Oh well, never mind.

Yes, because, of course, the worst possible way to heal divisions in an organization is to gather and talk with those you may disagree with. The best way is to meet only with those who agree with you in another place and make plans to form a separate organization.

Yes, that's the way to healing.

It's probably very true to say that their presence wouldn't help heal the divisions within the communion

Will they now stop going to the annual Australian bishops' conference as well? Please?

How childish can you get? "I'm not coming to your party!!"

I'll second the general thrust of Pat O'Neill's sarcastic comments too.

"... the Archbishop and Bishops of the Diocese of Sydney have decided not to attend the Lambeth Conference." Can we assume that Brian Farran, Bishop of Newcastle, which lies within the province of New South Wales, of which Jensen is primate, is not of their number? Farran rcently dissociated himself from GAFCON.

The main thing though, now, is what they do. Given the reduced numbers going to the alternative, if it functions properly at all, they could be walking off into their own wilderness as regards a larger communion. They have to set up a system now of alternative structures and, in effect, raiding parties to redistribute some people in Western Churches to their structures. So far they seem rather late in organising and can only do it by annoying as many would be friends as they can.

... have decided not to attend the Lambeth Conference ...

... remain fully committed to the Anglican Communion ...

??????????????????????????????????????????

God be praised. I would always appreciate from people of Jensen's 'heart' to stay home instead, wishing they knew more about people's sex lives or whatever ticks them off...

This IS good news! Now, perhaps Sydney will do Australian Anglicans a favor too, and stay away from their General Synod. GOOD RIDDANCE, I say!

I don't think this is a surprise -- it is certainly consistent with Archbishop Jensen's long time plea for an evangelical Anglicanism based in the Global South rather than looking to Canterbury -- I am also not surprised that Southeast Asia prefers Canterbury (at this time, anyway) which would explain a lot of the GAFCON politics.

>>the Archbishop and Bishops of the Diocese of Sydney ... remain fully committed to the Anglican Communion ... but sense that attending the Conference at this time will not help heal its divisions.

And exactly what is it, oh wise Australian Sydney bishops, that will help heal divisions?

Can't say I'm surprised, on one level, part of me can't say I'm bothered. From what I know of the Australian Church, there are plenty of people there that would much rather the Sydney diocese and its leadership would stay at home more often.

On another level, very sad that anyone decides they do not wish to be there this Summer - regardless of their churchmanship. It's another nail in the coffin of Anglican unity because some of those who are considered (at least by those who appointed them) to be our great and good, who are supposed to show leadership, humility, wisdom, faith and love by example to the rest of us, decide they'd much rather take their ball home and act like children than play with someone who might actually share a different opinion to their own.

Well, as Jed Bartlet used to say "Decisions are made by those who show up". You don't show up, you don't get to complain about the decisions.

Sorted.

Oh the humanity. Jensen is speaking for himself and the other five bishops in the Diocese of Sydney. His title "Archbishop" derives purely from the fact that he is the bishop of Sydney. Sydney is a part of the Province of New South Wales of which he is metropolitan which means little as far as telling bishops what to do.

Appearances are not what they seem. I wonder if Akinola knows he's running with small fry, or if he's instead taking advantage of the difficulty in making these distinctions.

How childish can you get? "I'm not coming to your party!!"

Tim, it's only childish to you because you think of it as a party. The behavior of the reasserters is only "rude" to you because to you religion is only therapy. It's only a social club. It is only taste in a certain type of worship, and who are we to condemn one another over matters of taste, and exclude people from the club? Nothing real is at stake to you.

Please rethink your position, or at least understand that reasserters believe there are important issues at stake here. If there is nothing real in Christianity for you, perhaps you should consider inventing your own religion (by eliminating or editing the Pauline corpus) or joining another.

Pat, what method do you use for determining when you are brothers with a difference over adiaphora, and when you have mutated in to a separate organization? Of course this is not being undertaken lightly. How can you just assert this stuff without any proof? Why do you think anyone will listen?

and they should have added...

" And we shall be signing lay presidency into action shortly after Lambeth, which will rock the Angllican Communion to the core.
So we do not want to sign up to any wishy washy Covenant that infringes our jurisdictional independence, and stops that legitimate Biblical development, freeing Anglicanism from the last vestiges of priestcraft. "

Broad tent Anglicans still live in Sydney. Do not underestimate Australians’ stoicism. The harder souls attempt to suppress and oppress Aussies, the greater their commitment to freedom and their determination increases inside their cores (we're very Jewish, in that sense).

There are still many examples of broad tent Christianity in Sydney. Many members and leaders of various faith communities are doing excellent work at peace making, revering Creation, offering hospitality, nurturing the poor, allowing souls to develop and manifest their gifts (including females). Secular leaders have continued to show more awe of God than some religious leaders.

The current communion is being divided, into those who abhor violence and desire peace, and those who crave power and vilification.

As countries, such as Kenya, come to the brink many faith communities will realise that tyranny and oppression are not the way forward, and that to avoid further bloodbaths means confronting and overcoming the paradigms that condone violence, indifference and cruelty.

