This was incredible. This explained us so well and I hope that this is heard in a lot of places. Thanks to Raspberry Rabbit for posting it.
Thanks for the reminder, in Bishop Katharine's addresses around the Communion (including this one to the Scottish Episcopal Church) that 'The Church exists for Mission' - without which we might just as well not exist. Mission includes respect for all God's children - of every race, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation. Thank God for an Anglican Leader (in Katharine) who constantly affirms this fact. May God continue to bless and enrich her in her ministry as a Bishop in the Church
Wow. I thought people were over reacting to her comments. But she does seem to be on some sort of campaign to supplant Canterbury/the Communion with her own competing version. Astonishing campaign.
Just wondering... Does this trigger the question in anyone's mind whether the Church of England engages in mission anywhere outside of England?? (Does it have the resources to be able to do so?) Or is it so occupied with maintaining its own dignity that it doesn't trouble itself with such things??
She was fantastic. What a dignified and measured rebuttal of narrow pressure from Canterbury, amidst so much else.
Has anyone else noticed that Rob- does nothing here but attack people?
Thanks to Raspberry Rabbit for posting this, a wonderful speech.
It does seem useful at this time for the Church of England to remember that for more than a century, the Episcopal Church has been a global organization.
At the risk of stating the obvious, not all international Anglican lines run through Canterbury.
'Has anyone else noticed that Rob- does nothing here but attack people?'
Posted by: JPM on Saturday, 12 June 2010 at 4:33pm BST
Do / Yes
Wearying to the spirit.
Jeremy posted: "At the risk of stating the obvious, not all international Anglican lines run through Canterbury."
As previously suggested on a different thread, I do believe that we could end up with two "Anglican Communions", one traditional Anglicanism (why not call it TAC), and one fundamentalist pseudo-Anglicanism (in similar fashion, FAC).
The former will be composed of primarily the Global North plus parts of the Global South (e.g. South Africa, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand), and the latter composed of primarily the Global South, dominated by Central and East and West Africa, plus parts of the Global North (e.g. one half of England, the pseudo-Presbyterian Archbishop of Sydney, and the Nigerian-Rwandan-Kenyan-Ugandan minuscule minority affiliates within the USA and Canada).
How Canterbury will choose to align is a matter of some speculation; if integrity matters, then Rowan will choose TAC, but if he is obsessed with the power of pure numbers, he will choose FAC.
But FAC will not allow HIM to be its pontiff, and TAC wants no part of pontiffs, so Rowan will be out in the cold, either way.
Maybe we should feel sorry for him.
JPN: Yes, I have noted that the poster named "Rob+" seems most happy when he is attacking others. I think most decent people realize that Canterbury has been given a mythical importance when it comes to other national Churches who identify as Anglican in one form or another. It has never had "power" over other national churches as Rome has over its' vast network of churches all over the globe. Perhaps we need to do some research and find the names of the "handlers" of The Archbishop of Canterbury. It may that it is these "handlers" that need to be exposed to the world for the damage they have inflicted on the glbt community and those who have progressive understandings of the bible and of the ministry of Jesus. Pope Rowan may not be as full of himself as his "handlers." If Rowan isn't seeing letters from those who do not accept his moves to disenfranchise glbt people from the ordained priesthood and episcopate or hearing the vast and differing opinions of The
People of God, perhaps it is his "handlers" we need to expose. It is time to expose those men who are pulling the levers of power in Canterbury (as the Wizard of Oz character behind the curtain in the fairy tale liked to do), Distorting the meaning of the inclusive love of Jesus and making the Anglican Communion a strictly heterosexual club, is such an egregious act that it must be publicly challenged, over and over. We have given too much power to the myth of Canterbury as a Curia with Pope Rowan the First as its' self-appointed Pope. Rowan's so called Pentecost Encyclical needs to be exposed for the damage it is doing to disenfranchise an entire group of people. It is the antithesis of a "pastoral" letter.
And how is my comment attacking or even critical or just inaccurate?
And the remarks by others here about the Archbishop of Canterbury are...complimentary?
I think attacking individuals who leave comments here is wholly counter-productive. Better to demand arguments, and answer them.
I had some trouble de-coding your remark, Rob. I admit I only listened to her speech once, did not read a copy, and did not study it in depth, but I felt she was talking about the need for mission and demonstrating how by putting the gospel into a social context in different ways parts of her province were doing just that. Which frankly strikes me as
a wholly admirable
b wholly unoriginal.
Rosemary, yes, on the surface I would agree with your read and comments. I also think it is a harbinger of her intent when you read it in the context of everything else going on, her addresses to other parts of the Communion at this time and her Pentecost letter responding to the AoC. Context adds a certain depth to her remarks -- which I remarked about and IF I understood them correctly is astonishing.
