word about the border crossings nor theft.
Just a continued cold nastyness "Just tell your damned queers to shut up! Stop making them hit you! This is all your fault and I resent your stupidity for upsetting the tea party."

How shall we sing the songs of Zion with this fearfull and condesending overstretched academic pretending to lead us?

Hmmm. Nice in principle, but it will never happen.

First, the TEC would have to roll waaaaaaay back. This is something it would never do.

Second, even after it does so, some sense of trust in its basic orthodoxy would have to be re-established--something that could take many years--before the structures being developed to protect the orthodox would be dismantled.

Thus, it looks to me like the tit-for-tat will continue for the foreseeable future, with each step taking the parties further from any sort of unity/agreement.

As noted in a previous post, the current de facto split in the AC will eventually become a de jure split. Like other relationships, the split is a reality a long time before a judge bangs the gavel. I.e., the "legal" side of things often takes a while to catch up with events on the ground. Still, there is more chance of a reversal before the "bang" than after. I guess that's what Rowan's hoping for.

Steven

The Churches can draw on each other's resources and live one with each other without structures of control. It is a mistake to think that a loose federation disqualifies all sorts of meetings and resources shared and understandings derived.

Rowan Williams talks of the provinces as if they are local churches. Local churches are within Churches (provinces) - structures of ministry cohere around actual Churches. These make decisions and these are sometimes not appropriate for other Churches in other parts of the world but come as recommendations.

The interview in Singapore shows that the 30 September deadline is not a deadline. He is now looking for a moratorium and towards the Lambeth Conference. The problem here is that the interventionist Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) is likely to act after 30 September - and has not actually stopped as with the installation and correspondence. He says people are "turning to the Primates" but actually it is primates turning to the people. This is why people are worried about a Curia: "Primates, please stop," is more the case. Anyway, if a moratorium stretches to Lambeth 2008, another new arrangement is being considered of Primates and ACC, which will take some time to set up.

Many will be pressing for a solution after 30 September, for example a two Church solution in TEC, which is not going to happen except by continued intervention. Rowan Williams knows this, which is why he is extending out the talking and listening.

It seems to me that Rowan Williams has to drop all plans for some sort of centralised structure, because he too is doing some imposing. By doing "we can do better than that" he might end up with a lot worse. Also see how far (or near) Nigeria gets with its intervening before that stalls.

Provinces are just going to have to recognise or de-recognise one another, and then see where things are much later.

Even if the Anglican Communion starts recognising some Church within TEC and also (presumably) threatens Nigeria with sanction, and Canada, individual Provinces will carry on recognising other Provinces anyway. The mess will just be more complicated. The best approach remains to stop all centralising Communion plans.

Steven:
There is no de jure to split. The AC has very little legal existence, which is part of the problem.

And do try and explain when Donatism became orthodox. I'm serious, I want to know when Arles became moot and this weird Donatist beast that is CANA/AMiA/Gobal South became orthodox.

"How shall we sing the songs of Zion with this fearfull and condesending overstretched academic pretending to lead us?"

That seemed to be the general view over on Stand Firm too. They've now identified Rowan as a solid TEC supporter.

A. "... trying to say to some other provinces: Don’t step up the level of intervention ... " How about just flat-out SAYING IT?

B. I'm at a loss to understand what, in the current, polarized atmosphere, the Archbishop expects of Lambeth 2008 beyond a re-enactment of the AD 80 opening day at the Colosseum. The right-wingers (excuse generalization) are out for blood, and the majority of those to the left of them, other than the US bishops, who well realize that the knife is at their throats, will likely sit politely and do little as the hunt proceeds.

In the summer of 1968 I drove through Parliament Square in a cab that I was sharing with an elderly (mid-80's) friend of my parents. A session of the 1968 Lambeth Conference was leaving Westminster Abbey - more bishops than you could imagine; a wave of subtly-discordant purple, gaiters (1968) and strange headgear. As we passed a couple of deeply-tanned American or (ex)colonial bishops (1968) in gaiters, aprons - the lot - topped by seriously overblown, floppy "Lancelot Andrewes" hats with HUGE purple pompoms, the old lady turned to me - she was a former suffragette, three terms in prison, once for the great Oxford Street smash-in, another for chaining herself to the Home Office railings - and said to me "Look at them. Aren't they ridiculous? How do they expect to be taken seriously when they walk around looking like that?" From that day to this, whenever I encounter, in life or otherwise, a bishop, I look at him in part through that old suffragettes eyes.

"But also trying to say to some other provinces: Don’t step up the level of intervention in this crisis because all of that is just pulling us further and further apart."

Can't he SAY Nigeria?

"Don't step up the level of inetervention" STEP UP? meaning the level of interventio now is OK?

How about "Archbishop Akinola! Stay Home!"

And I agree with the previous writer - only in teh ABC's delusional mind is anyone 'looking to the primates.'

Disgusting.

This is a critical statement: "People turn to the Primates because there doesn’t seem to be anything else that works, a forum for people’s interest, that meets regularly, that can assemble at short notice, which can work together. At the same time, I don’t think the Primates’ Meeting ought to be isolated from other bodies. And I have some hope for the integration of the Primates in the Anglican Consultative Council. Perhaps that will give us a better tool." Let's parse it a little.

