Saturday, 29 May 2010

Comments

Guess who's not paying the next bill for the Lambeth party costs overruns as well.

Posted by: evensongjunkie on Saturday, 29 May 2010 at 11:17pm BST

Telegraph: "imposes"
ENS: "proposes"

There you have it. Americans read "ask" as a "proposal" -- as in, "will you may me?" Which it must be since the ABC has no authority to "impose".

Posted by: John B. Chilton on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 2:26am BST

Let us heretofore snub them forthwith according to the love joy and peace that the fruit of the Spirit would have us afflict. As if the wrath of man were really useful in fulfilling the righteousness of God, I mean, after all, none of our other coercions have worked.

Posted by: Curtis on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 2:32am BST

"When a province "declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the communion, it is very hard to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the communion as a whole," Williams said."

This passage, that the ENS report highlighted, really displays how ORWELLIAN the ABC has become.

Since when does declining the ***requests*** or ***advice*** from a ***consultative*** organ in any way constitute disobedience deserving of ANY diminishment of status in the Anglican Communion?

And the Kafka-esque (to continue the literary allusions) nature of this punishment is underscored . . . in that TEC/AngChCanada (I won't speak re the border-crossers, as we're the apple to their---poisoned apple :-X) are to be kicked off ECUMENICAL bodies? :-0 Way to display the Ol' Ecumenical Spirit, Rowan! How impressive to our dialogue partners. (Not!)

This Letter (how dare the ABC diminish the joys of Pentecost!) should be "Returned to Sender", as "No such brain-less, soul-less Back-sliders able to accept this MESS, at this address".

[NB: Re ecuenical dialogue, however, don't think I'm naive: this punishment may well be as a result of Vatican and/or *SCOBA* (EO bishops) DEMANDS. In which case, that makes it even WORSE, IMO. True ecumenical dialogue can ONLY take place where each/every dialogue partner is free to express THEIR OWN faith-claims and charisms. I would argue, therefore, that if the Rev. Thomas Ferguson and Assistant Bishop William Gregg (TEC) and the Rev. Canon Philip Hobson and Natasha Klukach (AngChCanada) are kicked off the "Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue" (panel), that will MAKE Anglican-Orthodox dialogue, in reality, IMPOSSIBLE. The voices necessary (not because of church-membership, but because of an essential "Member of the Body of Christ") to represent the Anglican Communion wouldn't be present. If I might be so bold: the HEART of the Anglican Communion would be lacking!]

Posted by: JCF on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 4:56am BST

Where is the Holy Spirit in this so called Pentecost letter by an angry, temper tantrum,frightened, desperate ABC ?. How can the man deny his earlier written staements about the positive value of same sex relationships under God.
The man is a prisoner of the fundamentalists, and is trapped between a rock and a hard place.
God have mercy on him, and we must all needs pray for him, and those he denies.

Fr John

Posted by: Fr John on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 9:19am BST

I think Fr. Jake has the best idea about how TEC should respond to the contents of the ABC's Pentecost Letter - Ignore it - until the/any practical outcome is put into effect, by notification from the Standing Committee of the ACC. After all, that is probably what the Border-crossing Provinces will do - unless they decide to boycott Lambeth and Canterbury altogether and form their own puritanical version of the Communion, in which case there may be no further problems.

I agree, also, that if TEC and the A.C.of C. are invited to resile to a position of Observer Status on the Faith and Order Commission - they should accept that role - if only to continue their witness of renewal already being undertaken in the Communion by their Provinces - in the emancipation of women and gays into the Mission of The Church. This might be a better course than to remain as a target for further abuse from dissenting voices within the Communion.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 11:30am BST

"Since when does declining the ***requests*** or ***advice*** from a ***consultative*** organ in any way constitute disobedience deserving of ANY diminishment of status in the Anglican Communion?"

Well said, JCF. I've often noticed that those in favor of setting up a Curia Lite™ act and speak as if their wishes were our commands.

Posted by: Bill Dilworth on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 11:34am BST

This Pentecost letter is sad--another lost opportunity to preach the Gospel. I prefer Peter's sermon with the text from Joel: "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh."