Of course, I could be wrong about the context. She may simply be passionate about mission as she ariculated it and the coincidence of other Anglican goings on is just that and has nothing at all to do with her purposes and plans for TEC, her reasons for speaking to other parts of the Communion at this time etc. -- Just TEC - global entity in its own right, Communion birthing catalyst, and center for mission. One does wonder why she spoke on the origins of the Communion as she did though.
"One does wonder why she spoke on the origins of the Communion as she did though."
Posted by: Rob+ on Monday, 14 June 2010
Perhaps her hearers needed to understand the context from and about which Bp.Katharine was speaking. How sad it is that we must always attribute an ulterior motive to this learned and very capable P.B.?
"always attribute an ulterior motive?" -- the old adage, 'actions speak louder than words' comes to mind. Look at her actions Ron. These are the basis of my surprise and remarks. It is one thing to sue over 60 churches, depose multiple bishops some times willy nilly regardless of canons, etc. within one's own province. But then to enter into what looks like a political campaign stump to liberal corners of the Communion (Canada, Scotland, England and soon New Zealand and Australia) weaving in this talk of origins of the Communion, the various countries that are part of TEC -- one necessarily wonders why.
It is because of her heart for mission? And that is why funding for the millenium development goals was axed as well as funding for 815's office of evangelism -- because of her passion for mission? And yet far more funds remain available for law suits and now world travel. Listening to Katharine I am reminded of the spider's words of invitation to the fly. How sad it is when people continue to excuse reprehensible behavior because they agree with her ideology.
Of course, I could be wrong about the context. She may simply be passionate about mission as she articulated it and the coincidence of other Anglican goings on is just that and has nothing at all to do with her purposes and plans for TEC, her reasons for speaking to other parts of the Communion at this time etc. -- Just TEC - global entity in its own right, Communion birthing catalyst, and center for mission. One does wonder why she spoke on the origins of the Communion as she did though.
Posted by: Rob+ on Monday, 14 June 2010 at 8:12pm BST
Why on earth should she not ? Does she now require the permission of Robx ?
The intent of self-proclaimed 'fundamentalists' to silence all other voices and all of practice is 'astonishing' (sic) !
The PB's is a rare voice of sanity at the moment in Anglican / Episcopal matters.
"And yet far more funds remain available for law suits and now world travel." - Rob+ on Tuesday -
Now Rob, do be fair! If we are talking about the propensity for 'world travel', no-one has travelled more about the globe recently than the Apostles of the Global South contingency, which is diametrically opposed to Bp. Katharine's mission to the outcast and marginalised of the world. Just look at the expense of GAFCON, and the more recent Singapore Conference. With Bishop Katharine, we are talking about one prelate of the Communion. With GAFCON - many - not to mention the sycophantic sympathetic camp followers - like David Virtue of 'virtueonline'. And who is paying for this? The behind the scenes backers in US religio/political right-wing affairs. Otherwise, how could any poor African Province afford the luxury of extensive foreign travel?
Then take the question of litigation. Any legal process actually instigated by TEC has been to safeguard the property of The Episcopal Church - against the depradation of G.S. Pirates, whose activities are even now unrecognised by Canterbury as what they patently have been proven to be - piracy against the legitimate claims of TEC to its own property and jurisdictional rights.
For you, Rob+, to claim that the TEC P.B. is acting contrarily to the spirit of the Communion; while turning a blind eye to the activity of her detractors in the Communion is to deny the reality of the situation. Justice demands that TEC and her Presiding Bishop act to protect their own integrity against accusations of impropriety.
It is only a pity that other Leaders of the Anglican Communion do not step in to support the P.B. and TEC's movement towards the propagation of the Gospel to ALL people regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, or sexual-orientation.
"And yet far more funds remain available for law suits and now world travel." - Rob+ on Tuesday -
'Now Rob, do be fair! ' (Ron Smith)
I don't there is much chance of RobX being fair Ron !
The PB is a woman --she shouldnt be travelling, but -in Rob's book staying back at home and caring for her men-folk !
Wot a hoot ! ;- )
Let's face it, if Katharine Jefferts Schori stood up and said "Jesus is Lord," and then sat down, the extremists like Rob et al would still attack her for some imagined plot or some imagined heresy.
I am struck, though, by Rob's hypocrisy. If Peter Akinola spends more than half his time jet-setting around the globe (much of it in business class, apparently), that's perfectly fine. But if Katherine Jefferts Schori accepts invitations to speak to the General Synods of two Churches with which the Episcopal Church has strong relationships, that's a nasty plot to destroy the Communion.
Give it a rest, Rob. Your posts in this thread (and a few others) are only suitable to fertilize the garden.
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.