We live in a transfigurating period in history, where we no longer see in black and white, right and wrong, one solution fits all, or "us" and "them". As souls come to fully understand, see and hear, it become clearer as to who are the dinosaurs and why their paradigms must become extinct or a cultural hangover from a bygone era.

E.G. from Isaiah 30:15-22 “the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him! O people of Zion, who live in Jerusalem, you will weep no more. How gracious he will be when you cry for help! As soon as he hears, he will answer you. Although the Lord gives you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, your teachers will be hidden no more; with your own eyes you will see them.”

Matthew 5:14 ““You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.”

Zechariah 12:8-10 “On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them. On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication.”

Is it any wonder that so many Bishops feel the Lambeth conferences are a total waste of time? (Syndey is not the only one). Last Lambeth conference passed overwhelmingly a very clear resolution on homosexuality -- called Lambeth 1.10. It is quite long so I will link to the text:
http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/communion/ctexts/iss_communion_ctexts_lambeth1-10.asp

The key part of the resolution was:

in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

Now since 1998, the American church has at best totally ignored this resolution -- at worst it can be seen to be in open defiance of it (and therefore of the Anglican communion).

The Archbishop is just reacting to the facts that have emerged on the ground.

Perhaps TEC and the AngChurchAustralia can compare notes?

E.g.,
* How to restart a diocese (San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh)
* How to restart an Archdiocese (Sydney).

The important thing: as the wonderful people of "Remain Episcopal" (San Joaquin) have taught us, how BLESSED it is when the Anglican faith is FREE to be practiced again!

Better times in Sydney ARE coming. Alleluia! :-D

[Lord have mercy on the Brothers Jensen---and on us all.]

In response to Lapinbizarre; the Sydney announcement applies only to Bishop of the Diocese of Sydney -- Dr Jensen and his several assistant bishops. It doesn't apply to the Bishop of the seveal other dioceses in New South Wales, of which Dr Jensen in the metropolitan.

My response to the announcement is simply to repeat my view that Dr Williams should consider cancelling Lambeth entirely. It is a waste of resources. It is likely to do little that is good and useful but it has great potential do do harm.

When I was young we used to make fun of the "double speak" of the soviets, now I live under a president in the US who has done nothing but double speak for seven years. How sad an archbishop of my church must speak this disingenuous language as well.

While I knew it was coming, the confirmation on the news this morning had me seething with anger. Please pray for those of us who must live under the Jensens and their cronies. I attend a church (80km distant) that 'welcomes all people regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or religion' even though it is under the control of these bishops. Bishop Gene Robinson chose (unannounced) to worship there when in Sydney last year. It was a pleasure to meet him. Sometimes I wish the Jensens and their cronies would leave the Anglican church and allow us to perhaps align with the Bishop of Newcastle. I know many in my own area who worship in jensenite churches mainly because it is too difficult for them to travel but they are not happy.

An unsurprising response from Sydney, but none-the-less tragic.

I understood that the leaders of GAFCON had said that conference was not being set up as an alternative to Lambeth, but with Nigeria and now Sydney withdrawing, it would appear that perhaps it is after all.

JND
What makes you think Tim is thinking of Lambeth only as a party?
Do you have any evidence for the claim that nothing real is at stake for him?
What makes you think there is nothing real in Christianity for him?
Did Pat say the liberals had “muted” into a separate organisation?
I haven’t followed this thread properly for a while... maybe I have missed all the statements affirming this. If so, please point me to them.

JND writes: ..."because to you religion is only therapy" ... "perhaps you should consider inventing your own religion"...

First, I did not mention the word `rude' in my earlier comment, so you have no business attributing it to me with quotes in yours. Second, you have no basis *whatsoever* for stating that I find religion a "therapy". Your comment goes downhill from there onwards.

The issue at stake at Lambeth is not these so-called "reasserters" and their over-inflated problems about one issue, namely sexuality. You have too much focus on the institution of the Anglican Communion not on *communion* which should be celebrated there - the very family meal itself.

Perhaps you would like to take your evil, snide, judgemental and misguided remarks elsewhere, or have the guts to apologise.

"Pat, what method do you use for determining when you are brothers with a difference over adiaphora, and when you have mutated in to a separate organization? Of course this is not being undertaken lightly. How can you just assert this stuff without any proof? Why do you think anyone will listen?"

I don't think you do it unilaterally, while declaring you are deciding to absent yourself from a meeting in an attempt to "heal divisions." You certainly don't declare that YOU are the real organization, while refusing to take part in that organization's functions.

Much as I disagree with Sydney here (and I do think they're being a bit huffy), I'm quite uncomfortable with the equation of commitment to the Communion with attendance at Lambeth. I even read somewhere that one draft of the Anglican Covenant would require attendance at meetings of the "Instruments of Unity." But we must remember that the first Lambeth Conference was only allowed to proceed with the proviso that it be voluntary and collegial. (As for the Primates, they should be barred from meeting alone together, never mind told it's mandatory). ;)

Margaret, Margaret, Margaret.

