Thinking Anglicans

communique from Egypt

The meeting in Egypt has issued a communique, entitled A Third Trumpet from the South: Trumpet III The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter Red Sea (Egypt), 25-30 October 2005

You can find copies of this document either here or here or here. No doubt copies of it will be sent to other agencies in due course. The original PDF file seems to be available only from the AAC.

Update Monday morning
The communique has now appeared on the Anglican Communion News Service: The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter.

First press reports on this:
Reuters Conservative Anglicans warn liberal churches in West
Associated Press Anglicans: N. American Church Too Liberal

74
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
74 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
24 Comment authors
DavestevenMerseymikeGöran Koch-SwahneSimon Sarmiento Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Merseymike
Guest

So when are they going to set up their Global South Communion – because there’s little there which I would want to affiliate myself with, its largely the sort of stuff I positively rejected when I recognised the deficiencies of evangelical Christianity some 21 years ago!

Augustus Meriwether
Guest

“A Third Trumpet from the South…” It’s a tad pompous, isn’t it?

May I suggest a little addition to this communique?

40a or 41a: But the rightous ones will turn a blind eye whilst the ‘revisionists’ in the Nigerian church are unjustly imprisoned, beaten, starved and then charged for the privilage. Because, they deserve it. Halleluiah. More tea, Bishop?

J. C. Fisher
Guest

It’s also posted on EVN, here http://everyvoice.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2106&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I don’t want to say too much, on first blush.
. . . except to note how the communique’ suffers from certain *ocular problems* (see re “log/speck” Matt.7:3-5): to wit, “The Current Crisis provoked by North American Intransigence”

I’m sure it will prove very convincing to the “like-minded”.
To faithful *Anglicans*? Not so much. :-/

Martin Reynolds
Guest

From a first reading the key paragraph is #22.
The Anglican Covenant as rooted in the Windsor Report is to be redrafted and they “commit ourselves as full partners in the process of its formulation.”

Brian
Guest

The Communique, no doubt, has much to commend it, but on the perennial question of human sexuality offers only the usual tired assertions: 21. Scripture demands, and Christian history has traditionally held, that the standard of life, belief, doctrine, and conduct is the Holy Scripture. Agreed. 29. The unscriptural innovations of North American and some western provinces on issues of human sexuality undermine the basic message of redemption and the power of the Cross to transform lives. . . . Rather, it could be said, the provinces in question have upheld scriptural standards and exemplified the message of the gospel… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Weakness and Power are the ways of the World, not Christian virtues. Meekness and Charity would qualify, however… I think the heart of the problem is here. Quote: “the witness of errant principles of faith and practice which in many parts of our Communion have adversely affected our efforts to take the Gospel to those in need of God’s redeeming and saving love” Lets take it a part: “the witness of errant principles”. “Principles” are found in Heathen Philosophy and in 2nd Millennium Academic, that is Neo-Platonist Theology, from scholasticism onwards. This should be a warning to all. The “principles”… Read more »

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

But do they view the Church of England as part of that ‘redrafting’, or will we be given the same treatment as USA and Canada?

Trying to impose that sort of theology on those who do not believe it will not work.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Quote from 26. “We are grateful that the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly recognized the Anglican Communion Network in the USA and the Anglican Network in Canada as faithful members of the Anglican Communion.”

Is this true? Quotation, anybody?

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

I don’t think that’s a very controversial statement as these groups both consist of conservatives operating from WITHIN the Anglican churches in those countries, whereas other so-called Anglican groups ie AMiA have left the Anglican church and are thus not ‘faithful Anglicans’ as they no longer look towards Canterbury.

Leonardo Ricardo
Guest
Leonardo Ricardo

Simply more blowing of their OWN horn on ears that are growing increasingly deaf to the noisy yet subtle underlying off-key message of discrimination, bigotry and hate.

