I pointed out in a previous post how Christchurch, Jerusalem are at variance with the diocese. The diocese is liberal pro-Palestinian Arab ( many ex Catholics) and Christchurch conservative evangelical, pro Israeli. The diocese has stayed away from the ordination of women, so as not to damage its relationship with the ancient churches of the region. So Bishop Jeffers- Schorri is an interesting development.

The Egyptian Bishop has an assistant,Deryk Eaton who was a bishop in Nelson in New Zealand. The latter actually participated in the consecration of a woman in Dunedin, and the evangelicals there are liberal on womens ordination, but are holding the line on the gay issue.They've just started their own theological College, the provincial one being considered dangerously liberal.

More news from New Zealand...British born
(Warrington) ex Royal Navy, Wally Behan who is Vicar to a thriving 340 plus congregation in Christchurch fires a warning shot of schism in a sermon availble aon the St Johns Anglican Evangelical Church web site.Its worth llistening to..he compares you liberals to King Herod.

" what has happened in Canada is coming here."

Its fascinating to see a schism and denomination develop. I hope Bishop Matthews does not think that alternative Episcopal oversight will buy this grouping off. Wally was ordained after CPNZ changed its rules on women, and the issue for him will be a woman in aughority over him....but he cjose that path.

However they are in a bit of a fix, because Bishop Matthews has not been pro-gay.

I predict Sydney intervention (OR VENABLES DOING THE JOB)within the year and a conservative bishop, and at LEAST TWO CONGREGATIONS LEAVING.

I did not click on the link to see what they said because I frankly find myself caring less and less what they say.

Interesting that the picture includes, out of 17 members of the planning committee, 11 of them are white men, 9 from churches in the West (USA/Canada/England/Australia) and 2 more westerners in GS provinces. Is this really a Global South initiative, or are certain parties in the Global North really calling the shots?

_the primary and urgent task is to move the global Anglican Communion substantially and effectively forward, to be living and witnessing as a worthy and exemplary expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church._

Another intention, then, to turn a communion into a Church. However, reading through this Global South text I see some dancing around the problem that some will go to Lambeth, some to GAFCON and some to both.

Good that the Lord enabled them to do all this at a busy time - how do they know?

The GAFCON report of itself reads like vacuous public relations speak, so they are not telling anyone anything.

A picture really is worth the proverbial thousand words. For a movement out of Africa there seem to be a lot of pale faces there. It is also of interest that I see no asian faces either.

The Global South seems srangely "Northern." How odd, doncha think?

Hi Jim

According to the usual "analysis" that gets done

1. If there are white males there they must be calling the shots -- providing chicken dinners -- and generally manipulating the ignorant of the Global South

2. If there are not white males around, then the Global South people are ignorant of the amazing insights that are only found through contact with the white people of the amazing western world, and if they only had such contact they would think entirely differently (and correctly).

Ideally any particular commentator choses between these two colour-of-skin based interpretations, though I have seen the odd one trying to hold them both simultaneously!

Yes, just six black people --very 'Southern'.

The whole business is '... a vain thing fondly invented...'

I was struck by this bit:

"The controversial visit involving the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC (Oct 2007), without prior consultation with the Primates on its composition, procedure and accountability process . . ."

The operative bit, of course, is "without prior consultation with the Primates . . ."

This isn't about God at all. It is about power. It is a coup d'eglise by power-mad prelates.

I was struck by the fact that it's all men. Men, men, men!

But let's look at some of the players.

Until 2000 Rwanda had this to say on womens rights, ""Previously, under Rwandan law and tradition, women and girls did not have the right to inherit land; instead, it was expected that they would enjoy the benefits of communal property, which was, in fact, owned by husbands or fathers."
"In Nigeria there are regional religious and ethnic variations in the pattern of discrimination against women, but indicates that men are legally able to prevent their wives from working, from obtaining passports, and rural men routinely beat their wives without any legal intervention. Access to land and right to inheritance of spousal property are also denied women, as is access to jobs for single women. "

Lsstly Kenya and Uganda. "While there are laws in Kenya and Uganda that support women owning, inheriting, and controlling land and property, it seldom happens in practice. Women in the East African countries often find that their rights hinge on their relationships with men, and lose everything if and when those relationships end. Discriminatory laws and customs often uphold this disparity.