Despite all your "conservative" spin, the fact is that Lambeth passed a number of resolutions.

Several Lambeths have passed resolution affirming that self-appointed messiahs aren't allowed to poke their noses into other dioceses. Yet your heroes all ignore that one.

And even the resolution you referred to included far more than any of you "conservatives" are prepared to admit. It also included a very clear call for every single bishop, every single province and every single diocese to undertake a deliberate and intentional process to listen to the concerns and experiences of homosexual persons.

How 'bout we slap those bishops, dioceses and province that ignored that bit of the resolution.

Remember, dear Margaret, that "listening" clause was the price of many bishops' votes. Without that clause, 1.10 would not have "passed overwhelmingly" with the same margin.

But in the hypocritical world of "conservative" schism, picking and choosing is standard practice.

Thanks Erika; I'm equally worried that a party might be seen as an "only". After all, wasn't there someone nearly 2000 years ago who got in a lot of trouble for going to parties with the "wrong" sort of people?

Out of all of Luke 14, v21 stands out scarily.

Brian K

I don't agree. Lambeth should proceed. Rowan gave a very good three point articulation of why it should proceed at New Orleans.

Not least because there are beleaguered Christians in small countries who will benefit from the sharing of ideas and grace with others.

Actually, this has the possibility of being one of the healthiest communions in decades.

With the vilifiers and accusers gone, they can get on with offering succour, hope and suggestions to the quieter voices that have been overlooked during the poltical posturings of recent conferences.

Remember Zechariah 3 "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.” Then I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the LORD stood by... ‘Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come... I will remove the sin of this land in a single day. ‘In that day each of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and fig tree,’ declares the LORD Almighty.”

Isaiah 14:32 "The LORD has established Zion,and in her his afflicted people will find refuge."

You see, God doesn't care if we have "filthy" genitals (female or indeterminate) or if we are afflicted. God has always promised us succour and a refuge.

"in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;"

No Margaret, this is not the late modern anti Modern "resolution" that made a scandal at Lambeth in 1998 and since. This is the traditional, un-Biblical (originally from the Platonizing Philosophers of Hellenist Alexandria) that the European Academics of Emperor Louis the pious managed to force on the Church of Christ inb the 2nd Millennium.

It may be equally unwarranted (and equally extraneous to Christianity) but it is not the anti Modern Social Politics of late modern days (and of Lambeth 1998 I:10).

Maybe it's your link into Theonomy?

SYDNEY STATEMENT VINDICATES PRESIDING BISHOP OF TEC

In her deposition at the Virginia property hearings, Doctor Jefferts-Schori denied that there was a split in the Anglican Communion, but that there were tensions and distancing amongst members. Sydney state unequivocally they are still part of the Anglican Communion, even though they are not going to Lambeth. This should be used as evidence in the afore mentioned case, disproving the CANA case that the Anglican Communion has split. Indeed there is NO statement from any Anglican province that they have left.

Thankyou Bishop Jensen

Another piece of trivia.... Jensen's brother, who is Dean of Sydney and more hard line than the Archbishop believes women should not preach in public to mixed congregations. So even he thinks the ordination of the five women in his own Cathedral is wrong.

A lot of conservative Evangelicals would regard women deacons as the thin edge of the wedge. Therefore Sydney is innovative and heretical to some.

Shucks. Forgive me if i sob uncontrollably.
Now if we can get all of the right wing reactionaries of the Church convinced to do likewise, maybe something constructive will get done.

What can you expect from an Archbishop who prefers wearing a collar and tie instead of the usual Anglican vestments for celebrating the Eucharist? The centrality of the pulpit in his cathedral - rather than the altar - is one of the signs of his preference for the words in the Book to the reality of the Word-made-flesh on the altar.

I suppose if the other Bishops of the Diocese of Sydney want to 'follow in his train' the members of their parish congregations should not try too hard to stop them. Just make sure it is not your money they spend on getting to their party with Archbishop Akinola at GAFCON - That's if it does actually take place. I really think that the majority of the Anglican Bishops loyal to Lambeth might be heaving a sigh of relief.

“Perhaps you would like to take your evil, snide, judgemental and misguided remarks elsewhere, or have the guts to apologise.”—Tim

Right on, Tim!

“But in the hypocritical world of "conservative" schism, picking and choosing is standard practice.”—Malcolm+

You can say that again!

Tim, You do not know Peter Jensen's heart. If you will apologize for *your* initial evil, snide, judgmental remark, I will apologize for attributing to you positions that you claim are false.

Pat: maybe the definition of the 'real organization' should be sought elsewhere than just looking at the bureaucratic institution. To use a bizarre example. Let's say the AMA officially started promoting superstitious new-age healing techniques. A group of 'real' physicians might break away. But who is the 'real' group? Why does BUREAUCRATIC continuity count as the defining characteristic for you?

