Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Southern Cone reaches for the Arctic

Reports from Canada about the Southern Cone are piling up:

Conservative Anglicans shun Canada for S. America Reuters

Bishop gives Anglicans new option National Post

The Anglican Network in Canada is organising a conference shortly

And the Anglican Journal reports that Bishop protests unauthorized ordinations.

Update
Michael Valpy has ‘Full-blown schism’ in church, Anglican bishop says in the Toronto Globe and Mail

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 11:31pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Canada
Comments

My view is that Bishop Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, exercising his ministry in Canada, must force the hand of Rowan Williams. Having said to Fred Hiltz that he is operating change properly, it must follow that Harvey is indeed carrying out schism, especially if there are ordinations in New Westminster.

If Rowan Williams does not invite Martyn Minns, and yet invites Harvey, he is inconsistent. If he invites Harvey and therefore Minns (say on a chane of mind that Canada is jumping the gun), but withdraws invitations from bishops of The Episcopal Church who he deems do not support the Windsor Process, then he is swaying the Communion to the people of bibliolatry. If he follows his own statements, then he will withdraw the invitation from Harvey, and effectively all the NURKS (incursions from Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Southern Cone) will be out out and these oversights will be outside the Anglican Communion. The bibliolatrists, who regard themselves as orthodox, will then finally see Rowan Williams fall down on the side of those they regard as liberals.

Alternatively a new fence is to invite everyone and exclude no one, a new and rather desperate non-position, though one that would at least allow a big row. It wouldn't work though, as he excludes Lambeth from decision making, unless that is capitulated too.

The events in Canada really make all the difference.

Posted by: Pluralist on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 1:04am GMT

Like others, Donald Harvey is free to start a new denomination. If, however, he attempt to claim that his new sect is the "real" Anglican presence in Canada, he will be lying.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 5:21am GMT

What I find most interesting re the SC is that ++Venables has said he spoke with the ABC before starting to open his doors to orthodox Anglicans trapped in liberal national churches...... the implication was that he is not going against the ABC's wishes - maybe the ABC sees many people in TECUSA and its friends are just normal AC people who cannot any longer tolerate the continuous drift away from the bible and the 39 articles?

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:22am GMT

... or then, maybe not.

(always ask for the alternative/pose the alternative questions ;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:49am GMT

"Alternatively a new fence is to invite everyone and exclude no one, a new and rather desperate non-position"

You mean something akin to what Jesus himself did?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 9:21am GMT

The Archbishop of Canterbury needs to make a statement about this EITHER way. I'm surprised he hasn't done so already. If he disapproves, he must say so. If he approves (as he is reported to have done), he must say so - and explain himself.

Posted by: badman on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:16am GMT

badman.... it is clear he sees the need for APO

It was legitimised in Tanzania

It was the ABC's idea to have a "confessing church" in the US..... APO follows from this....and remember he thinks the diocese is the real representation of the church and not the "abstract reality" of the national church

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 11:31am GMT

Predictions:
(1)Williams won't do much if anything about Canada and Venables unless something within the CoE forces his hand;

(2)Only conservative evangelicals could do anything to force his hand, and they would only do so in the direction of permitting Venables to do whatever;


(3) Williams' public theology as Archbishop will bend to whatever he happens to be forced into accepting by conservative evangelicals.

Posted by: The Anglican Scotist on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 12:39pm GMT

What I don't understand, NP, is why folk who might fairly be categorized as "ANO" - "Anglican in Name Only" - get so fired up about this business? Does HT Brompton, or whichever parish you frequent (I personally could care less, tho' your regular attendance at St Mary's, Bourne Street would grab my attention) stick another gold star on your card every time you re-itterate "Lambeth 1:10" and "TWR" on this site?

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 12:56pm GMT

"orthodox Anglicans trapped in liberal national churches"

Oh, the poor suffering little darlings! Being made to worship week after week in an Anglican church where the person sitting next to you might be *GASP* one of THEM! I fail to see how words like "trapped" in any way define their position. Of course, the fact that their moderator, by his actions, is one of THEM is a bit puzzling.


