Comments: New Orleans: Tuesday morning

Now you know why the conservatives delayed.

May God bless, and the TEC find some way to help, those parishioners and parishes that do not want to be co-opted into the breakaway groups.

When the time is right and the bridges that need to be crossed, crossed, please take the time to contemplate how to help those already trapped behind enemy lines.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 10:11am BST

Once again, extremists on both sides have accused WIlliams of taking the other's side. We've even seen it here where commenters have accused Williams of dancing to Akinola's tune.

Williams remains an instrument of unity. But he recognized that some may have to walk apart for a time. This walking apart does not arise from the Communion disciplining a wayward province, but rather from a province deciding to separate itself from it's brothers and sisters.

The Conservatives have been preparing to do just that.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 12:08pm BST

"Unity with God comes through the transformative power of the gospel and not through our personal agendas, said Akinola. To be transformed by the gospel requires total obedience and rejection of sinful actions, he said, whether these be "little lies, blackmailing, gossip" or "committing fornication" and engaging in adultery."

Right back at ya, there, my Lord!

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 12:43pm BST

I believe the summary of the Anglican realignment campaign as so far published is: Separate, then Supplant. This seems particularly true of the USA so-called Network parishes, and now openly, dioceses.

A careful review of the relevant memos, papers leads one to a common-sense notion that this has long been the realignment aim, despite occasional speeches or sermons to the contrary.

The question, of course, unanswered is: How far will this play out successfully beyond USA? Can Canada, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Brasil, and finally CoE also be sifted in order for all conservative believers to finally supplant and displace all alternative believers?

And even if successful, so what?

The rest of us all will still be here, alternatively following Jesus of Nazareth as Risen Lord. Everybody who could reasonably claim to have separated from us and supplanted us, will still find us sitting at work on Monday, in the hospitals or labs or universities or business enterprises or art studios or whatever.

Are we then to see a huge campaign to further split us off from humanity, and have us supplanted by the much vaunted religious companies who thrive on claims of sexual orientation change? Who claim they can convince us we are not ourselves, but what they need and wish us all to be?

Beneath all the conservative high holiness rhetoric - yet again, dirt, danger, and damnation? - all I can see to date is a huge folly of wishful thinking - that queer folks didn't know how competent they are in so many tested realms of modern life, and that queer folks and allies were not all busy, thanking God for these changes in our modern understanding.

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 3:54pm BST

Yes and the conservatives are riven with divorce and re-marriage, and all contracept ( Lambeth 1920 resolution ignored)and must ordain women
(Lambeth 1948 ignored)

They can't agree on the charismatic gifts, infant baptism, the meaning of the Holy Communion, or can you lose your homosexuality is one of the the one topic they can agree on.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 6:42pm BST

Actually drdanfee I think you've managed to articulate their core world view paradigm: "...conservative believers to finally supplant and displace all alternative believers?"

I saw something the other day where Jensen was talking about this being the new reformation, something I think I've seen from other players as well.

Your phrase would be consistent with their view that they have the "new" religion that is going to come into ascendancy, over all other forms of Christianity or faith or philosophical stream.

They may have a mission to build the alpha world religion that subsumes and replaces all other religious or philosophical interpretations.

The problem with their theology is that it does not acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice covers all sins, either prior to or subsequent to Jesus' death and resurrection, or even prior to or subsequent to one's own baptism. The curse against Eve (aka Cheva) and thus all women still stands. If that curse is still in place, then it is fair game to add as many others as and when they are scripturally required to ensure their authority is sacrosanct and above reproach. Because the curse against Cheva still stands, it is therefore okay to continue vilifying women and thus accusatory expositions from the pew and in ministry. Logically, if women or others rebel, they are obviously of the fallen unforgiven ones, so it is okay to patiently limit their ability to communicate their suffering or representations. If they are particularly rebellious or "infected" with evil, you might need others to restrain the infection so that they do not corrupt others, so repressive strategies are okay. Now, if the fallen ones rebel against repression and dare to use force to protect themselves, then it is appropriate to protect God's "holiest temple", so a bit of tyranny might also be required.

If the world then has a problem with war, famine, poverty, greed, complacency, self-righteousness: then that all comes back to the unforgiven sin of Eve and since the world is so disgusting, of course it needs their kind of religion to fix it.

They are so blind that they can not see that it is exactly their kind of religion that has distorted this world so badly.

