The Church of England Newspaper has a report by George Conger Uganda Appoints US Bishop. It includes this:
Further overseas bishops are expected to be appointed by the Church of Nigeria. On March 7 the Nigerian House of Bishops stated, “In light of the report from the recent meeting of primates in Dar es Salaam we agreed to defer the request for additional Episcopal elections for CANA until our meeting in September 2007.”
Central African Archbishop Bernard Malango is not expected to appoint a bishop to oversee his province’s US congregations, however.
The appointment of Bishop Guernsey was an interim measure to keep open a door for embattled traditionalists in the US to remain part of the Communion, Archbishop Orombi wrote on June 21.
“The need for a domestic episcopate for our Ugandan congregations grows daily, yet the anticipated, Biblically orthodox domestic ecclesial entity in the USA is not yet available. It has, therefore, seemed good to the House of Bishops and the Holy Spirit for us to take an interim step that acknowledges the need for a domestic bishop while at the same time affirming [their] full status as members of the Church of Uganda, and, therefore, of the Anglican Communion.”
And the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, who is to speak to the English General Synod next Sunday in favour of an Anglican Covenant, endorsed the earlier announcement by the Province of Kenya:
The Archbishop supports the decision of the Province of Kenya to provide resident Episcopal oversight for the clergy and congregations in the United States who placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Kenya after they had arrived at the conclusion that the Episcopal Church no longer offered them the assurance of continuity with “The faith once delivered to the saints.” The provision of adequate pastoral care and episcopate oversight constitutes a deliberate and intentional effort to provide stability in an environment in which Anglicanism is being severely tested and challenged.
The Primates of the Communion at their meeting in Tanzania in February produced a communion response to the embattled state of Anglicanism in the United States in their offer of a provisional pastoral arrangement which provided space for the participation of all the major Anglican entities in the United States. Unfortunately, the unanimous offer of the Primates was rejected by the House of Bishops and the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Church. In the face of this unequivocal rejection, the Instruments of Communion must determine the most appropriate response to this unfortunate spectacle of a fragmented Anglicanism within the United States of America.
In this context, the decision of the Province of Kenya signals a willingness on the part of that Province to act responsibly to provide care for persons already under its jurisdiction. In addition, the selection of the Rev’d. Canon Bill Atwood as Suffragan Bishop is highly commendable. Canon Atwood is well suited for this particular ministry given his long association with Kenya and some of the other Provinces in CAPA and his unquestionable knowledge and appreciation of the ecclesial situation in the United States.
Finally, the willingness of the Province of Kenya to collaborate with the other orthodox Anglicans in the United States could serve the point towards a creation of a viable, stable and orthodox Anglican presence in the United States.
With all this talk of “dis-inviting schismatic bishops” from Lambeth, time, perhaps, to take a second look at the invitation to Gomez to address General Synod?
More realistically, I sincerely hope he’ll be facing a Q & A session at GS.
What a really strange bunch of people these are. The ‘faith once delivered to the saints’ was only possible because the folks in ol’ Zion allowed pesky old Paul to let the impure millions in. Perhaps the disreputable beginnings of the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’ ought to be brought to the attention of those wishing to defend the fortress against its friends…
It’ll be interesting to hear Synod’s reaction to Archbishop Gomez’s address next week when he proposes the Covenant as a means to corporate cohesion. He seems to favour ‘excommunicating’ ECUSA and replacing it with an orthodox multi-primatial province as the official Anglican presence. Don’t think that’ll go down too well with some at York.
Kieran Crichton wrote, “The ‘faith once delivered to the saints’ was only possible because the folks in ol’ Zion allowed pesky old Paul to let the impure millions in.” Perhaps a little Biblical literacy is needed here. The ‘impure’ converts were allowed in if they were sexually moral: sexual morality was actually a litmus test for inclusion in he early church. Not that I am saying that the church should only belong to the celibate or those living in monogomous heterosexual marriages. But there should be an IDEAL of sexual morality based upon scripture…even if it is an ideal with… Read more »
African primates will continue to appoint more bishops for the U.S.A., misled as they are to believe that TEC has become a heretical branch of the Anglican Communion by U.S. Americans that wish TEC ill. Yesterday David Virtue on VOL published a “fictitious” report of the induction of a Muslim imam as Dean of New York City’s Cathedral of St. John the Divine by PB Katharine Jefferts Schori and Bishop Sisk of N.Y. Although labeled as a “ficticious” report, the reasserters, blogging on VOL, let TEC’s PB have it as a pagan who no longer recognizes Jesus Christ as Lord… Read more »
“It has, therefore, seemed good to the House of Bishops and the Holy Spirit….”
