Thinking Anglicans

the boycott viewed from Brazil

The Primate of Brazil, The Most Revd Maurício Andrade has written about the boycott by five Anglican Primates of the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

Read Message from the Anglican Primate of Brazil – The Most Revd Mauricio de Andrade at ACNS.

He concludes:

… I believe The Episcopal Church of the United States has been showing all of us an example of the path to unity and reconciliation, because they have met all the requests for visits that were made and answered all the questions that were posed. They have spent time, money, and energy to meet the primates’ requests, always with generosity and openness. I think we need to keep in mind that we are Anglican. We are seeing a disregard of our richness and our ethos, that is, autonomy of the Provinces.

The Anglican Province of Brazil has already spoken out against the creation of a new pact, because our way of being Anglican has already been defined in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. We are not nor do we want to be a mere federation of churches. We wish to continue in communion with Canterbury, a symbol of our unity, as full members of the Anglican Communion.

We intend to go to Lambeth open to dialogue, and to feel the presence of God guiding us as His people, breaking the bread that unites us in the Body of Christ, and expressing solidarity with the world in need of the Word of transformation and salvation. We therefore reaffirm our reply to the invitation of Archbishop Rowan Williams and deeply regret the boycott by five archbishops.

37 comments

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    Viva Brasil!

    Somebody finally recognizes that TEC has done everything asked of it!

  • JCF says:

    Back atcha, PB de Andrade! {smooch}

    Guess who’s NOT getting invited to GAFCON…

  • Prior Aelred says:

    Thank you, Bishop Andrade — more primates like this, please!

  • Austin says:

    The voice of a moribund NGO bought and paid for by TEC, I fear.

  • david wh says:

    “I believe The Episcopal Church of the United States has been showing all of us an example of the path to unity and reconciliation”

    Err, shome mishtake shurely! I thought that the whole disuity was *caused* by TEC? Wasn’t it TEC who went ahead with actions despite their own Presiding Bishop agreeing that it would be devisive, and even +Williams urguing them not to?
    Obviously I was mistaken – presumably they think that the disunity was caused by the unanimous vote to ask them to refrain!

    These americans have a very peculiar view of the path to unity… Defying the other provinces, sacking non-liberal clergy, sueing churches for their buildings and assets, and loosing a few dioceses — obviously a good example to follow (if you don’t think about it)!

  • pete says:

    Bishop Andrade’s remarks are a timely reminder that this uprising and attempt at theft is done so on the part of a very small number of clergy and their misguided followers. History will ultimately judge Akinola, Duncan, Iker, Schofield, etc. as evil, or at best a tragic-comical “Keystone Cops” sort of undertaking.

    TEC and the mainstream just need to stay the course, keep the pressure on this rebellion, and ultimately they will implode and eat their own.

  • Pluralist says:

    “against the creation of a new pact”

    Does this mean the Covenant? So they’ll go to Lambeth to affirm bonds, and what else?

  • ettu says:

    TEC has been a “whipping boy” for far too long. But , then again, it often seems the fate of strong organizations to suffer wounds from jealous and backward groups – somewhat analagous to the old British feeling of being vilified despite the advances the Brits provided to their colonies- I believe it used to be called the “white man’s Burden”-(totally non PC , of course)

  • Leonardo Ricardo says:

    The voice of a moribund NGO bought and paid for by TEC, I fear.

    Posted by: Austin on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 at 8:55pm GMT

    Now, is that any way for our Anglican happy clappy exclusionist/sour cult department/section to spread “Good News” throughout el mundo?

    You’ll get us all a reputation for promoting untruth if you don’t acknowledge that the Province of The Southern Cone Alone is THE ANGLICAN Province in Latin America with the most “empty” pews…but, why bother with REALITY when clever works so good? I ought know.

  • bls says:

    “These americans have a very peculiar view of the path to unity… Defying the other provinces, sacking non-liberal clergy, sueing churches for their buildings and assets, and loosing a few dioceses — obviously a good example to follow (if you don’t think about it)!”

    ——————–

    The so-called “orthodox” have a peculiar view of “unity” also. Apparently it’s absolutely and perfectly all right with them for Archbishops of national Anglican churches (i.e., Big Pete A.) to use the weight of the office (and the good name of the church) to push for laws whose sole aim is to put innocent people in prison.

    Yes, sir. That’s the REAL path to unity: scapegoat a tiny minority via the proto-fascist route! That’ll show ’em who’s boss!

    Very Christ-like. Yes indeedy.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    To Austin and David Wh:

    So, it is only the con-evo who can speak from heart, faith and conscience? Anything else must be “bought and paid for?”

    Can you point to a specific instance of non-liberal clergy being fired? First of all, of course, no parish rector in TEC can BE fired…not even by his own vestry. A priest-in-charge can be fired, but I’m not aware of any such instance…except, of course, for the actions of the wayward bishop of Sam Joaquin–but you weren’t talking about that, were you?

