Comments: Breakaways meet in Pittsburgh

WELL DONE ABC!
You are achieving the split in the AC you say you do not want because you are trying to build unity on the lies of TEC (eg Bruno saying he does not authorise ssbs when he has been allowing them for years and even attends). Not many are fooled.


The ABC's reliance on political advisors, who thought playing with words and ambiguity could fool people into "unity" (at least for a while), has led to this sad split. Some real leadership from the ABC in the last few years, based on truth and honesty rather than the non-biblical idea of compromise, would have avoided this split in the US Anglican church and the duplicitous statements your political people have got out of TEC HOB which are shameful for their dishonesty.

Now, these "Anglican union" people who have had enough of TEC's innovations, walk like Anglicans, talk like Anglicans,act like Anglicans (splitting from a corrupt church is very Anglican!) and they have not caused chaos in the AC in the last 4 years through "innovations" that persuade few, rather they want to remain loyal to agreed Anglican positions............hard to exclude these obviously faithful Anglicans from the worldwide AC for the sake of a small (but rich, I know) Anglican province (TEC USA) which has caused so much chaos and trouble in the AC in the last four years and which has just given an answer to the Primates which effectively says that TEC(USA) is not committed honestly nor long-term to keep to agreed Anglican positions. Is the AC supposed to reject the people who are in line with the AC for the sake of a few who have been ripping the AC apart for the sake of their political agenda??

Posted by NP at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 10:18am BST

So you are off then NP? Hope you'll be happy with the breakaways - but they are composed of different constituent groups who will soon be less than agreed on theological matters!

Posted by Neil at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 11:38am BST

There's *nothing* to be pleased about. Whether it's the TEC or Duncan et. al doing the splitting, division in the Church is a failure for all concerned and distressing to God.

Rather than descending into the usual slanging matches about who's fault it is, how about some prayer for the people who's lives will be turned upside down by this sorry scandalous failure of our church leaders? The people assisted by global projects (such as those of the USPG) who will find projects cancelled and funding diverted depending on the which of the new brands of Anglicanism they follow? The congregations and diocese that will be torn apart.

Whatever side of the discussion you sit, this is a failure that pains God - we should pray for his forgiveness and healing.

Posted by Stephen Roberts at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 12:51pm BST

Whilst I do not doubt the integrity of the particiapants at Pittsburgh...it seems incomprehensible to me that Forward in faith can join with the Reformed Episcopalians. The latter in their foundational document denounce:

1) baptisnmal regeneration.
2) the real presence of Christ in the Elements at Holy Coommunion
3) the Eucharistic sacrifice
4) the Divine origin and necessity of episcopacy.

All doctrines specificalaly held as essential to Catholic Faith and Ecclesiastical order by Forward in Faith.

The Reformed Episcopalians left the Episcopal Church in 1873 because of the errors of the ritualist Anglo-catholics and now they seek to embrace them!

Furthermore the Pittsburgh meeting noted that the common cause participants cannot agree on womens ordination.


Seems a very shakey basis for a future orthodox province founded on " Biblical truth".

Unless the Lord buillds the house, they labour in vain.....

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 1:28pm BST

+++Williams knew perfectly well that a split was inevitable (even desirable). What he didn't want was that split to involve the 'expelling' of TEC from the AC. He knows on which side he'd rather be (along with the majority of the AC). As it is, a conservative American rump will choose to walk into 'sectdom' obscurity (and probably fragment rather quickly). And when push comes to shove, while some African churches may 'recognise' this rump, they sure as hell won't follow it out of the AC and off the radar. Here's a piece by +++Rowan that put's his views on 'unity at all costs' into perspective:

"Our time...is characterized by profound conflict in many areas as to what is authentically Christian - conflicts over areas of sexual and personal ethics (especially, in the West at present,the admissibility in the Church of overt homosexual partnerships)...Honesty compels the admission that none of these questions is likely to be 'settled' in the foreseeable future, certainly not by appeal to what is commonly taken to be the 'literal sense of Scripture' (i.e. particular clisters of quotations). Yet peaceful co-existence in an undemanding pluralism is an inadequate response when the matters at issue seem to relate to basic questions about how the gospel can be heard in the struggles of contemporary social existence. There is a case for protest, EVEN FOR 'CONFESSIONAL' SEPARATION over some issues...[T]he existence of conflict AND EVEN CONSCIENTIOUS DIVISION may be not a sign of eschatological polarization but A NECESSARY PART of that movement of the story of God's people and their language towards the one focus of Christ crucified and risen that is the movement of Scripture."
From 'The Discipline of Scripture'

Posted by MJ at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 1:28pm BST

Whilst I do not doubt the integrity of the particiapants at Pittsburgh...it seems incomprehensible to me that Forward in faith can join with the Reformed Episcopalians. The latter in their foundational document denounce:

1) baptisnmal regeneration.
2) the real presence of Christ in the Elements at Holy Coommunion
3) the Eucharistic sacrifice
4) the Divine origin and necessity of episcopacy.

All doctrines specificalaly held as essential to Catholic Faith and Ecclesiastical order by Forward in Faith.

The Reformed Episcopalians left the Episcopal Church in 1873 because of the errors of the ritualist Anglo-catholics and now they seek to embrace them!

Furthermore the Pittsburgh meeting noted that the common cause participants cannot agree on womens ordination.


Seems a very shakey basis for a future orthodox province founded on " Biblical truth".

Unless the Lord buillds the house, they labour in vain.....

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 1:31pm BST

If this is finally the split, then my reaction is RELIEF!
They get to shake the dust off their feet at us and feel superior. They can now go off and start their own oh so excruciatingly pure and correct fag-free church complete with required random blood tests for doctrinal orthodoxy. Then they will quickly get about the business of anathematizing each other. Without us as enemies to hold them together, they'll be at each other's throats.
We can get on with our business without the constant threat of civil war, and without always trying to accomodate people who won't be accomodated. We can get about the business of rescuing the Christian Faith from "Christianity". Instead of a bastion of bigotry, superstition, and reaction, we can proclaim the Day of the Lord's favor, that the blind see, the deaf hear, the hungry fed, the naked clothed, and the captives go free. We can proclaim that Christ's gift to the modern world is not wrath and condemnation, but hope and mercy. We can do the Gospel and show that faith is not intellectual assent to a set of abstract concepts (gnosis), but a real and living relationship to the Person of God, as God is a relationship among the Three Persons of the Trinity. We can show that Christ's Love is for ALL people, and is without price and freely given. No one pulls themselves up into heaven by their own bootstraps. We return to God because God desires us, not because we are worthy.

As for our quarrelsome relatives who have now rejected our fellowship and up and left the table, good luck. We'll leave the porch light on for you. But in the meantime, don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

Posted by counterlight at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 1:39pm BST

"Bruno saying he does not authorise ssbs when he has been allowing them for years and even attends"

Every bishop is likely to have to turn a blind eye to certain things out of pastoral necessity. Some will do it for very poor reasons, like furthering their political agendas, hiding their sexuality, all kinds of reasons, good and bad. On our planet, NP, admitting that you do something that you actually DO is called "honesty". Turning around and claiming to be all pious and attacking someone else for doing this when one does it onesself is what we call "dishonesty". Just thought I'd make that clear.

Posted by Ford Elms at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 2:00pm BST

"Duncan and others compared the steps taken during the meeting to those of the Reformation, the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War and martyrdom ......... [whose] consequences in the past, Duncan said, have included death. 'My prayer for us who have gathered here is that...we will be such a threat to the present order that we will be found worth killing' ".

Don't sell ourselves short, do we?

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 2:23pm BST

It certainly won't be just an American split. They will no doubt wish to join with the extremist fundamentalist provinces to pretend they are still Anglicans.

I wonder who in the CofE will follow them. Are you leaving, NP?

The departure of Reform, Anglican 'Mainstream' will be more than welcome. I may even go back to Church!