Blimey. These guys really do have connections, don’t they?
Ah, the genius of ++Cantuar. Put Gomez in charge of the process, and within months he’s making statements so outrageous that even Tertullian would blush. Net result, covenant dead duck.
Wonder if this gave David Virtue any inspiration for his fictional account:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/Dio-Olympia-Episcopal-Voices-June2007.pdf#page=9
The faith once delivered to the saints is a Duncan favorite. I just wonder which saints?
Christianity was all developed by the end of the first century?
curious.
Peace,
Bob
Selah wrote, “The ‘impure’ converts were allowed in if they were sexually moral…”
Great Googly Moogly! Why is it *always* SEX with you people ?!? I’ve never in all my born days seen such an unhealthy, obsessive interest in the sex lives of other people than I’ve seen in the Anglican Right-Wing! Don’t you “orthodox” think about *anything* else ?!
(Sorry for being so blunt, but I’ve become utterly exasperated with this prurient nonsense. Get your minds out of the gutter, please!)
Really Mynster – did the ABC have clever plans when he appointed Jeffrey John and when he presented the Primates in Tanzania with a report which tried to suggest that TEC had met the Windsor conditions???
I suspect you will see similar events….he and the Lambeth Palace hierarchy try to do as much as they can for old liberal friends…but in the end are not willing to see the AC be reduced to a few million liberals around the world – reducing to nothing within a few decades
David H. Your post might be clever if it were not so inane. The presenting issue in the dispute between liberals and traditionalists relates to Biblical authority in a particular area: The nature of “sexually moral” behavior. Obviously, this is an area in dispute and has been and will be the subject of many posts by both sides. As you obviously find this topic difficult to deal with, you might find it advisable to avoid reading posts or commenting on posts in this subject area. You will, however, find very little at TA that doesn’t touch on the subject either… Read more »
I’ve asked this before and, if I’m spared, I fear that down the road I’ll be asking it again, but ought “Thinking Anglicans” to be about making points, or about scoring them?
David H. Selah’s reference was to the letter the Council of Jerusalem sent to the Gentiles. Acts 15:23b-29 The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by… Read more »
Hello Selah, and thankyou for your comment. I am bewildered, given that I read the Bible and pray the offices that you seem to think me somehow lacking knowledge of the New Testament, but then again, under God’s grace we all stand to learn and grow in some new way every day. I strongly disagree with the implication of your citing of sexual morality in the early church. If this was an issue at all, in the sense that we currently understand it, it was framed largely in the same way that it figures in the Old Testament; that is… Read more »
Enough already. We have already reached the impasse everyone knew was coming. It is more than a matter of bedroom habits, it’s about the authority of Scripture. As the ABC has already admitted, St. Paul and the writers of Holy Writ would not see homosexual intercourse to be consistent with a Christian ethos. Therefore the issue is really about whether or not a national church will submit to Scripture. TEC has repeatedly said they will not, while the GS sees it as a non-negotiable issue. Thus, the two have already decided to walk apart. It is over. Consequently, of course… Read more »
“submit to Scripture”
I see. And here I thought I was supposed to submit to God. And, I’m sure you will agree that the “Spirit will lead us into all truth”, right. Not saying TEC is perceiving truth here, just that this kind of fundamentalism is the way some Churches operate, but not the Anglican Church. We know that God’s self revelation didn’t stop when St. John put his pen down for the last time on Patmos.
