How come it's only certain Lambeth Resolutions that are touted as expressing the mind of the Anglican Communion. How many bishops in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Southern Cone, SE Asia, voted for THIS 1998 Resolution?:

"Resolution V.13
Episcopal Responsibilities and Diocesan Boundaries

This Conference:

a. reaffirms Resolution 72 of the Lambeth Conference of 1988 "Episcopal Responsibilities and Diocesan Boundaries"; and
b. requests the Primates to encourage the bishops of their Province to consider the implications of Resolution 72 of the Lambeth Conference 1988."

The resolution referred to being of course this one:

"Resolution 72
Epsicopal Responsibilities and Diocesan Boundaries

This Conference:

1. reaffirms its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries; and in light of the above

2. affirms that it is deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof.

3. urges all political and community leaders to seize every opportunity to work together to bring about a just and peaceful solution.

With the number of issues that could threaten our unity it seems fair that we should speak of our mutual respect for one another, and the positions we hold, that serves as a sign of our unity."

This resolution says 'not under ANY circumstances'. It does not say, unless a Province decides otherwise'.

"Finally, I want to say how pleased and encouraged I am to hear that Bishop Duncan has called for a Council of Bishops meeting for the Common Cause partners in September. This is the kind of movement toward unity among orthodox entities in the USA that is hopeful for the future of a Biblical North American Anglican witness and must be pleasing to our Lord. We have already been assured that Bishop-elect Guernsey will be invited to that meeting, and we have asked him to work closely with all Bishops serving American congregations that are canonically part of Global South Provinces, and with other Bishops with whom the Church of Uganda is in communion."

Another Anglican Primate who has turned into a schismatic, in defiance of ++Rowan Cantuar, a Lambeth 1988 Resolution and of a Windsor Report admonition discouraging "border crossings". It is a sad day for the Anglican Communion.

Of course, ++Henry Luke Orombi views himself as a "knight in shining armor" riding to the rescue of Episcopalians persecuted by the feminist PB +Jefferts Schori and the gay-activist Bishop of New Hampshire. The very fact that no presentments have been filed against Orombi's fellow-schismatic +Robert Duncan (Pittsburgh) is evidence that the Primate's pretense of rescue is based on a lie and is intended to deceive. Is this kind of conduct becoming a bishop, let alone a Primate of the Anglican Communion?

QUOTE. We will all need to walk in the light with one another; to extend grace, love, and mutual respect to one another; and to be transparent in our communication. UNQUOTE.

Additional decode taken for granted: Straight con-evo believers only need apply.

Canterbury's prediction that things were going to get a lot messier with overlapping (and probably competing in some sense?) Anglican jurisdictions is surely coming true, since con-evo believers can no longer brook rubbing shoulders in church life with prog-lib believers or world faith believers or queer folks, the way we live peacefully together, say, on our modern work teams.

Alas. Lord have mercy. The gospel news? God is not confined to nothing but the realignment con-evo believer boxes. Otherwise the rest of us should long ago have stopped praying and doing service.

Well, when hese walers walk, and join up, they'll exclude themselves. Gosh, there might even be a possibility of church plants in the major cities of these African Countries!

According to this blogger - http://drlake.blogspot.com/2007/08/akinola-comes-to-wheaton.html - +Akinola will be joining the Chicago network of AMiA parishes for worship in Wheaton College chapel on Sept 23. Rallying the troops before the Sept 30th deadline? I wonder who else he will drop in on in that week?

"Biblical North American Anglican witness"

Will these be called Anglican Bible Churches?
Or perhaps "Full-Gospel Anglican Churches"?
Imagine, we now have former Episcopalians who are fundamentalists! I suspect some of our fellow liberals, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Methodists, must be chuckling when they are not despairing.

What a sad story. The African bishops are creating a collection of small Protestant sects.

Andrew

"How come it's only certain Lambeth Resolutions that are touted as expressing the mind of the Anglican Communion."

MJ,
Because this is a DIRE PASTORAL EMERGENCY!!!!!!! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!! Some conservatives in the US, and especially, though not limited to, some expat Africans, might have to actually deal with gay people as something other than a revolting abstraction, and we can't have that. Some of them might even decide to turn gay if they think it's all right to do so. It would endanger their immortal souls to have to endure such a thing for a few years till this all gets straightened (pardon the pun) out. No, they need bishops now, as they are being led far astray by the pagans in TEC. While the hyperbole is mine, the gist of the argument is not my attempt at satire, but the way I understand it from the things said here and elsewhere by conservatives.

Aside from theology, John is a personal friend of mine, in fact, he baptized me as an adult, 10 years ago. We don't agree at all on gay issues within the church - I am for full inclusion on all levels; he is opposed. Yet, somehow, we remain mutually respectful. As a member of a continuing congregation, one that voted to leave the Episcopal Church, and left us stranded as a remnant by seizing the property, I can tell you that John's church, about 10 miles distant, did not do that -- they successfully concluded a negotiated settlement with the Diocese on the property. Although I don't believe his parish needed to leave, I can say they left on more honorable terms than my own parish, which simply seized the property, making it untenable for those of us who voted to stay in TEC. John and I have always been together in our desire to alleviate the conditions of the poor - he's told me that when he builds a new church, he will include space for a physical therapy unit, for the poor that live in that area, in tents in the woods. I wish it were so, that all who disagree, could remain civil. If John and I are able to do that, it is possible, even if I think that John's actions, at times, contribute to the conditions that make it impossible for most others. I can't say I pray his mission succeeds; I can say I wish only the best for him personally.