"People turn to the Primates because there doesn’t seem to be anything else that works...." The only "people" turning to the Primates are those with an agenda of division. As has been noted elsewhere, the folks in the pew are largely unconsulted. This raises a real question how much the Primates are "a forum for people’s interest."

"that meets regularly, that can assemble at short notice:" this is why those who want division seek out the Primates. If they have to wait three years for the ACC or ten for Lambeth, the sense of crisis may pass, and folks may find they _can_ live together, which is not what they desire.

"which can work together:" after the side meetings and refusals of communion at Dromantine and Dar es Salaam, this is simply laughable.

"At the same time, I don’t think the Primates’ Meeting ought to be isolated from other bodies. And I have some hope for the integration of the Primates in the Anglican Consultative Council. Perhaps that will give us a better tool." If the experience of the distortion of process and purpose of the Primates' Meeting is any example, I would fear for the ACC's life, much less its potential as "a better tool."

The Archbishop maintains eschatological hope, in spite of the facts rapidly being established in the United States and Canada (and, credit where due: he does say, "Don’t step up the level of intervention in this crisis," which is surely a statement to the Africans, and South Americans taking on Episcopal and "Anglican" congregations). He may not be satisfied with "a loose federation;" but if he doesn't express some willingness to work for at least that, he will find he doesn't have even that.

The good Archbishop weighs in against Anglican federalism and points to some more unified church structure. He hopes all will wait as that unfolds or is put into place. Well, that is his job. But from the US point of view much of this a hard sell - and for reasons rarely alluded to. We value federalism because it embodies some deeply held American ideals - which Williams, and others, seems somehow to ignore or discredit. Our so called federalism grows out of national experience which we will not simply set aside for the sake of some curial arrangement. First, following the Anglican Madison and also much of the Reformation we believe centralized power to be suspect and always in need of countervailing instruments. Second, the orthodoxy of TEC has always been accompanied by heterodoxy. That is because as Americans we value and encourage dissent (in a way still not known throughout the Communion). Clearly this is at variance with any literal reading of the Scripture or the early church and remains a stumbling block for Rome (especially in America). Third, we value “Rights”. Though unknown to Scripture or Tradition we find it necessary and useful when we think theologically. These matters - and not simply rearrangements of Anglican polity - are primary matters for us Others may deride American “exceptionalism” but if you try to have us forgo any of these, we won’t sign on to any international agreement. The question has never been polity but theology and our national experience in theological development.

"I think we do need in our shared counsel the voices of priests and lay people as well as Primates and bishops."

It's interesting that deacons are not part of Rowan's vision of the church. Just another piece of evidence that he doesn't understand the American experience.

Sad fact is, as so many instances of rightwing bashing in local real life, the ABC is unable to respond effectively/quickly to bashing of Canada, TEC, or any other province, up to and apparently including his own CoE. The choices are not between an inadequate federation - which in fact has long proved rather messy yet rather adequate - for Anglican Communion life (except to the new conservatives who do not exclusively get to run it); and some centralized but conservatively realigned top down authority/covenant pretending to be - of and for and by the people.

Sorry RW, you are going to flunk civics class if you keep writing/talking like this. Our interdepedence is already a global given on the ground, and equally true, it is not limited to nothing but like-minded and highly conservative believers.

Only the realignment, more or less at the moment, starts off presuming that all its folks are so different from the rest of humanity that God has suddenly now ordained them to uniquely serve by uniquely ruling over everybody else. We need clearer suffragette lenses, and the courage to cope with what we can see when we look through them at this realignment.

Those who cannot tell the practical and moral and spiritual difference between liberal believers and heretics, or between gay couples and drug dealers standing on inner city street corners, well they need to be held responsible for their faulty or specialized discernments.

Poor old Rowan!!

Even a liberal ABC cannot split the AC just because of a fait accompli from TEC in the shape of VGR.....the ABC cosntantly tries to be as generous as possible to TEC, he does not want them to "walk apart" or be expelled, but he needs a lot of cooperation from TEC to achieve this.

I do not think he will get this cooperation - which is good from my point of view, especially if TEC walking apart leads to many liberals all over the AC realigning with TEC....I will be backing any calls to let liberals in England to take property etc should they wish to join TEC Global.

++Williams' "dissing" of a federation is the biggest part of the problem. The only koinonia between national churches described in Scripture is precisely the financial support in overseas charitable work that TEC is willing to continue, but which others have refused. (See Rom 15:26, 2 Cor 8:1-5, 9:13) A loose coalition of churches bound in charitable mission IS the model of the early church.

John Robinson:

As you note, there is very little "de jure" existence to split. However, very little is not the same as none. Moreover, the current rupturing of the bonds of comity and mutual respect are thereby rendered even more imporant as these bonds are the largest part of what holds the AC together.

As to the "Donatism" argument--yawn. You can beat that dead horse as much as you want. That ol' carcass wouldn't run the last time some TA addicts drug it out and gave it a whack, and it won't run this time either. The real issue here is over what constitutes essentials and what constitutes non-essentials of the Faith. Here there is no agreement and seemingly can be no agreement. Indeed, the two sides seem to becoming increasingly entrenched in their respective positions.