Many widows who consult Nairobi-based social worker Hellen Ochieng have only the clothes on their back, after living for many years with their husbands in homes or on farms.

Instead of continuing to stay in their marital homes, the widows commonly find themselves in Nairobi's teeming slums or back with their parents, often bringing several children in tow."

Maybe this explains no women.

Source:E.A. Yoloye, “Socio-Economic Background of Children in Three Types of Schools in the Western States of Nigeria” in M. 0. Durojaiye, (ed.) Psychological Guidance of the School Child, 1970, pp. 16-32; J.O. Ogunlade “Family environment and educational attainment of some school children in Western Nigeria”, West African Journal of Education, 17: 3, 1973, p. 429-432; Stella Y. Erinosho “Performance Level in Physics Among Girls in Single-Sex and Co-Educational Secondary Schools in Nigeria”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 18, 1992, pp. 247-252.

Source Voice of America, By Cathy Majtenyi
Nairobi
24 December 2005

Margaret,
I would tend toward the former. This is not just a few white faces, but a preponderance.

I'm also curious about their statement about expanding the guest list for the next Global South Encounter. Who might these additional attendees be? Northerners, perhapsÉ

Quite a few air miles being clocked up by the 'global south' primates. Who is paying for them all, I wonder?

Hey Margaret: let me raise you with a *3-part* analysis:

1) If the facts favor you, argue the facts.

2) If the law favors you, argue the law.

3) If NEITHER favors you, pound the table!

Therefore, GAFCON had been "favoring" us w/ option 3 (the table-pounding by the homophobic Drama Queens is getting rather incessant :-/)

I'm getting worse. I thought I had a very self-reflective and uplifting Semana Santa filled with joy and forgiveness...but no, I'm still one of the angry "inclusive" ones...when I look at a photo op for grinning, yet deadly, "excluders" smurking my heart sinks. I think of the millions of Anglicans/others (at all levels of society, Margaret) who are persecuted and discriminated against by these cheesy plotters at The Body of Christ.

Exclusion kills.

Malcolm,

It is interesting - where is the humility to recognize our own limitations? You know it is a matter of "power mad prelates" not about God at all! It would be a sign of hope if in these circumstances if we were prepared to wait and let God be judge (cf 1 Cor. 4:3-5).

Ben W

-- providing chicken dinners --

You get particularly angry at chicken, Margaret?

Why don't you concentrate on something more important?

I see this present war in the Anglican Communion as one between the Fundamentalists, never mind what their skin-colour is, and Historical Anglicanism.

"O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is 'perfect freedom'." BCP

Fundamentalism is "perfect bondage", as far as I am concerned. St Paul said, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." ESV.

Margaret,
Good to see you back on TA, I hope you had a blessed Easter!

I know this is not the right thread, but can I please ask you to look at our open conversation of last week, and maybe reply to my last post to you? You must have missed it in the pre-Easter rush and I'm sure you'd like to respond if you had seen it.

The thread is now in the archives:

PB visits South Carolina, 5th March
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/2008_03.html

Comment list: http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk/mt/comments?entry_id=2955

I promised myself I wouldn’t post here again, but my soul is in anguish. How did we ever come to this point?

Presumably everyone here [apart from Robert .. chuckle, you should get up to date on your information Robert!] is Anglican .. and yet there’s sheer hatred positively emanating from this page, no love, no tolerance .. which I thought was your watchword.

Exclusion kills does it Leonardo? Well you’re ‘excluding’ decent, upright members of our church who don’t exclude anyone, but who believe that practicing homosexuals shouldn’t be ordained. I personally don’t think women should be ordained either. Can you tolerate that? Haven’t you always talked about this BIG umbrella that could hold all of us? Are we not entitled to our point of view .. we’ll ALL answer to Our Lord one day. When did the wall become so big that no one is going to climb it again? It’s going to be a fight to the death isn’t it .. how positively STUPID. How lacking in Christian charity. It’s all me, me, me.

Instead we should set our eyes on our Saviour Jesus and ask Him on bended knee what He wants of us.