I've got a hunch that these African bishops are going to be part of a very lonely crowd here in the states.

Time and again, TEC was told that it needed to rovide for the spiritual needs of those with an hisotirc understanding of morality and Scriptural authority. That is the background for the GS primates' actions. Having failed to provide for that spritual need, TEC now cries that others determined to do so. Crocodile tears if you ask me.

It seems both encouraging and sad that Spot's post (above) at least embraces a charitable spirit. On the positive side he wishes his friend (though an adversary) well - nice touch. But on the down side he admits his inclination that his friend's mission would fail. Is that what we've come to? Political parties in a battle for power?

Listen, there are less than 800k persons in Episcopal pews in the US on any given Sunday. Given their incredible head start in this country (they were here first!) it is more than a little embarrassing that they've done such a poor job in advancing the gospel. So why not stop fighting the Africans and instead welcome them? The USA is the largest mission field among English speaking people in the world and, frankly, TEC could use the help.

The RCC seems able to survive with the Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits. Why couldn't American Anglicans live side-by-side with AMiA, CANA and Kenya? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe God is doing something here.

Thanks for the wonderful insight into Fr Guernsey. I think that even if groups cannot find a way to live together, then they can at lease separate in ways that are respectful and loving!

If you would like to see what's really happening inside "Holy Uganda", Google "gayuganda" for some personal testimony.

Curtis says "I've got a hunch that these African bishops are going to be part of a very lonely crowd here in the states."

REALITY CHECK! Do you know that TEC is very much in a minority in US Christianity, Curtis??

There is more to the US Christian scene than the fewer than 1 million (and dropping) people who go to TEC churches on a Sunday, you know, Curtis!

I know people like +Duncan are in a minority in TEC....but they are very mainstream in the AC and if you look at the USA, on the presenting issues, they are very mainstram in US Christianity too (especially if you look at the growing churches!).....so maybe the African bishops will not be as lonely as you hope in the US.

As for the African bishops crossing boundaries...they would not do so if they were not asked to do so by some Episcopalians and they were convinced that it is necessary ...... some here do not think it is necessary but you might consider why the AC has had TWR and the Tanzania Communique etc.....most of us in the AC do not think there is faithful Anglican witness in certain parts of TEC (just stating a fact, this is why the Primates have been calling on TEC for 4 years now to repent and why "boundary crossings" in this case are not violations but legitimate help to American Anglicans who have called for help given TEC's failure to put in place alternative epispocal oversight and solve its own problems.....yes, Orombi, Akinola et al are knights in shining armour.

The question which matters is.....does Rowan Williams want to see them coming to England?

If he tries to fudge the VGR issue in the next 5 weeks, we will see them in England - but I do not think we will see that given the ABC's record of keeping together the greatest number of people possible in the AC which has led him to act as he has (eg Tanzania) in the last few years.

"The RCC seems able to survive with the Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits. Why couldn't American Anglicans live side-by-side with AMiA, CANA and Kenya? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe God is doing something here."

They couldn't . . . because comparing religious orders under *one* unified church, the RCC, isn't REMOTELY analogous to a situation of competing churches (some of whom consider others *apostate*)? Sometimes "sounds crazy", IS crazy!

I'd add to my prior post that if John and I could manage to stay in personal communion, why couldn't have parishes in the Diocese of Virginia have done the same? As a parish became known for either being inclusive based on its corporate theological discernment, or, orthodox based on a literalist interpretation, people of like minds could have gravitated towards the one in which they were naturally akin. As a liberal, I had, nor have, any problem with that at all. Those that voted to leave TEC, and their new Archbishops, and Amercian missionary authorities, however, insist that all of TEC must agree on their literalist discernment, or they can not remain in communion with parishes not of the same mind. This is a certainty: the two thirds to three fourths of TEC that voted, on three levels, that is Bishops, clergy and laity, to consecrate Bishop Robinson and for the election of Bishop Katharine, are not going to reverse those votes. In the Diocese of Virginia, then, after the lawsuit is concluded (and with decisions in Florida, South Carolina, Pittsburgh and California supporting TEC on the matter of property) it is likely the Diocese will regain all of its church property - at that point, those parishes who voted to leave, will actually leave TEC, for good. My point is that this did not have to happen - as I said, there could have been a natural inclination in effect so that members could have moved to parishes in which they felt comfortable. All of us could have remained in communion both individually and corporate - I'm still willing, though not on the basis of reversing the 2/3rd's majority vote on Bishop Robinson. If that vote had gone the other way, however, I still would be sitting in the pew of an Episcopal Church more inclined to his support than against. And my parish could still have been in corporate communion with John Guernsey's old parish, who would have never supported Bishop Robinson, if they hadn't left TEC. I guess I don't have this pressing need to dominate in terms of one view, my view, above all others, yet, also not support with my presence and pledge, any theological position that might result in an abuse of human rights for any other person in the world. As long as I was in a parish that wasn't in the position, as evidence of that stance, it doesn't mean that every other Virginia parish was going to do the same - and I can accept that as well. That seems to me to be the nub of the matter.

“REALITY CHECK! Do you know that TEC is very much in a minority in US Christianity, Curtis??”—NP

DOUBLE REALITY CHECK!! Because we Episcopalians have ALWAYS been a minority compared to the prod sects NP, we have always defined ourselves against the Calvinism of the American Puritans. This has been true whether one was High Church Catholic, like Bishop Samuel Seabury, or Low Church Latitudinarian, like Bishop William White. Even in colonial times, the further North one traveled toward New England Puritanism, the more numerous the High Church Anglican parishes became, as Episcopalians challenged the Calvinists on their home turf.