Steven

Steven-

First: my last name is Robison, not Robinson. Sorry it's just a tiny pet peeve and I grew up with a guy named "Jon Robinson" got sick of being mixed up with him. He, to this day, claims that I am his evil twin.

On to the substance:
I'll agree with you that the bonds have been sheered. I would say that they were first stretched in '98 when 1:10 was manipulated out of control by ++Carey. trust in the ABC was damaged. I'd go further to say that the first real stresser was in the early 200's when AMiA was born. +VGR's election and Ordination was an excuse to further the damage done then. YMMV.

As for Donatism. It's what y'all are. Period. It may bore you, but I think the dismissivness is born of the same lack of respect and humility that causes you to miss teh carefull Biblical and theological work done by the orthodox. I would go on to argue that we could match up what is said by the conservitives with the early Donatists and find more than a few paralells. Face it: Your objection to +VGR is based on a faulty ecclesiology based on purity and the need to be "right."

As for the Essentials:
I recite the Creeds (well, I READ the Athaniasian) and I recieve the Sacremnent or the altar with no hesitation as to the verasity of the words, nor the Act. I think it would go after "One Holy and Apostolic Church."

Many of us in America have given up caring what the +++Gutless Wonder has to say.

Steven,
You cannot be serious! When has TEC ever denied Chalcedon or Nicea? We have never denied the Christological status or role of Jesus, nor the Trinity, Nor the divinity of the Holy Spirit, nor the Real Presence in the eucharist, nor the Apostolic Succession. Which means you must be eluding to and thus elevating the question of homosexuality to dogma. And just what church council did that? Certainly you can find some whacky theological views in TEC, just as in England or for that matter Nigeria. Which proves nothing. TEC has always publically adhered to the essential matters I list. It is rather this hysteria over homosexuality and the attempt to make it central for the faith which drives this dispute.

"We value federalism because it embodies some deeply held American ideals - which Williams, and others, seems somehow to ignore or discredit. Our so called federalism grows out of national experience which we will not simply set aside for the sake of some curial arrangement."

No, that is is not true.

The American Church is not arguing from American values: we are arguing that others are imposing their new and different, dare I say un-Anglican, values on us and the rest of the Communion.

You can yawn all you want, Steven, but TEC is going to stick to "the Faith once delivered" and not your faddish "Gay = No Sacramental Reality" *heresy*. Why in the world would TEC trade in the Gospel, as we have received it from Christ and Christ's Body The Church, for your New Religion of Hate?

The only question at this point, is who in the AC is going to stick w/ Jesus, and who is going to peel off for Akinola&Co. While percentages are, in God's Economy, irrelevant, I have GREAT HOPE in the Holy Spirit to enlighten faithful *Anglicans* (as opposed to Akinolans) to persevere in Christ.

Come, Holy Spirit, illuminate the Church!

You can yawn all you want, Steven, but TEC is going to stick to "the Faith once delivered" and not your faddish "Gay = No Sacramental Reality" *heresy*. Why in the world would TEC trade in the Gospel, as we have received it from Christ and Christ's Body The Church, for your New Religion of Hate?

The only question at this point, is who in the AC is going to stick w/ Jesus, and who is going to peel off for Akinola&Co. While percentages are, in God's Economy, irrelevant, I have GREAT HOPE in the Holy Spirit to enlighten faithful *Anglicans* (as opposed to Akinolans) to persevere in Christ.

Come, Holy Spirit, illuminate the Church!

So you have changed your view of the Archbishop of Canterbury, NP.

Now let's try history of religion. It is sectarians who usually walk, not the broader constituency. Yes, we can see some entryism going on, and there is a foreign prelate who wants to rule the Anglican Communion according to his biblical viewpoint, but the broad mass will carry on and purity is to be found, well, over in some corner somewhere.

I concur with Pluralist and Cynthia that some souls are no longer looking to the primates for salvation.

Definition of Primate "A mammal of the order Primates, which includes the anthropoids and prosimians, characterized by refined development of the hands."

There's an Elvis Costello and Imposters song called "Monkey to Man". Seems appropriate today.

There was also a recent article about some studies of ape families. It turns out that the meek really do inherit the earth. In any shrewdness of apes, there is the alpha male who controls the harem. What they have also found is that this alpha male usually has a few peacemaker male supporters. They are males that also come to the defence of the harem, but never attack or compete with the alpha male. When the alpha male loses to another male, they switch allegances to care for that male.

The trade off? When the alpha male is overthrown, the new alpha male kills all the previous alpha male's children. The meek supporters are allowed to have one or two females of their own. Their children are not killed.

The irony is that the offspring of the meek have the greatest likelihood of reaching adulthood, as they are not killed as casualties to dynastic takeovers.

Does this apply to humans? Where are children most likely to reach adulthood? In highly aggressive and competitive environments? Or in tolerant accommodating environments?

Anyone care to guess why God calls for peace and compassion? Maybe that's because that is what is best for us and our children.