Tim, do you believe as an unregenerate individual you ARE sinful in God's sight? Do you believe Christ literally died to save you? Do you love humanity enough to warn them about this? If you believe so, then I apologize sincerely to you! But then I cannot understand your attitude if this is so. If you misrepresent to people what SIN is you are distorting the message and you are impeding people from repenting. Please consider what you are doing!

Ron...Sydney are loyal to the Reformation. Doctor jesnsen does wear vestments but NOT chasuable , which was only illegally re-introduced to Anglicanism in the 19th century.

They do have a communion table...but technicaally there is no altar in the BCP or Anglican Church.

You do better petitioning the Anglo-Catholic bishops who are foolishly going to GAFCON.

Robert Ian Williams, "vestments" are the chasuble, dalmatic and cope and their accompaniments (stole, alb, mitre, etc.). Cassocks, surplices, rochets & chimeres are not vestments, so I would be interested to hear if the archbishop does in fact wear vestments. As to the "illegal re-introduction" of vestments in the 19th century, the 1559 Act of Uniformity states "be it enacted, that such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in the Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI [i.e. 1548 - the chasuble was retained in the first prayer book of the following year]."

Personally I find it quite amusing to see souls misrepresent what Grace of God is, or mercy, or forgiveness.

Whenever they do so, they refute Jesus' success.

Personally, I'm quite happy to trust that God knew what God was doing when Jesus was sent, and that Jesus is ordained as the High Priest. I don't have a problem with God imposing Grace and forgiveness upon us.

God does get pissed off when humanity and naughty angels try and pick and choose who is "in" and who is "out" and which covenants or laws are still valid.

e.g. Jeremiah 31:33-34 “This is the covenant I will make... I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Jeremiah 34:17-18 "“… the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim ‘freedom’ for you, declares the LORD— ‘freedom’ to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces."

Zecharaiah 9:11-13 "As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit. Return to your fortress, O prisoners of hope; even now I announce that I will restore twice as much to you. I will bend Judah as I bend my bow and fill it with Ephraim .I will rouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece, and make you like a warrior’s sword."

Malachi 2:4-5 "And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue,” says the LORD Almighty. “My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name."

They were never worn between 1559 and 1849...Indeed Laud, Juxon, Sancroft, Keble, Pusey and all the High Church ones never wore them. There is an excellent evangelical answer to the law you quote...too long for me to tyope here. Get back on subject!

“Robert Ian Williams, "vestments" are the chasuble, dalmatic and cope and their accompaniments (stole, alb, mitre, etc.). Cassocks, surplices, rochets & chimeres are not vestments, so I would be interested to hear if the archbishop does in fact wear vestments. As to the "illegal re-introduction" of vestments in the 19th century, the 1559 Act of Uniformity states "be it enacted, that such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in the Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI [i.e. 1548 - the chasuble was retained in the first prayer book of the following year]." Lapinbizarre

Yes, Robert, it’s really annoying when you do not do your homework. FYI Robert, Episcopal Bishop Samuel Seabury was not only the first American Bishop—of any denomination—to wear a miter, (called a “pyramid” by some contemporaries) he was probably also the first to wear “vestments”—a chasuble—(called by contemporaries an “apron” or “smock”) as well. This was three generations before the revival of the use of such vestments in England by Churchmen John Mason Neale, Bryan King, Charles Lowde, et.al.) As early as 1785, at the first ordination of a priest in the United States, Bishop Seabury wore his miter and his scarlet hood while officiating.

The first American Roman Catholic Bishop, John Carroll, was not consecrated until August of 1790, (and was consecrated by only one bishop, not the traditional three, the number of which participated in the consecrations of the first four American Episcopal bishops. Presumably Bishop Carroll also wore a miter and “vestment”, though I have been unable to find explicit references to this effect.)

"Tim, do you believe...?"

Incredible: that JND the (Baptist?) Inquisitor could purport to be *Anglican*. :-0

Lord have mercy!

The split is on its way - and the sooner the better!

I am not an expert on the definition of vestments (having grown up in Sydney). However to give him his due, I am fairly sure Jensen and all other clergy would wear a surplice and stole while celebrating communion. At other services they are quite likely to wear just a suit and tie and perhaps an academic gown. The cope is allowed and worn at my church (St James, King Street). The chasuble is illegal. I am not sure what would happen if they allow lay administration and have no intention of ever attending to find out.
JND, I have a choice if I want to indulge in 'superstitious new-age healing techniques'. I have no choice in my God-given sexuality. However you, my bishop Jensen and his mates would (and have) denied me any role in the church as a result.

JND
I don't want to get involved in your theological discussion with Tim, but nothing he may or may not believe has anything to do with his initial statement that "I'm not coming to your party" is childish.
If you're serious about your beliefs you will want others to share them. To split yourself off from a huge meeting place and point of conversation because the others don't agree with you is precisely that - playground behaviour.

I don't happen to support the break aways' theology, but if I did I would want them to stay and engage, engage, engage, engage.
As a non supporter I still want them to engage!