"Bishop Harvey is moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, which describes itself as “a national fellowship of Canadian Anglicans who share a commitment to biblically-faithful, historically-authentic Anglicanism.” "

As opposed to those of us who are faithful to the Necronomicon, and are historically inauthentic? If he want to be historically authentic, I'd suggest he move his altar to the chancel and stop with all the manual acts, genuflecting, and all the other "traditions of men" that NP so deplores. But you won't get +Harvey to do that, of course, since, for some reason, things that lapsed in Anglicanism for over 200 years are somehow "historically authentic". Why is it that every time a critical mass of Puritans develops in Anglicanism, they have to go to another continent?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 1:06pm GMT

Rowan fiddles while the AC burns . . . but, perhaps it is part of some grand strategy beyond the kin of lesser minds (like mine). In either case, his options seem to be diminishing with time. If he excludes equally he could end up with a huge Lambeth boycott (given the numbers sympatico with each side). If he doesn't, he will have to come down on one side or the other. Once again, either way, he is going to end up exacerbating and accelerating the current split.

If, as usual, he tries to split the baby and invite everybody, he has boycotts or a heckuva a row (as Pluralist suggests). Meanwhile, if Lambeth is nothing more than a giant "tea party," why spend the money and have the headaches.

Well, like everyone else, I await Rowan's continuing attempts to untie the gordian knot. I am afraid he will spend more time dithering over it and accomplishing nothing. However, there is always a chance that he will take Alexander's example. By now he may have realized that nothing else will work. So, time to "bite the bullet" and get on with this thing . . .

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 2:50pm GMT

Erika:

Jesus was accepting of all people, not all behaviors.

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:02pm GMT

I begin to wonder if we are not dealing here with another example of people hearing what they want to hear. Given the subtlety of Rowan-speak, this is not entirely to be blamed on the hearer. And I don't think Venables is a liar. But it strikes me that Rowan may have said something along the lines of wishing that the proposed Primatial Oversight plan proposed at Dar had proven acceptable, and Venables suggesting he might do something informally, and Rowan opining that was certainly within his range of options -- which was heard as approval rather than as a simple statement of fact; for Rowan has no authority to "forbid" the action. Rowan has made it clear a number of times that all is voluntary -- the only ace in his house of cards is the invitation to Lambeth; not, in the long run, a maker or breaker. Does this seem plausible, assuming good intent, but poor communication, on all sides. Or am I being too charitable?

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:10pm GMT

Trouble is that the ABC is trying to avoid "schism"

He should learn from Augustine: ‘By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe’ (De fide et symbolo, ix).

In the AC, we have a situation in which people do not believe the same things - in this situation, a split is not "schism".
Schismatics “deviate from fraternal charity” despite sharing the same beliefs..... TECUSA and and some others in the AC clearly have different beliefs to most of the AC on a number of issues and many TEC HOB members would struggle even to give unequivocal support to the 39 articles for example...... the issue is the authority of scripture and all that is being achieved by trying to keep the AC containing both those who give scripture little authority and those who can give unequivocal support to the 39 articles is that the AC is slowly killing itself.

The ABC would make a great professor...he is a role he should not be in because the church of England has the stupid idea that academics are better qualified to be bishops than people who have led churches....but even the ABC must see that delay and doublespeak is not creating unity and consensus in the AC in the last 4 years, following TECUSA’s deliberate tearing of the fabric of the communion despite the please of the ABC and ALL the Primates

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:41pm GMT

"it is clear he sees the need for APO"

Why? What does he not get now from the Primate of Canada? Primates are not Popes. The current primate has an administrative role, he can't do anything in another bishop's diocese without that bishop's permission. He is purely an administrator. What will APO give anybody? It's not like the Primate can set doctrine, or decide who will be ordained or not, or who can go to seminary, so what's the issue?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 4:19pm GMT

When the ABC betrayed his friend, Jeffrey Johns, we were told he was keeping the Greater Good in mind.

When all of the surrent nonsense got started, and some of us wished the ABC to take action, we were told - by some - that he as being wise like a serpent.

I think that, having given in to bullies in the first case, and having tried to avoid appearing to give in to them in the second, he is now simply paralyzed with funk.