Canterbury remains our ineffective ineffectual easily intimidated leader that no American Episcopalian can count on for anything; least of all any resistance to those who strive for a shwulenrein Gottdienst.

exactly pluralist - and if you notice, the word "sectarian" has a root.

there is a little, destructive sect in the AC - and despite a sympathetic ABC, it is not able to swing the whole AC to its will

Well, I'm not very sure about "Gottendienst", but I'm certainly sure about "Schwulenrein".

;=)

LOL counterlight

Shades of the Borg from Star Trek "Resistance is futile".

You will be part of the collective, you will not have any individuality, you will only think in the predefined channels. All defective Borgs will be decommissioned.

Last I looked there were zero comments to this interview over at Disharmonyonline.

A blind hen...

TEC is a broad Church in a theological sense; this is not a sect. But as a broad Church, it is not even trying to swing the whole or even near that Anglican Communion to its will. However, compare that approach of breadth with the entryism of Archbishop Akinola and the takeover bids of conservative evangelicals when in the company of open evangelicals.

John:

Sorry about the mix-up on the name. As to orthodoxy, the requirements for Biblical/Christian (and even Anglican) Orthodoxy are higher in my book than yours. However, these are not areas where we might find agreement and (from my experience) are pointless to discuss. As to Donatism, I deny neither the validity of VGR's consecration, nor the validity of sacraments administered by him--how does this make me a Donatist? However, I do believe he was wrongly consecrated and should be removed. Also, I would not want to accept the sacraments from him any more than you would--e.g., want to accept the sacraments from AB Akinola. BTW, would your repugnance in this regard make you a Donatist?

William:

See above.

JCF:

See above. Also, shame on you! I don't think I've ever said anything on this board to justify your dismissal of my faith as a "New Religion of Hate"! Plus, even though we haven't communicated for a while, you should know me better than that.

Steven

"I would not want to accept the sacraments from him any more than you would--e.g., want to accept the sacraments from AB Akinola."

If you're not a Donatist, then why would not want to accept the sacrament from him?
Although I do not respect ++ Akinola and sincerely wish he did not represent the Nigerian church, I would have no hesitation to accept that Christ is present when he presides at the Eucharist. I believe Christ can work through any channel he choses and that he is far less judgmental than some people believe him to be!

I suspect Akinola would refuse to communicate me, but that's another issue.

lapinbizarre's story about Lambeth 1968 reminds me of a tale from the World Council of Churches General Assembly in Vancouver in 198?.

Apparently the denominational "families" will meet daily in a sort of informal caucus. The first day the Anglicans all got together, several bishops from the former colonies arrived in purple cassocks. Dr. Runcie was wearing courderoy slacks with an open-necked shirt. The next day, all the ex-colonial bishops arrived in comparable mufti - but with episcopurple socks.

Now, if those who demand absolute adherence to Lambeth 98 1:10 and to Windsor would just adhere to it themselves, perhaps we could turn to important issues of episcopal haberdashery.

By the way - lapinbizarre - as in "odd rabbit"?

Steven said
As to orthodoxy, the requirements for Biblical/Christian (and even Anglican) Orthodoxy are higher in my book than yours.

Doesn't that suggest a certain 'superiority' in you view of the rest of us, Steven? I would have said 'different' and left open the question of whether mine was more orthodox than yours - you seem to be falling into the old trap of producing a hierarchy of orthodoxy, with your own preferred variety at the top.

Does this mean that Rowan will seek to have the Constitution of the ACC amended to include the Primates as members? I believe it requires the consent of 2/3 of the provinces to amend that constitution (the only written constitution in the Communion.)

I suggest that you check out the Response to the Anglican Covenant developed by the Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission, a fellowship of Episcopal and Canandian Anglican clergy and lay people. It can be found on the blog of Deacon Ormonde Plater,
http://oplater.blogspot.com/2007/05/aplm-montreal-statement.html

Erika:

Go back and read my last post more carefully--you've misconstrued some things.

David:

Hmmm. As to the "superiority" comment, that has an ironical ring to it, coming as it does from a liberal at TA. The sense of superiority here is evident, tangible and thick enough to walk on.

Besides, since when did Anglicans (especially TEC Anglicans) ever balk at the notion of superiority? (This last comment is to be interpreted as a bit of gentle irony).

Steven

Steven,
sorry if I misunderstood you.
But you have to give a good theological reason for not wanting to take the sacrament from any other ordained person. "Personal repugnace" doesn't sound very Christian to me and I'm sure you have a more solidly founded basis for your statement.

Concerning receiving the sacraments from those with whom we disagree, Erika said (replying to Steven)
"Personal repugnance" doesn't sound very Christian"

In the catholic tradition (reflected eg in Aquinas, Gregory the Great, Chaucer, even) it is made quite clear that the efficacy/validity of the sacraments is not tied up with the person administering them. The ignoring of such a basic insight leads us into moralistic priggery.

Just saw Malcom French's "Lapinbizarre" question. The French have small, enameled warning plaques that read "Attention Chien Bizarre". The expression appeals. A year or three back, remembering this, I attempted to register by the name on another site. It was was already taken. I also have an admiration for rabbits, so ... Nothing more exotic - or bizarre.