Posted by Merseymike at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 2:45pm BST

Has it now become clear, NP, or do we have to wait for the 30th September deadline, or for the Primates meeting you think the ABC is going to call? On August 6 and 7 you posted to TA:

I think you will see the ABC make a great attempt in the US in September to get the TEC HOB to accept TWR and respond unequivocally (not in "Griswoldian" and with the intention of keeping promises made).......
.... and when he fails given TEC is not likely to repent of its actions and stance, the ABC will have to accept their decision to reject the authority of the AC despite their demand to be part of it....he will then withdraw invitations on the basis that they will not agree to work within the Communion when it does not suit them eg with VGR

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 7 August 2007 at 11:42am BST

....it is very hard to imagine the CofE giving up its AC role to back TEC re VGR....sorry, it just does not make sense. If you do not believe me, see how the liberal ABC has behaved since 2003 - he is not selling out the CofE for TEC's current leadership.
But....we can assert (even if I feel I have much more to support my view than you do) ....all will become clearer in 7 weeks time!

Posted by NP at Monday, 6 August 2007 at 5:06pm BST

Posted by Colin Coward at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 3:41pm BST

Colin is asking NP to admit that he/she was wrong in assessing what the ABC would do in September, by reminding NP of previous postings.

Since I am not as hopeful for NP's conversion from his/her delusional fanatics about what the Anglican Communion is, and isn't, I will await further smoke and mirrors from NP, who only seems to see the faults of others, and never seems to look in the mirror.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 4:09pm BST

'My prayer for us who have gathered here is that...we will be such a threat to the present order that we will be found worth killing' ".

What if they gave a martyrdom and nobody came?
Is indifference a form of persecution?
Is there such a thing as boring people for the Faith?
What if you're there with the cross and the nails all ready to get nailed up and crucified, but nobody shows up?

"Beat me!" said the masochist.
"No!" said the sadist.

Posted by counterlight at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 5:28pm BST

The very first post - NP's- seems to make a great deal regarding the disruption and upset that the actions of TEC have produced in the AC - those "ripples" in the pond that are becoming larger and threatening the other boats - I would submit that while such disruption COULD be evil but it is simplistic to ASSUME evil from such actions. While Christ COULD have been evil since he certainly produced huge tidal wave size waves in his own society it is safe to assume we all rejoice that he was such a real "troublemaker" and managed to get in the way of the existing system so much that he was thrown out via death and crucifixion. It is not reasonable to ignore troublemakers - some of them are farsighted and their vision can educate the rest of us if we are able to get beyond our preconeptions.

Posted by ettu at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 6:09pm BST

'My prayer for us who have gathered here is that...we will be such a threat to the present order that we will be found worth killing' ".

Yawn.

Posted by Davis d'Ambly at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 6:11pm BST

Excellent! True American consumerism: everybody has a favorite brand and argues from brand loyalty.

Why the distress? Have those involved in Common Cause infringed on a registered TEC or CofE trademark?

Posted by trog at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 6:58pm BST

Well, the only thing I'm interested in is whether any of the bishops claimed indeed were so - and if they signed anything ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 8:56pm BST

"Have those involved in Common Cause infringed on a registered TEC or CofE trademark?"

At this point apparently not, Trog. Now if there was an attempt to walk of with a diocese of TEC - Pittsburgh, say, or Fort Worth .......

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 11:31pm BST

Ford - I wonder if your problem with me is something to do with what you call "the clobber verses" - do you not like my sticking to these clobber verses and so keep on pointing out hypocrisy etc to try and get away from the fact that the clobber verses still stand?

COLIN - thanks for quoting me as it shows I was right!

The ABC did his best to get TEC to comply - you notice that (even though many of them do not mean it), TEC HOB have promised not to auhtorise ssbs and not to give us another VGR??
COLIN - you were not predicting this outcome in New Orleans even though you are trying to claim it is good for your agenda (although I find Giles Fraser and LGCM rather more honest about what has happened i.e. principles being sacrificed for political compromise)....but, as you show, I was predicting the ABC would try to get TEC to compromise just enough for him to make a fudge - at least for a while.

Now, as to the rest of what I predicted, be patient, please..... responses are only just starting to come out...... but note, even the moderates like Fulcrum do not believe TEC(USA) have given a positive and honest answser......