  • Jerry Hannon says:

    Austin posts, regarding the support of TEC by the Primate of Brasil, “…paid for by TEC, I fear.”

    Sure, Austin. And, by your logic, they also bought the Anglican Primates of Canada, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, and many others. Perhaps they even bought York, right?

    Just ignore the facts, and try smear tactics, and maybe the Anglican Communion will abandon its integrity and historical approach, and become the New Puritan Church that most of the separatists are trying to create.

    Sorry, that’s not going to happen, and Brasil is merely one more of the reasons, ever increasing, that the Anglican Communion will continue as a broad tent, and the fringe elements can either choose to continue to participate, or they can depart to a new Nigerian Communion, or some semblance thereof.

  • O, but this is all your interpretation, David Wh – and not a very benevolent one at that!

    ;=)

  • Cheryl Va. says:

    The Americans have a good understanding of unity.

    Unity does not mean uniformity.

    It means co-operation, respect and respect of niches for both your own kind and others.

    Tyranny demands one species, one system, one theology.

    Complex ecosystems have diversity and resilience.

    Systems dominated by one or two species suffer from wild swings between abundance and death, with many minor species being wiped out in the process.

    I would rather live in a pluralistic society than a repressive monochrome one.

    Isaiah 54:14 “In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you.”

    Isaiah 49:6 “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

    Hosea 2:23 “I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”

  • Erika Baker says:

    Actually, David Wh, I thought you knew better.
    Gene Robinson was elected in accordance with the rules of his church. Yes, it was acknowledged that it would be divisive, but so are many other topics in church and no-one expected quite the extent of the hostilities.

    By the time this became clearer and Rowan Williams asked for the consecration not to go ahead, it was too late for TEC to do anything about it and to reverse the process. People who think the HoB could simply have decided otherwise should study how TEC elects Bishops and how much the process differs from other Anglican churches.

    TEC did eventually comply with what the Primates had asked of it – the official response to the HoB statement acknowledges this.

    But of course, by then, some would only be happy if TEC did not just apologise for hurt caused and promise not to consecrate any further gay Bishops, but insisted on Gene Robinson being thrown out. That had never been a demand the Primates had made.

    The only ones who insisted on that and on increasingly stringent anti gay measures across all parts of church life are the toddlers in the Anglican sandpit who now angrily march away because their attempts at blackmail (If you don’t do what we want then YOU will be responsible for OUR actions) failed.

    Thank God for Bishop Andrade!

  • Ford Elms says:

    “bought and paid for by TEC, I fear.”

    Well, the evidence that the Pseudorthodox have been bought and paid for by shady American ultraconservative Republicans is rather more clear to be seen, I should think.

    “I thought that the whole disuity was *caused* by TEC? Wasn’t it TEC who went ahead with actions despite their own Presiding Bishop agreeing that it would be devisive, and even +Williams urguing them not to? “

    No, actually. That’s the official Pseudorthodox line, but it, like much else they say, is spin. Africans were seeking to protect their poor endangered flocks in the US from the ravages of the heathen wolves of TEC before +VGR. Also, they don’t even hide it any more. Don Harvey and others have said on several occasions, in the Press, that their issues go far beyond “the gay thing” and are about “concerns” they have about a perceived extreme liberal trend in the West. Presumably this refers to such things as OOW, which some supported, liturgical reform, etc. He is not alone. They have given it away: +VGR, is merely the end point. They can’t even manage their own spin, someone always slips up and lets the cat out of the bag. They don’t like change, it’s too liberal for them, and they have confused Christian Orthodoxy with the societal trends of a few decades ago, except for those changes they can benefit from, of course, then they’re all for “modernity”. Again, there’s no need for this dishonesty. They believe it to be Gospel Truth that God hates fags. Of course, they don’t say it like that, well, most of them don’t, but it’s pretty obvious they think of us as subhuman. They can say this without all the dishonesty. One has to ask why they resort to it anyway.

  • Christopher Shell says:

    This is incorrect. TEC did not meet the call for repentance, but dishonestly sought to sidestep it by redefining words in a humptydumptyish fashion.

  • mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) says:

    Austin; “bought and paid for by TEC, I fear.”

    Ah, so it was BRAZIL who said ‘they give us money. Oy yes, they give us money….’ I must have been dozing at the back, here.

  • L Roberts says:

    TEC has been a “whipping boy” for far too long. But , then again, it often seems the fate of strong organizations to suffer wounds from jealous and backward groups – somewhat analagous to the old British feeling of being vilified despite the advances the Brits provided to their colonies- I believe it used to be called the “white man’s Burden”-(totally non PC , of course)

    Posted by: ettu on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 at 1:22am GMT

    The imposition of the English language, by vicious means, in Wales and Scotland and Ireland is something we could ahve donw without, for a start.