"Betwixt an Apostle and a drunkard, there is much difference. But betwixt Christ's Baptism performed by an Apostle and Christ's Baptism performed by a drunkard there is no difference at all."

Augustine of Hippo

(I believe they even had a name for it... ;=)

Must have missed out on those signs...

(but this explantion is positively Monty Pythonesqe ;=)

Thanks Göran.

"As to Donatism, I deny neither the validity of VGR's consecration, nor the validity of sacraments administered by him--how does this make me a Donatist? However, I do believe he was wrongly consecrated and should be removed. Also, I would not want to accept the sacraments from him any more than you would--e.g., want to accept the sacraments from AB Akinola. BTW, would your repugnance in this regard make you a Donatist?"

So telling, Steven, that would PROJECT your own non-acceptance onto others! (Which is to say, I would have no hesitation in accepting the Body&Blood of Jesus from ++Akinola *whatsoever*. Plug my ears during his sermon? Almost certainly! But refuse *Christ's* sacraments, from any ordained priest? Never!)

"JCF: See above. Also, shame on you!"

I did, and back atcha, Steven. Your "I deny neither the validity of VGR's consecration, nor the validity of sacraments administered by him" **BUT** at the same time, "I do believe he was wrongly consecrated and should be removed. Also, I would not want to accept the sacraments from him" is a *distinction without a difference*.

But more importantly, you've got a lot of chutzpah to say of this fine man, and FINE BISHOP, that he " should be removed" and then butter-wouldn't-melt-in-your-mouth-innocently claim your religion ISN'T one of hate! Truly, I wish I *didn't* know that about you, Steven, but while you make clear your animus based *solely* upon +GR's (and, FWIW, my) sexuality, appropriately-partnered, then what else am I to think? Hateful is as hateful *does*, Steven: if you don't want to be thought of as having a Religion of Hate, then (please!) quit expressing such hatred as your highest value, 'kay?

Go in peace.

To all and sundry:

There are an awful lot of Akinola haters around here, and Akinola haters who are vehement and make no bones about it. And, I notice a deafening silence when it comes to anyone expressing whether they would prefer to receive the sacrament from someone other than Akinola, say the PB for example, given the choice.

Frankly, I'm amazed that so many people filled with so much animus would not have a preference about who served them communion. A "preference" is all that I have expressed on the "sacrament" issue.

So, let's hear it--I want you all to tell me that you would just as soon receive the sacraments from Akinola as from the PB--given the choice!

As for me, I have preferences. I had preferences about who married my wife and I, about who baptized my children, about who I sit under, about who I receive communion from, and etc. This doesn't mean that I deny the validity of their ministry and sacraments. But, I do insist on my right to have preferences! Sheesh!

JCF:

Sorry--I try (generally with only mixed success) to be a by-the-Book man. It's not necessary for me to hate in order to believe that things should be done in accordance with the Word of God and the Tradition of the Church. And, despite your attempts to type-cast me, I hate neither you nor VGR. I can't say "quite the opposite", except in the general Christian sense that we all say such things--I just don't know either you or him that well. But, I can say that I don't have any active enmity for either of you. And, to the extent that I keep up with TA, I've generally appreciated your posts. You seem like a very nice lady.

PS-All of which is not to say that I don't have some very definite failings. They just happen to be different from the ones you are accusing me of.

Steven

Steven,
yes, I'd as soon receive the sacrament from Akinola as from anyone else. I would genuinely have no preference.

Preferences regarding who marries you and who baptises your children are a completely different issue. As JCF said, I can put earplugs in during Akinola's sermon. At my children's baptism it mattered that they were warmly welcomed into the church family I was already a part of and in which I felt safe, accepted and valued. That is nothing ++Akinola could ever provide.

Steven,
As for "hating" Akinola - no, I don't.
But I don't respect him and I most strongly oppose everything he stands for.

My brother, Davis Mac-Iyalla, lives in exile in fear of his life partly because of this man's violent homophobia, the defamatory smear campaign against Davis, and Akionla's endeavours to push through devastating anti-gay legislation in Nigeria. Until Davis and everybody like him can be safe in his own country and his own church, nothing in the world will make me support anything ++Akinola says or does.

But hate? That I gladly leave to those who are unable to live side by side with those who don't agree with them.

As to Steven’s “to all and sundry”…

§1 1st sentence: No there isn’t.

§1 2nd sentence: No way.
We’re Church; the Church doesn’t “do” Donatism. Council of Arles, 313.

§2 Council of Arles.

§3 Absolutely.

§5 Bottom up! ;=)

Lots of "I's" and "me's", Steven.

Steven:

I will second what Erika Baker stated at 1718-18th BST (Although I admit I have no idea of what a "Donatist" may be). I think that it would be safe to say that most of us on this site were taught that the sacraments come from God alone (already stated above). Believing that, I would have no problem with receiving communion from ++Akinola. Do I hate him? Certainly not. Do I hate what he is doing to my brothers and sisters in the Church? H--- yes!

Try for a moment to imagine what your preferences towards your minister if he (she) had refused to marry you and your wife, and used his (her) reasoning from a generalization from Scripture.

