Thinking Anglicans

Bishop Duncan visits London

Updated further Wednesday evening

There was a press conference yesterday, at All Souls, Langham Place. You can read all about it at Episcopal Life which has Former Pittsburgh bishop warns Church of England traditionalists against ‘complacency’ written by me.

Toby Cohen of the Church of England Newspaper was also there. His report on Religious Intelligence is titled Deposed Bishop issues warning to Church of England.

Anglican Mainstream has a transcript of part of the press conference, at Bishop Bob Duncan on recognition of new province in North America.

Maria Mackay of Christian Today has Deposed bishop warns traditionalists against ‘illiberal takeover’.

Anglican Mainstream has now added transcripts of further portions of the press conference:

First, his opening statement: Thanks, a report and a warning – Bishop Duncan’s statement to the press.

Second, some of the initial answers to questions: Questions to Bishop Bob Duncan -1: on what could happen in the UK, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Windsor Continuation Group.

Third, more answers to questions: Questions to Bishop Bob Duncan 2:on Sour Grapes, Catholic Order and Martyrdom.

Ruth Gledhill has posted video of part of the conference, see her blog at Bob Duncan: Over-stressed, over here and over?

47 comments

  • Cheryl Va. says:

    About 20 parishes in Pittsburgh remaining with the TEC is fantastic. That is a viable community.

    My prayers have been answered that the reforms that TEC and others have taken now have sufficient critical mass of supporters.

    It’s going to be fun to watch the conservatives have to pretend to be genuinely loving whilst continuing their accusational repression strategies. The dissonance between their words and their conduct will become more and more apparent. Especially now that there is a viable alternative which will bring to light the paucity of their conduct.

  • Father Ron Smith says:

    What a lovely picture of the one-time bishop of Pittsburgh! And one should not be too surprised at the venue of his secret meeting with FOCA at All Soul’s Langham Place – the very same place that spawned the ‘sola-Scriptura’ phenomenon within the latter-day Church of England.

    One hopes he doesn’t get an open invitation to Lambeth Palace. But then, why should he? He no longer represents any diocese within TEC, and has not yet been accepted formally as a bishop in any other part of the Communion, so why should he?

    I doubt that Bob will be asked to preside at any sort of Eucharistic Celebration – certainly not with his customary cope and mitre in any of the Evangelical Churches in the U.K. – and probably not at All Souls. And I doubt whether All Saints, Margaret Street, will be asking him to preside there, either.

    No doubt Mr. Sugden will be around somewhere, and a few other assorted FOCAs, and the odd bishop or two, besides a few others who are keen to hear the latest news about the Southern Cone plans for expansion. But! A branch of GAFCON in England? I very much doubt it – espcially under the sway of the Secretariate in Sydney. However, the travel prospects are pretty good for those who will be seeking ‘alternative oversight’ – of whatever particular antithetical ‘integrity’ is in vogue at the moment.

    ex-Bishop Duncan must be chalking up an ever-increasing number of air-miles. Perhaps he and Gregory and some of the African Primates could arrange another Global South Conference – before the miles run out.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “Noting that the GAFCON primates planned to meet again before the end of 2008, Duncan said that the Common Cause Partnership, which he said now includes 30 bishops, 800 clergy, 700 parishes and about 100,000 regular Sunday worshippers, would submit a proposal for such a province to them.”

    Isn’t it the case that a goodly number of those bishops, clergy and parishes were never a part of the Anglican Communion, being part of the Reformed Episcopal Church and other long-separated offshoots from TEC?

  • Neel Smith says:

    Minor correction to TA’s headline : that’s “former bishop Duncan”. (Compare the linked headline from episcopalchurch.org.)

  • jnwall says:

    Isn’t it a wonder, and a blessing, to see how these Christians love one another?

  • Canon Gary Waddingham says:

    It is so nice that Bob Duncan is keeping homophobia and misogyny going while being apparently quiet on other things like, say, the global financial crisis in which millions are being pushed under the poverty line. Jesus must be proud.

  • David Malloch says:

    “Minor correction to TA’s headline : that’s “former bishop Duncan”.

    Absolute nonsense. Bob Duncan IS a bishop!! What ever his canonical status in TEC, Duncan is a bishop in the curch of God and remains so; his episcopal orders are not done away with just because he has been deposed by TEC.