If he scolds the border crossers, ++Akinola etc will dump all over him. If he keeps silent on that, but goes ahead to invite +Gene as a second-class bishop, he will only incur the further wrath of the GlobalSouthCone for not shunning TEC entirely.

If he took a bold stand for equality and inclusiveness, the GSC would scream at him. So what? They have no respect for him now, so what has he got to lose by taking a stand for justice?

Every time you give in to a bully, he wants more, and respects you less. Rowan seems unable to understand this. Sad.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 4:29pm GMT

once again, NP manages to repeat the Donatist/Lollard/Biliolitrus lines.

Once again: His own side has rendered Lambeth 1.10, TWR and Tanzania dead letters. They force these things on the Communion and then freely ignore them. What I find fascinating is that they get so up in the air when honest attempts at movement are made.
Like all rigorist movements, this band of intellectual and spiritual sloths do not care about anything other than their being "right." Nothing but the monomaniacal press forward into their increasingly heretical and "pure" world view is important. Cannon law, the Church Catholic and even the Gospel are all burned on their profane altars.
As was shown yesterday, NP evidences such a disregaurd of history and is so offended at being challenged that everything is always pushed back at any critic. The burden of the mess we are in lies not with TEC, but with those whose will to power has overwhelmed the Tradition of the Church and the actualities of her history.
There is a moral duty to challenging these counterfeit orthodox at every turn, as they bring ignominy to the name of Christ.

Posted by: John Robison on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 4:35pm GMT

So much of the "conservative" position seems to depend on the vain repetition of lies.

The lie that "conservatives" are "persecuted."

The lie that Lambeth 1:10 had only one clause.

The lie that Windsor approved of interprovincial incursions.

Even lies that aren't necessary. (ie, It would have done nothing to undermine their case to admit that Minns was the drafter of the recent Akinola screed.)

We know that they have frequently lied about who has assented to particular documents.

And we know that they have, more than once, completely misrepresented comments from Cantuar.

So now yet another foreign prelate justifies his schismatical peregrinations by claiming that Rowan approves.

Ockham suggests that the PB of the SC is simply lying again.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 4:52pm GMT

NP:

APO. ABC. TWR. ANO.

Are you *trying* to drive me BSI??

Posted by: MRG on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:07pm GMT

Perhaps Rowan Williams is planning to barricade himself in the crypt of his cathedral where Becket met his end and stave off the global hoards.

Posted by: Richard Lyon on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:42pm GMT

God bless you Erika, yes Jesus confounded and outraged with his inclusive theology.

A lot of the retired bishops and their cohorts’ movements are simply political machinations and attempts to stack the numbers so they can have "overwhelming" or "unanimous" endorsement for their next round of accusations and oppressive strategies.

Can you imagine if this was done in any democratic parliament e.g. the US. Imagine if there were attempts to remove every member of one party from the room, even though they had a mandate from their constituents. Imagine if they attempted to stack the legal system.

In Australia we have a rather scathing term for such kind of justice "kangaroo courts". The perpetrators of such strategies are held in the highest contempt not only because their selfish immorality is exposed but also because they demonstrate a complete disregard for the key foundations that lead to sustainable desirable civilizations.

Isaiah 59:8-9 "The way of peace they do not know; there is no justice in their paths. They have turned them into crooked roads; no one who walks in them will know peace. So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us."

A bible search for "crooked" brings up some delightful passages e.g. Proverbs 10:9-13 or 2:12-19 "Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse, who leave the straight paths to walk in dark ways, who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perverseness of evil, whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their ways. It will save you also from the adulteress… who has left the partner of her youth and ignored the covenant she made before God..."

Luke 3:5-6 John the Baptist’s reference to Isaiah "The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. And all mankind will see God’s salvation.’ ”

Isaiah 26:9-13 When God’s judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness. Yet, even though “grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and regard not the majesty of the LORD” It is God who establishes peace for us; all that we have accomplished God has done for us.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:48pm GMT

What makes this particularly interesting, and particularly distressing, is that this is in explicit contradiction, and constitutes functional rejection of, the Archbishop's Panel of Reference. In their first report (http://www.aco.org/commission/reference/docs/report_october.pdf) they recommended reconciliation within the provinicial structures of Canada. This has been implicit, of course, in other, similar events; but in this case it is explicit.