Just try to comprehend what that would be like, then you can start to understand where many of us are coming from, and forgive us if we sound threatening.

Erika:

You very definitely have my respect as well as my sympathy. However, I disagree with some of the distinctions you are making on "preferences", particularly as to Baptism. It is a sacrament just as much as communion and--if you are to be consistent--you cannot afford to exercise a "prerence" here any more than anywhere else. If having a preference = Donatism (which I think is ludicrous), you should not have a preference in this area either.

Lapinbizarre:

Sorry. That's definitely a stylistic no no.

Steven

Hi Choirboy:

Donatists refused to accept the continued validity of the orders of, and sacraments offered by, some folks in the early days of the Church that had been traitors to the Church, but later recanted, repented and were accepted back into the fold. I.e., it is an example of a lack of forgiveness and acceptance exercised against the repentant ministerial sinner.

It's a bit of a ludicrous accusation in this context as there is no repentence by the folks in question, and generally no failure to accept the validity of the orders held by, and sacraments offered by, the folks in question by conservatives. However, it apparently makes the accusers feel rather superior and theologically astute to be able to use such esoteric and sophisticated sounding terminology.

Steven

PS-I appreciate the tone of your post, which is friendlier than I have received of late from some--though not all--posters on this subject. Thanks. /s

Hello again Steven:

I managed to do a little research on Donatism, and basically conclude that the idea was dropped in the early 300's AD due to the fact that all clerics (along with the laity) were deemed to be imperfect.

Article XXVI of the Articles of Religion says something about this.

Repentence seems to be a moot point. And I think that we all should consider that repentence (at least how I believe it) is something quite private between the individual and God. Our confession may be corporate (forgive me good Anglio Catholics!), but grace is something quite personal.

I hope that this helps. I certainly learned something today.

Take care/cbfh

Steven ; to break the cosy compromise, I think Akinola isn't fit for the job he has and I don't regard myself as following the same religion in any case, as I don't believe in conservative Christianity. So, no, I wouldn't attend any church where he was accredited suitable to 'minister'

"It's a bit of a ludicrous accusation in this context as there is no repentence by the folks in question, and generally no failure to accept the validity of the orders held by, and sacraments offered by, the folks in question by conservatives."

Have you been paying attention? The parishoners in Virginia don't want Bishop Lee confirming their children because they fear him touching them -- they certainly deny that a sacrament occurs during his confirmations. Similarly, a number of congregations have absolutely refused to receive communion from their bishop should he visit. Since they are perfectly willing to receive from their own priest, it isn't them refusing our of their own unworthiness, it is their judgment on the bishop.

Being in communion means a mutual recognition of both the validity of sacraments and the ministry of the other. Either they don't recognize him as a bishop or they don't recognize the validity of his sacraments. There is no other expalnation.

The Ordination of Women, Steven, Jeffrey John, the Bishop of New Hampshire...

Many more examples could be given.

Your'e living in denial, Steven.

CBH:

Thanks for the comeback. This Donatist thing comes up from time-to-time. It usually doesn't get beyond the name calling stage: "You're a Donatist, you're a Donatist, NYAA, NYAA, NYAA!" And, truthfully, most using this terminology don't seem to have much conception of the meaning of the term. On the other hand, for the average person in the pew I don't think their reactions go this deep from a theological perspective--i.e., to the level of considering orders/sacraments invalid. They just know they don't like what someone's doing and don't want to have anything to do with them. (There's a lot of that at TA as well--as Merseymike makes clear).

Merseymike:

Always good to hear from an honest man.

Ruidh:

How about the fact that they detest Lee in terms of what he represents and does. (See, response to CBH, above). Detestation is usually sufficient reason, even without high-falutin theological sounding accusations. For more on "detestation" talk to Merseymike and any other average poster at TA.

Steven

Steven,
you may be right that to be consistent I should not have a preference for Baptism either.
If so, I'm guilty, because from a purely emotional point of view there is a huge difference between a 5 second communion out of hundreds of communion services, and a one off celebration of Baptism to welcome my precious baby into the church.

But we did start with the question of taking communion from people we don't agree with.
I'm happy to admit that I would not organise a communion service with ++ Akinola in the same way I would organise a baptism or a wedding.
But if I found myself in a church where he was presiding I would most certainly not refuse to take communion from him, nor would I recoil at having to do so.

One of the most hurtful memories I have are of an Easter Sunday Pascal Vigil communion service, where some of my church had been Baptised and confirmed that morning. It was a wonderful celebration, and we were so delighted to see our female priest among those giving out communion. A couple in front of me deliberately walked past her and joined the next line that was served by a man. To me, that was an unforgivable rejection of everything the whole service had been about, plus a personal rejection of my wonderful priest who most certainly was aware of it.

So, Erika - people should ditch their theological beliefs to spare the feelings of your priest?

Erika:

I have no problem with your preferences. It's a large number of other posters around here that have strained my credulity. I'm sorry folks, but I find it hard to believe that, if the PB was presiding at a communion in one church and AB Akinola was presiding at a communion next door, the average TA poster would flip a coin. One way or the other I think they would "find" themselves taking from the PB--i.e., exercising a preference. That's OK by me, and certainly not a manifestation of Donatism. However, deliberate rudeness--as you apparently witnessed--should be avoided when possible.