  • Ford Elms says:

    ““My hope is that people will be so determined to spread the word of Christ that we will find new ways to commend the Gospel to people.””

    So, let me get this straight (no pun intended). Is the Archdeacon of Hamstead saying that scheming, lies, sneaking about, misrepresentation, historical revisionism, smearing those one sees as outcasts, reviling those who disagree with you, falsely portraying one’sself as oppressed while seeking to oppress others, and hypocrisy are “new ways” to commend the Gospel to people? Indeed, SOMEONE is preaching a “different Gospel”.

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    I am still shocked by the Reform comment..we will play the legal game to promote the Gospel…see the Church Times. Love your enemies and pray for them and sue them to the furthest extent of the law?

    I would have so much more admiraton for Bishop Duncan if he had left with integrity and without the property.

    A comparison of Bishop Duncan to Athanasius by the Egyptian Bishop is odd..when one considers there is much disquiet amongst traditionalists as he ordains women priests.

    Ron the Sola Scriptura movement began in the Church of England with Cranmer, when he abandoned the Catholic faith for Protestantism.

    The three stool , scripture , reason and tradition argument is a late comer to Anglicanism.

  • Cheryl Va. says:

    Ford

    Your postings of the last few weeks have been excellent, this one is no exception.

    Robert, the kind of thinking and justifications we are seeing now have been seen before. It’s what typically happens in the break-away sects. Puritanical thinking without moderation leads to extremism, and eventually the dissonance between claiming to have “the answers” and rubbing shoulders with others who think differently becomes too much for them.

    Don’t worry about the large numbers now. The conduct that Ford has noted will continue and their reputations will be tainted accordingly and souls will move away as the more gentle alternative is reliably demonstrated.

  • JCF says:

    “Duncan stressed that arrangements with the Province of the Southern Cone were not intended to be permanent, and he strongly advocated the establishment of a second Anglican province in North America.”

    Oh, sure: let’s have a second (3rd, 4th, 5th, ad infinitum?) province for EVERY place on the globe, all w/ competing (if not mutually-exclusive) ideologies, theologies, ecclesiologies, and ethical codes!

    Now, what all of the above scenario has anything to do w/ being “Anglican” is not clear to me…

    Lord have mercy!

  • drdanfee says:

    Duncan & Co. offer a palpable realignment spin story, remarkable. It’s like touring a conservative creationist dinosaurs walked the earth park excursion.

    These Home Invasion Gangs – having raided TEC ( plus Canada, and eyes on England recently?) call any principled, legal, canonical, or procedural non-conservative-realignment resistance or response – foul. Let she who has ears hear what is or is not fair and godly in this realignment mess.

    Now Duncan preaches that all they want is a little piece of historic Anglican leeway that they can utterly call their own – unshared, indeed unshare-able – so sanctified. A new conservative Anglican space, free from all those different believers whose bodies, consciences, and citizenship in daily life Duncan in particular so loves to trash talk, target and attack. Decode, that. Realignmentists will still use any space or recognition given to them to further their drive to global power. The means will still be the same – using character assasination, guilt by association, and quite a few other historically familiar McCarthyism tricks and sleights to justify and garner power.

    Duncan wants Canterbury to be at least temporarily deceived into thinking that this new conservative province will be a singular means to order and peace. If only. The weaponizing, meanness and lying about the rest of us Anglican believers from the realignment side will never abate.

    So, I think we should separate from Duncan & Co. pretty much as his deposition / walking apart from TEC big tent trust-oath-canons has demonstrated. Bringing him structurally back inside the global big tent will only fuel his McCarthyite grasp for reputation and power to diminish others, believers or unbelievers alike.

    Canterbury / council will play ball and have tea with these guys at great peril. Duncan and his ilk are not kidding – give them the family silver or get stabbed in the back as you try to appeal to whatever 911 services you can get to pick up on the other end of the lines. It will be about as orderly and peaceful as having a skinhead white supremacist group in the house next door to an interrracial Reform Jewish gay or lesbian couple who are parenting mixed children.