  • L Roberts says:

    The only ones who insisted on that and on increasingly stringent anti gay measures across all parts of church life are the toddlers in the Anglican sandpit who now angrily march away because their attempts at blackmail (If you don’t do what we want then YOU will be responsible for OUR actions) failed.

    Thank God for Bishop Andrade!

    Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 at 8:04am GMT

    I think they hope that by shitting in the sand-pit no-one else will want to remain in it — certainly makes joyous leaping about and burrowing into the sand a bit difficult !

    It is unpleasant.

    But will improve with time and / o effort ( bucket and spade !)

  • Cynthia Gilliatt says:

    “sueing churches for their buildings and assets”

    In Virginia, the Africa-bound filed identical lawsuits the morning after their curiously simultaneous votes to leave – Diocese of Va is DEFENDING the property it holds in trust for the national church. Had the neo-Africans just left, which they were free to do, and not tried to steal the family jewels, there would be no lawsuits.

  • choirboyfromhell says:

    Christopher Shell:

    Where, when and how was TEC directly asked to “repent”? By whom? By what authority? To what body in TEC? If this did occur, what was the response? Time, places and actual quotes please.

  • Erika Baker says:

    “Where, when and how was TEC directly asked to “repent”? By whom? By what authority? To what body in TEC?”

    And of what?
    Consecrating an out, partnered, divorced gay bishop, or doing it without sufficient consultation? There is a huge difference!

  • Ren Aguila says:

    Erika:

    If you read the reasserter propaganda, it’s both. Not to mention the ordination of women, liberal theology, etc.

  • david wh says:

    Erika

    Like +Maurício Andrade I think everyone should go to Lambeth and I really don’t understand why some conservatives are walking away, given that conservatives are in the vast majority. They should turn up at Lambeth, force a vote to extend TEC’s removal from Communion functions until they agree to a Covenant – and repent and make restitution for their approval of sin and abuse of conservative churches, clergy and diocese, eg: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1622

    I think that part of the problem for some conservatives is that they are still thinking along something like rational Modern lines (not premodern as some suggest), while Liberals are well into the Postmodern. For Liberal Postmoderns EVERYTHING depends solely on one’s personal volition – all reasons and arguements used are deployed solely because they support what one wants, not because they are really believed… or even well thought through!

    A Postmodern Liberal might sell a Modern conservative the idea that they can discuss an issue – but only intending it as a persuasion, delaying or negotiating tactic. In truth there is *no way* they will consider conforming or even compromising significantly on their key issues… it’s just thinly-veiled stubborn human Will (or Won’t).

    As Cheryl is into Biblical quotes at the moment, here’s one I think is rather relevant: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.” (2Tim 4:1-5)

  • Erika Baker says:

    “For Liberal Postmoderns EVERYTHING depends solely on one’s personal volition – all reasons and arguements used are deployed solely because they support what one wants, not because they are really believed…”

    It’s precisely this sort of slander I deeply object to. You’re talking about me here, and you have absolutely no right to claim that, for me, everything depends only on my personal volition and that all my reason and arguments are deployed SOLELY because I want to and that I do not really believe them.

    It’s this kind of cheap put down of those one doesn’t agree with that I find most disturbing about the consevos. The careless dismissal of what people genuinely believe and have often arrived at after a long, painful journey, is the kind of callousness I so detest about this whole debate.

    You do yourself no favours by aligning yourself with it. Ultimately, it diminishes no-one but yourself.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    David Wh:

    The priests whose situation you reference publicly renounced their affiliation with the diocese of Florida. What else was Bishop Howard supposed to do?

    What would Iker or Schofield do if a LIBERAL priest did the same in Fort Worth or San Joaquin? Well, actually, we know what Schofield would do–he’d fire them if he could, as he did the priest in charge at one mission parish…publicly, at the end of a Sunday service.

  • L Roberts says:

    Cheryl has consistently quoted from and used the Bible in her comments here, over the years. Like no one else I know,David Whhh.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “approval of sin and abuse of conservative churches, clergy and diocese”

    OK, approval of sin? When are the conservatives going to repent of their approval of usury, remarriage after divorce, and the taking of human life? They’re not. They benefit from usury, many of them are divorced and remarried, and if they came out against war, they’d lose the support of the warmongers who finance them, yet all of these things aare, or were at one time, sin. Do you not see the hypocrisy in condemning one particular sin while ignoring, even benefitting from, other sins? Come on! And abuse? What abuse? Some parish puts their bishop to a simplistic test of “orthodoxy”, locks the doors against him when he doesn’t respond, or gives a nuanced answer they don’t accept, then gets all upset when he disciplines them. Yeah. Real abusive. The church won’t let them steal buildings from God? Well, the “pseudo” part of their Pseudorthodoxy is showing if they don’t understand why that’s wrong. “I’ll cause a stink and if I am subjected to legitimate discipline, I will claim abuse” is not exactly a good wat for Christians to behave.