TEC was asked to respond by Sept 30th - they have.
Now, we will see responses from various individuals and groups.......and I am sure you do not want them to meet (given too many of them, for your tastes, tend to be faithful to scripture and stand by Lambeth 1.10) but the Primates are going to want to assess the responses to their requests of TEC(USA)HOB.......so telling that some really do not want the Primates of the AC to meet to assess the response of TEC HOB to the Primates Tanzania Communique!

Posted by NP at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 12:06am BST

Midnight strikes. The Great Day is here, NP. No sign of ye virgins wise yet ;-)

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 1:29am BST

"Excellent! True American consumerism: everybody has a favorite brand and argues from brand loyalty.

Why the distress? Have those involved in Common Cause infringed on a registered TEC or CofE trademark?"

No, but they insist on absconding with TEC property in the form of church buildings and funds.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 2:41am BST

"Why the distress? Have those involved in Common Cause infringed on a registered TEC or CofE trademark?"

I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention.

Yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by counterlight at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 3:19am BST

So, are you leaving the Anglican Church to join the Akinolan/US schismatic faction, NP?

Posted by Merseymike at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 12:07pm BST

"pointing out hypocrisy etc to try and get away from the fact that the clobber verses still stand?"

NP,
I've explained myself repeatedly in the past year. If you don't understand by now, there's little point in explaining further.

Posted by Ford Elms at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 12:24pm BST

"My prayer for us who have gathered here is that...we will be such a threat to the present order that we will be found worth killing" (Bob Duncan).

Does +Bob Pittsburgh really expect PB Jefferts Schori to subject him to neo-con Dick Cheney's enemy combatants rendition program?

Posted by John Henry at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 4:08pm BST

Merseymike - no, I am not leaving because:
- I believe in the creeds (unlike some liberals);

- Lambeth 1.10 stands (based on the Ford's "clobber verses");

- I do not think TEC HOB saying one thing but doing another is going to fool many of the Primates or even moderates like Fulcrum in the CofE........ so, I think you will see the ABC CONTINUE to stick to the orthodox position, based on Lambeth 1.10, as he has in the last 4 years.

TEC has replied by Sept 30th.
Now we have to wait for lots of assessments of their repies (including from the Primates, however much Colin does not want them to meet......the next 6 months are crucial and given your agenda has not won out so far, don't crack open the pink champagne yet, Merseymike.

Posted by NP at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 6:37pm BST

"..... don't crack open the pink champagne yet, Merseymike." Outdoing ourself in the Tasteful Wit Stakes, aren't we NP? Interesting when someone slips, exposing their raw prejudice, isn't it?

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 8:10pm BST

But, NP, the US secessionists have already decided they can't be bothered to wait for any response from Canterbury.
What you forget, NP, is that the ABC called for necessary compromise. TEC have clearly provided that compromise though do not go back on their actual beliefs (which is what you want to see)

In what way are you prepared to compromise, as the ABC requested, NP?

Posted by Merseymike at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 10:57pm BST

If the Episcopal Church is just so damnedly hateful, an offense against all things holy, then why stay with it? The schismatic bishops clearly have pensions at stake. But other folks...? What's to stop you from swimming the Tiber? or Lake Geneva? or gathering down by the beautiful river with the Evangelicals? Why not start anew in a whole new church?
Authoritarian and rigidly doctrinal churches at war with modernity and feminism are hardly in short supply these days. What would a new purified homo-free Anglican church have to offer in that saturated market besides a past edition of the Prayer Book?

Posted by counterlight at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 2:45am BST

NP wrote: "I believe in the creeds"

As do "liberals".

"Lambeth 1.10 stands (based on the Ford's "clobber verses")"

First time I heard this said. Doesn't it feel a bit week so be based on 6 verses but not the Gospel?

Verses changed the wording and/or interpretation of wich is scholastic to late modern, as it is.

"I do not think TEC HOB saying one thing but doing another is going to fool many of the Primates..."