"rovide for the spiritual needs of those with an hisotirc understanding of morality and Scriptural authority."

And these would be what, exactly? How is one of Gene Robinson's co-consecrators unable to minister to the spiritual needs of those with a "historic understanding of morality and Scriptural authority"? What is this "historical understanding"? Friendliness to gay people is one. How is it straying from the Gospel to say that we hould be treated with respect and dignity, as fallible broken human beings in need of God just like everybody else? It's not about whether or not they believe gay people should be married, nor about whether or not we should be ordained. Their behaviour, despite their pretence to Christian love, shows that they actually consider us to be not just sinners, but ubersinners. Even on this website, we have had conservatives posting the most eggregious propaganda against gay people, calling it science. Rare is the "reasserter" who can talk about gay people without equating homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality, yet who claims to know all that is needed. Even here, people have claimed that the blessing of gay unions is blessing promiscuity, since, essentially, gay people can't be trusted to remain faithful. This is the ignorance that appears, to this outsider, to feed the "spiritual needs" for which you would like to see provision made. Why should any bishop "minister to" such ignorance and judgementalism? A bishop should, in this case, make sure his flock is informed on the issue so that when people speak for celebacy for gay people, they at least are coming at the issue from an informed position.

_The question which matters is.....does Rowan Williams want to see them coming to England?_ NP

Ah, the threat, the bullying.

Ignore the bullies. Let us see their true colours, with the Nigerian English bishop, and a few congregations leaving their church buildings to go somewhere else. Let's just see who and how many.

Let us see England, declared so far as not being "apostate", suddenly becomes apostate in their eyes, like a wave of the magic wand - what I said before in that it just depends on the opinion of the moment from the self-proclaimed.

RE:"+Akinola will be joining the Chicago network of AMiA parishes for worship in Wheaton College chapel on Sept 23. "

Now that's what I'd call border crossing! ;-)

Dan posted:

Time and again, TEC was told that it needed to rovide for the spiritual needs of those with an hisotirc understanding of morality and Scriptural authority. That is the background for the GS primates' actions. Having failed to provide for that spritual need, TEC now cries that others determined to do so. Crocodile tears if you ask me"

Would someone please offer some concrete evidence to substantiate this charge of negelct? This charge is constantly made as if it is a well known fact. But what is it's basis? How are these "poor" folk being neglected and persecuted? Are the not receiving the sacrements? Are they not getting adequate pastoral care? Where's the beef? For people being "persecuted" the self-proclaimed orthodox seem to be doing fairly well in my opinion.

ok Kurt....so you seem to know (unlike Curtis)that TEC is not mainstream (not in catholic or protestant terms)....this is why the AC has spent the last few years trying to get TEC to behave like a member of the "communion" it claims to be part of......REALITY CHECK - if you want to be part of a communion, don't tear its fabric by your actions (especially if you have very little support across the communion)

Pluralist....do you see terrible, unreasonable threats??
-Yes, we threaten to stick to agreed AC positions. Disgraceful, I know!
-Yes, if needs be, faithful bishops will be asked to give oversight in England....how scandalous not to accept whatever the bureaucracy throws up as your bishop and to look at their life and doctine!!!

"I know people like +Duncan are in a minority in TEC....but they are very mainstream in the AC and if you look at the USA, on the presenting issues, they are very mainstram in US Christianity too (especially if you look at the growing churches!).....so maybe the African bishops will not be as lonely as you hope in the US."

But, as I keep pointing out to you, NP--they are NOT mainstream in the US population at large and certainly not among the upcoming younger generation.

The right-wing churches in this country are going to face a crisis in the next decade, when they discover that the incoming families will not accept the level of intolerance they have insisted upon: "You mean my high-school buddy--the guy I played football with, who I hang out with in the local bars, who comes to my barbecues and was an usher at my wedding--is condemned to hell because he chooses to have a monogamous, loving relationship with another guy?" The younger generation has grown up among a more general acceptance of gays, has learned that being gay is not a "choice" (what rational person would "choose" to be something that is vilified and bullied against?), and will not accept the idea that celibacy is the only option for believing gays.

Google for polling on acceptance of gays among high school and college age US citizens, NP.

If the only way to "grow" is to shrink your idea of humanity, then growing is not all it's cracked up to be.

As with many realignment preachments, the neglect forced upon con-evo (even quasi-fundamentalist parishes when it comes to their notions of queer folks) simply boils down to two things: A)their considered views were only their views, and the rest of the spectrums of TEC discernment existed right along side their views, plus B)regardless of their views, they were asked to respect the dignity and worth of all persons, including especially queer folks since that target group was such a dire sticking point for so many of them.

Push came to shove around the fault line of sacramental ministry. Given the profound disgust that grounds most of the legacy negative views of sex and of queer folks alike - and surely none of the rest of us are still in the dark about the nature/origins of that disgust on so many levels? - the rightwing believers could no longer finesse the issues of gay priests, and of course, gay bishops. If they agree to disagree, they have a place at the Lord's Table undoubtedly, but they can neither dominate nor control the exclusive terms of the meeting. If they had what they want, they would have been able to prevent or block the discernment of New Hampshire believers that called VGR to be their bishop, plain and simple, period. And - if they could - they would see every biological human family kick their queer relatives, right to the curbs, if not directly into prisons and creepy pseudo-treatment centers where everybody pretends that sexual orientation is the sole cause of whatever ails somebody in daily life.