"If you misrepresent to people what SIN is you are distorting the message and you are impeding people from repenting."

In so far as you represent to the world that sin is some sort of crime against God, which He will let you get away with if you are sufficiently self hating, and if I am right in perceiving in you some sort of acceptance of PSA as the core interpretation of Atonement, and in so far as you seem to think the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was an innocent person being punished for other people's crimes, it is you who are misrepresenting to the world what sin and redemption are all about. It comes as no surprise that you would espouse these concepts, they are after all the basis of much Evangelical belief about our relationship to God, yet they are not in any way accurate. The element of punishment for crime is certainly there in Christian thought, but to boil down the Incarnation, Death, Ressurection, Ascension, and descent of the Spirit to some process whereby a judge lets criminals get away with their crimes by committing some bizarre act of infanticide/suicide is not the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints, so before you start accusing others of deviating from the Gospel, you might want to look at how your adoption of Reformation and post-Reformation innovations have led you yourself astray into the acceptance of a bizarre perversion of that Gospel.

I have two almost entirely irrational prejudices against evangelicals, Robert Ian Williams. The first is that they cook up "facts" to suit their arguments; the second is that they occasionally have rather bad manners. Your 7:41 p.m. post confirms both prejudices.

"They were never worn between 1559 and 1849...Indeed Laud, Juxon, Sancroft, Keble, Pusey and all the High Church ones never wore them." Of the five individuals who you state "never wore" vestments, only one - Keble - may well never have done so. The wearing of the cope at communion was a cornerstone of Laudian high churchmanship. Laud and Juxon would have worn the cope regularly; Sancroft certainly wore it at the coronation of James II - there are engravings of the event - and almost certainly at cathedral communion celebrations, where it was the legally required garment - a requirement by then falling into disuse (it survived at Durham into the late 18th century), but a requirement still honoured at that time. Westminster Abbey still owns its Restoration copes, replacing - more evidence of continuity - those given by Henry VII, which were destroyed during the Civil Wars. And note well that Pusey House owns a chasuble and alb originally owned and worn by E. B. Pusey.

"All the high church ones" - not exactly specific terminology, the more so given that "high church" has different meanings in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. In fact, most of the 17th & 19th century high churchmen would have worn vestments in one or other of the two forms discussed above during the course of their careers.

"There is an excellent evangelical answer to the law you quote." No doubt - but no good answer.

But Ford Elms, how can you say that? Let me ask you - to paraphrase Ray Comfort, if I were dying, about to expire in a few minutes, and were unsaved - what would you tell me? What is your message of salvation? Universalism?

Robert said: "Keble, Pusey and all the High Church ones never wore them [vestments]."

Certainly Pusey had no particular sympathy for the early Ritualists, and protested against their movement in a sermon in the 1850s or 60s. However, he did defend them in his later years, after they were subjected to prosecution under the Public Worship Regulation Act.

I have heard the story - but cannot confirm it - that, following the first round of arrests, Pusey resolved to wear vestments the next time he presided at the eucharist. He had to ask one of his students how to put them all on.

Margaret quotes Lambeth 1:10:

in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

That "lifelong union" part would certainly seem to rule out remarriage after divorce.

Interestingly, though, some of the most strident voices on the homosexuality issue are the quietest on the divorce/remarriage issue. It is downright shocking how easily the alleged conservatives have adopted the secular society's predilection for serial polygamy.

This sort of hypocrisy is why so many of us believe that the "reasserters," for all their noble talk of holding to traditional teaching and all that, just flat out don't like homos.

The point is if they were legal, why were they not worn, Kurt?

The chasubles were cut up and used for dress material for the new clergy wives at the REformation.

The famous picture of SEabury's consecration has no mitred bishops. The Scottish Episcopal church were under no restraint of vestment either, as they were an unrecognised sect at the time!

Furthermore Sydney, like true evangelicals never wear stoles, but black scarfs.

Erika

While your sentiment is laudable it ignores the extremes of their behaviour. Tanzania is an open example. They don't just come to engage, they come to hijack and meet in cliques elsewhere to work out how to divert the main meeting from its agenda to grind their own axe.

Rather like how they never stop carping on about Eve but turn a blind eye to justice and compassion because "It's all Eve's fault, anyway. There wouldn't be suffering if it wasn't for HER!"

That's fine.

Jesus doesn't want to acknowledge Eve, comment that she was forgiven, deny her existence, repudiate that he needs her gifts. No problem.

If she is unwanted, unacknowledged and unneeded at this level of reality, then Jesus doesn't need her at any level of reality. After all, Jesus is sufficient unto himself and quite capable of building the fourth temple without Eve, or any other "divine" female for that matter.

In the meantime, Jesus won't mind if us unwanted females who are unworthy of recognition, a mate, a home or a job "check out" of this reality.

After all, Jesus is quite capable for keeping humanity alive.

I really don't care which way Jesus plays, he has to answer to God not me for how well he's handled this planet. After all, it is his without dispute.

