on Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 7.06 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Anglican Communion, ECUSA
Fulcrum has responses to what the American bishops said.
Fulcrum Response to the Statement from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
Fulcrum Comparative Study of Statements From Dar es Salaam and New Orleans
Andrew Goddard ‘Half Empty, Half Full, Too Little, Too Late?’
Curious pomposity from this lot. In what sense has ++Peter Akinola been a focus of unity? Or some of the other Primates who have ordained Episcopi Vagans? Should they be disinvited from Lambeth? Presumably no invitation should be issued to the likes of Martyn Minns and his fellow wanderers well known for their work for unity?
‘Unofficial pastoral provision’ in private ceremonies for blessing gay couples has for decades been the official norm within the CofE though I am not aware there are huge numbers. It is difficult to estimate, but whilst maybe 5% of clergy have experience of this ministry, possibly 50% or more would entertain the idea if asked. But not a public ceremony.
The Fulcrum response does not stand up. The Archbishop of Canterbury deals in whole Churches, it is how he can call some bishops “illicit” and on such grounds it would be remarkable, chaotic and of bad faith to his recent visit if suddenly he was to start removing individual invitations from TEC bishops.
More of this ACI-type lecturing and flawed analysis and false claims of agreed authority, you would have thought they might have stopped this nonsense by now. They really are missing the plot. A bizarre set of remarks around the Covenant – the US General Convention has shown its mind here. It may not have been the outrageous fawning pillow bighting surrender of the CofE General Synod to the Draft Covenant – but it was warm in principle to the concept. Nothing to make me more enthusiastic about what the TEC House of Bishops had to say, a knife in the… Read more »
“the Bishop of New Hampshire should not be invited, since he is a focus of disunity”
Wrong. He *is* the focus of unity, as Giles Fraser points out.
Fulcrum are the moderates in the CofE – they are the “open evangelicals”….. if TEC HOB cannot win Fulcrum over with their word games, they cannot win the CofE over.
It would seem these are Dr Williams’ word games in the first place.
So what, Goran??
Remember the report he gave to the Primates in Tanzania which tried to pretend TEC(USA) had come into line with the AC…..do you remember what happened after that?
I’m disappointed in the response from Fulcrum, the group to whom I feel closest in outlook at the moment. It’s unfortunate that (elsewhere on the Fulcrum website) those who may support ordination of homosexuals are described as ‘extreme’ and ‘not part of the [open] evangelical centre’. NP (for once) may be partly right – that this was one group that TEC could have won over – but neither Fulcrum nor the more ‘closed’ evangelicals make up a majority in the CofE, so their rejection of the New Orleans statement does not mean that ABC or the rest of the AC… Read more »
if you must blame people for mis-taken strategies or whatever, please blame the persons who did it (Carey and Williams), instead of perfectly innocent by-standers (TEC).
Goran ” perfectly innocent by-standers (TEC).”
So, you don’t understand the bible and now you do not understan that TEC have not just been “by-standers” in recent AC chaos?
Do you know what Dromantine and TWR were responding to, Goran?
(Clue – someone did something which brough thoses responses.0
But TEC did what the ABC requested. Compromised. And if the AC is to stay together, then there will be compromise from both sides.
NP seems to think that the ABC is about to throw all liberals out of the AC. Its clear thats what the hardline conservatives want – but they won;t get it, so they are going alone instead.
Merseymike…how many times – 1) the AC does not have as its central aim pleasing you or making anyone feel better about themselves etc etc; 2) compromise is not a principle above all others; 3) the ABC has always tried as hard as he can to let his liberal friends get away with breaking agreed Anglican positions….no doubt he will try again but what you do not want to accept is that most of the AC is not happy with the ordination of people who do not even keep to the requirements of the CofE for its own vicars…..so, even… Read more »
Wasn’t the C of E founded on a compromise NP? Is the Church unprincipled because of this?
Eventually, the ABC won’t let the AC sacrifice LGBT minorities for the sake of unity. He has too keen a sense of history to let this issue define what the Communion stands for.