Intolerable as such powerlessness is, and was, rightwing Anglicans in TEC came to increasingly feel that their high needs to discipline and mistreat and trash talk people according to the exclusive truth claims of their particular views was a crisis form of trouble which could be defined as profound spiritual neglect. They are not living the truth until and unless they are hurting or threatening to hurt somebody who hasn't yet shaped up in keeping with their demands.

Truth=discipline=control=power=domination. That is the realignment equation, and it owes much to the reconstructionist equations.

"most of us in the AC do not think there is faithful Anglican witness in certain parts of TEC"

And you get to speak for the whole Anglican Communion because......certain conservative primates bolster your legalism and you can claim to speak for their flocks of millions? Gee. I don't even claim to speak for my entire parish. Must be a great feeling to have that power! As to faithful Anglican witness, in what way are you qualified to make that judgement?

And how exactly are conservatives providing for the needs of their liberal parishioners, in Sydney, Nigeria, or Fort Worth?

Not at all. Such hypocrites!

Spotsyltuckian,
Great name! I am for the most part in agreement with you, but: Do not fall for the trick of using "orthodox" to mean Biblically literalist, most of the "reasserters" would reject that name, I think, though I'm not sure why. Further, Orthodoxy is NOT Biblically literalist. What we are seeing is a further narrowing of the definition of the word "orthodox". It has always been used to mean "what we believe as against what others believe" it is now being used in that spirit, but to refer to extremely heterodox ideas liike Biblical literalism. These people are NOT orthodox, though they lay claim to the word, they are only arguably traditionalist.

"I guess I don't have this pressing need to dominate in terms of one view"

Nor do I. I have asked why those who believe unrepented sin keeps a person from being a bishop why a gay bishop on the other side of the planet is reason for schism while a divorced remarried one is not. The only answer, it would seem, is that the fudge that allows for divorced remarried bishops is acceptable to them while that allowing for a gay bishop is not. Seems a little arbitrary to me, but since none of them stands to benefit from niceness to gay people, while most could at least potentially benefit from being able to divorce and remarry with impunity, then not surprising.

Oh, this is all so very tiresome.

There is not one single Anglican soul in this country (except gays and women priests in some "orthodox" places) who has not been welcomed, ministered to, pastorally cared for, provided with the Sacraments, taught, counseled, married, and buried in the Episcopal Church.

This canard that "orthodox" Anglicans have been somehow rejected or victimized or cast out is sheer and total baloney. It's part of the Big Lie. If any Anglicans in America are not presently being ministered to in an Episcopal Church is simply because they have CHOSEN not to be ministered to in an Episcopal Church! No one has EVER "turned them away" or rejected them in any way.

I've been an Episcopal priest for fifty years, and I know what I'm talking about.

Go, if you must, but stop this garbage drivel about being "driven out" or "not ministered to". The "noble victim" stance is nothing but pathology and it doesn't hold water.

NP wrote: "The question which matters is.....does Rowan Williams want to see them coming to England?

If he tries to fudge the VGR issue in the next 5 weeks, we will see them in England - but I do not think we will see that given the ABC's record of keeping together the greatest number of people possible in the AC which has led him to act as he has (eg Tanzania) in the last few years."

I'm afraid that NP doesn't remember that England has historically responded to threats and thugs, of varying persuasions, by standing up to them (ignoring Mr. Chamberlain, of course, who created a temporary aberration in that history).

Archbishop Williams will take note of the Ugandans, and the Kenyans, and the Nigerians, and any other group of neoconservative and Puritan-minded Anglicans, and he nevertheless will do what is right, and reject the Abuja-led (and US neoconservative supported) putsch.

Sorry, NP, but your desperate hopes exceed the reality of the historically broad Anglican Communion, and the English are nobody's pawn, threats notwithstanding.

Pat - you just don't seem able to compute.....saying "but society is liberal" is not something to mention when liberal churches are shamefully empty and still losing people!

Ford...no, I am not speaking for the AC but looking at what its Primates have actually said eg backing Lambeth 1.10, TWR and the Tanzania Communique (I am not making it up or saying what I wish they said....just going by what they have said! I am funny like that....always going back to actual words rather than reading in what I want)

Jerry - you're ignoring FACTS again....do you even know about TWR or what the ABC did in Tanzania or what he did with his old friend Jeffrey John???
Or do you put your fingers in your ears when you are not hearing what you want to hear?

I am looking forward to the ABC behaving in a manner consistent with his behaviour in the last few years.....Dromantine, TWR, Tanzania were all worthy attempts to maintain unity while always calling TEC back to compliance with agreed AC positions.....he wants unity and order in the church....he is not captured by any single-issue campaign group - or how do you explain TWR and Tanzania??

"what he did with his old friend Jeffrey John???"

Which was?

It's funny you mention the 'name thing,' Ford. I can't figure out what to call them anymore. When we call them Nigerians or Ugandans, depending on which AB they report to, they don't seem to like that very much. I can't bring myself to call them Anglicans, since the only Anglican tradition to which they really relate would be the twenty years of Cromwell. After one of their priests called the pending baptism of my new beloved Godson, 'mumbo jumbo,' in lieu of an adult born-again conversion, I might try calling them Anabaptists, though that seems a bit obscure.