Steven

NP,
Steven never said that his preference was based on theology.

Steven-
I agree with you that the issue of Donatism is more than preference.
It is a matter of rejecting the sacraments and sacramental acts of a person based on the, perceived, fact they are a sinner.
The people of Falls Church and Truro Church (Jerusalem Chapel) didn’t want Lee to confirm their kids because he was, in the words of one man, “slimy.” They didn’t think his ministry as Bishop was legitimate because he had “sinned” in voting to confirm +VGR. It is not a simple matter of “preference” but rather a rejection based on, for lack of a better term, “cooties.” (Okay, I know I could probably find a better term but Benedril is a beast) +Akinola falls into the same pattern; if you have “cooties” you can’t be one of us.
Now, I have received communion from Archbishop Drexel and more than a few other clergy with whom I disagree. I don’t reject the validity of their sacraments because I feel them to be in the wrong. My Lord +Abuja, however, may be a different kettle of fish all together. He has fallen off the doctrinal deep end. As far as I can tell his purity fixation may well have driven him outside the bounds and into the realm of open heresy. If so, it could be argued, following Augustine, that he has left the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and entered into the realm of the Heserarch. If so, one could skip a “sacrament” preformed by him because he was no longer exercising the ministry of the Church, but rather of his own ego. I’m not, yet, willing to say that, but I think the case can be made for not receiving from him NOT because he is a sinner, but because his rejection og GLBT persons has driven him out of the Church.
May not be all that strong of an argument, yet, but may well be the case. Decisions such as that are well above most of our pay grade.

Steven, you are moving the poles here. Your question was not which church do you normally attend.

Erika:

My preference is, in fact, based on theological considerations as well as other considerations. However, I don't deny the validity of the orders or sacraments of VGR or of others in this present controversy that I disagree with. The decision of whether to remove someone from ministry takes place at a higher level than mine. I would merely prefer to be under the auspices of others. And, in most cases, I would seek to avoid gratuitously hurting someone's feelings even as I exercised an extremely strong preference. However, that would not be a determining factor if I couldn't avoid doing so and the reasons were strong. NP is correct on that.

John Robinson:

Thanks for the post. Thinking that someone is "slimy" and/or has "cooties" is different from a denial of the efficacy of their orders/sacraments. I believe there have been a lot of slimy, cootie ridden characters down through the history of the Church that were, nonetheless, validly ordained and empowered to administer the sacraments. This doesn't mean that I can't avoid them when I can, and I don't think that such avoidance (by me, you, Erika, TAers, and/or the fellow in Virginia) necessarily rises to the level of Donatism. But, having said that, I can't guaranty that is true in each individual case--whether the individual in question is liberal or conservative.

BTW-I don't agree with you on Akinola. Even if he's wrong, he's not apostate. But I do wonder about Spong.

Steven

Well, the "cooties" argument is that a person with them is unable to preform the sacrements because of them.
And yes, the good CANA folks have said as much.

As for +Spong, I tend to count him in with +Akinola as perhaps not quite there but close.

Steven,
In a previous post you said "As for me, I have preferences. I had preferences about who married my wife and I, about who baptized my children, about who I sit under, about who I receive communion from, and etc. This doesn't mean that I deny the validity of their ministry and sacraments. But, I do insist on my right to have preferences! Sheesh!"

As you didn't give any theological justification for those preferences I took them to be merely emotional. Which is fair enough, but if you now say that NP is right that you do have theological issues, and if they are not to do with a belief that the priest's invalidates the sacrament, then what are they?

As for Spong - it's a long times since I read him, but I thought he was someone who denies the literal truth of everything but the theological truth of nothing. He's on the outer edge of the spectrum, yes, but firmly within what Anglicanism can contain.

Erika:

Anglicanism has always had to cope with theological differences that did not invalidate orders/sacraments. Most notably, it has had to cope with the divide between its anglocatholic wing and its puritan wing. (A source of many theological preferences past and present). As I understand it, the broad church grew up as a "pox on both your houses" kind of response which later, at least in part, mutated into todays anything-goes-as-long-as-its-liberal wing. However, at some point, "the center cannot hold" and the divergence in beliefs becomes too great for everyone to stay together under one roof. I believe we have come to that point. One side or the other must give in or go. There will be no peace otherwise. And, since no one will give in--Go it must be. I merely try to promote the idea of a peaceful and Godly separation with people--liberal or conservative--keeping their own church buildings. However, I don't get many takers at TA.

Steven

PS-As to Spong, sorry, I don't agree that this is a permissible approach. Scripture has parts that are obviously intended, on their face, to be interpreted literally, others that are obviously intended to be interpreted figuratively, and a good number where there may be some disagreement. The fact that fundamentalists may sometimes err by interpreting figurative matters literally does not justify the opposite error. /s

Steven-How can you say +Spong is more "apostate" than ++Akinola? Good grief, the last time I noted, people weren't being jailed in Newark, Morristown, New Brunswick and Patterson, New Jersey for association with homosexuals.

Doesn't the concept of materiality enter your mind Steven?