NP….once again…. 1. the AC consists of a variety of different provinces with different perspectives. Included in that are liberals, who are also part of the CofE. And they are not about to depart. 2. The ABC called for compromise, did he not? 3. RW’s aim is to maintain unity if at all possible, but it is clear enough that this may not be possible. The AC without liberals is no more united than the AC without far-right conservative evangelicals, from RW’s catholic ecclesiological perspective (which is far more important in understanding where he stands than anything else) If people… Read more »
Hugh says “Eventually, the ABC won’t let the AC sacrifice LGBT minorities …” When will that be, Hugh? See Jeff John; See the Canadians being held back; See even TEC being held back by the ABC. See Tanzania; See TWR. Maybe, he will finally do what he personally believes (for once)…..that would involve the 50m AC not pretending the CofE is 26m people makes the AC 50m) will shrink to about 5m as the large growing parts of the AC will not accept more doublespeak and broken promises…..they really do not have to you know (and do not appear easily… Read more »
What we see, my dear NP, is the Canadians, the Americans, the liberals generally exercising restraint because they actually do care about the unity of the church – and they actually want to remain in communion with those who disagree with them.
The “conservatives,” on the other hand, refuse to be constrained, spit on the moral authority of Canterbury and trample on Lambeth resolutions to their hearts content, doing everything in their power to destroy the unity of the Church, demanding that any and all conform to the rigid bigotry of Abuja.
Malcolm says “The “conservatives,” on the other hand, refuse to be constrained, spit on the moral authority of Canterbury and trample on Lambeth resolutions to their hearts content, doing everything in their power to destroy the unity of the Church, demanding that any and all conform to the rigid bigotry of Abuja.”
So, why have we not had the liberal ABC giving equivalents of Dromantine, TWR, Tanzania etc etc
Your charges, if true, are serious so why has there been no action from the liberal ABC??
Could it be that you are ignoring the elephant in the room….deliberately, of course?
No action, NP? Well, +Cantuar has condemned the border crossings. Windsor condemned the border crossings. Every Lambeth in history has condemned border crossings. But since the “conservatives” are out either to own or to destroy the Anglican Communion, what do they care. But no worry, NP. The “conservatives” will soon be gone off into their “pure and holy” little Abujan Communion. There they can be viscious, disnoest, self-righteous and “pure” to their hearts’ content. As to the conservatives (no quotation marks), some will stay, some will choose to go elsewhere (ie Rome or real Orthodoxy). Given the visciousness directed at… Read more »
We are going to hear a lot more about the listening process in the run up to Lambeth and during the conference itself. Documents will come to light detailing the plight and concerns of LGBT people – not something we have heard about in any of the documents you so fondly list: Lambeth 1:10, TWR, Dromantine, Tanzania, Covenant.
Communion business has been terribly one-sided for a decade; time the balance tilts in a pro-gay direction. Let’s face it, it can’t shift much further in an anti direction.
Hugh – some people are trying to force the AC to accept at Lambeth a “bishop” who is breaking Lambeth 1.10 (ignoring the reasoned interpretation of scripture behind it!) …….. I don’t think the balance has shifted too far away from “liberals” at all.
breaking Lambeth 1.10 (ignoring ….scripture ……..)
Scripture does not condemn same gender relationships (or air travel or computers).
How often must I tell you ? (wag wag of finger imperiously 😉
“…some people are trying to force the AC to accept at Lambeth a “bishop” who is breaking Lambeth 1.10…”
You mean Mynns, et al, who are breaking the part of Lambeth 1.10 and other Lambeth resolutions that call for an end to cross-boundary consecrations?
L Roberts – I am sure you have read all of the bible in your time……however determined you are to pretend sodomy is approved in the bible, it simply is not……and I am sure you know that.
Pls show that sodomy in a committed relationship is good, holy, acceptable to God….. pls show this from the bible and the AC will listen and change its agreed position, I am sure
You’re right, NP. Sodomy is most certainly not approved in the Bible. In fact, Our Lord condemns the “Sin of Sodom” no less than three times in the Gospels. And makes it crystal clear that by Sodomy he means the sin of lack of hospitality. Jesus, as has been frequently repeated here and elsewhere, made no statement on homosexuality – to which I assume that you are referring – at least none that has been transmitted to us. The use of emotive, prejudicial and outdated terms like “Sodomy” in this argument, raises once more the question I posed earlier today… Read more »