After 2003, my first thought is that we might be facing a new Reformation, but that's been replaced more by a resemblance to the American Civil War -- therefore calling them secessionists might be apt (although as a Virginian that cuts too close to home). I'm at a loss, really, and am willing to entertain suggestions. What I'd really like to call them is: gone.

As to your other point about consistency - of course, allowances have been made for the African cultural norm of polygamy within the church, haven't they? And, that priest who called the sacrament of baptism, 'mumbo jumbo,' - he obtained a special dispensation for his divorce from the Archbishop of Nigeria.

You know what? I'm not perfect, in fact, I'm sure I'm a mess, but I never claim anything otherwise - though I'm not in possession of anybody's else's property but my own, I don't demand others discern theology the way I do, and, most of all, I don't presume to know God's mind by reading His Word and then judge and oust others on my terms rather than allowing for Him to bestow His grace and mercy.

"the pending baptism of my new beloved Godson, 'mumbo jumbo,' "

Hypocritical for those who claim the title 'orthodox' to be so heterodox, and not only in this! The veneration of the emotional conversion experience goes back even to St. Paul, really, but it's certainly not necessary for faith, and really quite childish in a lot of ways.

I don't think we're facing a new Reformation as much as a new Great Schism. The parallels are marked: two radically different cultures, different languages, different "religious culture" for want of a better word, one side calling it'sself 'orthodox', bishops fighting like cats and dogs, charges and countercharges of duplicity, it goes on and on.

Is there a terse phrase that means "those who are loudest among the conservatives, who are the least tolerant, who presume to speak for everyone else, and whip up fear with repeated cries of impending doom so as to sway the fearful but more tolerant to thier side"? I used, incorrectly, to use "Evangelical" to mean something very like that, but that was both wrong and insulting.

How about
EHBL=Evil Hell Bound Liberal
HSFF=Hysterical Spittle Flecked Fundamentalist

It expresses the stereotypes each side has of the other, to my mind it mocks those stereotypes, and that must be a good thing, and, being insulting both ways, neither side can claim maltreatment. You can only use the name to describe "the other side" if you use the other for yourself, though.

NP notes "liberal churches are shamefully empty and still losing people!" That's the problem with these liberals -- always appealing to un-Anglican and un-Biblical criteria like Experience to validate their apostasy.

I love the way that NP ignores the inconvenient points made by most of the posters to this site, and instead begins his/her latest new prayer, that the ABC might cave in to bullying, with his/her nauseatingly repeated "In the name of the Lambeth 1.10, and of The Windsor Report, and of the Tanzania, Amen."

As said by others, NP, "Puh-leeze."

What i keep wondering and nobody seems to be asking is to whom are all these bishops going to minister? There seems to be one for every street corner. If we leave aside for a moment the handful of diocese that are unhappy (who have their own bishops anyway), there must be about 1 bishop for every ten parishes by now. Which makes me wonder if this is more about some priests wanting a pretty pointy hat than it is about theology.

“I can't bring myself to call them Anglicans, since the only Anglican tradition to which they really relate would be the twenty years of Cromwell. After one of their priests called the pending baptism of my new beloved Godson, 'mumbo jumbo,' in lieu of an adult born-again conversion, I might try calling them Anabaptists, though that seems a bit obscure.”— The Spotsyltuckian

The reason you can’t bring yourself to call them Anglicans is because they really are not Anglicans; they are neo-Puritans, or, Calvin-lovers, or whatever. But they are not Anglicans/Episcopalians.

Wrote Kurt: "The reason you can’t bring yourself to call them Anglicans is because they really are not Anglicans; they are neo-Puritans, or, Calvin-lovers, or whatever. But they are not Anglicans/Episcopalians."

Why not call them what they are--"hijackers"!

"NP notes "liberal churches are shamefully empty and still losing people!" That's the problem with these liberals -- always appealing to un-Anglican and un-Biblical criteria like Experience to validate their apostasy."

And when I gave him the anecdotal evidence of my own growing mainstream "liberal" parish and the neighboring hard-core right-wing parish that closed its doors after declining to 35(!) members, he ignored it.

Right on, John Henry!

"to whom are all these bishops going to minister?"

Each other?

But, NP, the Road to Lambeth essentially demands positions and approaches which the CofE couldn't counternance and wouldn't support.

The aim is to keep the church together - caving in to the far-right fringe won't do that any more than agreeing with all the US innovations.

Williams' aim has always been to keep all on board. That includes the Americans. But the Road to Lambeth wouldn't even keep a third of the CofE on board, for it sees no place for liberals in the Church.

Pat - if you are going to try a put down, at least make it a good one......so, you can give one example but you are aware of the pitiful TEC numbers, declining year by year (official TEC nos)

In England, it is just as bad.....I know because I sit on synods where we are asked to pay more Parish share to subsidise the failure of others who seem to do very little gospel work and refuse to run Alpha etc - like the lady vicar who said in my Deanery Synod that she was not in her job "to put bums on seats"......this was her argument for why we should subsidise her fruitless "ministry"!!!