"Exclusion kills does it Leonardo? Well you’re ‘excluding’ decent, upright members of our church who don’t exclude anyone, but who believe that practicing homosexuals shouldn’t be ordained. I personally don’t think women should be ordained either. Can you tolerate that? Haven’t you always talked about this BIG umbrella that could hold all of us? Are we not entitled to our point of view .. we’ll ALL answer to Our Lord one day. When did the wall become so big that no one is going to climb it again? It’s going to be a fight to the death isn’t it .. how positively STUPID. How lacking in Christian charity. It’s all me, me, me."

I don't think Robert...or anyone who holds his view...is excluding those people. I think he's saying they can have their point of view and run their parishes as they choose, but they can't push their choices on the rest of us.

I'm unaware of any individual or parish that has been forced to have a practicing gay priest minister to them, or a woman for that matter. I'm unaware of any that has been forced to perform any service to which they object.

Nobody has ever voted to kick out somebody who believes as you do...until the time that somebody took themselves out, and tried to take the church's property with them. That's illegal, uncanonical, and, in my view, downright theft.

"proclaim the transforming love of Christ."

And how they suppose their behaviour is doing this? I mean really, they are acting according to "the transforming love of Christ"? On what planet has "the transforming love of christ" been mutated and perverted into the thing THEY make manifest in their actions?

"future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority."

The self righteousness of this is really quite funny. They show no inclination to reverse the compromises of the Gospel they benefit from, or which are so old they are simply taken for granted. No, the only compromises they are concerned with are those that make it more difficult for them to persecute gay people, oh, and the ones that give the uppity women more say. If I said what I really thought, Simon, with good reason, wouldn't post it.

"Fundamentalism is "perfect bondage","

Amen!

I'm always amused when somebody demands that we be inclusive of their views of exclusivity.

What's even more amusing is that my experience the "exclusivists" (now that's a good name, huh?) are often the first ones to whine about "traditional" music in most parishes that is "difficult", "old-fashioned" or "elitist" (I'm serious).

I've seen many choir director fired in favor of a "rock band", and resulting in worship that has little to do with traditional Anglican worship. Go look at the CANA list on the other string and I'll bet you all dimes to dollars that the majority of these break-away parishes use non-traditional music in their worship format.

I made a point of visiting a Virginia parish and being told that they were "orthodox". With the changes in liturgical (and musical) evident, I wonder what spirit-filled ways brought them to such a narrow, and ultimately, exclusive ways.

Guess we have to love them anyhow.

Pat, how many times do conservatives get on this site and accuse people of being nasty to them? How many times have you been baffled by this, since the treatment of liberals, as many can attest, on conservative blogs is far worse than anything that happens here. I know I am frequently baffled. Besides, while it isn't necessarily true in this case, how many conservatives come out with anger and insult from the beginning, then claim to be persecuted when people defend themselves? We have all had the experience of our posts not making it to the list, either because of length or inflammatory language, yet who but conservatives complains that this is some sort of censorship? I honestly believe that many conservatives have a heightened sensitivity to dissent. They honestly feel it represents some sort of persecution of them. It's as though disagreeing with them means more than just disagreement, it seems to be perceived as a personal attack. How else do we account for the fact that they honestly feel they are being forced to bless same sex couples despite the fact that no-one has ever said that those who disagree will be forced to comply? How else do we explain that while it is the conservatives who are using threats and bullying to force others to behave according to their interpretation of Scripture, they yet continually accuse "the other side" of that very thing, when it seems pretty clear to everyone else that "the other side" is doing no such thing? How else do we explain this?

Pat,

It seems in TEC it is fine to resort to legalisms when it suits them but then on the key point for others the call is not to be bound by what is legal or written!

When dioceses or churches want to continue in places where they have served over a life time or maintain what they have built then according to you "That's illegal, uncanonical." Christian sense tells me this is blind self-centeredness (even if you can hang it on some legalism). The other side of this coin right now, if your great concern is what is legal, what about using canons and manuevers that were never intended to be thus used and against fellow Christians who have no intention of leaving (time to drop the canard that this is "leaving" - the aim is to keep faith with Anglican identity and the larger Anglican Church!).