Ford, submitting to Scripture is submitting to God, for Scripture is God’s own self-revelation. As “Anglicans” we’ve repeatedly affirmed that conviction in such varied places as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, the entire 39 Articles, even our liturgy. Moreover, as Article XX plainly states, “…it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word…” So please, resist the urge to use ad homimen (calling us “fundamentalists”) and simply admit that Scripture is superfluous to TEC. This is why we have 2 faiths and why we need to re-establish an Anglican presence on the North American… Read more »
Joe, How is ‘fundamentalist’ ad hominem? For me, it describes those who believe that all authority in the Church resides in the Bible as it is literally written, possibly informed by the meaning of the original Greek. Doesn’t sound overly ad hominem to me. And Scripture being God’s self revelation is a bit of rhetoric, since, while true, it is Jesus Who is God’s self revelation in the flesh, as you know. The first Christians came to believe without anything like what we now call Scripture. For them, Scripture was the Old Testament, and they had no trouble believing the… Read more »
“Will it be with TEC and their gazillions of dollars or the GS and their poor but plenteous people? I think we all know where this is heading.” Of course if a court were to direct those gazillions and buildings to Akinola, Minns, and their ilk, the high road doesn’t seem so convenient anymore, does it? Ford, don’t you understand that Joe, NP, and the other reasserters here (golly, there are many more today than usual) are not to be denied. We not only have to contribute to their Church. We have to THINK EXACTLY LIKE THEM, TOO. Hey guys,… Read more »
Ford:
Joe is right on all points. Though, for my part, I wish he wasn’t right about TEC. As to TEC, I’m afraid that, as we sometimes say down South, “It’s all over but the shoutin'”.
Steven
Joe wrote: “Therefore the issue is really about whether or not a national church will submit to Scripture.”
Do people of your mindset really submit to scripture? Do you accept scripture’s prohibition to charge interest on loans? If so, you would opt out of the capitalist system that provides you with a pension and many other benefits. Do you still maintain that women must not teach men?
Obviously, many of TEC’s detractors are ‘cherry pickers’ as far as the authority of scripture in today’s world is concerned.
You are hostile, Joe. It is an outrageous statement to say that “scripture is superfluous to TEC” – what you mean is some of us interpret it differently from you, and see authority elsewhere too. Plus the 39 Articles are effectively demoted as historic formularies. Your side is attempting to produce this restrictive Anglicanism that is far more sweeping than against the ethos of TEC. Even if there is a split, it does not produce two “faiths” but two Anglican denominations of the same religion, one that would be more receptive to breadth and inclusion, and the other restrictive. The… Read more »
John Henry: Hmmm. So, you assert that the prohibition on interest is part of the moral law and therefore survives Calvary? This is an interesting position, which is not to say that I am totally “agin it”. It used to be that excessive interest was forbidden as usury–and I think American society, at least, was better off without the excesses that easy credit and high interest credit cards have brought with them. However, you will have to watch this form of argument or you will be bringing in all the rest of Israel’s civil/ceremonial law as part of the moral… Read more »
Oooo! Disagree with TEC and be vilified. All I’ve said is that TEC has forced a split and offered another faith – call it heterodoxy if you like. The scriptures are clear and TEC says, “We’re beyond St. Paul.” Lambeth 1.10 was clear and yet TEC has basically said, “We don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.” So, in point of fact, TEC sees no need to submit to scripture or the church catholic. But of course, TEC is right and everyone else wrong. Moreover, if TEC is ever challenged it is convenient to call the world ignorant,… Read more »
Steven, “part of the moral law and therefore survives Calvary” This is a false distinction, as you well know. The Law was, and is, the Law, you can’t pick and choose the bits you don’t like and call them “ritual”. “excessive interest” All interest was prohibited. The distinction of “excessive interest” was invented as a justification for usury. By that argument, it’s only “excessive homosexuality” that the Bible condemns. Joe, “vilified”?!?!? Disagreement is not vilification. If you want to be vilified, trot on over to Venomonline or some similar conservative blog and pretend to be a liberal. You’ll find out… Read more »
Thank you, Ford, for your rebuttal of Steven’s distinction between “moral law”, “ceremonial law”, etc., which is the heretic Jean Calvin’s way of dealing with Torah, contrary to the Jewish understanding of Mosaic law.
For the Jews, and for Jesus, Torah was indivisible. The Church, for centuries, understood it that way and declared charging interest on loans illicit. It is the legacy of Jean Calvin that gave rise to capitalism (viz. Max Weber), the “rich” viewing themselves blessed by God, while the wrath of God was upon the poor and the deviant sinners.
No… Max Weber made a parallel between Calvin and Capitalism. He realised that causality was more complex, indeed was close to Marx in part, but added that ideas, such as Calvinism, had a semi-independent input into the situation, whereas for Marx ideas were just the resultant output of a set of economic and social relationships of power. No one thinks that Calvinism was a cause of capitalism, but that it was just one influence, but even then it is an argument that has been criticised for a very long time.