So, Pat....do a stats course. One example does not make a trend.....you might learn that quite early on in the course. The trend - especially in liberal TEC is down....according to TEC nos (despite the stupid arguments I hear here that being more liberal is what is needed to appeal to a liberal society - ignoring that even in the Anglican church it is evangelical (conservative and charismatic) churches which are the source of growth (even in England)

Jerry - what inconvenient points?
You keep on trying to pretend Windsor and Tanzania did not happen.....this is not "inconvenient" - just your denial of what the ABC and all the Primates have actually DONE.
-An "inconvenient" point would be a verse to show an acoholic or an adulterer is entitled to be a bishop.
-An "inconvenient" point would be an action in the last few years from the ABC which contracticted Lambeth 1.10, TWR or Tanzania.
-An "inconvenient" point would be evidence that TEC's actions re VGR has the support of more than a tiny minority in the AC (which may have led the ABC to invite VGR to Lambeth...but the evidence points the other way as the ABC has aknowledged).
Jerry - make an inconvenient point if you can.....but don't kid yourself that putting your fingers in your ears, ignoring what has happened and hoping for your agenda to win out is at all a strong argument for anything.

And when I gave him the anecdotal evidence of my own growing mainstream "liberal" parish and the neighboring hard-core right-wing parish that closed its doors after declining to 35(!) members, he ignored it.

I think 35 isn't bad at all.

Some of us think Jesus recommended gatherings of only 'two or three gathered togetherin my name...'

"... a verse to show an acoholic or an adulterer is entitled to be a bishop"

Several members of the HoB besides VGR are recovering alcoholics. Since the concept of alcoholism as a disease is alien to the world of the Bible, I'm not sure where you would find evidence for this prohibition.

As for adultery, if you are talking about VGR, he and his wife divorced some years before he met his partner, and his wife had remarried before that happened. I don't see any adultery here. If you mean any remarriage after divorce is adultery, a LOT of clergy, not just bishops, would be disqualified.

NP said: "So, Pat....do a stats course. One example does not make a trend.....you might learn that quite early on in the course. The trend - especially in liberal TEC is down....according to TEC nos (despite the stupid arguments I hear here that being more liberal is what is needed to appeal to a liberal society - ignoring that even in the Anglican church it is evangelical (conservative and charismatic) churches which are the source of growth."

It's not as simple as you would like to make out, with Liberals declining and Conservatives growing. Take a look at the report 'Facts on Episcopal Church Growth - http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/FACTs_on_Episcopal_Church_Growth.pdf - especially page 5 'Congregational Identity and Orientation'.

Here's a sample:
"Within conservative evangelical denominations, the minority moderate and somewhat liberal churches are actually more likely to grow than very conservative churches. Among most mainline denominations there is a curvilinear relationship between conservatism and church growth; with more conservative and more liberal churches growing and moderate churches most likely to decline. Interestingly, the Episcopal pattern in 2005 is more similar to the evangelical pattern. As shown in FIGURE 7, the most conservative Episcopal congregations are more likely to decline; whereas the most liberal churches are least likely to decline and most likely to grow."

"Within the 11 very conservative dioceses growth is greatest among “predominantly conservative” congregations (39% growing) and least among “somewhat conservative” congregations (only 25% growing). Among parishes “in the middle” and liberal congregations the proportion growing is 29% and 30%, respectively. So in the very conservative 11 dioceses we have another curvilinear relationship, with congregations at the end-points faring better."

"So, Pat....do a stats course. One example does not make a trend.....you might learn that quite early on in the course. The trend - especially in liberal TEC is down....according to TEC nos (despite the stupid arguments I hear here that being more liberal is what is needed to appeal to a liberal society - ignoring that even in the Anglican church it is evangelical (conservative and charismatic) churches which are the source of growth (even in England)"

For now--it's a short-term trend, NP. The trend in western society is to greater tolerance, not lesser...and has been for its entire history. The people flocking to the conservative churches are the ones who cannot accept the growing tolerance of society as a whole and are attempting to use Christ's church as a bulwark for their own intolerance. Not at all what Christ intended.

yeah, yeah Pat....."For now--it's a short-term trend, NP"

All I can tell you is that we have thousands in our main church and plants in London (CofE) and we are desperate for space as we continue to grow with all races, ages and classes.....it is pathetic to see the "liberals" near us begging the dioese for money to pay utility bills and never making the link between what they teach and the fact nobody comes to join their churches.....it's always someone else's fault - not their teaching which attracts nobody...
- they can see huge growth in the evangelical CofE churches in the same deanery....but they resent it! (but are quite happy to be subsidised!)

To be fair to them, they are the smartest with their vestments etc......just like Jesus cared about his, right?

Laurence Roberts wrote: "And when I gave him the anecdotal evidence of my own growing mainstream "liberal" parish and the neighboring hard-core right-wing parish that closed its doors after declining to 35(!) members, he ignored it."

No manners at all.

Why cite mere facts MJ, when they get in the way of NP's self-assumed "eternals"?

In the con-evo fantasies flying about on most of the realignment blogs, one gleans an underlying dream - that TEC either dies overnight because it is too friendly with queer folks and too friendly with all sorts of people who ask too many questions - or that TEC is policed aka punished severely - either by Canterbury and/or by say, the Primates Meeting.

The dreamy result is that the majority of TEC bishops either leave the disciplined TEC in shame, have presentiments brought against them quickly owing to their aforementioned excessive friendliness, and/or speedily do a complete turn-about and show their new gospel vigor and repentance by loudly pledging some of the horrible things that traditionalists are in love with preaching about queer folks (and about question-askers, too?).

There seems to be lots of realignment sympathy for much greater and much more public policing of communion, for example, than tends to occur in many USA churches including TEC. Sex policing seems key every time queer issues come up on realignment blogs, so far as I can tell. The rightwing lament typically goes something like: Well, if we had only been vigilant and better policemen, we would not at all be in this fix.