Canterbury has expressed implicitly and explicitly commitment to the Windsor Process. He can hardly call "Windsor-compliant" so clear and deliberate rejection of that process.

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:58pm GMT

Well, in one way con realignment Anglican believers may just be garden variety folk, and in another way they may not be quite so ordinary and unremarkable as they think themselves to be. At least as the rest of us tend to see some things about them.

The ordinary part has two markers.

One, who can keep up with the empirical data flooding out, even in the specialized science communities? We excuse the average citizen from having to follow or weigh all of this until a second marker comes into viable play, i.e., until we seem to be reaching an empirical tipping point - either as regards the accumulated data and/or as regards the predicted costs of not knowing the data or of not allowing the data to change us for the better in some important way.

This brings me to the remarkable Anglicans bit.

The rest of us now consistently see several entirely remarkable things in the realignment campaign.

First is that conservative realignment believers in particular are deliberately, intentionally pledged to preach flat earth things (involving traditional dire notions of dirt or danger or disgust?) about queer folks, just because their reading of scripture cannot possibly be wrong.

Our scriptures, formerly wrongly read about the real flat earth, are now incapable of error yet again.

Second is the Anglican realignment use of the first flat earth claim to make an even grander warning that nature itself or society or the very possibility of being ethical is damaged and debased, by admitting the ethical competencies queer folks have, according to our empirical data.

Third is the even grander condemnation of anybody and everybody who dares to consider and weigh the evidence, from anything but a narrowly cultic and narrowly religiously partisan frame, limited ahead of time to nothing but the negative condemnations of six or seven certain clobber verses in holy writ.

Fourth, the final remarkable thing is that the realignment believers use this wedge to exclude the Anglican middles and lefts, while claiming that nothing out of the ordinary big tent business of historic Anglicanism is really going on, and while engaging from time to time in ethically funny business that involves money, property, or the public possibilities of having varied thoughtful discernments in these hot button matters.

Four remarkable things, about conservative realignment Anglican leaders and believers. So far.

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:11pm GMT

Problem is, Steven, that the GS demands would mean throwing out about a third of the CofE

The answer really must be a civilised and global split, within as well as between provinces. Both can then call themselves Anglican if they wish. The priority is that they do not remain in the same sack, clawing each other to bits - the current situation cannot continue.

The problem is that few will openly call for this and both sides want to be seen to 'win'.

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:25pm GMT

"Jesus was accepting of all people, not all behaviors."

And he did not define people BY their behaviors, but by their faith. Shame that Akinola, Iker, Harvey, et al do not follow his example.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:32pm GMT

"...the issue is the authority of scripture and all that is being achieved by trying to keep the AC containing both those who give scripture little authority and those who can give unequivocal support to the 39 articles is that the AC is slowly killing itself."

I wish you'd stop saying that those of us who differ with you "give scripture little authority." Rather, we interpret scripture differently and, hence, employ its authority in a different manner.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:34pm GMT

John Robison posted:

"once again, NP manages to repeat the Donatist/Lollard/Biliolitrus lines.

Once again: His own side has rendered Lambeth 1.10, TWR and Tanzania dead letters. They force these things on the Communion and then freely ignore them. What I find fascinating is that they get so up in the air when honest attempts at movement are made.

Like all rigorist movements, this band of intellectual and spiritual sloths do not care about anything other than their being "right." Nothing but the monomaniacal press forward into their increasingly heretical and "pure" world view is important. Cannon law, the Church Catholic and even the Gospel are all burned on their profane altars.

As was shown yesterday, NP evidences such a disregaurd of history and is so offended at being challenged that everything is always pushed back at any critic. The burden of the mess we are in lies not with TEC, but with those whose will to power has overwhelmed the Tradition of the Church and the actualities of her history.

There is a moral duty to challenging these counterfeit orthodox at every turn, as they bring ignominy to the name of Christ."

Thank you, John; never were truer words spoken.

NP takes a cue from the "best" traditions of Goebbels by continually repeating half truths, lies, and distortions, with the idea that if repeated enough, some may imagine it to be the "truth."