Ben W

The whole conservative realignment campaign hangs on three dubious premises which are loudly preached without explanation or scrutiny beyond self-serving categorical or presuppositional expositions.

One. Historic Anglican leeway - institutional, doctrinal, ethical, theological - within which any non-conservative Anglican believers have existed or do exist - is suddenly now awful, evil, and must be purged or conformed.

Two. In much of conservative realignment campaign strategy, alleged conservative good ends justify dodgy means - like laying claim to parish property which just happens to mean that it is removed from the aforementioned additional Anglican spaces called dioceses or provinces where those other sorts of believers would otherwise be equal and welcome as equals in our varied communities of Anglican faith and following.

Are we done yet, protecting our parish and ourselves from those ... ssssinnnerrrssss ???
(USA Bible Belt sibilants all round, please.)

The whole infamous Chapman memo is really a coded guerilla warfare operations manual where the need to misrepresent conservative ends (lest bishops be deposed for abandoning TEC doctrine, discipline, or worship?) is suggestively raised to a high propaganda art of dissemulation in public comments.

Did none of these realignment believers finish that old Ethics 101 class?

Three. A studied inability to ever sit in any other frameworks, no matter what hot button topics are being talked over, besides the preferred conservative realignment ones. We who are not conservative Anglican believers are constantly, constantly urged - even threatened - about having to sit inside this or that conservative frame, but hardly ever does any conservative know-it-all deign to the low business of sitting investigationally in some non-conservative frame or hermeneutic-methodological model.

Hmmm. Not only did some believers skip that Ethics 101 class, it is looking like they were absent from a whole range of methodology and hermeneutics classes.

Gee, now I've forgotten again, Why is it that, according to conservative preaching, real church life inclusion means sitting mildly by while conservatives trash talk you at every opportunity, while tearing apart your Anglican spaces - ethical, doctrinal, theological, institutional - as their special way of following Jesus of Nazareth?

"When dioceses or churches want to continue in places where they have served over a life time or maintain what they have built then according to you "That's illegal, uncanonical.""

It is, actually. The idea that the people resident in a parish own the building they worship in is a product of the more Congregational aspects of the Reformation. One cannot credibly claim to defend the Catholic Faith if one doesn't understand the reason behind this basic principle. We are not Congregationalists.

choirboy,
"non-traditional music"

I call them MPEPs: mindless PanEvangelical pap. We use the old Canadian book, replete with schmaltzy Victorian hymns that at least have some meaty, if sometimes dodgy, theology, not the "Jesus is my Boyfriend" "Aren't we all wonderful" nonsense. The sad thing is even Evangelicals use to sing better hymns, before they decided that a rock band to attract the Yoof constituted worship. Give me Sanky any day.

Ben:

There's a difference between legal documents such as the canons of a church and the written word of the Scripture. Both must be interpreted, it is true, but the canons have the force of law and the teeth of due process. The Scriptures do not. Comparing the two and how they should be followed is simply ridiculous.

The parishes and dioceses who wish to leave TEC knew the rules regarding property when they started. The rules haven't changed. They had two choices--remain with TEC, keep the property, and work to change TEC to their liking is one. The other is to leave--for another province, to form their own church, whatever--but sacrifice the property as a cost of that move. You may argue that it is impossible for them to change TEC to their liking. Perhaps--but that doesn't give them the right to break the rules. If I don't like my current municipal government, I have two choices--stay where I am and work to change it, or move...but I sacrifice all the love and care I have given my home in the meantime.

Finally, as others as well as I keep repeating, there is no "Anglican Church". There are national churches, sisters and brothers in a family that is the Anglican Communion, but they are each autonomous and individual, just as the members of a family are. If you want some kind of worldwide heirarchical structure, I suggest you look to Rome.

Ben, Ben, Ben. If it were about something besides power-mad prelates, then the very first complaint would not have been about how a body with no inherent right to be consulted had not been consulted. (Delegated authority - which is what the Joint Standing Committee has - includes the authority to take action as required.)

But it was your final sentence that most amused me. "It would be a sign of hope if in these circumstances if we were prepared to wait and let God be judge (cf 1 Cor. 4:3-5)."