Mark Beaton
Guest
Mark Beaton

Goran, please allow this native English speaker and would-be Bible student to answer some of your assertions about the Global South statement. 1. The meaning of ‘principles’ is perfectly clear to us and has nothing to do with ‘Heathen philosophy’; it simply means basic ideas or approaches. Don’t make difficulties for yourself where they don’t exist. 2. ‘Faith and practice’ simply means doctrine and ethics, which go together ‘like love and marriage’. Blessed Martin Luther said precisely the same thing: justification by faith must be accompanied by the fruit of righteous living (WA 45, p. 702). 3. Generally speaking, the… Read more »

Martin Reynolds
Guest

What Merseymike says is spot-on. Rowan Williams is not out of communion with any Anglican bishop (though Gene’s position grows more interesting) and he would have no trouble recognising anyone within the communion no matter what they have done to each other. What he did NOT say was that he recognised these bishops and their network as the only legitimate Anglican presence in the US.
As my Primate said recently when confirming that Gene would be welcome to preach and preside at the eucharist in his diocese: “I am not out of communion with anyone!”

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

“Not out of Communion” and “publicly recognise” don’t seem to be the same thing.

Has there been a recognition – and if so, what does it look like?

Tobias S Haller BSG
Guest

Martin Reynolds is quite correct to focus on paragraph 22. The GS will want a major hand in the “formulation” of the Covenant — and if it doesn’t go their way, as they have said, they will have no part of it.
By the way, the third trumpet was the one that brought Wormwood to the earth, and much bitterness.

David in Wisconsin
Guest
David in Wisconsin

Does this site accept Thinking Anglicans who are also conservative, traditional, classic in their theology? My real question is: why have the leaders of the Episcopal Church pushed the issue of homosexuality so strongly? Reason tells me that issues of sexuality are deeply emotional and involve strongly held opinions. Reason also tells me that the issues regarding human sexuality are not clearly resolved, but rather are still a matter of honest study and debate. So why would a group of leaders take a position on this unresolved issue that forces the Episcopal Church into a winners and losers confrontation? This… Read more »

Emeka
Guest
Emeka

“Notwithstanding these difficult circumstances, several parts of our Communion in the Global South are witnessing the transforming power of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. The urgency of reaching vast multitudes in our nations for Christ is pressing at our door and the fields are ready for harvest”…

Bravo. Well said. The gates of hell shall not prevail over the Church of God. (Not even the revisionist tendencies)!!!!

steven
Guest
steven

Tsk, tsk, David in Wisconsin. You ask difficult questions that liberal theologs and their kin don’t like to have to answer.

Steven

P.S.-There are conservatives lurking here and there at “Thinking Anglicans”–we’re even allowed to speak most of the time–which makes me think better of liberals in general and Simon in particular. /s

Tobias S Haller BSG
Guest

David in Wisconsin, I would answer that the leadership of the Episcopal Church did NOT push this issue. The resolution on same-sex blessings was a compromise worked out by a team with divergent views, which did NOT move towards authorization of any rites, but merely recognized that some people, who performed such rites locally, were doing this within the context of the church in good faith. The approval of Bishop Robinson was not BECAUSE of his sexuality, but in SPITE of it, in light of his many excellent qualities as a leader and pastor. It is the overwhelming conservative *reaction*… Read more »

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

“So, maybe it is good riddance to the Anglican Evangelicals.” –David in Wisconsin Yes, let’s hope so. That the evangelicals were even involved in Anglicanism in the 18th and 19th centuries has much more to do with the fact that the CofE is/was a state church, and had to accommodate them somehow. Calvinism is incompatable with Catholicism. It always has been, always will be. That conflict led to a Civil War in England, and to the flushing of the worst of the Calvin-lovers after the Restoration in the 1660s. Calvinism was thereby weakened, but a stake was really not driven… Read more »

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

In the United States, the American evangelicals mostly became Baptists and Methodists. Even today, most of those who call themselves evangelicals in the USA (except for the right-wing evango-fundies) are really low-church latitudinarians. Some are “snakebelly low” all-but-Unitarians. So the job has been pretty well accomplished on this side of the pond. Now, it’s up to you Europeans to sharpen your stakes.

By that, I meant to say, that in the American Church, “most of those who call themselves evangelicals…”etc.

Neil
Guest
Neil

“So, maybe it is good riddance to the Anglican Evangelicals.” –David in Wisconsin
Yes, let’s hope so. ” –Kurt

Can a true liberal not see the shocking irony of comments such as this?

I wonder if anyone can really see a single thing in this Communique which supports the idea that Anglicanism will be shot of Evangelicals? Anglicanism *is* Evangelical!