  • WSJM says:

    Of course it is David Malloch’s post that is “absolute nonsense,” or at least “mostly nonsense.” It is true that the general opinion in Anglicanism is that holy orders are indelible. The actual position of canon law in The Episcopal Church (US), to the best of my recollection, does not make reference to “indelibility” but simply provides that if a deposed cleric is reinstated, he or she is simply reinstated and not reordained. For all practical purposes, however, a deposed cleric may not exercise any of the functions of his or her order, and would not be recognized as entitled to any titles such as “Bishop” or “The Rev.” Roman Catholic priests who have been laicized (whether at their own request or as a result of discipline) are not entitled to be called “Father” or to engage in any ordained ministry, even though their ordinations are regarded as indelible. They are normally considered “former priests” or “ex-priests.” My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches regard laicization of clergy as absolute, although OCICBW.

    Bishop Duncan was indeed a bishop in the Church of God (although the largest segment of the Church of God never recognized that, nor indeed the orders of any of the rest of us), but he was subject to the doctrine and discipline of The Episcopal Church, and no one else in the Church of God has legitimate authority over his status. He is a former bishop. Period.

    If Venables and Nazir-Ali and all that gang want to consider Bob Duncan a bishop still, there’s not much we can do about it, I guess. If any bishop or priest in TEC were to allow Mr. Duncan to exercise ordained ministry in this church, that cleric would be subject to ecclesiastical discipline.

  • David Malloch says:

    “He was subject to the doctrine and discipline of The Episcopal Church, and no one else in the Church of God has legitimate authority over his status. He is a former bishop. Period.”

    Well, I suppose that it should come as no great surprise that a body such a TEC shows such scant regard for the indellible character of Holy Orders that it honestly believes it can somehow terminate them. The fact is that if he was ever a bishop, he remains one now! Despite the jumped up arrogance of TEC if it really believes it has the power to “unordain”.

    If being a Bishop = being recognised by TEC then that might explain TEC lack of respect for the rest of the Anglican Communion – most of whom will continue to recognise Duncan’s orders (although a significant number would have rather more doubt re the orders of the presiding bishop!)

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “Absolute nonsense. Bob Duncan IS a bishop!! What ever his canonical status in TEC, Duncan is a bishop in the curch of God and remains so; his episcopal orders are not done away with just because he has been deposed by TEC.”

    Really? Is a priest who is unfrocked still a priest? If TEC ordained and consecrated Duncan, and they have now deposed him, under what authority does he remain a bishop?

  • Nom de Plume says:

    “If being a Bishop = being recognised by TEC then that might explain TEC lack of respect for the rest of the Anglican Communion – most of whom will continue to recognise Duncan’s orders”

    David,

    Duncan’s orders were conferred by TEC, and now they have been removed by TEC. Deposition says nothing about the indelible, ontological character of the orders. Rather, it renders them null and void juridically, for all practical purposes. I fail to see how one can accept orders from a Church, and swear canonical obedience to that church, and then deny the legitimacy of the deposition whilst simultaneously asserting the ongoing legitimacy of the orders. It is nonsense.

    Mr Duncan may be a bishop ontologically, but juridically he is a layman.

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    The Common cause claims 30 bishops..that would mean 698 if TEC had the same ratio!

    6 of the 30 are Reformed Episcopal..whose orders have not been recognised by the Anglican Communion since Lambeth 1880.

    As for 100,000 communicants ..there are serious challenges to these figures.

    Some of the participating denominations do not even ordain women to the diaconate..the REC recently revived the office of deaconess…but the three US dioceses all have deacons and Pittsburgh has women priests, as do the churches under Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda. FIF also accepts women deacons.

    If Bishop Duncan’s fantasy came true and the ACC recognised this “new province”..there would also be the problem that the REC has a branch in England called the Free Church of England
    (FCE), which has about 900…yes 900 members. However there is a serious split within the REC and FCE over High Church refugees who have changed the denomination from being an exclusively Evangelical denomination to a high Church/ mixed one.

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    If the ACC recognises this new North American province , then it should recognise the Church of England in South Africa, a Church which has stood apart from the Church of the Province of Southern Africa since 1870 and whose orders are recognised by the Anglican Communion.

    So then there would be two Anglican provinces in South Africa.

    Then Sydney could gather together the churches it has planted in other Australian doceses and form a parallel province there…the Reformed Anglican church of Australia.

    Then the Diocese of Nelson ( New Zealand) which has set up its own Theological College and recognised Gafcon, could form a new Province….the Reformed Anglican Church in New Zealand.

    Meanwhile the ACC could think of welcoming back into the Anglican fold the Free Church of England (established 1844), otherwise known as the Reformed Episcopal Church ( that is actually its title) and Reform would have a ready home to go to. The hundred souls in the Church of England (continuing) under Former Church Society director Bishop David Samuel could also be offered a place.