NP doesn't care for the whole story, but only cares for the minuscule parts that support his/her wishes.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 11:07pm GMT

A question for all. Are retired bishops invited to Lambeth?

I ask because Bishop Harvey is retired. If he would not have received an invitation to Lambeth in his previous status as a retired bishop, then there is no invitation to be withdrawn following his accession to the frostiest bits on the top of the Southern Cone. (Thank you, Dave Walker!)

If so, ++Rowan need do nothing in response. But however much ++Rowan may be relieved by that, the rest of us would, I think, appreciate a word or two from him at this juncture.

Posted by: Charlotte on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 11:33pm GMT

Charlotte

No, retired bishops are not invited to Lambeth Conferences.

In England, FWIW, retired bishops cease forthwith to have any role at all in the House of Bishops, even though a few of them, e.g. the former Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries, continue to be active in the House of Lords, as "life peers".

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 12:57am GMT

What was wrong with my previous entry here was the word "withdraw" - and because indeed a retired bishop is not invited to Lambeth then there is the option of do nothing, that kind of excludes Bishop Don Harvey as he becomes a full timer for the Southern Cone in Canada, but doesn't involve Rowan Williams in moving a muscle. Had he had to withdraw an invitation for the incursion, then the matter would be all the clearer.

Posted by: Pluralist on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 3:19am GMT

I see that it has become necessary at Anglican Mainstream to chuck dirt at the Canadians. Ho ho, what fun it must be over there.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/11/21/open-minded-canadians/

Posted by: Pluralist on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 3:28am GMT

"... the issue is the authority of scripture and all that is being achieved by trying to keep the AC containing both those who give scripture little authority and those who can give unequivocal support..."

Even you should be able to see that it is the other way around in Reality (God's very good Creation, you know).

You CLAIM Messrs Gagnon, Cameron and Wright for yourselves and contend that their Works as per Lambeth I:10 are set and infallible, yet are not able to defend their false "teachings" when called upon it.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 6:01am GMT

"NP:

APO. ABC. TWR. ANO.

Are you *trying* to drive me BSI??"

scripsit MRD

;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 6:05am GMT

The quote from Saint Augustine of Hippo above means that Schism is w o r s e than Heresy!

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 6:07am GMT

Steven

"Jesus was accepting of all people, not all behaviors."

Jesus INVITED all and died for us while we were sinners.
That he would like us to behave differently is a totally different issue.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 1:08pm GMT

Pat says "I wish you'd stop saying that those of us who differ with you "give scripture little authority." Rather, we interpret scripture differently and, hence, employ its authority in a different manner."

Our bishops say something is "incompatible with scripture"..... so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures

"Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!"

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 2:17pm GMT

Let me note just in passing that now Canada is targeted, just as TEC was targeted. I believe many in the Anglican middles and lefts rather anticipated that beating up on TEC for thinking outside the closed boxes of conservative presuppositions was not going to be the whole realignment campaign game.

Surely. The current Anglican realignment cannot proceed with adding more targets to its expanding lists of all the many people who do not meet its narrow expectations, weighed gingerly down very high noses.

Surely. Anybody who conscientiously stands in the Anglican middles to lefts is fair game for realignment target practice. If this spin and trash talk keeps up, surely major propagandists from our global history will have to be canonized, de facto if not also de jure?

Even on the farther rights, the differences of views about womens' ordination may still threaten to sink the realignment armada. Imagine all the weaponized doctrinal armaments - wanting Roman Catholic hierarchy, exclusive male clubhouse memberships, and above all, power to dominate and punish - all without having to bother with submitting to Rome? I know it's all self-certain and certainly noisy about its own righteousness, but what if all that weaponized doctrine machinery still goes under the global waves, gurgling relentlessly down to the bottom of Davy Jones' Locker?

Fear not, these are only secular liberal metaphors, and so have no value as obejctive revelation, thank goodness.

Posted by: drdanfee on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 8:46pm GMT

""Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!""