Someone mentioned the Council of Jerusalem. Odd reference for a legalist to make since the Apostles said: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” You will note no reference at all to Scripture. Now, I have no doubt they consulted Scripture, debated it, perhaps even had some nasty arguments. But in the end they allowed the Spirit to guide them, not the word written, and She led them in a direction quite different from anything the Scripture said. “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”, not “Scripture says” much less “the Law says” and… Read more »
Hmmm. Interesting to know that so many of the “liberals” at TA are secret re-constructionists and are in kahoots with Rushdoony et al. in seeing no difference between the moral law and the rest of the Torah. Well, if there is no difference we should all be re-constructionists as well. However, that will put you in a much worse position than you are in at present. Perhaps you should give this some more thought. Stoning is a bad way to go.
Steven
PS-My BCP only has recitals of the 10 commandments. That also might be a clue. /s
Ford, The Council of Jerusalem was comprised on apostles in the 1st C. God gave them special authority and many special events occurred during their ministries – resurrections, miracles and revelation of what eventually became the NT. These men saw Christ in the flesh! We have not. I agree that the Spirit moves in God’s people to give revelation beyond Scripture. In my own life the Spirit has revealed God’s will for my life in ways Scripture never could. But I do not believe we are hearing a message from the Scripture that apposes the guidance from the apostles –… Read more »
Well, I can’t tell if my prior post was lost. I’ll repeat its observations for the benefit of TA antinomians if it doesn’t show up. In the meantime, I think it is appropriate to respond to the criticism that the distinction between moral law and the civil and ceremonial law of the OT is some sort of Calvinistic aberration. In fact, as Article VII “Of the Old Testament” has it: “Although the Law as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no… Read more »
“Well, if there is no difference we should all be re-constructionists as well.” No, we could all acknowledge that we are no longer under the Law and try to understand how it is that we are indeed called to holy living without the Law. It seems a bit…conflicted to sing “Free From the Law, Oh Happy Condition” then listen to an hour long sermon about obedience to certain parts of it. “In my own life the Spirit has revealed God’s will for my life in ways Scripture never could.” To you, no doubt. But, you see, what one man feels… Read more »
“TA antinomians”
That took a little while!
Ford said,
“But, you see, what one man feels to be the guidance of the Spirit may not be at all.”
Yes – and many claim this is an issue in the church today. Even if many people think something is guidance from the Spirit they can be wrong (see Arians).
Hi Ford: I’m kind of confused about where we stand discussion-wise. I reacted to a comment by John Henry implying that one could not seek to observe Biblical moral standards/precepts without accepting and observing all Torah law pronouncements. This is ludicrous and has never been the position of Christians (Catholic or otherwise) in any era so far as I know. It is certainly not the “Anglican” position or the “Catholic” position. Though, once again, TEC–as a fearless innovator–may be breaking new ground here. On other points I fear we may be snarled by language. To me as a bumbling layman,… Read more »
Ford,
If I understand what you are saying there are at least three questions that deserve some thought:
1) At what level does the consultation need to go to in order for a “correct” interpretation to be assured?
2) Does this allow for personal vocations and how are they revealed and confirmed?
3) How do the spiritual gifts of teaching and prophecy fit in?
As we’ve seen from the 1C through the early Councils, the Reformation and today the church gets it wrong at times and individuals are often shown a re-centering from God.
“But, you see, what one man feels to be the guidance of the Spirit may not be at all.”
Yes, that’s undoubtedly true. And it is the one reason we continue to make mistakes throughout our lives and continue to require forgiveness.
Because we have no choice but to try to listen to the Spirit in our lives, and our personal lives are not always subject to corporate church decisions, certainly not the myriad of daily choices we make.
Steven, For me, first and foremost, it’s about what is it to live a Christian life? We are not under the Law. Yet, we are clearly, as Paul says, not free to sin, and there is, definitely, sin. I’m also not a theolog. I do not understand this claim that the ritual Law was done away on the Cross, but not the moral Law. We cannot claim to be free from the Law one minute, which as a very important part of my faith, then claim that certain parts of it still apply. When Jesus said “On these two Commandments… Read more »
Chris, I suggest you read Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Church. He addresses this problem from an Orthodox perspective. In short, it is not Councils that have authority in the long run. It is the people’s acceptance of a Council’s decisions that makes them authoritative. So there were many Councils of the Church but only 7 are accepted as Ecumenical. Everything is seen in terms of the Eucharistic community. Personal vocations are revealed and confirmed by the individual within the conmmunity. It can be a valid call, for instance, for a community to say to an unwilling candidate that s/he is… Read more »