John Henry
Guest
John Henry

What I find troubling in the GS Communique is statements about ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada having departed from the “historic creeds.” Where is the evidence for such irresponsible and unconscionable rhetoric? Where do the “historic creeds” address matters of human sexuality? Matters of human sexuality have, historically, never been matters of faith, but matters of church discipline. There is always pluriformity in matters of discipline – e.g., the question of divorce and remarriage. The Eastern Orthodox recognize the “spiritual death” of a marriage and, consequently, permit remarriage after divorce as long as divorcees are penitent. Rome finds… Read more »

k1eranc
Guest
k1eranc

Funny how we seem to have overlooked all the other issues raised in the communique. Of course, if we were proposing to discuss issues related to civil violence and the health of people in the GS we might be accused of yet another draft of neo-colonialism by the good bishops. Or of being rabid neo-socialists bent on bringing down the drugs and armaments companies that seem to develop such a lucrative share price due to some of the other issues discussed by the bishops of the GS. Both of these might give us a more generous (even uncomfortably wide) space… Read more »

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

It all depends whether these conservatives choose to remain Anglican, Neil. But if they do, they must realise that Anglicanism is also liberal and catholic, as well as evangelical, and that there are many Anglicans who are not evangelical.

Personally, I don’t think its likely to withstand for much longer. There isn’t enough holding the diverse groups together.

J. C. Fisher
Guest

FWIW, Neil, I disassociate my liberal self from Kurt’s comments. However— You have to *understand* the tremendous levels of spiritual VIOLENCE (and sometimes physical violence, as well) that has been perpetrated *by those calling themselves “Evangelicals”*, to those who differ with them (especially, but not exclusively, LGBTs). I love “Evangelicals” (whose religion, ironically, seems to consist entirely of BAD News). I even love Fundamentalists (noting how many of the former are really the latter, but deny the tainted title). … but the theology of many Evangelicals (including Evangelical Anglicans) is not something I can recognize at all. It seems to… Read more »

Caelius Spinator
Guest
Caelius Spinator

Herr Koch-Swahne, I hate to be nitpicky, but how would you translate “apax” in Jude 3?

Mark Beaton
Guest
Mark Beaton

Merseymike, you raise an interesting question that crops us constantly in my own study of the ‘Anglican phenomenon’, which is the relation of the catholic to the reformed (though actually, it’s not unique to Anglicanism, it’s in Lutheranism too, and even among Presbyterians). It seems to me that catholics and evangelicals have their own tensions, but they deal with these by focussing on the creedal and christological core they have in common. And Rowan Williams in his address to the GS bishops has reminded us again that ‘catholicity’ of the church is first of all about the ‘wholeness’ of faith… Read more »

Neil
Guest
Neil

Thanks JCF. I do beg to differ with LGBTs. But I not only disassociate myself (and I think probably all true evangelicals) from violence (if is done in the name of evangelicalism it is false) – I condemn that violence. Evangelical theology simply wants to be true to what the Bible really says: that sin is real and is highly offensive to a holy God – all sin, sexual sin of all shades and varieties being no lesser or greater than any other sin. It is so unacceptable to God that He is provoked to judge it. That seems to… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

The native English speaker Mr Beaton, who has “been involved in Bible translation work”, but is not found on Google, wrote: “The meaning of ‘principles’ is perfectly clear to us and has nothing to do with ‘Heathen philosophy’; it simply means basic ideas or approaches. Don’t make difficulties for yourself where they don’t exist.” Most kind. I think we have a distorter on our hands. Now, the text said “the witness of errant principles”. And I repeat what I wrote: The “principles” of one are not necessary to the Salvation of another. Not to be required of anybody. Point 2… Read more »

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

“Personally, I don’t think its likely to withstand for much longer. There isn’t enough holding the diverse groups together.”–Merseymike

Agreed. One only has to take a look at what the super-evangelical Jensenites in Sydney are doing to incorporate non-Anglican Church of Australia evangelicals into their “club”–and to partake of their dole. They are obviously working overtime to form One Big Happy Family of Australian Bible-thumpers. It’s time to encourage them all to leave us in peace. Let’s drive a final stake into the heart of Calvinism; at least as far as Anglicanism is concerned. Let the neo-Puritans form their own communion.