God is not a legislator, and neither you nor any bishop is a policeman. The fact that these things did not occur to you shows what your religion is all about. You obviously don't sing the music of your Evangelical heritage, which, though like all hymnody theologically dodgy in places, contains a fun hymn called "Free From the Law, Oh Happy Condition!" I guess this is what happens to traditional Christianity on a steady diet of Graham Kendrick and Hill Song. It's a pity, actually, because Fanny Crosbie, Ira David Sanky, and their lot made some fine singable stuff, far better than the MPEPS (Mindless PanEvangelical Pap) one hears nowadays, said the fogey. I always found it amusing that they sound so much better if you start singing them halfway through your second pint, but I digress. Sadly, NP, you're neither "Standing on the Promises" nor "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms", and your fear of breaking the Law shows that you don't feel very "Safe in the Arms of Jesus" either. You really need to get a copy of Songs of the Gospel, or something.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 11:46pm GMT

"Our bishops say something is "incompatible with scripture"..... so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures

"Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!""

First of all, of course, in Anglican tradition, "our bishops" are neither infallible not the be-all/end-all of scriptural authority.

Second, there is a great deal of difference between a hard-and-fast rule involving indisputable numbers--100 is not 99 nor is it 101--and 2000-year-old words translated variously into modern languages.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 12:26am GMT

NP submits: Our bishops say something is "incompatible with scripture"..... so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures

"Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!"

Whoops, NP, there you go again with the distortions.

The correct metaphor would involve your friends contending that the speed limit was 15 mph, and some on the far left contending that the speed limit was 120 mph.

That would contrast with a posted limit which was actually phrased as "a speed that is reasonable for road conditions." Neither your 15 mph, nor the 120 mph of others, would be reasonable, and both would be dangerous to those who drove at more logical speeds.

You keep trying to create an absolute, when there is none, and no amount of verse mining justifies what you attempt to do. In fact, if you were consistent about usury, or slavery, or other historical incorrect assumptions by men about Scriptural mandates or prohibitions, then I would at least respect your integrity about this one point regarding human sexuality.

I'd still believe you were wrong, but I could respect honesty in your belief that all Scripture had to be taken literally.

It doesn't, as the Church has periodically made clear over the millennia.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 12:59am GMT

"Our bishops say something is "incompatible with scripture"..... so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures"

Certainly not. They might be rejecting the bishops' thinking, but not the Holy Scriptures (always in the plural) of the Church.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 5:30am GMT

Ford, Ephesians 1-2 - has lots on how we are saved by grace........ it is followed by Eph 5:1-21

See 1John1....see Romans 6:1
We cannot abuse God's grace to justify what HE calls sin

Posted by: NP on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 10:12am GMT

Seems to me, to use an old analogy, that some conservative evangelicals tend to use Scripture as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than for light.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 11:50am GMT

"We cannot abuse God's grace to justify what HE calls sin..."

And please point to any place in the New Testament where God--in any of his three persons--calls homosexuality a sin. Paul may do so, but Paul is not God.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 2:39pm GMT

"We cannot abuse God's grace to justify what HE calls sin"

So why do you?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 3:07pm GMT

NP,
Lots about how those who are included came to be that way, nothing about who is excluded. There's a curious part that seems to indicate that, for Paul, Jesus is not God. I can just imagine moderns calling him a Unitarian. You seem to have no trouble disobeying Eph 5:112, 8-10, 21. Eph 2:3, "the cravings of our sinful nature" aren't just about sex, NP, and your misunderstanding of that has left you full victim to the non-sexual "cravings of our sinful nature". Again, you are twisting Scripture to turn the Gospel into the very law that Christ sets us free from. Why are you so eager to identify those you think God rejects?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 5:27pm GMT

1. Lambeth 1.10 was passed by a majority of bishops. A goodly number of bishops voted against it.

2. Lambeth 1.10 was a multi-layered resolution that said a number of things. Doubtless many who voted for it had reservations about various clauses - including your friend in Abuja who clearly had no intention of paying the least mind to the bits he didn't like.

And BTW, NP - Our Lord makes it very clear that the bread and the wine are his body and blood. St. Paul (to whom you ascribe more authority than Jesus) says the same. Yet you deny the Real Presence.

NP, why do you utterly reject the authority of scripture?