I hate to ask this, but if anything adverse against the theology or any actions of the Jensens is going to go up here in the future, I will expect to hear from the likes of JND?

I know that some people post here under initials or psuedonyms because of concerns about the consequence of what they'll say, but I wish people were really honest about things sometimes, especially if there's no reasonable danger and if they claim to be standing for the truth.

Cheryl, I understand that Jesus was the foremost women's-libber of his day. I don't think he ever respresented himself - at least in the Gospel accounts - as 'merely male'. In his treatment of and association with women, Jesus refused to be cluttered with contemporary Jewish attitudes to women. In the way he dealt with them he proved his absolute care and loving concern for their welfare - a fact which caused great consternation for some of the authorities in the church of his day: e.g: the Bible story of the 'woman cauhgt in the act of adultery'. His acceptance of her as she stood before him was much more lvoing than her interrogators would have liked. In fact, they wanted Jesus to witness them stoning her to death

I believe that the fact that Jesus was male had a lot to do with the lack of credibility for the testimony of the women of his day - a woman's testimony was not viable at law - therefore. no female apostles! Ouer Lord's humanity was not limited to his male genetic make-up. He was surely representing total humanity - redeeming ALL people, not just men! I think if Jesus were to have arrived on earth today for the first time, he would probably have called a much more cosmopolitan crowd into the ministry than we poor men. Thanks be to God!

JND: there is no "if". There is no need for me to justify my beliefs one way or another in the slightest. What there is, and remains, is your prior judgement maligning my positions based on no evidence, and that is utterly repugnant.

JND wrote: “But Ford Elms, how can you say that? Let me ask you – to paraphrase Ray Comfort, if I were dying, about to expire in a few minutes, and were unsaved – what would you tell me? What is your message of salvation? Universalism?”

But Ford had written this about PSA &c: “… is not the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints, so before you start accusing others of deviating from the Gospel, you might want to look at how your adoption of Reformation and post-Reformation innovations have led you yourself astray into the acceptance of a bizarre perversion of that Gospel.”

Innovation...

It seems we are not paying attention?

How about answering? We wouldn’t want you to miss the fun, would we?

"But Ford Elms, how can you say that? Let me ask you - to paraphrase Ray Comfort, if I were dying, about to expire in a few minutes, and were unsaved - what would you tell me? What is your message of salvation? Universalism?"

I don't know about Ford, but I certainly wouldn't tell a dying man that he is doomed to eternal damnation. Why? Because I am commanded to "love my neighbor as myself"--and I sure wouldn't want somebody saying that to ME in that situation.

What would I tell him? I would repeat that commandment and the other "great" one--the one about loving God. I might add the stuff about how whenever we succor one of the least of the Earth we are succor Christ as well. And then tell him if he has lived his life by those three principles then I am quite sure he will be in heaven...no matter what religion (or lack) he expressed publicly.

"And then tell him if he has lived his life by those three principles then I am quite sure he will be in heaven...no matter what religion (or lack) he expressed publicly"

And I would add that we all fall short of that ideal many many times and that God is not a stern judge in the sky with a record book of all our sins ready to punish us for not having lived up to all his expectations. I would add that the dying man should simply trust God's love for him and know that God will heal whatever deficiencies the man brings to him.

“The point is if they were legal, why were they not worn, Kurt?”—Robert Ian Williams

For the same reason, Robert, that several Roman Catholic priests I know of here in New York often don’t use chasubles—but rather, plain albs and stoles—at mass; styles of worship change.

"The famous picture of Seabury's consecration has no mitred bishops." Kurt referred to Seabury's garb, not to the attire of Scottish Episcopal bishops, RIW. Arthur Cleveland Cox's "Christian Ballads and Poems (Oxford, 1858) includes the poem "Seabury's Mitre". Cleveland quotes a first hand account of Seabury's wearing the mitre in 1785 at his first ordination in the US and also describes it ["of black satin, adorned with gold-thread needlework. The cross is embroidered on the front; and on the reverse ... the crown of thorns". It was deposited in the library of Trinity College, NY. Is it still there, I wonder?

In the 17th century we know that Laud had a crozier and Bishop Wren had crozier and mitre. Post-Restoration, mitres and/or croziers are mentioned in accounts of the funerals of a number of bishops, among them Juxon and Cosin.

"The chasubles were cut up and used for dress material for the new clergy wives at the REformation." I was about to say that you can't make this stuff up, but I rather think you do. In the 1560's every church was required to submit a detailed inventory of its vestments and plate and all of these, with the exception of such items as were retained by the church for approved use, were impounded by the government. Occasionally a single vestment was left to be reworked as a covering for the communion table, but "clergy wives" did not get a look in. The authorities, remembering how many vestments had re-emerged at the death of Edward VI, took no chances.

Ritualism was certainly "Phase Two" or the Tractarian movement -- Pusey's first vestments were all in black & white (seasonal colors being the second part of Phase Two, I guess) -- there was a display of vestments from various periods in the Oxford Movement Sesquicentennial celebrations in 1983 (at St. Barnabas, IIRC) -- the fanciest ones were late Victorian (such embroidery).