Rather begging the question: Why indeed have so many western liberal democracies entirely stopped putting citizens in prison and/or psychiatric hospitals for being gay? (Clue: It is a likely waste of money.)

If it is all a plot, then a counterplot like realignment seems necessary. But how you gonna keep em down on the rightwing realignment holier than thou farm, after they seen Paarrreee?

I am not aware that the church plants which NP refers to in London are as generous to that Diocese as she claims. These con evo churches normally spend money on their own staff and buildings etc. and attach strings whenever they are asked to contribute to supporting others. Plus, it seems some of the plants give nothing to the Diocese?

What NP fails to point out is that there is no evident growth of evangelicalism overall. Many large churches are, in fact, simply attracting people from other smaller churches. London's figures are disproportionately affected by migration but even there, we are not talking major overall growth

And the number of church attenders continues to fall.

To read NP you would think that the UK was undergoing an evangelical revival! The reality is quite different. What we have is a population which is growing apart from all organised religion. Churchgoing has become a small minority sport. That doesn't mean there aren't those with an interest in spirituality (who are, of course, far more receptive to a liberal message)

Society is becoming more liberal on the gay issue, and every opinion poll going makes it clear that younger people in particular are far more accepting. The Church is becoming more and more out of touch and will tend to attract those with those sort of prejudiced views - and certainly not attract those of a more open minded disposition.

Indeed, Government has shown that it is no longer convinced that the opposition of the church to gay equality is all that important. Its something for the church, not for society as a whole, and if receiving money or employing in the public sphere, the church will have to jump in line.

Evangelicalism is far from a major , growing force. rather, it is an ever more desperate band of backwoodsmen who have little better to do than complain about social change.

NP:

My experience is that a church's "teaching" per se is not the primary reason a person--or, more importantly, a family--chooses a church. The "teaching" comes later...the first reason is the way that "teaching" comes out in the attitudes and experiences of the parishioners.

A welcoming community--one that does not ask "what do you believe?" upon first meeting, but that welcomes you to learn what they believe and see if that appeals to you--is a growing community, because it is willing to let the newcomer find himself, rather than force a mindset on the newcomer.

My friend was telling me that apparently in this congregation of mainly 80 year olds or so the minister will preach on fornication and the like. this was a rare sermon she has heard. She, who most of the time goes to help Junior church (and others have joined in to miss most of the services), said to the minister she was with her partner for nine years prior to marriage, getting the reply, "Ah yes but you've shown commitment).

Whenever ministers of religion preach on sex they get themselves and others into duplicity. Perhaps they ought to shut up.

MJ / MM - ....I am not even sure why I waste my time responding re church growth etc - I can see God giving us strong growth and many church plants which include thousands in London alone. You can see whatever you are involved in and how God is growing it!

Whatever your objections, I am not going to start following the "liberal" ideas that lead to the pathetic decline I see in neighbouring parishes.

Pat - I agree with you about a welcoming community....we must be one as we have such strong nos amongst all ages, classes and races and grow every year with new people coming to faith.

Where are these "thousands " of church plants in London NP???? They seem to have passed me by and I have been rector of St Georges Bloomsbury ( the parish includes the British Museum) for the last 12 years.

"I am not going to start following the "liberal" ideas that lead to the pathetic decline I see in neighbouring parishes."

Who's asking you to? Here's an observation: you think that a gay bishop on the other side of the planet from you is trying to make you change your opinion on gay people's fitness for leadership in the Christian Church. You think that people on this site, by disagreeing with you, are trying to make you change what you believe. The question is: why? Is it that you are so obsessed with making people comform to what you believe that you can't understand that when other people disagree with you, they are not trying to force you to change your mind? I don't care if you ever change what you believe, NP, though I think your soul would be in much better shape if you did. I just don't agree with most of what you say, or with your carefully constructed romantic worldview, but I don't care if you ever change your mind.

NP:

Would you welcome a non-celibate gay parishioner? A woman with an interest in ordination? A person who believes that those who live a true and holy life are saved no matter if they have "accepted Christ"?

“MJ / MM - ....I am not even sure why I waste my time responding re church growth etc - I can see God giving us strong growth and many church plants which include thousands in London alone. You can see whatever you are involved in and how God is growing it!”—NP

Their arguments seem quite convincing to me, NP. You can “see” anything you want to “see”. (FYI, here in America “evangelical” and “yahoo” are generally synonyms.)

NP,
Now we really must know, what is your parish? You see, you continually make these claims about growth, yet you give no proof. You don't want to reveal your identity. Fair enough, I wish I hadn't in the beginning, actually, and it's too late now! But you may not be able to keep making the claims you do and preserve the luxury of anonymity. We have one London priest who doubts very much your claims to growth. The accusation has been made that this is not actual growth, but flock poaching. No doubt you would think of it as saving souls, since whatever church they came from, they weren't "saved" or something, and certainly didn't believe the right things. So, prove it. What is your parish? How much has it grown in the last year? Where are the plants you have made all over London? If you are unwilling to document your claims, some are going to start thinking you are lying.

Pat asks: "Would you welcome a non-celibate gay parishioner? A woman with an interest in ordination? A person who believes that those who live a true and holy life are saved no matter if they have "accepted Christ"?"

We welcome all and we all learn together what the bible says on various issues. We send a lot of women to theological college (CofE ones). We welcome those who do not understand the gospel (eg JOhn 3:36) in your last group...and explain the gospel to them....many of them become Christians.