So, this applies to a gang of extremely well-traveled blokes who believe everyone should follow their orders, but it doesn't apply to a group of Americans who chose to confirm the prayerful decision of New Hampshire Episcopalians?

Response to Rosemary

If you want real hatred, you should peruse the Stand Firm and Virtue on line website, where I have seen the most appalling and uncharitable things written...describing homosexuals in the most gutter language. Even though I disagree with homosexual practice , I would never use such language....indeed my Church deems such langauage as sinful.

The Principle at Stake

When a person joins a church or is ordained in it...they promise to abide by its canons. If a person suddenly decided that they can not abide by those canons because they conflict with their conscience, they shoud leave with integrity.

I simply pointed out that Wally Behan subscribed to those canons which allowed women to have spiritual headship when he was ordained in New Zealand.

If he believes that women should not have spiritual headship, he should leave.

He stood up and denounced a homosexual being ordained..yet he supports a Church which allows re-marraige of divorced persons willy nilly.

Sadly for Wally the Bishop he will be in canonical obedience too, is a conservative on gay blessings. It even cost her the primacy of the Canadian Church...so he cannot leave , like his friend in Canada , David Short claiming the issue is homosexuality, or a persecuting bishop.

If I remember correctly, prior to Wally's ordination, a woman Archdeacn In CHCH voiced her concerns. Her concerns are now coming to fruition.

Look at Archbishop jensen..he has just written a piece on false teachers and why you cannot fellowship with them.

Listen to him on his website, say he could not attend a Mass... yet he is prepared to have Anglo-catholic bishops at his GAFCON conference, even though they teach what he believes is a false version of the Gospel.

It would seem that even Archbishop Jensen can be elastic with the triuth and the bounds of orthodoxty when it suits them.

I am sure that he will be willing to provide alternative episcopal oversight.

"decent, upright members of our church who don’t exclude anyone, but who believe that practicing homosexuals shouldn’t be ordained. I personally don’t think women should be ordained either."

From Pseudorthodox *oxymorons*, Good Lord Deliver Us---Alleluia!

drdanfee,

You go on about trash talk and seem to make things up as you go.

I tried simply to make some points, I do not know about your "infamous Chapman report." I have not read it and if it is as bad as you say it is probably a good thing! If you want to say in Anglican tradition we have a system that when a whole diocese has serious differences with some form of wider leadership they simply have to take it, OK (you again nicley manage to overlook the point I made that these people I speak of seek the freedom to affirm what they always affirmed as Anglicans and in doing that to maintain their position - but there is no room for that?). And you talk about cons "tearing up Anglican spaces," that is a hoot! Who is talking trash, perhaps take a little of your own medicine dr.

Forgive me if I want to think outside that box. I believe RW thought there was room to think beyond these bounds as did a meeting of primates in seeking to give some relief to places like New Westminster from the likes of b Ingham.

Ben W

Malcolm,

I do not want go into diversion with you so I will not take up all you say here. Only to ask, when you speak of certain leaders and say "who believe everyone should follow their orders," who is resoting to measures and canons never intended for this to have their way? Get real.

Ben W

The facts are the facts, Ben - as much as you wish it were otherwise.

The Primates Meeting has no authority but to meet for fellowship and prayer.

C'est tout.

The rest of their recent machinations are an illicit, uncanonical and dishonest attempted coup d'eglise.

I sympathize with you that the facts so undermine your utopian vision.

But the Bishop of Abuja hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Canada.

Stand firm have just announced that the " fellowship" discourse was by Dean Jensen, and Sarah Hey made a mistake attributing it to the Archbishop.

Anyway the theology of the brothers is virtually the same. Apart from the fact the Dean does not believe women should preach to mixed congregations....the Archbishop ordains them deacons.

Archbishop Jensen will not attend Mass, ( listen to him on Reform , London) but associates and supports bishops who believe they offer it everyday! You see you can't invite Tanzania to GAFCON without including the Anglo-Catholic dioceses.

GAfcon is worth a Mass, even if its an Anglo-Catholic one. Aopologies to King Henri IV.

I would also like to add if the Anglican Province of New Zealand allow alternative episcopal oversight they will be mking a serious mistake....if that is what Rosemary is implying, when she says I have not heard about the latest developments.