Their use was defended by citing the Ornaments Rubric which did, in fact, require their use. Popular sentiment had made it a dead letter until the Ritualists called attention to it (of course they should have been called "Ceremonialists" since "ritual" refers to words, but precedent triumphs here as it did in ignoring the Ornaments Rubric).

"But Ford Elms, how can you say that?...Universalism?"

I can say it because it is true. The alternative to PSA driven, "God the bribable judge" imagery is not "univeralsism". A friend of mine says if the so-called "orthodox" actually read anything about orthodox Christianity, they would become apoplectic. Google "The River of Fire", it's an Orthodox lecture that points out very clearly what's wrong with PSA. Sin is not crime, but deviating from the path that leads us to God. Repentance is not saying you are sorry and promising not to do it again. Repentance translates the Greek "metanoia", essentially "changing your mind": from the worldly one to one that thinks in the ways of the Kingdom. To answer your question, I would tell you that God loves you, that you cannot buy His love, neither can you do anything to make Him stop loving you, that He became as we are so that we can become as He is. I would tell you to put all your trust in Him, that it is never too late. I would tell you that salvation is not about escaping punishment, it is about being part of the Kingdom, not part of the world. I would not let anyone try to terrify you into trying a fear based attempt to buy your way out of Hell at the point when your faith in the All Gracious Trinity, the Lover of Mankind, needs to be at its strongest. And "unsaved"? That is such an innovative fundamentalist concept that a traditionalist catholic like myself doesn't know where to start to explain what's wrong with it. This legalistic crime and punishment "Gospel" just makes the Baby Jesus cry.

But Ford Elms, how can you say that? Let me ask you - to paraphrase Ray Comfort, if I were dying, about to expire in a few minutes, and were unsaved - what would you tell me? What is your message of salvation? Universalism?

Posted by: JND on Monday, 4 February 2008 at 1:33am GMT

I should be even more choosy in my last hours on earth, anout whom I consort with, than I am now. I would have little time for some fool on an ill advised mission.

For my own part, I would no more seek to inflect my own prorities on dying persons, than anyone else. I have always foiund being with people at their life's end a moving privelege -- & still 'a two way street.'

What would I do for the one who is dying?

I'd explain to him as much of the gospel as there was time to explain (ie, probably not much, and certainly not much detail.)

I'd ask him if he was sorry for any harm he had done to himself or to others, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unknowingly?

I'd offer him absolution.

I'd offer him baptism.

And I'd commend him to God's mercy.

I certainly would not tell him he was going to hell because he didn't accept some dubious modern shibboleth called substitutionary atonement.

JND,
Sorry to keep harping, but there is more than one way to understand redemption. Those who do not accept, or are suspicious of, PSA are not some airy-fairy new agers, contrary to what you have been taught. In fact, PSA is no more than 5 centuries old, give or take, though it does come out of work that was done by Anselm in the Middle Ages. It is not traditional Christian thought, and not central to an understanding of Atonement, despite whatever you might have been taught. So, 'universalism', whatever it is you are referring to by that term, is not the only other option for those who do not believe as you do. While I might find many of the things that you believe to be at best horribly misguided, and in some instances close to blasphemy (that is what I think of PSA) does not mean that I think you don't have any faith at all. That you can so easily claim that we who do not see things as you do don't really have much faith shows that you have followed the lie for far to long. My faith is solidly Incarnational. I might not get it all right all the time. No doubt I am as horribly misguided in some areas as I believe you to be. But don't call me faithless, or whatever it is you mean by 'universalism', just because I have a more traditional understanding of the faith than you do. You might be right in what you think, but if you believe salvation is all about getting into Heaven, or, more importantly, not going to Hell when you die, that God is a vindictive judge just waiting to roast you for all eternity if you do not promise not to break the Law any more, if, indeed, you think redemption is based on obedience to some sort of Law, then, right or not, what you believe is not the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints".

“"The famous picture of Seabury's consecration has no mitred bishops." Kurt referred to Seabury's garb, not to the attire of Scottish Episcopal bishops, RIW. Arthur Cleveland Cox's "Christian Ballads and Poems (Oxford, 1858) includes the poem "Seabury's Mitre". Cleveland quotes a first hand account of Seabury's wearing the mitre in 1785 at his first ordination in the US and also describes it ["of black satin, adorned with gold-thread needlework. The cross is embroidered on the front; and on the reverse ... the crown of thorns". It was deposited in the library of Trinity College, NY. Is it still there, I wonder?”— Lapinbizarre

Yes, it’s still at Trinity College Hartford, Connecticut (not NY). It is apparently one of two miters that Bishop Seabury possessed—the American-made miter of 1785. He apparently also had an English-made miter shipped to him about 1787 by the Rev. Dr. Charles Inglis, the Irish-American priest who would soon be consecrated the first Colonial Anglican Bishop. This English miter has unfortunately been lost.