Dave
Guest
Dave

“So, maybe it is good riddance to the Anglican Evangelicals.” –David in Wisconsin Yes, let’s hope so. ” –Kurt “Can a true liberal not see the shocking irony of comments such as this?” –Neil True liberals seem to regularly say that one thing wrong with conservatives is that they want to purify the church of liberal christians (which I don’t think is true)… But then none of the liberal commentators on TA raise objections when someone suggests purging the church of conservatives !! Back to the redefinition of “tolerance” I presume. It used to mean “how one responds to things/people… Read more »

Pete
Guest
Pete

Apax may be ambiguous – I am not enough of a Greek scholar to diatinguish between “once” and “once for all”. The translators, who know far more about this than I, are split.

Perhaps more to the point, though… how would you translate “pistis”?

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

“that sin is real and is highly offensive to a holy God” –Neil

Quite frankly, Neil, I think that Calvinism is highly offensive to a Holy God.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Another yahoo? And that’s for me?

“Faith” is “faith”. Simple as that.

No need for any fancy footwork…

Mark Beaton
Guest
Mark Beaton

Goran, a little patience, please. I didn’t say a word about Calvin, who seems to upset you (and other posters) mightily, because you often refer to him and to Calvinism in hostile tones. I simply referred to NT scholars Professor Bauckham and to George Abbott-Smith in response to your opinions about Jude and ‘hapax’ (which I consider eccentric). You ignored this and simply restated your beliefs. Are they wrong, Goran? Where did you get the idea that Jude is a second century Heathen writing? And have you excised it from your Bible? Mark (a native English speaker who can forgive… Read more »

Neil
Guest
Neil

Oh dear Kurt, call it what you want I guess.
But I’m afraid what I wrote is straight forward Anglicanism, fully supported by the Bible and the Anglican formularies.

Marshall
Guest
Marshall

As a priest in the Episcopal Church, I certainly grieve over all of this. I have read the “Third Trumpet,” and ++Rowan’s address, and they don’t seem to be coming from the same event. I’m not surprised at the comment about Network bishops and congregations. They remain in the Anglican Communion because they remain in communion with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, and with Bishop Griswold as Presiding Bishop. They have expressed themselves, but they haven’t broken that tie (although it’s tenuous. They have failed to attend meetings of the House of Bishops.) But let’s temper this language… Read more »

Simeon
Guest
Simeon

Dave wrote: “Back to the redefinition of “tolerance” I presume. It used to mean “how one responds to things/people one disagrees with / disapproves of”, rather than “approving of things liberals approve of” !” This issue is often stated in the manner Dave has above, as if it exposes some profound conundrum for “liberals.” What in fact is occurring is a logical fallacy – the Straw Man argument. “The straw man is, in short, a misrepresentation of your opponent’s position, created by you for the express purpose of being knocked down.” http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000658.php Here, a conservative states that liberals are not… Read more »

steven
Guest
steven

Dave: You hit the nail on the head! However, I will put in a good word for a few. J.C. Fisher actually seems to understand that the word “inclusiveness” means “inclusiveness”–which is not to say that I agree with her on anything else. Still, she keeps the phrase “tolerant liberal” from being a complete oxymoron. As for the rest–what did you expect? The most amiable are folks like Merseymike who have analyzed the situation and realize that a split is not only inevitable, but desirable. (We are obviously on opposite sides, but I respect his honesty and practical approach to… Read more »

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

“I live and work close to Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas, and I grieve over that – but I will not consider them apostate, or beyond God’s grace. That is a mystery that is greater than I.”–Marshall Good for you, Marshall. I don’t think that Calvinists are beyond God’s grace either. If they want to tip-toe through the TULIPs, that’s fine with me. As long as they don’t try and impose their Puritan beliefs on the rest of us, I don’t have any problem with them. I can simply avoid them. Fortunately, there are relatively few of them in American… Read more »

