"we heard from a Christian prolife and pro-marriage advocate who has been maligned by the secular media in England"
Anybody know who this is?
So is the former Bishop of Rochester (Kent, England) positioning himself to be elected the chairman of GAFCON/FoCA?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.
I'm just interpreting this as a schism, at this point, whether the quixotic conservative definition of 'communion' is in their view impaired or otherwise.
Their insistence on the Jerusalem Declaration has the (perhaps) unintentional effect of keeping some Provinces from joining them. The Declaration makes much of forms and formularies that have never been authoritative in ECUSA, like the 1662 BCP and the Articles of Religion. And then there's that bit about reading the Bible in its "plain and canonical sense," whatever that's supposed to mean.
If their view of understanding Scripture was so clear, they wouldn't disagree on divorce and women's ordination.
Let me tell you - I am pro-marriage. I am so pro-marriage, I want it to be open to same-sex couples - if I was anti-marriage I would be against it altogether not trying to increase it. Murdering logic ought to be banned somehow.
"the former Bishop of Rochester (Kent, England)"
...whose former diocese just rejected the implicitly ant-gay Covenant?
All they need now, in order to augment their validity, in the likes of former Bishop Thingy, ex-leader of the Diocese of Harare in Zimbabwe to apply for accreditation as contender for leadership of GAFCON, and the circle will be complete.
So much for the ex Bishop of Rochester and the soon-to-retire Archbishop of Sydney - future clan leaders of the A.C. in Exile. And we thought Calvin was out of kilter.
'"the former Bishop of Rochester (Kent, England)"
...whose former diocese just rejected the implicitly ant-gay Covenant?'
Yep! That would be the one.
Bill -- your point about the Articles of Religion not being authoritative in the Episcopal Church is incorrect.
The Articles of Religion, as amended to suit American circumstances, were established by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1801 as its official doctrinal statement. The Articles have never been repealed, modified, or 'unestablished.' Thus, they remain what they always have been, the official statement of the doctrine of the Episcopal Church in America.
At ordination, every deacon, priest, and bishop must pledge conformity to the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of The Episcopal Church - which, in effect, means conformity to the BCP. And the constitution of TEC specifically includes the Articles as part of the BCP.
The unnamed Christian prolife and pro-marriage advocate was Andrea Minichiello Williams -- this according to the closing press conference. However I may have mistaken the name as the sound quality was poor.
Fr Conger, GC did "set forth" the Articles of Religion in 1801, but subscription to the Articles was never required of anyone, as it was in the Church of England.
As far as being "the official statement of the doctrine of the Episcopal Church," you're mistaken. Canon IV.2 has this to say about the Church's doctrine: "Doctrine shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the Church and is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer." You'll notice that there is no mention of the Articles of Religion here.
Nor have I been able to find a reference to the Articles anywhere in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church; neither the "Find" function on Adobe Reader nor the index to the Canons and Constitution were any help in finding them. Where exactly do you think the Constitution mentions them?
I wouldn't particularly mind if ECUSA made the Articles its official doctrinal statement; Franciscus of Sancta Clara's book, Newman's Tract 90, and the instruction given me in Confirmation class long ago removed any problems the Articles might present. But they are not now that official statement.
The Articles of Religion of 1801 appear in the 1979 BCP beginning on page 867 in the “Historical Documents” section. This seems to put them in the interesting-but-not-authoritative category.
This has nothing to do with ordinary Christians I meet in ordinary parish churches with ordinary views, here in the UK, many of whom have a relative in a gay or lesbian partnership, and many of whom are far more tolerant and accepting of gay love. UK society has moved on from the 1950's. We no longer stigmatise people for their sexual orientation. I've only encountered friendship and ordinariness in parish pews even though I have a trans history.
UK civil society and ordinary Christians up and down the land are moving on - into a more tolerant and mature future - based on real and ordinary experience in their lives.
Sad to say, some of these 'leaders' are left behind in all this, out of step with the reality on the ground, and it is preposterous to suppose that the Church of England can align, one-sidedly, with these 'leaders'. The defeat of the covenant shows this.
Increasingly, among ordinary parish Christians in the UK, there is more alignment with the US/Canadian acceptance of gay love, than with the Nigerian or Ugandan models, which speak for a different culture, and their strictures against homosexuality.
In this, most of the bishops in the UK are not yet speaking for the ordinary Christians in their pews. But most of the Bishops have been defeated in the recent Covenant votes. The Church of England is affirming LGBT in increasing numbers, whether the bishops choose to or not. The bishops are out of step.
I would direct attention to the Canons of the Episcopal Church, which define Doctrine (at least for disciplinary purposes) as "the basic and essential teachings of the Church ... found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer." (Canon IV.2) The Articles of Religion, though they were once held as declaring a commendable summary of the doctrine of the church, are no longer in that position, at least as far as the discipline of the church is concerned.
At the same time, I hasten to note that being a "Historical Document" does not mean something is unimportant. Personally I find much of value in the Articles, including a robust defense of the autonomy of national churches.
Let me also note that the reference to the Articles of Religion in the Constitution of the Episcopal Church (Artticle X) was deleted in 1988. (Resolution A-006)
There is no requirement of a newly-ordained clergy- person in ACANZP to 'sign-up' to the 39 Articles. The Creeds, however, are mandatory.
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.