Comments: APO: open letter to Canterbury

ANOTHER Open Letter?

bb

Posted by BabyBlue at Tuesday, 28 November 2006 at 8:00pm GMT

Good on them !

This needed saying. And from plausible organisations and individuals on the ground.

Posted by laurence at Tuesday, 28 November 2006 at 8:35pm GMT

Just added my signature: an outstanding (and faithful *Anglican*) contribution, to our eventual reconciliation.

Come, O Prince of Peace!

Posted by JCF at Tuesday, 28 November 2006 at 8:39pm GMT

A OPEN LETTER for a wide audience...that's how it works.

Nothing like transparency to defuse cunning acts by despotic Bishops that would generate hate and destructiveness throughout the Anglican Communion.

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Tuesday, 28 November 2006 at 10:05pm GMT

I am sure the ABC is delighted with this helpful contribution......

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 29 November 2006 at 7:38am GMT

I was told by a high ranking person in the Anglican Communion Office that we should contact Canterbury & York to let them know that the majority of Episcopalians support the decisions of General Convention -- since it is only the neo-Donatists who ever contact them, thus giving them a most inaccurate view of what is going on.

So I signed.

Posted by Prior Aelred at Wednesday, 29 November 2006 at 1:12pm GMT

Prior - I think the ABC knows that TEC has been hijacked by an extreme group - the letter will not be news to him

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 29 November 2006 at 2:32pm GMT

Glad to see the letter. I asked to have my name added. Columba Gilliss+

Posted by Columba Gilliss at Wednesday, 29 November 2006 at 3:36pm GMT

Whatza matter, BB ? Only people on *your* side of the aisle are allowed to send out these "open letters" ? ;)

I think ++Canterbury and ++York have heard quite enough from the small (but vocal) reactionary minority of TEC. It's time the Episcopal Majority made its voice heard.

Posted by David Huff at Wednesday, 29 November 2006 at 7:42pm GMT

It's about time. Faithful Episcopalians have tolerated the extreme right for decades - Bishop Iker has never been forced to ordain a woman, for example, nor is he or any of his network cohorts required to ordain gays or lesbians (of course, lesbians are disqualifed for just being female). We tolerate them still, in spite of their vicious accusations and mean-spirited attacks. Only when they "secede from the Union" do we say, well, gee let's get someone in office who will carry out its duties.

Yes - let's get on the record as supporting our beloved Episcopal Church - and make sure the ABC knows it.

Posted by Dallas Bob at Wednesday, 29 November 2006 at 7:48pm GMT

Dallas Bob wrote: "It's about time. Faithful Episcopalians have tolerated the extreme right for decades - Bishop Iker has never been forced to ordain a woman, for example, nor is he or any of his network cohorts required to ordain gays or lesbians (of course, lesbians are disqualifed for just being female). We tolerate them still, in spite of their vicious accusations and mean-spirited attacks. Only when they "secede from the Union" do we say, well, gee let's get someone in office who will carry out its duties."

To that I say a loud Amen!

For too long the great majority of the Episcopal Church have tolerated the ultra-orthodox wing of TEC, who like to pretend that this minuscule segment are somehow the "majority."

And their fellow travelers in the pharisaical wing of the Anglican Communion like to pretend that nearly all provinces are allied, or ready to be allied, with the American ultra-orthodox.

The reality is that a very few provinces support them, and those that do are trying to redefine the Anglican Communion, and then there are minorities of a number of other provinces who would like to make others believe that they instead represent a majority of provinces who wish to be so allied.

Just as the silent true majority of the Episcopal Church is no longer going to "take it," I believe that there are silent majorities in many provinces which have not yet acted clearly on matters regarding the composition of the Anglican Communion. At some point they too will rise up like their brothers and sisters in the majority of the Episcopal Church, and like some other notable provinces around the world which have already said "enough" to the distortions and manipulations of the ultra-orthodox trying to redefine the Anglican Communion.