Let them go ahead with their reformation. The world will breathe a sigh of relief that another Brethren-like sect has been formed that will marginalize itself by its very own conduct and theology.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 9:33pm BST

"Robert Ian Williams"

There's a few points about your comments:
First, any of these things are backed by "solid Biblical arguments", so they say. I find this odd since these arguments seem to me to be of no better "quality" than the "pro-gay" arguments they deride as "fudge".
Second, any attempt to point out the hypocrisy of this does not induce shame or contrition or self examination, but derision since it is taken to be an attempt to justify what they consider the disobedience of the Left, a "tu quoque" argument. Pointing out that it throws the Gospel into disrepute to behave in such a fashion is either ignored or denied.
Third, despite all the history behind the word, a history which gives it a more or less specific meaning, the manifestly heterodox beliefs you cite in your final sentence are, bizarrely, claimed to be "orthodox". This must mean that for them, orthodoxy lies elsewhere than in one's beliefs WRT things like Eucharist, baptism, etc. As you say, homosexuality is the one thing they agree on. Opposition to any kind of friendliness to gay people seems then to be how they define orthodoxy.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 12:17pm BST

All conservative evangelicals would claim that Scripture on its own is totally clear..perspicuity..yet this unbiblical theory of men is offered as the basis of authority.

Christ established a teaching Church and did not leave a book as the sole authority.

As a Catholic I believe he gauranteed that teaching authority under the Peter who he asked to confirm his brethren with an unfailing faith, and feed the lambs and sheep. The Church authentically interprets the word of God, in its Scriptural or unwritten tradition form.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:07am BST

"All conservative evangelicals would claim that Scripture on its own is totally clear..perspicuity..yet this unbiblical theory of men is offered as the basis of authority."

Exactly! I find it amusing the lengths Evangelicals will go to to justify this "tradition of men". I posted here once a long list of Biblical contradicitions and the Evangelical response was that they were all minor points! Some were, but some were not. I truly feel that many of the reformers were true rebels, antiauthoritarian, in much the same way that many of the
"liberals" in the Church today are, having huge issues with authority, kind of "you're not the boss of me!" Thus, when the Church could be seen to be manifestly corrupt, it was easy to be what they heart were: anti-authoritarian rebels. Concocting the idea that Scripture is the sole authority was a neat solution. On the one hand, no man could be said to have authority over them, and they could dress themselves in the purity of obedience to God. What better justification for rebellion against authority than to declare onesself a follower of a higher master who commands that rebellion? Not much different from what the Evangelicals accuse "Liberals" in TEC of doing, really.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:19pm BST

Robert - do you think if Christ saw the Vatican today, he would recognise it as exactly what he wants his church to be and congratulate the RC church for carrying on the church Peter started?

Don't see in the gospels Jesus Christ's palaces, fine clothes and hundreds of millions in investments......nor do I see people being forbidden to marry or Christ teaching me to pray to his mother.....but as you say, you believe the church is free to make up things post-Christ and his apostles.

(the CofE is just as corrupt, I know)

Posted by NP at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 2:00pm BST

You'd better trot down to Parliament next month. I have heard that some people have been sneaking gunpowder into the basement. Do you really not understand how funny your "There's nothing in the Bible telling me to do X" type comments are?

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 3:34pm BST

I think Our Blessed Lord would be more annoyed at the current weak leadership in the Catholic Church in England and Wales and poor selection of bishops, by the late Pope.

Our Lord never promised or guaranteed pastoral competency and wisdom.Each of us is responsible to God for our personal actions.

Judgement will begin with the Household of God.

No Pope is above criticism...Catholics have never viewed the Pope as being beyond charitable criticism.

For celibacy read Corinthians seven and for the prayers of the Saints read Revelation five.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 6:46pm BST

Robert - I agree with you re judgment starting with us .... especially those who dare to teach (as St James says)

Celibacy is NOT the same as forcing priests not to marry.... in fact we are specifically warned against people making that prohibition.

The Lord taught us to pray "Our Father...." That is the only way He taught us to pray. Please consider his prayers and those of St Paul to see the best models for prayer that we have.....all to the Father and for the Father's glory.

Posted by NP at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 9:25am BST

"all to the Father and for the Father's glory."

Now what group of heretics was it who only prayed to the Father? The Nestorians, maybe? I can't remember for sure. See, NP, those who do not know their history are destined to repeat it. You don't know Church history. Thus you do not know the heresies that were defeated centuries ago, nor the arguments used to refute them. Thus, you fall into the same traps. Don't bother going on a tirade about the Bible telling us who to pray to. We don't worship a book.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 2:17pm BST

sorry me any prayer of Moses, David, Elijah, Paul or the Lord which is not only to the Father - please show me!

The Lord and his Apostles did not teach us to wear expensive robes, to have strange rituals, to carry bread around in the air worshipping it, to pray to his mum..........I really respect you but if I have to choose, I will follow the model of prayer and Christianity that I see from the Lord and his Apostles before I follow made up human traditions.

Posted by NP at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 4:45pm BST

Fine by me, NP. Funny that there were Christians who only prayed to the Father. They were called heretics. Funny too that the Chuirch has always paryed to the Trinity, not just one Person. Funny as well that the Church has been asking the saints for their prayers since the beginning. But, I guess people reading a book 1500 years after it was written know more about what it means than the ones who actually heard it taught from the lips of God Incarnate! I don't know how you pray, but if you intend to follow the model of Christianity you see from the Lord and His Apostles, don't you think it's time you started?"

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 7:29pm 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.