Posted by: Bill Carroll on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 11:57am BST

First, as a Canadian, I fail to see what the ACoC has actually done that is not happening in Rowan's own backyard-and he's quite aware of it. We have not ordained "openly" gay bishops (as if lying is a virtue) and, in blessing same-sex couples, we are not doing anything that is not being openly done in England. The only difference is that we admit it. (We are not marrying gay couples, although Canadian law allows it). Secondly, what's the point of preventing Anglicans tainted with homosexuality from meeting with ecumenical partners? If he thinks that the Romans or the Orthodox aren't aware of this issue, he's dreaming. Are the "good parts" of the Communion those who engage in homophobia?Moreover, the fact that women are ordained to the priesthood, even in England, is enough of an issue to the Romans and Orthodox and he's not forbidding Anglicans who ordain women from talking to them. The Ordinariate offer from Benedict should tell him what Rome really thinks anyway. As much as I love Orthodoxy, they have their own issues. If they can have conflict about issues of the 11th century, we can have ours in the 21st. Pretending that we don't is just hypocrisy. Keeping the Communion together by driving us apart reminds me of what was said about the Vietnam war "Fighting for peace is like..." For all his erudition, it seems that Rowan is just plain scared of the conservatives and global south (not capitalized). Or, for all his liberal talk, he is really an evangelical Protestant at heart.

Posted by: Adam Armstrong on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 2:33pm BST

Adam:

As long as we're bringing up Vietnam-era sayings:
"Rowan has to destroy the Communion in order to save it"

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 3:26pm BST

Rowan Williams has become paralyzed by his own fears of the right wing fundamentalist prelates. He really fear all of them and this is both pathetic and sad. He really "doesn't get any of it" or if he does he is too afraid to stand up to these Fundamentalists because he has to preserve UNITY. It isn't working is it? If Rowan Williams sees his place in Anglican history as a uniter, he is under a delusion. He is turning people off and creating a false sense of what UNITY is really about. Perhaps Rowan should leave the stage now before he inflicts further damage. His Pentecost Letter sounds like something the old men in the Vatican bureaucracy might publish. It is anything but pastoral.

Posted by: Chris Smith on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 5:58pm BST

First, as a Canadian, I fail to see what the ACoC has actually done that is not happening in Rowan's own backyard-and he's quite aware of it. We have not ordained "openly" gay bishops (as if lying is a virtue) and, in blessing same-sex couples, we are not doing anything that is not being openly done in England. The only difference is that we admit it. Remember that no Canadian bishop has permitted this without the consent of their diocesan Synod. Secondly, what's the point of preventing Anglicans tainted with homosexuality from meeting with ecumenical partners? If he thinks that the Romans or the Orthodox aren't aware of this issue, he's dreaming. Are the "good parts" of the Communion those who engage in homophobia? Moreover, the fact that women are ordained to the priesthood, even in England, is enough of an issue for the Romans and Orthodox and he's not forbidding Anglicans who ordain women from talking to them. The Ordinariate offer from Benedict should tell him what Rome really thinks anyway. As much as I love Orthodoxy, they have their own issues. If they can have conflict about their issues, we can have ours. Pretending that we don't is just hypocrisy. Keeping the Communion together by driving us apart seems ludicrous. For all his erudition, it seems that Rowan is just plain scared of the conservatives and global south (not capitalized). For all his liberal talk, he seems to be an evangelical Protestant while having some kind of thing for Rome and he intimidated by both. Rome and the GS exploit him or take advantage of his wish to please them and we all, espcially gay people, have to deal with the consequences.

Posted by: Adam Armstrong on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 11:38pm BST

As someone pointed out to me, there isn't actually any act of the Anglican Church of Canada which fits the criteria Rowan establishes for neo-excommunication. The actions of a handful of dioceses are not the actions of the national Church. General Synod has done nothing officially that qualifies. Therefore Rowan has no means to exclude us.

But the hatemongers will demand it and Rowan will cave.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Sunday, 30 May 2010 at 11:38pm BST

Thinking again about this Pentecost Letter; it may just be that this will give the opportunity that the Global South contingent have longed for. By opting out of the Councils of the Anglican Communion, they may feel themselves free to form a Sect of their own - based on levitical purity and primitive pseudo-theology.