But then this has "always" that is from Lambeth Conference (= tea and cakes) 1998 been a very silly game. One cannot expect the Episcopal Church to abandon the Gospel of God's Righteousness in Christ for being bullied, can one?

"... or even moderates like Fulcrum in the CofE"

Moderate Calvinists maybe, but not "moderate" Christians.

"... so, I think you will see the ABC CONTINUE to stick to the orthodox position... "

There may be a unified anti-modern position, but not a single Church one.

"... based on Lambeth 1.10, as he has in the last 4 years."

Lambeth I.19 is not a "base", it's a mere resolution, honoured only in the breach - When will you learn?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 7:22am BST

Merseymike - if TEC gave and open and honest answer, we could make a constructive response.
People like Bruno playing with technicalities to say he does not "authorise" ssbs when we all know he permits them is not going to fool many into a "compromise"

Even CofE moderates don't feel TEC HOB have given an adequate, honest answer -
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=236


Posted by NP at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 8:57am BST

Lapin - that was not an insult or based on prejudice! I did hope it was witty, I confess.... sorry if you think it shows prejudice (not my intention)

Posted by NP at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 9:14am BST

NP; Fulcrum are not moderates - they are evangelicals, just not as conservative as Reform et al. They make up part of the evangelical grouping, however.

TEC are doing what the ABC requested of them. I can't see how you can complain about that!

Posted by Merseymike at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 10:29am BST

Mersey - I can complain because people are playing with words and have no intention to keep to commitments the ABC and his political advisors requested in order to try and make a fudge.....at least some bishops are saying honestly that they will not keep the compromise TEC HOB have made with the ABC.....and we may yet see Lind elected in Chicago or has KJS already asked her to step down???

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6522/

Posted by NP at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 4:29pm BST

Duncan of Pittsburgh: 'My prayer for us who have gathered here is that...we will be such a threat to the present order that we will be found worth killing.'

Malcolm+: Sorry Bob, no, you're not. You are worth a good chuckle though. Over the top histrionics are always good for a laugh.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 5:59pm BST

NP; TEC has not changed its mind, and will not repent because they have nothing to repent for. They have agreed to show restraint until THEIR GC says otherwise - and in the Anglican church, it is the individual province who makes the decision.

Whether you like it or not, liberals are part of the Anglican Communion and will remain so. If you don;t like that, then you have a simple option, given that there is going to be e breakaway. It has already begun in America. Personally, I think the Church will be far better without those who believe as you do.

Posted by Merseymike at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 10:30pm BST

"at least some bishops are saying honestly that they will not keep the compromise TEC HOB have made with the ABC"

Who cares? Unless you're looking for a guest of honor at your next heretic burning.

As long as a majority of bishops decide to stick to it, it matters little if a few do not.

"and we may yet see Lind elected in Chicago or has KJS already asked her to step down???"

We've already seen this play out once. A gay candidate was nominated in the diocese of Northern California and was not elected. No crisis.

Even if Lind gets elected, a majority of bishops have said they won't confirm and she'll not get consents. No crisis.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 2 October 2007 at 4:35pm BST

ruidh - that would seem very unfair on Lind....would it not?

You'd be happy with that?

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 3 October 2007 at 9:54am BST

NP,

No one has a "right" to ordination, as no one has a "right" to consecration - but if the person qualifies, then that person is a gift from God to the Church.

And the Church is free to call her or him.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 3 October 2007 at 7:17pm BST

In the event that Lind is elected, we shouldn't necessarily assume that her "manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church" in the same way that a gay man apparently does.

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Wednesday, 3 October 2007 at 8:24pm BST

no, of course we should not Hugh.........we should talk everyone to death until the AC is reduced to a rump of western liberals and their clients overseas, rights?

Posted by NP at Thursday, 4 October 2007 at 2:11pm BST

"no, of course we should not Hugh.........we should talk everyone to death until the AC is reduced to a rump of western liberals and their clients overseas, rights?"

Is that any worse than a rump of bigoted anti-western conservatives who have cut themselves off from all progress in the fields of human psychology and physiology?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Friday, 5 October 2007 at 12:34am 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.