Pat,

I think much of this remains to be seen, it is not that clear that a whole diocese remaining true to what they have always been can simply be deprived of what they have built and maintained.

I think the ab Rowan W saw this coming and wanted to guide things in a more Christian direction (and my more basic point is that the people involved however you think of them are and remain part of the Anglican family. For the sake of our own identity as Christians and for the sake of relations with the family we must do better than this - is the Anglican tent big enough to include a measure of understanding or even generosity?). We do face a test at this point.

Ben W

"...these people I speak of seek the freedom to affirm what they always affirmed as Anglicans and in doing that to maintain their position..."

And who is stopping them from doing so, Ben? Gene Robinson? How? Katharine Jefforts Schori? Again, how? What are they doing that keeps these people from "affirming what they always affirmed"? Are you saying that the very existence of a gay bishop, or of those who support him, in the same national church prevents these people from so affirming?

They were anti modern before they were Modern, Ben? or before they were late modern?

Or where they neo-cons in 1850?

Do try the Chapman memorandum! it will amuse you ; = )

Pat,

If the larger church takes on a certain identity, as TEC is in process of doing, that in itself becomes a structure of conformity. That entity will make decisions and work in a way that furthers its ends, leaving out or excluding the others in different ways(it is not as if we don't know how this works - in a minor key this has already been the case and played for a long time).

The way that TEC has moved to "strongarm tactics" as of first resort shows clearly where we are. We have referred to the attitude of contempt here, people speak of the way they are thought of or being talked about, and being exlcuded (we know how this works when it comes to race, well it works here too). Why have the primates agreed that getting appropriate oversight that understands evangelical concerns is important except for at least a glimmer of understanding?

Ben W

There is a superb interview with Bishop Matthews elect of Christchurch on RADIO NEW ZEALAND

GO TO RADIO NEW ZEALAND

TAP IN NINE TO NOON

THE INTERVIEW IS ON the 26 MARCH

"If the larger church takes on a certain identity, as TEC is in process of doing, that in itself becomes a structure of conformity. That entity will make decisions and work in a way that furthers its ends, leaving out or excluding the others in different ways(it is not as if we don't know how this works - in a minor key this has already been the case and played for a long time)."

And the solution to that is not to walk away but to work from within to effect change. The US has taken on a "certain identity" in the past decade, one with which I most certainly do not agree. But I'm not moving to Canada (or claiming I can be a Canadian and still live in the US, which is close to what San Joaquin and Pittsburgh seem to be attempting), I'm working to effect change, by the rules.

Why can't conservatives in TEC do the same?

"TEC has moved to 'strongarm tactics' as of first resort"

You have GOT to be kidding me. Faithful *Episcopalians* held captive by their anti-gay (and anti-women) bishops pleaded w/ the national church for YEARS to save them from *their bishop's* "strongarm tactics".

It was ONLY when those same bishops took irrefutable action toward *schism* that the HofB FINALLY said "Enough is enough."

Deposition (as w/ xSchofield) was TEC's LAST resort, not the first, BenW!

"If the larger church takes on a certain identity, as TEC is in process of doing, that in itself becomes a structure of conformity."

By virtue of being an Anglican, I am a member of a Church whose 'identity' includes the acceptance of usury and judicial murder. I feel these are contrary to the Gospel. I am also part of a Church some of whose members support the jailing of gay people, whose leaders lie while pretending to defend Truth. This latter group is trying to distance itself from me and mine, but most are still members of the same Curch that I am. I am also one of the people being maligned in the most outrageous manner by certain statements they make, unlike anything done to you, or has some bishop said you aren't even a human being for being a conservative? Yet I do not feel, honestly, that I am being in some sense excluded. Others here would feel otherwise, but I do not. That being the case, can you understand how I am baffled how you can say that because some parishes are permitted to do things with which you do not agree, you are somehow excluded? Cripes, half the Anglican Church does things with which I do not agree! I am adamently opposed to lay presidency. I believe it reflects a Eucharistic theology that is not Anglican and certainly not Catholic. Yet I do not feel excluded because +Jensen let's it go on under in secret in his diocese. Why are you excluded by a gay bishop in new Hamlshire? He is certainly no more unorthodox than Jensen.