CBH:

To be apostate is to deny the fundamental truths of the Faith. I deem that Spong has possibly done that and Akinola has, to the best of my knowledge, not done that. This is not to say that Akinola cannot be accused on some other accounts, nor is it a judgment on who is a more virtuous man or a more kindly man. Though I wish it were otherwise, there have been plenty of nasty Christians. Likewise, there have been many virtuous pagans. Apostacy is something different.

At another level I have to remark that Akinola has not jailed anyone anymore than Spong. Moreover, if his viewpoint on the sexual practices of homosexuals renders him an apostate you will have to throw out all of the prophets, apostles, saints, theologians and plain ordinary Christians down through the ages (except for the liberals of the current generation) as apostates. I think that position is untenable.

All of which does not say that he cannot be accused of indifference, cruelty or whatever. I leave that up to you--I just don't think he can be accused of apostacy.

Steven

PS-As a lawyer I am very conversant with the concept of "materiality". However, what is "material" depends on what you are trying to prove. As noted, all of your accusations may be "material" in some context--I just don't think they prove apostacy. Now, if there were more direct proof of apostacy they might be able to come in as supporting evidence--maybe. Hmm. i'll let that one lie. /s

"Moreover, if his viewpoint on the sexual practices of homosexuals renders him an apostate you will have to throw out all of the prophets, apostles, saints, theologians and plain ordinary Christians down through the ages"

In your many posts on this thread, Steven, you come back to this basic claim.

I call it FALSE.

I say "all of the prophets, apostles, saints, theologians and plain ordinary Christians down through the ages" do NOT share *your* "viewpoint on the sexual practices of homosexuals" for the simple reason that, the very *concept* of a person born oriented affectionately/sexually towards one of the same-sex not yet EXISTING, they couldn't very well have any concept of the rightness/wrongness of said person's "sexual practices". (well, beyond many celibates' probable distaste for thinking about ANYONE'S sexual practices, that is!)

Steven, your logic being *objectively false* (due to anachronism) is as much a "plain reading" to me, as you would claim yours is of Scripture (while I find my POV consistent w/ Scripture and Tradition as well as *Reason*---but I guess that comes as no surprise that I would make such a claim! ;-/)

So, while you're making challenges to us regarding receiving the Eucharist from whom (a challenge easily-met: my *only* "preference" regarding receiving the Eucharist, is that the priest say "The Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven" in *English*, as it is the only language in which I am {ahem} fluent), I challenge you:

WHAT IF YOUR BIBLICAL/TRADITION *INTERPRETATION* (that "all of the prophets, apostles, saints, theologians and plain ordinary Christians down through the ages" condemn same-sex spousal relationships, as *you* do) IS FALSE??? Making that basic error, what does that mean for the way you have JUDGED your LGBT brothers & sisters? (Beginning w/ +Gene Robinson?)

[Finally Steven, please stop making (incorrect) assumptions about my gender]

"To be apostate is to deny the fundamental truths of the Faith."

No. To be a heretic is to deny doctrine and to teach counter to it. To be apostate is to deny Christ. They are very different things.

The confusion stems from conflating "faith" (i.e. belief or trust) with doctrine.

My limited knowledge of the word "apostasy" is to abandon the ideas and precepts of a religion and/or to be disloyal to those teachings.
Although I would agree that +Jack Spong's teachings border on heresy, I think that he is not in denial of such (which could be problematic in itself).

++Akinola however within the parameters of a generally accepted view (less so as time goes by) of Christianity, has focused on a small part of scripture, taken it out of proportion of importance, and worked for a result that is horrendous. That's were my premise of materiality comes in. It's the end result.

+Jack Spong might be a little whacky, and probably a little too egotistical, but nobody's being imprisoned for being in disagreement with his pronouncments. And I don't think we would end up in hell for following him, as we are justified by faith alone, flawed as it may be.

P.S. As a professional mariner (what the British call the 'Merchant Navy') I won't challenge you on semantics, and as a soloist in a local cathedral choir, I'm mighty lucky be able to hear Davis Mac-Iyalla later tonight at evensong. I'll poise this at the question and answer session later. Should be interesting, the Dean's originally from the Diocese of Newark. Howell's 'Col Reg' in case anybody's curious.

JCF:

You have not refuted my point. And, I have heard the rationalizations you posit in many forms in the past. I find them untenable for a variety of reasons; however, I don't think we'll have time to hash it out here before this thread is terminated, so maybe we can get to it later. Finally, what incorrect assumptions about your gender have I made--you are female aren't you? This is certainly what your website indicated when I checked it out some time back.

RUIDH:

I don't disagree with you in essence about the meaning of apostacy. However, to say--deny Christ--does not say anything without some basic underlying information about who Christ was/is and what he did/does, etc. I.e., to deny a word ("Christ") is meaningless without further definition of what the word means. Thus, my terminology--"fundamental truths" of the Faith.

CBH:

Interesting to find that you're a merchant mariner. I come from a long line of seafarers, though my Dad was determined that his sons would not follow the sea. Consequently, I never got further than working the harbor tugs in my youth. (I hope the concert went well).

Steven

How was Evensong CBH?