    And lets not forget the two tiny Anglo-Catholic denominations that started in the wake of womens ordination…they could have a separate province as well.,,and the TAC people need not bother negotiating with Rome.

    Why stop at undermining TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada?

  • David Waller says:

    “Mr Duncan may be a bishop ontologically, but juridically he is a layman.”

    If he has abandoned the communion of the church, then, juridically, he doesn’t really exist??

  • JPM says:

    >>>The Common cause claims 30 bishops..that would mean 698 if TEC had the same ratio!

    Why settle for a mere priesthood of all believers when one can have an episcopate of all believers?

  • Cynthia Gilliatt says:

    Re Bp Duncan, George Will, American conservative columnist, has a column in this morning’s Washington Post about Our Bob ex-Pitts. He – Will – seems to have swallowed the Duncan party line about widespread apostacy on doctrinal matters and takes a poke at poor old Bp. Pike [are any of his books even in print?]. I would link but don’t subscribe to the electronic version of WPost.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “Why stop at undermining TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada?”

    But, to quote a recent local play, “The smugly selfrighteous can never work on a team, Stock.” Why do you think it is that all these splinter groups can’t get together into one denomination, even though they left the for the same reasons? There’s always a finer point of “orthodoxy” you can split over, and it isn’t about Truth or being good Christians, it’s about being right, righter than everybody else, and you keep finding finer and finer points to disagree on. That’s what “orthodoxy” is all about. My God, one of the meanings of the word is “right belief”. If you define yourself as someone who believes what’s right, then you get to say who’s wrong, and isn’t that the most fun?

  • WSJM says:

    David Malloch responds: “Well, I suppose that it should come as no great surprise that a body such a TEC shows such scant regard for the indellible character of Holy Orders that it honestly believes it can somehow terminate them. The fact is that if he was ever a bishop, he remains one now! Despite the jumped up arrogance of TEC if it really believes it has the power to “unordain”.

    I’m happy you were willing to respond to me, David. I’m a bit unhappy that you did so without actually reading what I wrote. TEC does not show scant regard for the indelible character of holy orders. On the contrary, and as I said, TEC clearly recognizes the indelible character of holy orders by the fact that deposed and subsequently reinstated clergy (note: “reinstated”) are not reordained. Further (and much more commonly), priests who have been ordained in the Roman Catholic Church but who have left the RCC, been laicized or excommunicated or whatever, and have swum the Thames, may apply for reception into TEC. They are not reordained. (I assume this is true elsewhere in the Anglican Communion as well.) Yes, Robert Duncan is still ontologically a bishop, much good may it do him. He may not function in TEC as a bishop (or as a priest or deacon, for that matter). If some other Anglican jurisdiction wants to recognize him as a bishop, they are breaking communion. If Duncan renounces his schismatic behavior (note: I am NOT saying “renounces his opinions”) and wishes to be reinstated in TEC, that can happen (and I hope that someday it does), and he would not be reordained/reconsecrated.

    In The Episcopal Church, bishops and priests are subject to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal church. We can’t go off free-lancing our orders wherever we please.

  • Cynthi,

    Reading it, I see that Wills manages to put “traditional church teachings” and the novel “core doctrines” in the same phrase ;=)

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    Stop press…Forward in Faith are supporting Bishop Duncan as a champion of orthodoxy ….a bishop who ordains women priests..now that has to be positive!

  • Peter of Westminster says:

    Here is the Will essay reposted on Real Clear Politics:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_shrinking_episcopal_church.html

  • Father Ron Smith says:

    Robert Ian Williams, re your statement:

    “Then the Diocese of Nelson (New Zealand) which has set up its own Theological College and recognised Gafcon, could form a new province – the Reformed Anglican Church in New Zealand.”

    This demonstrates, Robert, your misunderstanding of your former N.Z. Diocese’s significance to the Anglican Church in New Zealand. Since Bishop R. Elena’s celebrated ‘thumbs-down’ press interview in the UK after his limited particpation at the Lambeth Conference, I don’t think many New Zealand Anglican candidates would be tempted to become serious students at his Sydney-sponsored Bible College in the Nelson Diocese.