Bishop Thomas Claggett, who was the first American bishop—of any denomination to be consecrated only by American bishops—also wore a miter pattered after Dr. Seabury’s American-made miter. He was consecrated the first Bishop of Maryland in 1792 at Trinity Church Wall Street, which was then New York’s Pro-Cathedral. He wore his miter on special occasions from 1792 until his death in 1816. Bishop Claggett’s miter can be viewed on this webpage: http://www.ang-md.org/archives.php

Again, Robert, please do your homework before commenting on Anglican/Episcopal liturgical practices and histories, of which you know little.

Well my final two hints to anybody in the last five minutes before they die would be:

(1) remember, appreciate, celebrate that you are about to come face to face with God in Jesus of Nazareth as Risen Lord, surrounded so far as we can tell with a huge and diverse communion of saints (very possibly including some figures from cultural life and/or other world religions which we do not yet currently recognize as our sort of saint);

(2) thus showing up, you will find yourself telling the truth and knowing the truth, incarnate and unable to be avoided regardless, so be ready to change and learn and let that truth fill you even more than before.

I would deliberately hesitate in provisional good conscience to presume that any, any iota, of this near impending and great blessedness was suddenly made possible by any ritual human sacrifice to any political state, whether of Jesus or anybody else in human history. Why do we need special penal examples of killing to show that real metanoia is deep and serious and can be known in faith as God at work?

YMMV

"And I would add that we all fall short of that ideal many many times and that God is not a stern judge in the sky with a record book of all our sins ready to punish us for not having lived up to all his expectations. I would add that the dying man should simply trust God's love for him and know that God will heal whatever deficiencies the man brings to him."

Erika--absolutely. And I was remiss in not including that.

Thank you

Copes were never forbidden. Mitres did not appear until the nineteenth century. Orthodox Bishop Wallace Benn ( Gafcon attender) admitted to me he is the last bishop in the Church of England not to wear one.

Margaret should observe that the issue of divorce and re-marriage are deliberately left out as the " othodox" cannot agree as to what the BIble means. Rather than admit this, they simply air brush it out.

You see there will be divorced and re-married bishops at GAFCON!

Double standard and self deception rolled ito one, and hidden behind a subterfuge of lip service to the bible.

Vestments "were never worn between 1559 and 1849". "Copes were never forbidden." "Mitres did not appear until the nineteenth century." Do you bother to READ what anyone with whom you disagree posts, or do you wing it, inventing it as you go along? Why ask questions with self-evident answers?

“Mitres [worn by Anglican bishops] did not appear until the nineteenth century.” Robert Ian Williams

I have shown you that some American Anglican bishops in fact wore miters in the 18th century. I provided you with a link to even view one of those miters. Are you calling me a liar, Robert? If you are, it’s obvious that you simply don’t know what you are talking about, and the rest of us should simply ignore you as a papist crank, and move on.

Kurt, maverick Roman Catholic priests are no analogy with the dictates of the Reformed Protestabnt Church of England.

LapinBizarre, Stop rearranging the deck chairs on the TITanic and concentrate on the real issue of Sydney.

Why aren't you cornering Doctor Jensen on lay presidency and divorce.

"Cornering Doctor Jensen"? Get real RIW. Jensen doesn't give a damn what anyone says on this site, or elsewhere, about any of his beliefs or Biblical inconsistencies. Many of us have frequently pointed out the ease with which conservative evangelicals, and others, hold fast to Leviticus on homosexuality, while flat out ignoring what Christ unequivocally states in the Gospels about divorce. It should be these peoples' Achilles' heel, but it isn't, because they simply don't care - if it doesn't suit their case, it doesn't matter.

"Rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic" is a pretty tired, clapped-out metaphor, RIW. The vestment issue has only survived this far because your statements on the topic have been flat-out wrong and you won't fess-up.

Incidentally, since the Gospels have nothing to say on the topic, it might fairly argued that Sydney's position on lay presidency is theologically more defensible than his position on divorce.

In any case, the big story is now the bishop of Liverpool, isn't it? If true as reported, the cat is among the pigeons.

Inspring and encouraging to read the thoughts here, about facing the final moments of life. As for copes, I don't think they'll be much on my mind at the end --not even amices !

Couldn't agree more, L Roberts.....

"Inspring and encouraging to read the thoughts here, about facing the final moments of life."

Interesting that the one who asked the question hasn't made a resopnse. I guess s/he either thinks we're lying to hide our "universalist" heresy or the obviously Christian nature of our responses has so shaken his/her stereotypes of us Evil Hell Bound Liberals that it has prompted some painful quiet soul searching. Live in hopes, die in despair! Or maybe it's just shock that we would be so willing to lose a soul to Hellfire as to not terrify a dying person with threats of what the Sky Bully will do to him once his heart stops.

Oh, by the way Robert, if you want to see copes and miters, check out this stained glass depiction of Dr. Seabury’s consecration from Old St. Paul’s Church Edinburgh:

http://www.osp.org.uk/index.php/about/history/