Jimmy
Guest
Jimmy

Thank you, Marshall, for your calm and reasoned response. Over the past weeks, I have been personally angered and hurt by much of what I have read online and in the press. Maybe it would be better if we all just shutup for a period of time and tried to love each other. I was in England a few weeks ago and attended the Eucharist many times. Nobody ever asked for my credentials! Nobody ever asked what “side” I was on. Instead, every place, I was warmly welcomed and invited to humbly receive the Blessed Sacrament along with all the… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Mark Beaton wrote: “I didn’t say a word about Calvin, who seems to upset you (and other posters) mightily, because you often refer to him and to Calvinism in hostile tones.” Now, I was merely pointing to the difference between Drs Martin and Johannes, manifested as early as in the Marburg meeting of 1529, where Landgrave Phillip the Gorgeous tried to enforce Zwinglian Supper. As you know, not even Dr Calvin approved of that one, being of one mind with Dr Phillipp Melanchtthon on the Eucharist ;=) But I do believe in stating the facts – especially when incommodious. And… Read more »

steven
Guest
steven

Kurt: For what it’s worth, I agree with you about puritanism. It may come as a surprise to you that the orthodox do not necessarily consider themselves to be “puritans”. I personally consider the via media broad enough to include some “puritan” (i.e., reformed) concepts (as do the historic formularies) as well as some “papist” concepts (as do the historic formularies). This doesn’t mean that I am comfortable with the extreme proto-puritan fringe and the extreme proto-papist fringe. However, this has always been a source of tension in Anglicanism. I don’t expect it to go away. Steven

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

Well, Steven, that’s good to know. We have a point of agreement on Calvinism. And I don’t have much use for Romanists–“papists”–either.

It may come as a surprise to you that many of us orthodox Anglicans support women priests and gay bishops. You see, we consider ourselves orthodox as well.

Cheers!

Mark Beaton
Guest
Mark Beaton

Goran, yes, I am quite familiar with the details of the Marburg disputation, but that stuff is quite ‘obiter dicta’ (native Latin expression) here. The ‘beautiful native English’ (latinate actually, 16th C.) word ‘eccentric’ here is an example of what I believe the native English call ‘understatement’ or ‘euphemism’. I do encourage you to get a copy of Professor Bauckham’s commentary on Jude. Native Scandinavian biblical studies in your universities are ‘interesting’ but still rather parochial and hung up on the Tubingen school, along with atheist methodologies in OT (Ahlstrom etc). I recommend the Free Faculty at Aarhus. I take… Read more »

steven
Guest
steven

Kurt:

On the “orthodox” question, I have heard that many liberals consider themselves orthodox, so I’m not too surprised on that. I probably should have stuck with the usual conservative/liberal or traditionalist/liberal labels–less chance of confusion. Also, at this point, I’m for avoiding unnecessary jibes. There’s no chance for agreement on anything but the terms of separation, but it will be a better witness to our faith if we can avoid unnecessary provocation in describing each other–I’ll continue to work on this myself.

On the rest of it–shrug. Old news is no news as the saying goes.

Steven

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

“There’s no chance for agreement on anything but the terms of separation, but it will be a better witness to our faith if we can avoid unnecessary provocation in describing each other–I’ll continue to work on this myself.”–Steven

Agreed.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Dear English speaking, native, Calvinist but not wholly Anglican, somewhat condescending Mr Beaton, much into Bible translations, but not found in Google, wrote: “Native Scandinavian biblical studies in your universities are ‘interesting’ but still rather parochial and hung up on the Tubingen school, along with atheist methodologies in OT (Ahlstrom etc). I recommend the Free Faculty at Aarhus.” Now, I have said before, that I don’t know where you get your informations from. And I told you to be wary. Parochial, certainly, but Tübingen NO. And as to Ahlström, I know of one Olof Åhlström who printed musick in the… Read more »

John Henry
Guest
John Henry

On the meaning and usage of the Greek word APAX, I refer those disputing the generally accepted translation (“once”, “once for all”) to A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich (Chicago: UCP, 1957), p.80. You’ll find textual references from Homer through the Gk. Fathers.

steven
Guest
steven

Dear Messrs Beaton and Koch-Swahne:

You guys are a perfect example of a principle I have been promoting for some time: discussion of the underlying issues does not advance towards any type of accommodation or agreement, only towards greater enmity and incivility. This is not a judgment on the relative merits of your arguments, your positions, who did what first, or the right of either of you to be angry at your opponent. I will withhold comment on those points. I merely reflect on a principle that I think should be recognized.

Steven