    I do now understand what it was that led you from being a Nelson Diocesan candidate for the ministry, to becoming a most ardent fan of the Papal Magisterium. However, your abrupt conversion: from one rigid form of religious discipleship to another so completely different, must have required quite an adjustment.

    However, you should perhaps be advised that the rigidity of the GAFCON, FOCA, CANA, Sydney and Nelson dioceses’ view of the Gospel imperatives is largely resisted in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/ New Zealand. There will likely be no separate provincial structure here. If you have any credible evidence otherwise, perhaps you would let us all know. Kia ora!

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    What George Will misses is that Duncan et al. are really HOPING to establish an Anglicanism with a “pope” and a “Vatican”…and so prevent anyone else from doing what they have done.

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    Ron, will you stop being obsessed with me and concentrate at the matter at hand. Could a NZ diocese secede like Pittsburgh? Who owns the property CPNZ or Nelson? I say its time to set this out in black and white, before there is a pre-emptive strike…and there are those in Nelson who would want this.

  • drdanfee says:

    G Wills article is interesting.

    Completely unable to avoid the keen-toothed jaw traps laid for his thinking by typical realignment Anglican presuppositions.

    Will expertly stays right on the surface – breezes past all the difficulties involved in his spin doctored presuppositions: 1. biblicisms, 2. church life tolerance-inclusion to the loudly spin doctored point of alleged church life incoherence (do any of these talking heads ever, ever, ever actually spend much time in real parish communities which have managed included queer couples parenting? One guesses, not), 3. alleged realignment sadness that those poor benighted queer folks got caught as the leading wedge issue in the huge, fatal gears of realignment fake witness against them (an ethics of our realignment ends justify our realignment means, at least to the rest of us looking on?), 4. Africans cannot dare to think outside the presuppositional boxes, 5. majorities reveal God (try measuring that one by church history? biblicist proof texts?), 6.trotting out dead Bishop Pike yet again as a lesson to preach that non-presuppositional knowledge automatically goes beyond the ken and pale of reasonableness …,

    Wills buys into it, all. But not for all that, convincing.

    I do enjoy Wills repeat inuuendo. The obvious foolery of modern believers being open to, say, ethically-committed queer folks in a TEC parish? –
    (A) such mad-hatter liberals are doomed (no liberal canaries chirping in the deep dark coal mine tunnels underneath being churlishly targeted by Duncan and realignment campaigning, then, for Will)?
    (B)the choice is secretly between being just like Duncan (complete with an obvious ends justify means ethics?) and being anything else which is damnable?

    Somewhere in his unspoken heart of hearts, in the wee morning hours alone, I suspect Mr Will actually knows better. Maybe he is not the only surprise guest invited to Jesus’ Great Feast. Studying the incredible diversities of invited guests as a way to get a clue to the invitational size of kingdom things would lead in non-realignment directions, alas?

    So for now Wills offers us another case study of just how effectively these realignment rightwing presuppositions serve their typical purposes –
    (1)to turn off alternative scrutiny, critical investigation?
    (2) to foster incipient leadership personality cults around figures like Duncan whose behavior and disclosed or inferred possible mean motives cannot by presupposition be further ethically scrutinized, let alone resisted in good conscience?

  • Malcolm+ says:

    Of course, were we to follow Bob Duncan’s “logic,” we must then ask: why only one alternative province? Why not just recognize the various disjointed and squabbling subsets as a province of it’s own?

    The Traditional Anglican Communion can become a province.

    The Reformed Episcopal Church can become a province.

    The various other independent Anglican groupings and grouplets can each be their own province.

    Every online ecclesial entity that claims some measure of Anglicanism in it’s origins can be a province of the Anglican Communion.

    Come one. Come all.

    Why settle for the priesthood of all believers – or even the epicopacy of all believers. Bob Duncan’s hare-brained scheme freely translates to the archiepiscopacy of all believers. Anyone can be an archbishop of their own Anglican province.

  • Father Ron Smith says:

    “It is in fact a kind of totalitarian political agenda: that is to say you will do it our way or you will at best be silent or at worst we will banish you.’ – former Bishop Ropbert Duncan

    This statement, in answer to a question about how the former Bishop of Pittsburgh sees the present stand of TEC and the Communion on his deposition, seems, in the circumstances, to pertain more appositely to the stance of his own party (CANA, et al) to the presence of gays and women in the world-wide Anglican Communion of Churches.