I do believe that there may ultimately be a split in the Anglican Communion, because the ultra-orthodox seem to be unable to allow the diversity which more tolerant Anglicans have historically permitted. But, maintaining the fiction of a communion which emphasizes "numbers" on the basis of hate and distortions can never be acceptable, and I believe that most of the Church in Europe, and North America, and Latin America, and Australia-New Zealand will find a realignment around Canterbury to be preferable to a realignment around Abuja.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Wednesday, 29 November 2006 at 10:18pm GMT

jerry hannon says "For too long the great majority of the Episcopal Church have tolerated the ultra-orthodox wing of TEC..."

I can see what he means but then maybe for too long the great majority of the Anglican Church has tolerated the ultra-liberal TEC?

Posted by NP at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 12:03pm GMT

There seems to be some confusion among the right wing in which an Episcopal diocese's membership in TEC is equated with TEC's membership in the Anglican Communion.

1) The relationship of a diocese to TEC is similar to that of a state to the U.S. federal government. A state can not make laws that violate those of the federal government (e.g. jim crow laws). The relationship of TEC to the Anglican Communion is like that of Canada to the British Commonwealth. The UK and its Queen has no veto over Canada's laws.

2) As an Episcopalian for more than 4 decades, I can tell you that "membership in the Anglican Communion" primarily means a relationship with the See of Canterbury. The relationship with other Anglican churches throughout the world is extremely low on the radar screen. And it has always been noted that the ABC is not a Pope, but a titular head with no authority to interfere with the Episcopal Church.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the majority of Anglicans worldwide thinks about the local diocese in New Hampshire's selection of their own bishop. Nor does it matter what New Hampshire thinks of Nigeria's bishop.

The conservatives have simply made something up out of whole cloth here. The ABC can not interfere with TEC, much less some other Anglican church. But since it seems to fit their cause, conservatives make it seem as if TEC is violating some rule because a lot of people in the Global South don't like us.

Nice try but this has nothing to do with historic Anglicanism.

I wonder if conservatives would accept Nigeria's opinion of our United Nations ambassador or even membership status? If the majority of member nations in the UN is upset over US policy, by "Network logic" we should simply change to make them happy, right.

Posted by Dallas Bob at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 3:58pm GMT

Please note- nobody outside TEC cares about TEC democracy etc etc.......this is about a small province (TEC) breaking ranks, arrogantly doing its own thing for years and still wanting to stay in the AC despite being a very different animal to most of the AC (lacking confidence to go it alone as a liberal church?)

It is good liberal TEC people have sent an open letter - the worst result for everyone will be positions being unclear enough so that a fudge is achieved to keep the dysfunctional organistion together....all suffer that way

Posted by NP at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 4:48pm GMT

NP wrote:
"jerry hannon says "For too long the great majority of the Episcopal Church have tolerated the ultra-orthodox wing of TEC..."

I can see what he means but then maybe for too long the great majority of the Anglican Church has tolerated the ultra-liberal TEC?"

I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but I do object to having one sentence, representing less than ten percent of what I wrote, taken wholly out of context, and misused.

Perhaps that is NP's style (some would know better than I), but it should not be acceptable.

I would ask him/her to pay more attention to the totality of what each of us writes, and in this case deal with the issue of what I believe is the hype, and chutzpah, of the ultra-orthodox minority in the geographical majority of provinces in the Anglican Communion.

NP may want to play a "numbers game," but, coming from a Roman Catholic background, I discovered that "numbers" of parishioners mean very little in terms of the true health of the Church. Emotion, clergy-inspired fear mongering, and carefully controlled information, can play interesting tricks on poorly informed parishioners.

Furtherome, neither the Nigerian church's numbers, nor the American church's wealth, matters one whit.

More and more Anglicans, outside the "Global South" cabal, will come to appreciate the historic Anglican approach and toleration of honest differences within our common faith.

A realignment may come, but it will disappoint NP and others who seek a different kind of Anglican Communion than has existed historically.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 5:11pm GMT

Jerry - take a chill pill! I am free to use your own logic to show the weakness of your points

Posted by NP at Friday, 1 December 2006 at 7:05am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






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

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