This would then leave the rest of the Provinces to co-exist - with differences, but also an improved understanding of the contextual integrity of one-another's position on women and LGBT persons. This would leave each Province to pursue the essential ministry of the Gospel - the Good News of Christ - to their own people in their own setting.

If the Global South Purity Church just moves away from the Communion, intentionally, then that may be just what is required by God's Holy Spirit, in order to break the deadlock of mutual suspicion between the different Provincial understandings of what the Gospel call is really all about.

For the enlightened parts of the Church to give in to the blackmail that the likes of the Primate of All Nigeria is trying to impose upon the Nigerian Government would be similar to the RC decision to roll back the advances of Vatican II. This is God's world - beautifully diverse and waiting for deliverance from ignorance and prejudice; and we Anglicans have our part to play in that mission.

We should not capitulate to the Numbers Game, which appears to be one of the tools of persuasion being used by the Global South. Justice goes along with the sort of righteousness that the preaching of the Gospel demands of us all We cannot, and must not, compromise with manifest injustice.
If the multitiudes of GS move out, then the rest of us can form the Faithful Remnant. Small can be beautiful.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 31 May 2010 at 10:15am BST

The timing of this is not likely to help the cause of full inclusion at Canada's forthcoming General Synod next week. The National bureaucracy of the Canadian Church was already nervous. An elaborate "process" has been put in place for the General Synod in hopes of keeping debate on same sex issues off the floor. I have to say I do find humor in the ABC's response, booting us off committees and such. Reminds me of Basil Fawlty giving his stalled Austin mini a "damned good thrashing". On a more somber note, The Anglican Journal in Canada is reporting that human sexuality is now "on the back burner" for Canada's General Synod next week. The good news is we are being called to address global injustice. Too bad we can't begin with full inclusion in house.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/news-items/article/archbishop-calls-for-more-courageous-engagement-9129.html

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Monday, 31 May 2010 at 1:01pm BST

I have finally ploughed through the whole Pentecost letter. I find his scolding about churches going to court quite offensive. He has continued to refuse to pay enough attention to such matters so as to understand them.

I think it is poorly written, but not as opaque as a lot of his writing. Although I have been retired from university teaching for two years, sentences like this make my hand itch for a red pen:
"Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future."

Passive constructions obscure the agent of the verb - WHO will be contacting particular provinces? And I would write in the margin, "outworking?" I guess I should upwork my reading skills to match the ABC's prose. Or notmaybe.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Monday, 31 May 2010 at 1:56pm BST

I think Williams felt he had to take some action after TEC ordained Mary Glasspool. I don't agree with what he has done at all, but at least it is even handed in that all those who have breached the moratoria are given the same slap on the wrist.

I don't quite know what he aims to achieve. This will not appease traditionalists ( they cannot really be appeased by anything but the most drastic action which is beyond his remit and would by its nature split the Communion anyway.) It will not be popular with liberals.

I honestly think whatever he does or does not do will have little impact upon the events within the Anglican Communion. I cannot see that we have really held together anyway, and events will unfold inexorably come what may.

Posted by: Suem on Monday, 31 May 2010 at 5:55pm BST

"Man proposes, God disposes"

Perhaps in this reality is our only HOPE.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 at 1:43am BST

"Delegates to General Synod 2010 can expect to be “challenged to stop looking inward,” according to Archbishop Hiltz. “We’re focusing on mission,” he told the Anglican Journal."

This all sounds quite logical and good - provided the Letter from the so-called Zacheus Foundation - which offers a spurious way of 'combatting' the natural phenomenon of homosexuality is not allowed to divert the attention of General Synod members, either in the debate or on the fringes. This would subvert the intention of this statement of Archbishop Fred Hiltz. The anti-gay lobby must not be allowed to hawk its dubious philosophy.

However, the fact that G.S. will not be affirming the acceptance of the Covenant Document can only be seen as a positive step at this point.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 at 1:58am BST

Why do I feel that had Archbishop Williams been at the first Pentecost in Jerusalem, he would have sent the disciples home to sober up and repent rather than joining them in joyfully declaring the Good News and baptizing 3000. The church would have remained a small but homogeneous club. Perhaps that's what he hopes the Anglican Communion will become. That isn't, however, the Church.

Posted by: Edgar Wallace on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 at 3:55pm BST
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.