    Had it not been for the rebellion of the Global South initiatives – which he was a part of – to demand the acquiescence of all members of the Anglican Communion to ‘do it our way’ – there may not have been the parting of the ways that has now become a natural consequence.

    In the historical re-assessment of what has happened in the Communion over the last few years, it will clearly be seen that the act of Schism did not actually occur until certain African and South American Primates decided to invade the territories of Canada and the USA. To accuse TEC of ‘causing the split’ is a semantic error. The split that Duncan and others of his friends accuse TEC of causing, was purely a self-inflicted wound arising from their hubris – on demanding that everyone else in the Communion should ‘dance to their tune’.

    TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada have never enjoined on anyone else in the Anglican Communion the necessity of following in their footsteps (in the matter of their ordination of gays, or the blessing of same-sex unions). What actually happened was that certain African and other senior clerics decided that they would ‘Break Communion’ with the rest of their colleagues at Dar es Salaam. This has led to the schismatic defections that have followed.

    Like it or not, people like Duncan, who are accusing the rest of the Church of betraying their particular sgenda of scriptural conformity and Anglican Tradition, have only themselves to blame for the resultant stand-off in the Church.
    Jesus came that we might have “abundant life” – not to condemn sinners, but to redeem us all – despite our common human frailty. This is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about!

  • Ford Elms says:

    “…to pertain more appositely to the stance of his own party (CANA, et al) to the presence of gays and women in the world-wide Anglican Communion of Churches.”

    As far as I can see, conservatives only see this as wrong when it is not them behaving in a dictatorial manner. Of course, they don’t see themselves as being dictatorial. They are persecuted victims valiantly defending the Gospel against the heathen hoardes, so not dictators at all. In fact, it seems they do not recognize, wilfully or through delusion, the influence they have in the corridors of power. Perhaps they think there’s a dichotomy: absolute power to tell everybody else how to think, or no power at all. Deprive them of absolute power and they naturally think they’re being oppressed.

    “Jesus came that we might have “abundant life” – not to condemn sinners,”

    I looks very much like, for some conservatives at least, condemning sinners is precisely why Jesus came.

  • drdanfee says:

    Duncans’ Q&A transcripts are a fine, fine demonstration of how (A) he already possesses the concepts which would serve as tools to continue to exist comfortably inside TEC and indeed other provinces, plus (B)how adamantly he refuses or declines to apply certain concepts to hot button issues which he needs to use as his excuse for repeating false witness against, say, queer folks, and for misbehaving.

    (The real reason for his TEC deposition is not his closed-minded belief system, but his shenanigans to force people to choose for or against his peculiar small tent diocesan realignments.)

    In some of his remarks, Duncan can manage to entertain that received negative beliefs about women and queer folks have changed, are changing. But he cannot carry that through, because the factual grounds of our understandings of human nature are changing too fast to settle him in safely somewhere, final. I do not know just where the new believer consensus about sexuality will settle, nor for how long, but the fact that divorce and contraception have surely shifted is pretty much the signal for the sea change, along with that even wider horizon of setting aside so many of our traditionalistic negative beliefs about women.

    Queer folks, of course, bask in those same change lights. Duncan is still quite upset that hot button changes in knowledge have still moved along (speedy, as knowledge change goes). He also sounds very upset that a lot of folks have gone ahead to work through this or that hot button believer change, without asking for his permission first, or without waiting for him to work things out intellectually.

    Duncan could live next door to an Out, Parenting, Committed queer couple – probably without bashing them directly in the face, though goodness knows what passing holier than thou danger or disgust he might spontaneously speak to one of their children on some occasion. Surely his sad holier than thou pity for parents and children would come through, between the lines. Oh you Poor Things,…

    But Duncan could never see God at work – not perhaps see any sort of human good at all, even minus God – in their commitment witness or their parenting? Are queer folks becoming too much a realignment wedge issue stretch? How long will this crow bar last as Duncan tries to break into the properties he formerly held in common trust with them?

  • Dan says:

    “Duncan et al. are really HOPING to establish an Anglicanism with a “pope” and a “Vatican”…and so prevent anyone else from doing what they have done.”
    And how do you square that statement with Duncan’s and the ACN’s commitment that each parish will own and control its own property? So long as that is the case, how would any local congregation be prevented from splittig?