NP: Further to Perry and Ford's requests, please do let us know which parish you're attached to that is faring so well, lest all of us Londoners be damned.

I've been appointed to my present parish as interim for some three months now.

Attendance is up.

I must be right then.

Or maybe it's more complicated than that.

NP: Further to Perry and Ford's requests, please do let us know which parish you're attached to that is faring so well, lest all of us Londoners be damned.

Posted by: Stephen Roberts on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 5:26pm BST

Yes, yes. Many of us would love to know such a wondrous place

>>Pat asks: "Would you welcome a non-celibate gay parishioner? A woman with an interest in ordination? A person who believes that those who live a true and holy life are saved no matter if they have "accepted Christ"?"<<

"We welcome all and we all learn together what the bible says on various issues. We send a lot of women to theological college (CofE ones). We welcome those who do not understand the gospel (eg JOhn 3:36) in your last group...and explain the gospel to them....many of them become Christians."

Do you continue to welcome the non-celibate gay when he refuses to become celibate? Or straight? Do you support those women at theological college when they approach ordination? Would you accept one as a priest at your parish? Oh--and who said the ones in the last group weren't Christians in the first place? I didn't.

Ah, so you mean we welcome all as long as they are prepared to alter their views to match ours, NP?

Pat's questions are excellent and you have failed to answer them, as ever.

In terms of demographics: starting with the Boomers, then there is the back-lash generation, after them, there seems to be a lag in the birth rate, once that climbs again, there is a generation who's grown up with multi-cultural diversity, including multi-sexual, and don't care about someone's sexual preference. Before the self-described Anglicans voted to leave TEC, there was a problem: aging membership. It's still a problem within the parish that stayed loyal to TEC. Eventually, it should right itself - in the next twenty years, I hope, and then the future of TEC belongs to the tolerant, while the closed-minded will dwindle and die out. We've seen growth since the split: gay folk, twenty-somethings, are starting to trickle back in. A priest I know said that every 20 years or so, folks split off - and that's ok, though they can't take the property of those who want to stay thereby depriving us of a place to worship. So, once the property issues are settled, in the minority of parishes where this is even an issue, TEC will go on, with the demographics pointing to growth once the generation after the 60's back-lash group, comes to maturity with their own families, which won't necessarily look like the old families ever again.

Malcolm,

Don't be too cheerful. In your first three months all the people who left because they hated your predecessor come back to see what you are like. They won't stay. Sorry

Yeah, NP; time to ‘fess up! What London parish do you attend? (Here in Brooklyn, I’m happy to say I attend Ascension Church, the oldest parish in picturesque Greenpoint: http://www.thechurchoftheascension.com/ for my parish and
http://www.greenpt.com/gpsstour.htm for a photo tour of the Greenpoint area).

Adding to those who are calling for NP to reveal what London parish that he/she attends, I ask the same question.

Further, in imitation of Kurt's precedent for candor, my wife and I are members of Christ Church, in Oyster Bay, New York, which is a very healthy and vibrant parish, with a quite diverse congregation.

FTR, since I've talked of my parish before:

Christ Church, Ridley Park, PA

Come on NP, you know that Mynsterpreost (David Rowett) is my adopted parish priest and I attend at Barton-upon-Humber. There is a varied bunch of people there with an effort to cater for all kinds (if I may say so off my own bat). You are back at work and thus using the computer again, NP, prsumably not in work time, so time to cut the anonymity and reveal the place of success that you have repeated.

I too long to visit this paragon parish, this well of living water. I would visit too.

I am a member of Barking and Ratcliffe Monthlt Meeting & Wanstead Friends' Meeting House

I have to say it is a source of great blessing and discipleship resource to myself and others

but you won't find Churchianity there

all welcome (11 a.m.)

PS

When on holiday I greatly enjoy a very deep dynamic meeting with wonderful Worship, a commitment to social justice and ecumenism, including weekly ecumenical discussion group and frequent newsletter of theological and biblical reflection (etc)...

this is Mold Friends' Meeting. It has ten listed members, all over 70. They meet in a hired hall at the Mold Darby & Joan Club. I wouldnt judge a book or a meeting, by its cover.

Come to think of it, I'd try not judge at all (a la Jesus) ....

I shall be in London in a fortnight and would love to visit the thriving church you talk about, NP.

Normally I worship in the wonderfully inclusive village church St Andrews in Blagdon, North Somerset, where we rarely agree on anything but always respect and tolerate one another (leaving aside the odd occasion).

Liddon said: "Malcolm, Don't be too cheerful. In your first three months all the people who left because they hated your predecessor come back to see what you are like. They won't stay. Sorry."

Being merely the interim priest, I suspect I'll be gone before too many of them come to dislike me.

But my point was actually a satirical jibe at NP's little numbers game, wherein the number of adherents is the proof of one's position.

In the mean time . . .

Hi Malcolm,

I got the jibe, but i was just pointing out a basic rule of parish life. the ones who come and go because of the priest come and go for EVERY priest in the end. in the meantime, enjoy!

NP elsewhere says he is taking a break from TA until there is some actual news (end of the month). We can ask about his identity then, I suppose.

Pluralist - looks like I am addicted to TA! Short break! Cannot keep away from you guys!

"looks like I am addicted to TA"

I know! I vow to stay away, then I wake up in the morning with the shakes! Maybe we could start a group?

Yikes.....maybe we are displaying "interdependence", Ford!

Co-dependence is the term, I believe. I have the unsettling feeling we may be enablers for each other!