3. The bishops who voted at Lambeth 98 were all fallible men.

4. The resolution eventually passed came after a more openly homophobic proposal was rejected and reflects several amendments softening the original homophobic intent.

5. Regardless of the first four points, Lambeth does not have the authority to compell anyone to do or to believe anything.

The fact that you hang your entire argument on this weak peg of Lambeth 1.10 bespeaks the weakness of your own position.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 8:40pm GMT

Malcolm - don't be sillly....when the Lord gave wine and bread to his disciples and said it was his body and blood, you think it was actually his blood and body?

Yeah - it makes sense doesn't it that we should have all the bishops of the AC vote but nobody has to care about their decision and it is perfectly legit for some clergy to undermine and contradict them??? Recipe for disaster.....and disaster is what we are seeing in the AC since the ABC has wasted 4 years trying to accomodate TECUSA despite its tearing of the fabric of the communion.


More red herrings from you, Ford!
By saying "you are a sinner too" or "your leaders are sinners too", you cannot justify another sin, Ford. You do not have to convince me, of course...... God is your judge and he has been very clear on what he considers to be sin (which is a long list, many of which I have to repent of frequently..... but none of which I would seek to justify) Romans 6:1

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 9:10am GMT

"Seems to me, to use an old analogy, that some conservative evangelicals tend to use Scripture as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than for light." says the Lapin

Do you cover the light so you cannot read all the verses which contradict what you may want to justify, Rabbit?

Certain behabviour is either good, holy, acceptable to God....or "incompatible with scripture" and sin in his eyes...... best to keep the light on when reading scritpure as we would not want to miss anything God says, would we?

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 9:26am GMT

"Do you cover the light so you cannot read all the verses which contradict what you may want to justify, Rabbit?"

Is that how you do it?
Whether or not you cover the light, you certainly cover the Light.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 2:52pm GMT

NP:"Malcolm - don't be sillly....when the Lord gave wine and bread to his disciples and said it was his body and blood, you think it was actually his blood and body?"

Oh, so if the Lord Christ said something YOU would THINK He didn't mean it. But you can repeat St. Paul ad nauseam.

You're unbelievable.

Picking and Choosing!!!!

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 3:14pm GMT

"you think it was actually his blood and body?""

Yes. What's the problem with that?

"By saying "you are a sinner too" or "your leaders are sinners too", you cannot justify another sin, Ford."

I agree completely. Who are you arguing with?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 4:46pm GMT

NP: Our Blessed Lord didn't say "This is like my body" but "This IS my body." I thought you were in favour of literal readings of Bible texts? Or is it just the anti-gay ones, by any chance...?

Posted by: Fr Mark on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 6:41pm GMT

"I thought you were in favour of literal readings of Bible texts?"

Fr.Mark, the verses concerning the nature of the Eucharist are the only ones literalist Protestants DON'T read literally, presumably because they believe they are the only verses Rome DOES read literally, and if Rome does it, it msut be wrong, except for hating gays.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:31pm GMT

Ford, you've got to stop drinking all that Molson, because you are starting to make too much sense!!!

LOL!!!!!!

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:58pm GMT

"Fr.Mark, the verses concerning the nature of the Eucharist are the only ones literalist Protestants DON'T read literally"

It's one of many they don't take literally. The others are those Cheryl regularly posts, everything to do with love, compassion, mercy and NOT judging others, specks of dusts and beams - the list is endless!

Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 9:04am GMT

"Molson"

Ick! I'm something of a nationalist. I only drink local beer! BTW, I'll be in England in March, what's a good brew in the vicinity of Stratford?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 1:39pm GMT

Ford: there's a very nice favourite with the locals, which I would recommend, at all times and in all places, called claret. Another one, which seems to sell particularly well wherever Anglo-Catholics gather, is known as gin and tonic...

Posted by: Fr Mark on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 4:15pm GMT

Ford,
I'm only about 2 hours from Stratford. Get in touch if you'd like to meet up!

Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 5:08pm GMT

"Another one, which seems to sell particularly well wherever Anglo-Catholics gather, is known as gin and tonic..."

Ever odd, Newfoundland ACs seem to prefer Scotch, though a nice G and T is welcome. And I'll be the only one who actually professes membership in any Church, they just feel free to drink what they want (what rebels against tradition and the Holy Word!)

And, Erika, we'll touch base again as the time gets nearer.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 5:27pm GMT

Oh, yes Ford, I should have said Alexander Keith's.
Hampshire Special Bitter is wonderful if you can get it that far north. Anything naturally drawn is a wet dream.

Erica-Sometime around July 11th-18th at Exeter, subbing for the Lay Vicars. Not sure of Bristol yet.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 5:54pm GMT

Choirboyfromhell
thanks, dates are pencilled in. Keep me updated!

Ford
look forward to hearing from you nearer the time.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 10:16pm GMT

Mark / Ford - you believe they ate his flesh and drank his blood at the last supper????
So, when he said "this is my blood", you think the wine turned to blood? Surprised you even bother to make such a weak argument...

What is all this about what "evangelicals" believe? Some Anglicans actuallly believe this, you know -

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 9:50am GMT

But NP,
This has nothing to do with weak arguments but with the plain text in Scriptures.
Surely, your argument would have to be that this particular article contradicts the plain meaning of Scriptures.

You know, you really can't have it both ways. Either Scriptural verses are the only truth, or they're not.
Make up your mind!

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 10:36am GMT

Ford - do let me know if you want to have dinner in London when you are over

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 10:38am GMT

Erika - as you know, the "plain meaning" of scripture is found by reading verses in context (of the passage, the book, the type of literature)

It is a very argument to pick a verse and to try and make a point of it when its own context and many other passages contradict the point made......Ford would not actually tell anyone that all they need to do is say the few words of the thief to be saved - he is just trying to score a point (but I fear you think there is more to it than that)

Erika - people try to muddy the waters on scripture to justify certain sins....it is not convincing. Eph 5-21

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 12:47pm GMT

"you think the wine turned to blood?"

It has every Sunday since the Resurrection, NP, and most weekdays too. I see no reason why it shouldn't have then. And why do you keep citing Article XXVIII? I am not saying anything that contradicts that article when I defend the Real Presence. It is you, by your denial of it, that are deviating from "agreed Anglican positions", NP. We have always believed in the Real Presence.

As to salvation, I can't even relate to your idea about saying some words and being "saved". Redemption isn't some kind of magic trick, and repentance isn't some kind of spell. "I'm really sorry I did that" isn't repentance, NP, and sin isn't crime. And your relatively mechanistic idea that there is, I presume everlasting torture, from which me can be saved by saying some kind of formula is so far from what I believe, I can't even argue. I can't talk of being a Chiristian in terms of being "saved", NP. This is one of the ways we have different religions. If you were trying to make me a Christian, assume I am not a believer, how would you do it? Why should anyone be a Christian?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 2:35pm GMT

NP,

You are "muddying the waters on scripture". Ephesians is a Deutero-canonical scripture, chapter 5 is later still.

Ep 5 is what is not convincing.

Not authentic.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 4:06pm GMT

"Erika - as you know, the "plain meaning" of scripture is found by reading verses in context (of the passage, the book, the type of literature)"

so....when Jesus says "this is my body" we don't want to believe him so we conclude that the context and type of literature make it impossible that he could have meant it.

But when St Paul groups condemnation of male same sex with other abusive and inhospitable behaviour we can draw no such conclusions but have ignore context?

The saddest thing is that you truly appear to believe this nonsense.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 5:31pm GMT

"do let me know if you want to have dinner in London when you are over"

I don't know how long I'll be in London, actually, but thanks for the offer all the same. Please read a chuckle in my voice in what follows: given the way we go at each other here, and I enjoy it as much as you do, I think, do you really think it's safe for us to get into it IRL with hot food in front of us? How long would it take for that first bit of Vindaloo to go flying? And sorry, if I'm in London on the Sabbath it'll either be All Saints Margaret Street or St. Silas, or perhaps the Church of St. Percy for me, I'm afraid. It'd be a shame to go all that way and miss some of the best tat to be had anywhere.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 5:50pm GMT

Ford, this could be the biggest thing since Mary Matalin married James Carville. Go with it!

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 1:12pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

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

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