  • Dan says:

    “Really? Is a priest who is unfrocked still a priest? If TEC ordained and consecrated Duncan, and they have now deposed him, under what authority does he remain a bishop?”

    Under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone which has received him into that branch of the AC. And there are any number of other provinces more than willing to do likewise. Likewise, his deposition failed to comply with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. There are any number of diocesans in the US who still consider Robert Duncan to be a bishop within TEC precisely becasue of the illegal process emplyed to depose him. I guess episcopacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

  • Prior Aelred says:

    I suppose that eventually there will be some sort of formal acknowledgment of the of the schism which already exists (& not issuing Lambeth invites to CANA could be a sign of this) — after all, if the Primates won’t even receive Communion with each other, there really is no Anglican “Communion”, is there?

    “Franchise” — I so dislike this word — does “Bob Pittsburgh” (his usage — not mine nor that of TEC) really think Anglicanism is like McDonald’s?

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    Dan:

    Unfortunately, what Duncan et al. say and what they eventually do may turn out to be two different things. Certainly they want an Anglicanism in which a strong central magisterium makes the rules for everyone.

    And, if Southern Cone is out of communion with TEC, how can it accept a priest or bishop from that province without re-ordaining or consecrating him?

  • Ford Elms says:

    “And how do you square that statement with Duncan’s and the ACN’s commitment that each parish will own and control its own property?”

    And how do you square this statement with any kind of Catholic ecclesiology, much less the idea that a church and other parish buildings are a parish’s “own property”? First, we are not congregationalists. Second, buildings are set aside for God, not just to be some place where the congregation gets to gether every Sunday. If this is your understanding of property issues, well and good, but taking this attitude removes your right to use words like “traditional” and “orthodox”. It would seem the traditionalists have redefined these words to relate to a specific position on homosexuality, which also then removes their right to call themselves “reasserters” over against the “reassessors” they have identified as the enemy. I’m sorry, but the passage of 500 years does not make radical innovation and reassessment into “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.” That happened 1500 years before the radical reinvention of Christianity most conservatives seem, for some reason, to consider “orthodox”.

  • Dan says:

    Pat O’Neill
    That is too easy a question: As you folks are so fond of reminding everyone, each of the provinces is an independent church. TEC has no business telling the SC who can and can’t minster in and for that province nor what the criteria should be to be eligible to serve. In addition, don’t forget that Bp. Duncan was received into the SC before he was deposed.

  • Dan says:

    Gee Ford. For a church that confiscated the properties of the Roman church from the outset yet still claims to be a part of the caholic church, how do you square your very existence with catholic ecclesiology?

  • Prior Aelred says:

    Of course TEC has no business telling an independent church who can & cannot minister in it — but the Constitutions & Canons of the Southern Cone do define its boundaries and jurisdiction — they do not include anyplace in North America (&, in addition, Bishop Schofield is over the mandatory retirement age for bishops of the Southern Cone).

  • BillyD says:

    “In addition, don’t forget that Bp. Duncan was received into the SC before he was deposed.”

    And don’t forget, he wasn’t free to do so under the canons.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “TEC has no business telling the SC who can and can’t minster in and for that province”

    Dan, it’s really simple. TEC can’t tell the Southern Cone what to do in the Southern Cone. It has every right to tell the Southern Cone what to do on American soil. In fact, any bishop from outside TEC must be permitted to function within TEC’s territory. See, that’s a very old tenet of the faith, goes way back, before your crowd redefined ‘orthodox’ and ‘traditional’. Now, you might have very good reasons for opposing this principle. But, if you do, that’s one more reason why you give up the right to call yourself “orthodox” and “traditional”. Admit it, Dan, the vast majority of the people leading the anti-gay charge are no more “orthodox” Christians than Mahatma Ghandi was. Not that I have any disrespect for Ghandi-ji, but what ever else he was, an orthodox Christian he was not. Neither is GAFCON. Neither, I suspect, are you.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “how do you square your very existence with catholic ecclesiology?”

    I’m not about to swim the Tiber for a set of doctrines I believe are wrong just because a whoremongering, adulterous, murderous son of a usurper did something I do not agree with. It’s called being willing to accept the failings of others, having, as I do, failings myself. That’s something conservatives seem unable to comprehend.

  • These comments about the change of control in England at the time of the Reformation are irrelevant to the topic of Pittsburgh and Bishop Duncan. I am not approving any more comments along those lines.

Leave a Reply

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