    “For Liberal Postmoderns EVERYTHING depends solely on one’s personal volition – all reasons and arguements used are deployed solely because they support what one wants, not because they are really believed… or even well thought through!”

    What Erika said! It is this kind of arrogant dismissal of those whose faith is different that is the most annoying, and telling, of the Pseudorthodox behaviours.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    But, Ford, don’t you understand? Faith that is different from theirs is not true faith. Faith only comes in one flavor, like a Baskin-Robbins that only serves vanilla.

  • david wh says:

    Ford Elms wrote: “OK, approval of sin? When are the conservatives going to repent of their approval of usury, remarriage after divorce, and the taking of human life?”

    Ford, I think we should all try to acknowledge the efforts other have made to try to achieve the unity and reconcilitaion that +Andrade says he wants.

    It is quite acceptable to review what the Scriptures teaches, and many have genuinely looked again at homosexuality but in the end been unable to justify a change based on any reasonable interpretation of what Scripture teaches us, despite their sympathy for people struggling with same-sex attraction, and awareness of the hostility of current society towards the church because it does not affirm gay sex.

    To quote Erika Baker: “The careless dismissal of what people genuinely believe and have often arrived at after a long, painful journey, is the kind of callousness I so detest about this whole debate.”

    ps The changes in conservative teaching on ‘usury’ and remarriage after divorce (in some circumstances) *were* based on careful revisiting what Holy Scripture teaches to ensure that we have correctly interpreted it. When you look at all that is taught in the New Testament, you can see that the Lord, and St Paul, taught that divorce IS acceptable in some, *narrowly defined* situations. Similarly the Old Testament did not ban receiving interest on loans… except on loans to fellow Jews. As for killing people, in self-defence or in war, that was never proscribed in Scripture!

    pps Many other Christians, besides those who find their sexual desires orientated towards people of the same sex, reject some pr all of their own desires on the basis that they wish to remain true to the moral teachings of Christ and the Apostles!

  • david wh says:

    Erika, my post was about TEC (I don’t know enough about +Andrande to know whether he is consistent or Postmodern).

    If commentators here think that my description of how Postmodern Liberals argue (for effect not truth) is inaccurate, it would be more helpful to offer real examples of where PLs *have* adhered to the general truths they espoused when it went *against* what they wanted, rather than just complain about the accusation!

    One shows what one *really* believes when the consequences are personally costly, not when they are expedient.

  • Malcolm+ says:

    “like a Baskin-Robbins that only serves vanilla.”

    Or perhaps like a Baskin-Robbins that serves only cyanide.

  • Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Erika-

    There is not much difference between repenting of ordaining a practising homosexual & repenting of doing so without consultation. That is because the said consultation would have established the majority view (whether or not correct) to be that the ordination was wrong in and of itself, with or without consultation.

    Hi Choirboy-
    Erika correctly alludes to the context, namely in and around the time of the Windsor Report. TEC knew perfectly well that ‘I repent’ and ‘I regret your regret’ are aeons away from one another in meaning, but dishonestly pretended that they thought they meant the same thing. This can be a result of committee reports where double or ambiguous meanings are often actively sought (to what end? befuddlement? anything goes, since the meaning is sufficiently opaque?); whereas honest people go together with clarity and transparency.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “That is because the said consultation would have established the majority view (whether or not correct) to be that the ordination was wrong in and of itself, with or without consultation.”

    Let me point out that agreeing to consult with others regarding an action does not presuppose that the actors will follow the advice of those consulted. It merely means they value the opinions of the others.

    The Diocese of New Hampshire and TEC could have consulted with the entirety of the membership of the Anglican Communion (man, woman, lay, clergy) and still have acted as it did, no matter what those others advised.

  • Erika Baker says:

    Christopher
    In your rush to claim me as your ally you seem to have forgotten to answer Choirboy from Hell’s specific questions: “Where, when and how was TEC directly asked to “repent”? By whom? By what authority? To what body in TEC? If this did occur, what was the response? Time, places and actual quotes please.”
    Just for the sake of clarity and transparency you so rightly value.

  • choirboyfromhell says:

    Saying that some “revisiting” the New and Old Testaments to justify certain acts, then holding it strict against others is shear hypocrisy, and you know it, david wh.

    And Shell, you still haven’t satisfied my questioning on WHEN WAS TEC EVER ASKED TO ACTUALLY REPENT?????? The statement of ‘I regret your regret’ probably isn’t accurate, and was answered in the context of a general statement to those who were flipping out in the furor. Actual quotes, dates, and individuals PLEASE!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *