The Archbishop of York warns Anglican conservatives

Posted by Kendall Harmon

From the Telegraph:

The Archbishop of York has warned conservative Anglican leaders that they will effectively expel themselves from the worldwide Church if they boycott next year's Lambeth Conference.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr John Sentamu pleaded with them to attend the conference despite their war with liberals over homosexuality.

But he told them that if they "voted with their feet" they risked severing their links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with historic Anglicanism, a breach that could take centuries to heal.

"Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury," he said. "If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it."

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalAnglican ProvincesChurch of England (CoE)Global South Churches & Primates

84 Comments
Posted July 23, 2007 at 8:52 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Br. Michael wrote:

And if those roots are rotten?

July 23, 9:04 am | [comment link]
2. Brad Page wrote:

It is a shame to see Ebor join those who would blame the “conservatives” for the dissolution of the Anglican Communion.  Given the facts we all know that is pretty darn amazing!  Also, someone should have told him that his ideas about “core doctrine” were trotted out by the Episcopal Church years ago.  Even on that test he should also know that a number of American clerics would fail.  Old news and not very helpful to the current situation.  In this interview he sounds surprisingly uninformed.

July 23, 9:05 am | [comment link]
3. azusa wrote:

What a strangely colonialist thing for a Ugandan to say. Has he ‘gone native’ in olde Englande?
These words will only cause huge offense in the Global South.

July 23, 9:08 am | [comment link]
4. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) wrote:

Dr Sentamu, a close ally of Dr Williams, said that as long as Anglican bishops did not deny the basic Christian doctrines they should all be able to remain within the same Church.

Er ... so the US Presiding Bishop prays to “Mother Jesus,” and states categorically on national television that Jesus is a path to salvation, but certainly not the only one .

Flagrant sinners seek not repentance and transformation through the power of the Holy Spirit ... but deny that they can change are are enthusiastically granted institutional affirmation in their sin and their inability to change?

Denial of the essential (male in this case) humanity of Jesus. Denial of Jesus’ own declaration that He is the only path to salvation. Denial of the power of Christ to transform and redeem through the Holy Spirit (ie blasphemy of the Spirit)—all at the highest elected level of the Episcopal Church (and therefore representative of the entire institution).

Formal denial of the authority of Scripture and the historic documents of Anglicanism by 88 US bishops (GC’03 B001)... and absolutely none of this (apparently) qualifies as a denial of basic Christian doctrines?

I’m left wondering just which doctrines Dr. Sentamu actually does consider basic to the faith.

July 23, 9:26 am | [comment link]
5. PadreWayne wrote:

Bart Hall: Prayers to “Mother Jesus” are nothing new. In fact, we used a prayer of St. Anselm that did just that this morning at Morning Prayer.
References to universal salvation are nothing new and are not heresy.
Your not-so-veiled reference to the sin of homosexual sexual expression is questionable, not acceptable by a huge (and growing) number of faithful Christians.
Next?

July 23, 9:51 am | [comment link]
6. BabyBlue wrote:

But he told them that if they “voted with their feet” they risked severing their links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with historic Anglicanism, a breach that could take centuries to heal.

“Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury,” he said. “If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it.”

The telegraph goes on to assert that conservatives are planning an alternative, but offer no evidence to assertion.  Frankly, I doubt it’s true, but is meant to turn up the heat against the conservatives as being the schismatic ones - the real deal is that Lambeth will be cancelled all together if the Global South and others don’t show and this “interview” seems to be trying to avoid that from happening by placing the blame on the conservatives.  Unbelievable!

It is interesting that the Archbishop of York is appealing to the infamous “Canterbury Charm” to hold the Communion together - as though he thinks that this charm is more powerful to the global south then doctrine.  He seems to be implying that the carrot of colonialism is still very strong - that being part of the Canterbury Club is what keeps these less affluent nations inside the inner circle.  I am very surprise that he - of all people - would engage in that type of rhetoric.  I can’t believe he’s appealing to the Canterbury Charm - it’s as if he thinks that the photo-op is more important than the faith.  Perhaps he’s been in England too long.

bb

July 23, 9:56 am | [comment link]
7. naab00 wrote:

The headline is full of tragic irony, isn’t it.
Here we have the Archbishop of York “warning” conservatives.

Now since he claims to be an evangelical himself, one would have thought he was a conservative himself.  But apparently, since he sees fit to “warn” conservatives, he clearly is not one of them - and that means he is defining himself as other than evangelical.  Well, there’s the first observation about York.

The other observation is this: since he is warning those who have made their own position very clear already, he seems somewhat desperate to dissuade (or intimidate) conservatives from carrying out their promises.

Yet, the irony is that if his warning is not heeded and there is a split, the warning actually turns back on himself: if he and Canterbury allow the majority of the Communion to walk away (in his words), they will also bring upon themselves a massive split within the Church of England - for there is much affinity in evangelical circles in England with our evangelical brothers and sisters in other parts of the world.  In fact there is more affinity with evangelicals in other parts of the world than there is with so-called Anglicans who worship a different god in their own country. 

So York, the irony is that you ignore your own warning at your own peril.

July 23, 10:06 am | [comment link]
8. AnglicanFirst wrote:

++Sentamu began to reveal his position on the schismatic situation within the Anglican Communion being caused by revisionists/secularists in the USA, Canada and Great Britain at the recent Canadian synod. 

This latest statement appears to further imply that he is tilting toward supporting the revisionist/secularist camp.  That is, Dr. Sentamu is starting to ‘take sides’ in this schismatic situation.

If Dr. Sentamu does this, then he will become a ‘partisan’ in the situation and can no longer be looked upon or trusted as a ‘conciliator.’

Where does this leave the Church of England?  Well, who knows?  Maybe a schism will result in two CofEs, one traditional/orthodox and led by Canterbury and the other revisionist/secular led York.

July 23, 10:10 am | [comment link]
9. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to #7.
We have some interesting parallel thoughts, ehhh?

July 23, 10:13 am | [comment link]
10. Brian from T19 wrote:

Ah.  Another defection to our side!  Welcome ++Sentamu

July 23, 10:16 am | [comment link]
11. Bob from Boone wrote:

Padre Wayne, thank you for correcting errors of Bart Hall. As you probably know, not only did St. Anselm use the image of “Mother Jesus,” so did St. Bernard of Clairvaux and several medieval women mystics. Our PB is better read on the history of the image than perhaps 99% of Episcopalians, unfortunately. Also, she first used the image in the context of a very fine comment on Colossians 1:15-20, a fact never mentioned by those who attack her.

When we decide someone or some group is our enemy, it is so easy to find errors and in this case heresy in their writings and speeches, whether they are actually there or not. As for Dr. Sentemu, I think he is in a better position to read the situation than any of us commenters. I suggest that he be taken more seriously than brushing him off as not a true conservative.

July 23, 10:18 am | [comment link]
12. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to #10.

So Brian, you welcome the impending schism?

July 23, 10:18 am | [comment link]
13. Phil wrote:

Bob from Boone, it’s good to know everything a saint wrote is to be accepted.  Anselm being a strong proponent of penal substitutionary atonement, let me be the first to say, “Welcome aboard!” with your evangelical brothers and sisters.

July 23, 10:45 am | [comment link]
14. Peter A. Mitchell wrote:

The fog is clearing. Leaders’ positions are coming more and more into sight. Refreshing…in a scary kind of way.

July 23, 11:01 am | [comment link]
15. pendennis88 wrote:

This is one of those articles that raises more questions than it answers:

The Archbishop of York has warned conservative Anglican leaders that they will effectively expel themselves from the worldwide Church if they boycott next year’s Lambeth Conference.

Why?  Lambeth has been changed, per the ABC’s insistence, to be an educational session, and not a legislative one.  Not even the draft covenant says that failure to attend Lambeth means you are out of the communion.  Once the ABC’s actions made not attending thinkable, it seems to have become one of those freeing thoughts.  People also seem to take for granted that some provinces are going to formally declare themselves no longer part of the Anglican Communion after September 30.  I would not be so sure.  I suspect that they may have alternative meetings, and do their own thing, particularly as regards establishing a province in the US.  But I am not sure they are going to do anything vis-a-vis the ABC.  And why should they?  I don’t think they are necessarily going to make it easy for him. It would be up to the ABC to affirmatively excommunicate them.  Is this what York is saying the ABC will do? 

But he told them that if they “voted with their feet” they risked severing their links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with historic Anglicanism, a breach that could take centuries to heal.  “Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury,” he said. “If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it.”

As I said, I think it will ultimately be the ABC’s choice as to whether to kick out of the communion the global south provinces who decline to attend the conference.  Setting up a province to compete with TEC may make him angry enough to do that.  But he has not said so yet.  Secondarily, I was not aware that there was any confusion that if the ABC declares that the global south nonattendees are out of the Anglican communion, that they are not out.  I think they understand that if thrown out of the communion for upholding orthodoxy, they will not be part of the current Anglican Communion, but part of a new communion not led by Canterbury.  I don’t think their roots to England are as important to them as their roots to the church.  By the way, if there is a separation of the communion, I would not be surprised to see an olive branch extended to the more orthodox part from our friends in Rome, the misunderstood Moto Proprio notwithstanding. 

Conservative leaders are now planning an alternative summit, which would destroy Dr Williams’s efforts to hold the factions together.

Really?  I have not read of it.  Where has that been announced?  I saw that the GSSC called for a primates meeting, but that is not the same thing.  And at this point, it is unclear the ABC would let the primates meet.

“If that goes and they think they can then say they are Anglicans, that is very questionable,” he said. “Whatever you set up, I don’t think it could ever be called the Anglican Communion.

Why is this important?  Wouldn’t they want to call themselves something of a variation to avoid confusion, such as “Orthodox Anglican Communion”?

“So I am hoping that my brothers and sisters, whatever they are trying to set out, will come to the Lambeth Conference.”

That is up to the ABC.  Perhaps invitations to all of their bishops would be a start.  I think George Carey has some recently revised views on the subject.

He added: “Whenever we break there is a lot of pain and the healing of it is very difficult. I want to warn people, don’t spend the next century trying to find a way back.”

The thing is, they may not.  I think the idea of a Canterbury-less communion, once unthinkable, is becoming thinkable.  Sort of like how not attending Lambeth became thinkable, once the ABC dared the orthodox not to attend.

Finally, I wonder what the reaction of the evangelicals in the CoE will be to the ABC’s “good riddance” to the evangelicals in the US and the global south.  They may be a minority, but I don’t think they won’t have a response.

Altogether, on the current track things are on - placed there by the ABC - there will prove to be a disaster for the Anglican Communion.  I share York’s apparent dismay at that.

July 23, 11:27 am | [comment link]
16. azusa wrote:

# 7: whoever said Sentamu was an evangelical? He may be from Uganda, but his religious formation (like Ndungane’s) was English liberal. None of his sermons is evidently evangelical.

July 23, 11:45 am | [comment link]
17. chips wrote:

Dear Anglican First,
Brian eschews the term “Christian” and does not see the Church’s fight over property as part of TEC’s religious mission.  From that I have concluded that he does not wish traditional Christianity well.  I would assume that he would love a schism where his side keeps money/buildings to turn into money to further what is likely a leftwing ideology or a non traditional form of Christianity.  I think reasserters would do well to fully comprehend that the “new thing” is what motivates many of the reappraisers - it is why they are Episcopalians. We will not be shown Christian charity because they do not like traditional Christians and have seen us as the enemey for years.

July 23, 11:46 am | [comment link]
18. Brad Page wrote:

#15 Pendennis88:  Very well put.

July 23, 11:46 am | [comment link]
19. libraryjim wrote:

I didn’t know that the prayer of ‘mystics’ had been elevated to a position higher than the canon of Scripture. 

The mystics teach many things, not all of them complimentary to orthodox belief.  Their teachings, like all teachings, must be weighed first by Scripture then by the teachings of the church.  If they contradict either, then they must be regarded with suspicion.

I’ve seen so-called ‘words of knowledge’ used in the Catholic Charismatic prayer meetings that contradict Scripture and the teaching of the church, but were accepted as the ‘word of the Lord’. One dear couple told us that in a ‘word of knowledge’ they were told by the Lord to divorce.  And the leaders accepted this and even led a prayer of thanks for this ‘word’.

sheesh!

July 23, 11:49 am | [comment link]
20. azusa wrote:

#19 - well put. A generation ago some folk wanted ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ included in the canon of Scripture.
There are no more apostles and there is only one foundation. Mother Julain should be followed no more than C S Lewis as a definite guide to theology and Christology.

July 23, 11:58 am | [comment link]
21. azusa wrote:

‘... definitive guide ...

July 23, 11:59 am | [comment link]
22. Eclipse wrote:

Re: “”“"Mother”“” Jesus

Bob from Boone :

Umm… looking here…

Col. 1: 15 - 20

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
  He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,*
16 for through him God created everything
  in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
  and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
  Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
  and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
  which is his body.
He is the beginning,
  supreme over all who rise from the dead.*
  So he is first in everything.
19 For God in all his fullness
  was pleased to live in Christ,
20 and through him God reconciled
  everything to himself.
He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth
  by means of Christ’s blood on the cross.

Not only is ‘mother’ missing but there is an exclusive use of ‘he’.  If you are referring to ‘creation’ well, hmm, guess Da Vinci and Michelangelo were women as well. 

So, Scripturally, the whole mother thing just doesn’t fly and is inconsistent with 2000 years of Faith and Tradition.  Saints are nice but they are not THE authority of the doctrines of the church.

Re:  Universal Salvation

Once again, falls flat in the face of Scripture :

“I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life, NO ONE comes to the Father except by me.”  Jesus

Dr Sentamu, a close ally of Dr Williams, said that as long as Anglican bishops did not deny the basic Christian doctrines they should all be able to remain within the same Church.

Jesus as Savior of the World is THE defining issue for a Christian.  If there is a core belief that one is it.  Therefore, I think it is just a wee more important than if one attends Lambeth or not… good grief.

July 23, 11:59 am | [comment link]
23. The_Elves wrote:

Let’s return to the original post and not get side tracked.

-Elf Lady

July 23, 12:12 pm | [comment link]
24. Rolling Eyes wrote:

“Padre"Wayne: “References to universal salvation are nothing new and are not heresy.”

Since when?

“Your not-so-veiled reference to the sin of homosexual sexual expression is questionable, not acceptable by a huge (and growing) number of faithful Christians. “

I don’t know what religion you belong to, “padre”, but in Christianity, Church teaching is not determined by public opinion.  Therefore, it doesn’t matter ONE BIT what you or your “huge” number of “faithful Christians” claim to be questionable.

July 23, 12:27 pm | [comment link]
25. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) wrote:

At any rate, it is more consistent to call the supreme Spirit father than mother, for this reason, that the first and principal cause of offspring is always in the father. For, if the maternal cause is ever in some way preceded by the paternal, it is exceedingly inconsistent that the name mother should be attached to that parent with which, for the generation of offspring, no other cause is associated, and which no other precedes. It is, therefore, most true that the supreme Spirit is Father of his offspring. But, if the son is always more like the father than is the daughter, while nothing is more like the supreme Father than his offspring; then it is most true that this offspring is not a daughter, but a Son.

St. Anselm. Chapter XLII, Monologium.

July 23, 12:41 pm | [comment link]
26. Cousin Vinnie wrote:

I beg the indulgence of the elves, since this thread illustrates exactly how the Episcopal church got highjacked.  Revisionists would put forth a doctrine that sounded strange and was not Biblically supported, always in service of the left-wing political agenda.  When challenged, they would dig up a respected—or at least not disrespected—medieval mystic who once said something similar in a different context.  And the sleeping orthodox would say, “Well, I guess it’s OK, then.” 

Is there suspicion today?  Absolutely.  And that suspicion runs to the Abp of York maneuvering to diminish the traditionalist beliefs of the majority of the Anglican Communion.

July 23, 1:22 pm | [comment link]
27. Eclipse wrote:

Well, I think the major point here is this:

What determines whether someone should be a part of the Anglican Communion is not their temporary location but their internal belief… just as Christ says, “There will a time where you do not worship God either here or there but in Spirit and in Truth.” 

What is offensive about what the Archbishop of York has stated, is that he is trying to determine someone’s inclusion to the Faith by whether they hang out at Lambeth or not… which is contrary to Biblical Faith and Doctrine - and Anglicanism itself.

More central to being Anglican, or more precisely Christian, is if you actually BELIEVE Christ is the Savior of the World - that He is who He claims to be “THE way, THE truth, THE life - that no one can come to God except by HIM.”  Those who believe this should be called ‘Christ followers’ (or Christians) and welcomed in the Communion - regardless if they go to England or not.

July 23, 1:31 pm | [comment link]
28. Nadine Kwong wrote:

“Dr. Sentamu is starting to ‘take sides’ in this schismatic situation.

“If Dr. Sentamu does this, then he will become a ‘partisan’ in the situation and can no longer be looked upon or trusted as a ‘conciliator.’ “

Interesting. 

++Gomez long ago took sides, and quite blatantly so; for the sake of logical consistency, are you also joining the reappraisers’ clamor for him to step down from the Covenant Design Group (let alone chairing it)?

Or is it that the true aim of the Covenant is *not* conciliation, as had been asserted at its formation?

July 23, 1:33 pm | [comment link]
29. Bob from Boone wrote:

#22, I said that the PB commented on Col. 1:15-20. I didn’t say she took the “mother Jesus” image from it. If you want to know how she used the phrase in context, go to her web page and find the sermon.

Regarding salvation outside the Church, I’m not not impressed with someone throwing a Bible verse back at me. If the position I outlined doesn’t agree with you, criticize the Pope. I firmly believe that Jesus is the savior of the world. The theology I outlined (from RC sources) assumes that. Why don’t you go back and THINK about what I wrote. Do you not understand the relationship of Jesus to the Word?

July 23, 2:53 pm | [comment link]
30. john scholasticus wrote:

J Sentamu, although broadly ‘Evangelical’, has often enough intimated his distaste for ‘enforcing’ the Windsor Report. Here, as in all other respects, he is a vastly superior human being and Christian to Tom Wright. He is also not about to sell down the river the many homosexual (= both non-practising and practising) homosexual clergy in the C of E. Good for him.

July 23, 2:54 pm | [comment link]
31. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to #28.
Nadine, ++Gomez’s position was publically well known before the establishment of the Covenant Design Group and I am sure that his position and those of the other members of the group were taken into consideration when that group was ‘formed.’

On the other hand, ++Sentamu’s position has not been clearly established by him and only within the last several weeks has it become clearer to me that he is ‘tilting’ toward the revisionist/secularist camp for some reason.

Maybe it’s a political reason.  Maybe he thinks that he might a potential candidate to become the next +++Cantaur if he plays his cards right?  Who knows?  My speculation is just that, speculation.

July 23, 3:21 pm | [comment link]
32. Phil wrote:

A little help, Bob from Boone #29, re: “Regarding salvation outside the Church ...”

“If the position I outlined doesn’t agree with you, criticize the Pope.”
“The theology I outlined (from RC sources) assumes that.”

In what comment number did you “outline” all of the above?  I know only you can THINK versus us hayseeds, but when the argument doesn’t appear to exist in the first place, it sure makes things tougher.

July 23, 3:35 pm | [comment link]
33. Eclipse wrote:

Bob from Boone:

As the_Elves have rightly pointed out, this is not (thanks be to God) a thread about ‘mother jesus’.  Bob Hall’s original point was that there were a few things more primary to the Faith than whether one hangs about at Lambeth:

1.  The Personhood of Christ - which has been diminished by KJS - in a variety of ways, one of which being ‘mother jesus’... as well as his role as Savior to the World (God sent his ONE and only Son… that whosoever believes in HIM will have eternal life).
2.  The importance of repentance of sin
3.  The Authority of Scripture

His point was that these were the true identifiers of Christians (and Anglicans) rather than if one hangs about at Lambeth.

Your comments were lauding the fact the P Wayne had made an attempt to marginalize those facts.  My point was that there is no Scriptural basis for EITHER God being called a ‘mother’ or universal salvation.  Since I am Anglican - this consideration over-rides either what the Pope or the RC says.  This is an Anglican thread, after all, these are Anglican bishops and an Anglican Communion.

Aside from all of this, Phil is ‘spot on’ as the English would say… well said, Phil.

The point still being, if the Archbishop of York is going to decide who is excommunicated from the Anglican Communion then starting from our shared Faith beliefs (the 39 articles) is probably a little more valid than if one chooses to visit England.

July 23, 3:58 pm | [comment link]
34. William#2 wrote:

Well, its an interesting perspective to be sure from the Archbishop that not attending a single Lambeth meeting equals severance from the Anglican Communion.  Perhaps the severance has already occurred, and the only real ties that remain are historical and bureaucratic.
What’s missing from all those commentators who say the orthodox Bishops should go to Lambeth is what will be accomplished there, and what hope there is of any accomplishment.  There have been many many meetings since June 2003 at all levels of the various churches, and there has been one, sole accomplishment—clarity.
At least, for those willing to look at it.

July 23, 4:41 pm | [comment link]
35. Phil wrote:

Some reappraisers are also starting to cool to ++York’s statements.  Not going to Lambeth equalling excommunication from the AC sounded great until (I’m assuming) somebody cast an eye to New Hampshire.

July 23, 4:49 pm | [comment link]
36. William Witt wrote:

If the elves will permit, two points of clarification:

The classic work prayers to Mother Jesus is Carolyn Bynum’s Jesus as Mother .  A quick glance at the section on Anselm will reveal that Anselm’s famous prayer is actually a kind of commentary on Jesus’ statement in Mt. 23:37 comparing himself to a mother hen.  So if the PB had addressed her prayer to “Chicken Jesus,” there might be some point in the Anselm reference.  Otherwise . . .

On the question of salvation outside the church, the only acceptable orthodox position (and the one embraced explicitly by the pope) is that such people would be saved by the mediation of Christ alone (despite their lack of recognition of that fact) and so (contrary to KJS), Jesus would not be “a way” to salvation (among others) but the exclusive way.  The first position (embraced not only by the pope but also by such figures as Karl Barth, F. D. Maurice, Hans urs von Balthasar, and C.S. Lewis) is exemplarist.  The PB’s position (endorsed by people like John Hick) is pluralist.

Even if Bob from Boone and Padre Wayne took someone else’s word for Anselm, they certainly had to have known at least the latter because it has been pointed out on this site numerous times.

July 23, 5:43 pm | [comment link]
37. Brian from T19 wrote:

AnglicanFirst

So Brian, you welcome the impending schism?

Welcome would be an overstatement.  It is unfortunate, but a reality that needs to be accepted.

chips

Brian eschews the term “Christian” and does not see the Church’s fight over property as part of TEC’s religious mission.  From that I have concluded that he does not wish traditional Christianity well.  I would assume that he would love a schism where his side keeps money/buildings to turn into money to further what is likely a leftwing ideology or a non traditional form of Christianity.  I think reasserters would do well to fully comprehend that the “new thing” is what motivates many of the reappraisers - it is why they are Episcopalians. We will not be shown Christian charity because they do not like traditional Christians and have seen us as the enemey for years.

You had me until the last sentence.  We certainly are willing to show charity, however, to allow someone to steal from you is not charity, it is foolishness.  Wipe the dust from your feet, chips!

Eclipse

What determines whether someone should be a part of the Anglican Communion is not their temporary location but their internal belief… just as Christ says, “There will a time where you do not worship God either here or there but in Spirit and in Truth.”

What is offensive about what the Archbishop of York has stated, is that he is trying to determine someone’s inclusion to the Faith by whether they hang out at Lambeth or not… which is contrary to Biblical Faith and Doctrine - and Anglicanism itself.

Perhaps a narrow Evangelical Anglicanism, but not to Traditional Anglicanism.  Are you in communion with Canterbury?  That’s it.  Nothing else.

July 23, 5:46 pm | [comment link]
38. Chris Taylor wrote:

For those still interested in the comments of the Archbishop of York, I think entirely too much is being read into his comments by both sides.  Like the ABC he is committed to keeping people at the table as long as possible.  It’s no secret that a hardcore group of very important Primates in the Global South (about 6 of them) are giving very serious consideration to not coming to Lambeth next summer and holding their own alternative gathering elsewhere.  This is all institutional politics folks, the Archbishop of York has not changed “sides.”  Just a year ago he was giving the revisionists an earful at General Convention.  He will continue to goad, plead, threaten, etc.—whatever it takes, to keep everyone at the table.  I believe that it’s in this context that his latest statement should be understood, nothing more, nothing less.  The hardcore group of Primates who are seriously considering an alternative to Lambeth next summer are also trying to pressure other Primates who share their theology, but are not as convinced about their strategy.  We’re likely to see a lot more of these sorts of pronouncements and posturing before Lambeth happens, I wouldn’t get your knickers in a knot just yet.

July 23, 5:47 pm | [comment link]
39. Larry Morse wrote:

Practically, As one of the earlier commentors noted, Sentamu position will at last sever the Cof E from the Angolican communion, for he and all those who agree with him are in a real minority, and he has TEC as company. With friends like that….

  To be sure, Christianity is not determined by voting. BUt in reality, “God” has a way of hanging out with the greater numbers; this is simply the way the world works, rightly or wrongly. The southern cone and Africa now are acquiring real control over Anglican affairs. If they weren’t, they would not have interpenetrated American religion so successfully. Because of this Sentamu has exiled himself.

  But do we really want to break up? The answer should be Yes. Schism is a nice word, particular good in Scrabble and Boggle. The reality is, however, when gangrene has set in to your hand, painful or not, you cut the hand off. And Christ has said as much. Make me an argument the TEC is not like gangrene in healthy flesh? Can you do that?

  One recurring problem is the notion that Anglicans are and have been broadly tolerant, that this has been central to our success, and that therefore, limiting that tolerance is a violation of our identity. So the flag or adiophora flies at the TOP of the staff. BUt this notion is sound only in a given context, when the culture declaring it, is itself fairly homogenous, for the culture sets boundaries
that the majority accepts, church and all. But ours is a really diverse society which has precious little central core; adiophora is simply the cant and jargon used to justify believing whatever one wants. Besides, even in a homogenous society,  adiophora encourges the existence of the Vicar of Bray (whom I assume your are familiar with). The character for whom this broadside was written must have been fairly common, mustn’t he?

  For us, adiophora is a practical device inside the family. It keeps siblings and parents focused on common problems that threaten their coherence. It is meaningless in the large community, and now, especially, the global one, for it throws the primary light on diversity when the lights absolutely needs to be on central identity.

  The RC has an advantage here. The present Pope speaks as the father speaks, and he has said, “Those who do not wish to belong to this family, leave now,” so errant children can ditch the family’s “oppressions” and go to New York and join a dance company. And this is very well. Thus the Pope can keep the family together, not by adiophotisms but by focusing on core issues. So, while I am not willing to follow the papal route, I submit the Anglicans must follow the practice and keep the bright light on the central issues. If there are those who do not agree, let them go to New York and join a dance company. Our core Christian identity comes first, and adiophora is not part of our core identity.  LM

July 23, 5:53 pm | [comment link]
40. Spiros wrote:

It is a shame and a disappointment that Bishop Sentamu has forgotten his roots - his Ugandan Christian roots, that is.
The Church of Uganda was watered by the blood of the Ugandan Martyrs who gave their lives, rather than accept homosexual advances from King Mwanga. (June 3rd is the commemoration day).

The opulent/affluent life, materials goods/pecks, and the pride of the office of the archbishop (of York) have gotten into this guy’s head and the bishop has become another victim of “let’s-just-get-along-and-don’t rock-the-good-life-boat syndrome

I am sure true Christians from/in Uganda and East Africa are more than ashamed and disappointed by this archbishop. 

Archbishop Sentamu ought to know that the Global South Faithfuls care more for The Lord and the Truth of the Gospel than any jamboree in the UK.

Thank God, unlike Sentamu, there are faithful Anglicans from/in African who are not sold to the material and worldly lie that claims victims such as Sentamu.

July 23, 6:11 pm | [comment link]
41. Eclipse wrote:

William Witt :

Brilliant -as usual… so are you saying that Jesus as a ‘mother’ is nothing to bock at?  Sorry, poor chicken humor there…

Brian from T19 :

You know, I was confirmed as an Anglican and took a great confirmation course.  Don’t remember either pledging to go to Mecca - I mean Lambeth - as part of the commitment of my place in Anglican Communion.  You know, no one even brought it up as an option to me…

So, unless something has dramatically changed, the Archbishop needs to rethink his premise.

Phil - good point - so, will Gene Robinson be ex-communicated as well?  Enquiring minds want to know…

July 23, 6:19 pm | [comment link]
42. chips wrote:

Brian -
You haven’t followed my earlier posts.  I did wipe my feet back in the 90’s when I fiqured out that leftists had taken over the Church - same appears to be happening to the Methodists.  I am not nearly as nice as most of the people here.  Since the remaining Conservatives have found a backbone - I have come back to help with money and whatever insights I can offer - it may be like Rhett outside of Atlanta - but rather late than never.  Whether or not the reasserters get the property they have won by standing up to your lot - if we only get the people out we will have won - because this is about Church and not a real estate empire.

July 23, 6:46 pm | [comment link]
43. Dave B wrote:

I have two thoughts on this whole issue.  It dosen’t matter if I am in communion with the ABC, the Pope, or +KJS.  What matters if I am feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisioned in Jesus name as Jesus commanded. Jesus said “You will be betrayed by parents brothers relatives” Luke 21:16 and 17.  Jesus also says in Math. 10:34-39 “You think I have come to bring peace on earth.  I did not not bring peace but a sword…”. This does not sound like unity.  The only unity we will have is if we are in the will of God and in the Spirit of God.

July 23, 7:46 pm | [comment link]
44. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “Your not-so-veiled reference to the sin of homosexual sexual expression is questionable, not acceptable by a huge (and growing) number of faithful Christians.”

LOL.  It’s acceptable by a tiny and shrinking number of some Episcopalians and Unitarians and the MCC.

In fact, ominously, the Episcopal church is losing people by the ton, as I am quite certain this year’s stats will show yet again.

So even if we count ALL current Episcopalians as approvers of same-gender sexual activity, that number is shrinking by the day.

July 23, 10:31 pm | [comment link]
45. chips wrote:

I think the GS would be making a mistake by not showing up at Lambeth - it would allow TEC to win by default.  I would rather see the GS petition for a meeting of Primates to handle TEC’s non compliance of Dar Es Slam, if the meeting does not go to their satisfaction - each GS primate should recognize the 2nd province as the official one and go to Lambeth and Petition for its acceptance into the Communion.  TEC staying in would likely be the price of the 2nd Provence’s acceptance- however with Christianity’s center of gravity heading South the GS should be more and more of a player.  Aided by an orthodox 2nd American Province (which hopefully will grow and have enough resources by Lambeth 2018 to counter TEC’s money) the Orthodox Anglicans should prevail.  The Othodox should not stay home and hand a victory to TEC on a platter.

July 23, 10:44 pm | [comment link]
46. Alice Linsley wrote:

Whatever the Primates decide about Lambeth, they must not allow ++Rowan and Sentamu to stomp on Right Belief by way of process.

July 24, 12:00 am | [comment link]
47. Brian from T19 wrote:

Brian from T19 :

You know, I was confirmed as an Anglican and took a great confirmation course.  Don’t remember either pledging to go to Mecca - I mean Lambeth - as part of the commitment of my place in Anglican Communion.  You know, no one even brought it up as an option to me…

Well I hardly can use any number of scholars or 500 years of tradition asa rebuttal to your really great Sunday chats.  I guess the mammoth resources on church history and relations that you gained when you were 12.  Pergaps you could have the youth minister or rector who taught your class correct +Dr. Sentamu so he is not continuing this folly

July 24, 12:25 am | [comment link]
48. Brian from T19 wrote:

I think the GS would be making a mistake by not showing up at Lambeth - it would allow TEC to win by default.

Of course this is 100% correct.  The problem is that some of the GS Primates are men of good conscience and they have allowed evil men desirous of power to paint them into a corner.  The irony will be when the good men stay home and their leader shows up

July 24, 12:30 am | [comment link]
49. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: ” The problem is that some of the GS Primates are men of good conscience and they have allowed evil men desirous of power to paint them into a corner.”

LOL.

Lo, the Flaming Rhetoric from Brian.  But why?  What’s got him so progressively more and more peevish over the past year?

I’m genuinely curious.

And then he “invokes” Sentamu, as if Sentamu is any sort of “respected scholar or historian” . . . in reality, Sentamu is merely the guy that the apparatchiks sent forth to “deal with” the errant Primates whom, it appears, have decided that the Anglican Communion really isn’t all that valuable an entity to belong to.

Good for them!  Sentamu comes across as the schoolyard threatener . . . a petty little diatribe about what they will lose, when they’ve already accepted that.

That’s all this little “warning” is . . . it’s a frustrated authority figure dealing with departures by throwing up his hands, turning to a more minor figure and saying “you go deal with them—see if you can talk some sense into them.”

Not gonna happen.  My suspicion is that this “warning” will accomplish the opposite of what they desired.

July 24, 7:45 am | [comment link]
50. Brian from T19 wrote:

And then he “invokes” Sentamu, as if Sentamu is any sort of “respected scholar or historian” . . . in reality, Sentamu is merely the guy that the apparatchiks sent forth to “deal with” the errant Primates whom, it appears, have decided that the Anglican Communion really isn’t all that valuable an entity to belong to.

Good for them!  Sentamu comes across as the schoolyard threatener . . . a petty little diatribe about what they will lose, when they’ve already accepted that.

That’s all this little “warning” is . . . it’s a frustrated authority figure dealing with departures by throwing up his hands, turning to a more minor figure and saying “you go deal with them—see if you can talk some sense into them.”

Your laughing is taking on that manic edge my friend.  ++Sentamu holds the second highest position in the Anglican Communion.  In addition, he has been trained as a lawyer and has hid Doctorate in Theology from Cambridge.  Are you truly arguing that chips Sunday School teacher has a better background in chrch history and polity?  I know that you know better.  Nice try though.

July 24, 8:15 am | [comment link]
51. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) wrote:

This is one case in which demography and theology are moving the same direction. A generation ago ECUSA and the Church of Uganda each had about 3 million members. Since then ECUSA has lost a third of its membership—more, really, as they keep departed members on their books for many years—and CofU have more than trebled theirs.

Of the nominal 26 million Anglicans in the UK, barely half a million actually haul their bottoms out to church on a given Sunday. In fact, there are more Anglicans worshipping on Sunday in Uganda than in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and NZ ... combined. And the church in Nigeria is twice as large as that in Uganda. Meanwhile the ECUSA PB counts it as a “feature, not a bug” that Episcopalians have so few children ... for the sake of the planet, you know.

From where I sit, it all looks like an institutionally and theologically moribund collection of quite well-to-do, rather over-educated, overwhelmingly white liberal revisionists almost desperately clinging to their accustomed position and power. If things continue in the same direction as they are +++Cantuar will end up presiding over a wealthy, white, bitter rump of a church.

In the meantime, stewardship of the apostolic faith will have passed to an evangelical, growing and dynamic south

July 24, 8:35 am | [comment link]
52. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to #51 who said,
“In the meantime, stewardship of the apostolic faith will have passed to an evangelical, growing and dynamic south”

Bart, it has already happened.

The Anglican vineyards vineyards of the north are rapidly dying off. Their vines are shriveling up and fewer and fewer new vines are being planted.

In order to be rejuvenated and saved, the vineyards of the north require extensive pruning by vineyard keepers (keepers of “the Faith once given”) who will cut out the dead and dying plants and with the help of the Holy Spirit resusitate those vines that can be saved.

The dead and dying plants had their chance in the Son, but they chose to turn away from the Son and their illness and death is a consequence of their having turned away from the Son.

Meanwhile, the vineyards of the south are flourishing.  Their vineyard keepers are keeping their vines healthy and and are constantly expanding the size of their vineyards.  The plants in these vineyards turn their faces eagerly to the Son, obey that Son’s Father and eagerly receive the nutriment of the Holy Spirit.

July 24, 9:31 am | [comment link]
53. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “Your laughing is taking on that manic edge my friend.”

Don’t you wish . . . ; > )  I’m not the one unhappy—I’m ridin’ high.

And I provided the appropriate explanation for Sentamu’s threat . . . one that, based on my knowledge of your mind over the past three years, I am confident that you privately know too.

Scary that.

July 24, 11:15 am | [comment link]
54. chips wrote:

I think the whole thing is sad.  A nice respectable even keeled historical American church got taken over by a bunch of leftwing 60’s types who were massively reinforced by homosexual activists (loved the “flamming rhetoric” Sara). The new leadership is now so powerful that they can effect change in theology by activist run “democratic action.” Instead of deep sixing the American branch and starting over - Canterbury appears to be a fellow traveler of the loony Americans or Chamberlainesque managerial leader who now appears to be on the verge of losing one of the last vestiges of the British Empire and British influence (I hope Buckingham Palace is livid).  I still think that the GS primates need to Stand Firm and fight it out.  The theological battle in the US is over - our Clerics need to stand back and hand the heart of the Battle over to the lawyers, and PR and political hacks.  To think that all of this carnage has come about so that the left could change theology in order to declare homosexuality not sinful in order to bless homosexual relationships in order to mainstream homosexuality is truly stunning and sad.  Brian would love to see our side wipe the dust from our feet but no we should fight for the stone bridges and attempt to deny the wealth of our forebears to their secular humanist cause.

July 24, 11:45 am | [comment link]
55. Eclipse wrote:

Brian from T19 :

Re:  Confirmation  - actually, I was confirmed when I was in my 30’s and it was my priest - who I’d match any day against your highest ‘intellectual’ reappraiser - who taught the class.

However, the point is this:   Show me where in the written documents of Anglicanism that Anglicans have to go to Lambeth in order to be Anglican and then we will have this discussion.  However, as this documentation is missing in the Prayer book, the 39 articles or ANY other primary document I’ve read (including the Bible) I would submit the Archbishop of York is not correct.  Otherwise, we’d be having little pilgrimages to Lambeth all the time - like the Muslims - which could make a new edition to the

Cantebury Tales

, but I suspect would neither be as highly amusing nor as interesting of a read.  Although… coming up with the names of the individual stories might be an interesting distraction.

Re:  The Archbishop’s Education

If this man is truly intelligent, you shouldn’t have to list his qualifications to be so.  The fact that you have to try to prove he might know of what he speaks only by using his credentials is more descriptive of the quality of his ideas and thoughts than anything anyone else has asserted.

July 24, 12:08 pm | [comment link]
56. Spiros wrote:

Re:  The Archbishop’s Education,
++Sentamu obviously had good formal education. No doubt. But that is not the end of the story.
On Educated Men/Women, please let’s not forget that more often than not, men and women of the Liberal inclination are quick to sacrifice their integrity and make a mockery of their education, all in warped efforts to justify and to support some ungodly Liberal agenda.

Example: Re-read “To Set Our Hope on Christ”, and judge for yourself. This work, the “Response” of EcUSA to the Windsor Reported supposedly came from the best and the brightest that EcUSA has/had.

To the Liberals and supporters of homosexual intimate relationship (same-sex sexual deviance) and feel-good “Christianity”, nothing matters, save the agenda.

The highest formal education does not the best godly mind produce.
Look no further for examples.

July 24, 12:41 pm | [comment link]
57. Spiros wrote:

....Windsor Report…

July 24, 12:46 pm | [comment link]
58. Brian from T19 wrote:

And I provided the appropriate explanation for Sentamu’s threat . . . one that, based on my knowledge of your mind over the past three years, I am confident that you privately know too.

My mind says that ++York is his own man and has proven that time and again.  If we accept your argument that he is a “tool” of the leadership working towards their goals, we must also accept several things:

1.  ++Rowan has already decided that the response (or lack thereof) from the USA is sufficient
2.  ++Rowan has no intention of any further discipline of TEC or ACoC
3.  ++Sentamu (who is not stupid nor politically uneducated) agrees that TEC and ACoC have done enough and are not in need of further discipline.

and most significantly

4.  ++Sentamu, who has been outspoken about institutional racism in the Anglican Church, would allow himself to be used as a black African trying to convince other black Africans

That’s what I think and why I believ that he is genuine in his assessment of the importance of attending Lambeth

July 24, 12:57 pm | [comment link]
59. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) wrote:

The real tragedy in the Anglican Communion’s dilemma is this: the North American Baby Boom Generation (1943 to 1961, using Strauss & Howe’s criteria) believes fervently that their greatest cultural legacy is “sexual liberation.” I say this as a ‘49er myself.

As they begin to fade from the scene, they’re fighting (viciously) for “their” legacy. What they don’t seem to understand is that “If you love me you’ll let me do what I want” is the social philosophy of a 3-year-old. As biological adults (but emotional pre-teens) this translates to “Nobody’s gonna tell me where I can put my wee-wee.” Dress it up in the philosophy of “justice,” add a good dose of God language, and you’ve got modern Episcopalian thinking.

What made it worse was that in the late 1960s the absolute gold-standard draft deferment was to be in divinity school. The rebellious emotional left flocked to such institutions ... and they now run an entire church. Too bad they never grew up.

July 24, 1:14 pm | [comment link]
60. Brian from T19 wrote:

Eclipse

Here is some history for you.  I suggest you read the entire pieve by Sarah Hey before writing about things you are unfamiliar with.

From the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion

‘In response to a number of queries, and following consultation with The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion has issued the following statement:

“The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) is, to my knowledge, a “mission” of the Church of Nigeria. It is not a branch of the Anglican Communion as such but an organsation which relates to a single province of the Anglican Communion. CANA has not petitioned the Anglican Consultative Council for any official status within the Communion’s structures, nor has the Archbishop of Canterbury indicated any support for its establishment.” ‘

and from our very own Sara Hey who I would put up against your rector any day:

Back in 2000, when the primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia created a missionary activity called the AMiA in the U.S., and consecrated two bishops the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, did not recognize those bishops’ ministries as bishops of the Anglican Communion for several reasons.

First, there is a “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.

—The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion” in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury” with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together” “by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference” and that they are “particular or national churches”.

—Resolution 72 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed “its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries”.

—Both resolutions speak to the general principle that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes one church within a region as the “official” franchise of the Anglican Communion within that region.

Second, only those bishops in the one province of a geographic region that is the “franchise of the Anglican Communion” are in communion with Canterbury.

Third, and finally, only those in communion with Canterbury are in fact in the Anglican Communion—that is, they then are invited to participate in the “councils of the church” that is the Anglican Communion. There may be Anglican entities that are connected to provinces of the Anglican Communion—but that is not the same thing as being within the Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Thus, the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese.  An ECUSA parish, in an ECUSA diocese.

Were a bishop of an alternate Anglican entity within the U.S. to be recognized as in communion with Canterbury, that would be the de facto establishment of an alternate province within the region of the U.S. There would then be two Canterbury-recognized Anglican entities within one geographic territory. But that creation of a Canterbury-recognized alternate province of the Anglican Communion has not, in fact, occurred . . . yet.

In his letter regarding those consecrations for the AMiA Carey said:

“In the case of this particular consecration, neither the constitution of the Province of South East Asia nor that of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, to whose primates John Rodgers and Charles Murphy have sworn an oath of canonical obedience, have been followed. In addition, Anglican polity requires that ordained ministers should be properly authorised to pursue their ministry in the Province within which they wish to work, and according to the Canon law of that Province. It appears that this is not the intention in this case, and it is doubtful in the present circumstances whether such authorisation would be forthcoming.

  Therefore, whilst recognising John Rodgers and Charles Murphy as faithful and committed ministers of the Gospel, I have to conclude that I cannot recognise their episcopal ministry until such time as a full rapprochement and reconciliation has taken place between them and the appropriate authorities within the Episcopal Church of the United States. . . . It is difficult to understand how this action can be reconciled with this tradition or how it can be seen to ‘guard the Church’, without the support or even the knowledge of the vast majority of the bishops of our Communion. Indeed, even those who have worked most closely on these matters were not in agreement over this consecration.”

...

And again, in another letter Archbishop Carey said this in regards to further consecrations:

“I regard last year’s consecrations in Singapore as at best, highly irregular and at worst, simply schismatic. I have made my position in relation to them transparently clear - but, in case there remains any doubt, let me repeat: I cannot recognise John Rodgers and Chuck Murphy as bishops in communion with me unless they are fully reconciled to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.”

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3096

July 24, 1:33 pm | [comment link]
61. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “that he is a “tool” of the leadership working towards their goals . . .”

Naw—we have but to accept that he is merely a “team player” for ONE GOAL—and that is to attempt to “keep everybody together”.

The rest of your do not follow in the least.

RE: “1.  ++Rowan has already decided that the response (or lack thereof) from the USA is sufficient

NOPE.
RE: “2.  ++Rowan has no intention of any further discipline of TEC or ACoC”

NOPE.

RE: “3.  ++Sentamu (who is not stupid nor politically uneducated) agrees that TEC and ACoC have done enough and are not in need of further discipline.

NOPE.

RE: “4.  ++Sentamu, who has been outspoken about institutional racism in the Anglican Church, would allow himself to be used as a black African trying to convince other black Africans”“

AND NOPE.

None of those things follow in the least.  The goal—the overarching goal—is to keep “all the players at the table”.

Neither Brian nor I have any knowledge of what intentions the ABC has.  Should be an interesting six months.  ; > )

July 24, 2:01 pm | [comment link]
62. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “I suggest you read the entire pieve by Sarah Hey before writing about things you are unfamiliar with.”

I agree, Eclipse.  Read the entire piece.

Of course . . . as Brian well knows . . . the piece has precisely zip  to do with whether “Anglicans have to go to Lambeth in order to be Anglican” which is what you asked Brian.

The piece in part describes what it takes to be in the Anglican Communion—which is steadily having less and less to do with Anglicanism or “being Anglican” as Dr. Witt so ably described in this comment:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4576/#84866

And this one:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4576/#84940

The sad thing is that Brian is do desperate for something to hang on to, and so apparently fueled by . . . peevishness over something . . . that he is driven to attempt to use articles that mean nothing of what he claims they mean.

I just wish I knew why the change from a year ago when he was strikingly calm, and strikingly rational, rather than grasping and desperate and angry.

THE QUESTION over the past four years has been who will be within the Anglican Communion.  I have stated it time and time again on blog after blog.  Will the Anglican Communion become the disciplined, ordered body, with an identity of integrity—or will it, lacking these things, lose wide chunks of Anglicans and in addition to the Anglican Communion will there arise another large body in competition with the Anglican Communion.

Looks as if we’ll be finding that out soon!  ; > )

What I find so amazing and inspiring and gratifying beyond measure is that so many Anglicans are willing—out of integrity and honesty—to voluntarily depart from the Anglican Communion in order to maintain the gospel and the rich Anglican presentation of it to the world.  It appears—despite my bleak thoughts of a year ago—that provinces are actually willing to formally depart the Communion should it prove to be unwilling to establish coherent boundaries and unwilling to maintain Anglican identity.

This is far more than I had hoped for.  What a blessing!

July 24, 2:12 pm | [comment link]
63. Eclipse wrote:

Brian -

Nice try but no cigar:

Re: Carey -

George Carey has written a letter to the Church of England Newspaper which in part says the following:

  Sir, Kenneth Kearon suggests (CEN May 25) that the decision not to invite AMiA
  bishops, or the recently consecrated CANA Bishop, to the Lambeth Conference
  relates to a precedent I set in 2000…

  …This, of course, was before 2003 when the Episcopal Church clearly signalled its
  abandonment of Communion norms, in spite of warnings from the Primates that the
  consecration of a practising homosexual bishop would ‘tear the fabric of the Communion’.
  It is not too much to say that everything has changed in the Anglican Communion
  as a result of the consecration of Gene Robinson.

  The Archbishop of Canterbury’s prerogative to invite bishops to the Conference is a
  lonely, personal and important task. Before each Conference a number of careful decisions
  have to be taken, with the focus being on the well-being of the Communion. The
  circumstances facing each Archbishop of Canterbury will vary according to the needs
  of the hour. For these reasons, I believe, that Dr Rowan Williams should not regard
  the advice he has evidently received that this matter is ‘fixed’ as necessarily binding
  on him in the very different circumstances of 2007.

You and I are talking of two things: Being Anglican and being ‘recognized by the ABC as a part of the Anglican Communion’.  I am saying that being Anglican is NOT dependent on going to Lambeth.

E.G. - Ms. Hey : regarding Bishop Minns, he is not saying that Bishop Minns is not a Christian, or not an Anglican. 

AB York is stating that by not attending Lambeth excommunicates one from the Anglican Communion - hence makes one a ‘non-Anglican’ - which is not correct.

Regardless of whether the ABC will recognize these majority of provinces or not, they will not cease to be Anglican… just as I defy you to go to a AMIA service and find it ‘not Anglican’. 

Re:  My former priest

Unfortunately for you, Ms. Hey and my rector would get along swimmingly… for they share a similar perspective… he would say, with Sarah, “That we should fight for those stone bridges” which he did very well - or best he could in a revisionist diocese with a revisionist bishop.  Unfortunately for him, Sarah, and those who have to continue to endure the apostasy of ECUSA, the Titanic has lost too many water tight compartments in order to savage the ship.

The reality is this - if the ABC and the AB of York were truly invested in the gospel, the invitation should be rescinded from ECUSA and you and I would not be having this discussion. 

PS TRY to remember, and I know it might hard, that just because people disagree with you does not necessarily mean they are not as well read, intelligent, or as educated as you are.  It does not further your cause… to put it as kindly as possible.

July 24, 2:14 pm | [comment link]
64. Eclipse wrote:

Sarah:

Looks like you and I have cross-posted. 

Thanks.

I hope, by the by, that you are more successful in salvaging your stone bridge than we were in saving ours… if we could have kept thus aforementioned rector we might have been able too.

Wish for all of us, it were different.  However, thanks be to God we still are sisters in Christ as well as fellow Anglicans.

July 24, 2:29 pm | [comment link]
65. Brian from T19 wrote:

Sarah

I think you sre confusing 2 rthreads on this topic.

One relates to what ++Sentamu said and his reasoning for it.  You and I disagree, but in the end, his reasoning is irrelevant.  It is a foregone conclusion that Uganda and Rwanda will not attend Lambeth and that this will place them outside the AC.  This will be the moment of the split.

The other thread is related to the lies being told to those exiting TEC.  They so desperately need to believe that they are still members of the Anglican Communion that they resort to old rectors and irrelevant ex-ABCs.  I used your article as a history lesson to answer why those exiting are no longer a part of the Anglican Communion.  What they call themselves is entirely irrelevant.

As for the tired old “why are you so angry?” gambit - think it through: what have I got to be angry about.  TEC is a slam dunk winner.  No meaningful discipline and still members of the Anglican Communion.  That’s all we revisionists have ever wanted.

July 24, 8:42 pm | [comment link]
66. Eclipse wrote:

No meaningful discipline and still members of the Anglican Communion.  That’s all we revisionists have ever wanted.

LOL!! So, in saying this you REALIZE that TEC is in need of discipline!

That speaks volumes…

July 24, 9:13 pm | [comment link]
67. chips wrote:

I agree with Brian on this one he is not angry. If he has changed it is because he is being more honest and removing any pretenses. Brian has admitted that he is not really a Christian in a sense reasserters would recognize and he is happy to see reasserters depart as long as his side keeps the treasure (for Brian it is about Reasserter’s money though he would argue that it belongs to his side because they effectively used TEC’s by-laws to the old PECUSA’s members disadvantage - he is a lawyer and that is how we think).  I think he has admitted he is a leftist - I do not know if he is gay - would explain why he comes on conservative web sites to taunt. Brian likely wants TEC to transform the world via the Anglican Communion into a leftwing utopia (I want the Church to help preserve what is left of stability in the world). Brian is therefore the perfect foe for reasserters and should be used to inform.  I doubt Brian is an Anglophile (I am - though the England I love is dying - Thatcherism appears to be a dead cat bounce)- the only thing the Integrity crowd would care about in belonging to the AC is legitamacy - they want normalization and are therefore willing to destroy Christian churches and kick out the orthodox (those unwilling to yield) to achieve that goal with a smile.  If TEC were to be kicked out of the AC or disciplined in a meaningul way that would be a set back it would likely be another generation before homosexulity felled the church as it is succeeding against the state.  Brian should not be angry because our side appears to be shooting itself in the foot (as usual) - the primates should go to Lambeth and make an ugly scene - if they fail then they should depart en masse while the world watches - its a once in every ten year affair.  In the end gay marriage (think GC2009) will halve TEC with or without Canterbury in ten years - Anglican Rites and traditions sans gay marriage (and Canterbury) will be a sufficient draw to create a second Province - Brian knows this and he does not care because it is all about the new thing.  In fact it is probably been budgeted for at TEC hq - all those pretty abandoned churches in the South =$$$.

July 24, 10:18 pm | [comment link]
68. Eclipse wrote:

chips :

Re:  The role of the Primates or any of the orthodox in regards to TEC OR the Anglican Communion

I disagree that we are ‘shooting ourselves in the foot’.  Perhaps the end of this WILL be that TEC wins and the Anglican Communion becomes nothing more than Universalism with a miter - could be.  However, we each called to do what God has called him/her to do.

What is this about?  Being able to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ - it’s not about endowments, or Lambeth, or history or getting to hang about in stone buildings.  These things are useful but they are not necessary to telling others about Jesus.  As a matter of fact, being one who has had to leave their history behind (e.g. church building) I’ve found it rather liberating - no longer are thousands upon thousands of dollars wasted in heating, lights, maintenance - we can use that money for outreach, missions, and missionaries.  Tell me which has the eternal value?  A building or people’s lives? 

‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…’ comes to mind.

So, the primates, after much prayer and reflection stepped in to help the beleaguered Anglicans of America - not to save buildings but to help them retain the FOCUS of what we are about - ‘Going into all nations teaching them everything I have commanded, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit…’

So, we may loose buildings by being bold - we may loose the money - we may even not get invited to the big tea party in England - but if we retain the mission then we have fulfilled what God has asked us to do. 

Just remember, Chips, while Christianity is around, Caesar’s kingdom is in ruins - thus shall it be for TEC.  We chose the winning team.

July 24, 10:47 pm | [comment link]
69. AnglicanFirst wrote:

I am a reasonable person willing to engage in open debate about almost anything.  I am willing to listen to the other person’s argument (today, more often a harrangue) and then respond with my own thoughts.

However, for people like Brian of T19, that is not enough.  It seems that for him that debate is a battle in the military sense where one either wins or loses.

But, Brian, when we discuss the Almighty, the Creator and Jesus, our messianic Savior, it’s not a debate that can be won by the human mind asserting itself as supreme in it’s ability to judge what is right or wrong.

It must be a discussion among Believers about what the Creator has revealed to us throught the prophets and through His Son Jesus.  This sort of discussion requires study, prayer, discernment and the hoped for guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you don’t believe this, then you should not be trying to interject yourself into a discussion of those who do.

Political and secular agendas are out of place in that discussion.

July 24, 10:58 pm | [comment link]
70. chips wrote:

Eclipse:
With all due respect - if you hand TEC the Anglican Communion and the buildings - you will give them legitamacy in the eyes of many and the rescources to spread their ideology which masqararades (how do you use spell check) as Christian theology. The battle within TEC is lost the first priortity is of course the people; second is the buildings for the people to use as a tool; third deny TEC as much as possible of the orthodox resources.  I do not think the battle for the AC is lost yet - if you give TEC the AC they have a world wide platform to destroy Christianity. I have believed that the fight within TEC could never be won - the orthodox did not have the votes and folks like Brian are opposed to your theological arguments.  Like going into a NOW meeting and extolling the virtues of the patriarchy.  I think the votes are there to win out in the AC - the GS should Stand Firm at Lambeth and take TEC to task for rejecting Dar Es Slam.

July 24, 11:07 pm | [comment link]
71. Brian from T19 wrote:

Eclipse

No.  I have no idea what you mean.

chips

Never was one for pretense. And I wouldn’t say “happy” to see reasserters depart.  But I do believe we are entitled to the property that you try to steal.  I wouldn’t say I am a leftist as I am strongly pro-life, a member of the NRA and a firm believer in conservative economic policy.  I’m not gay, although I am not sure how that would determine what site I frequent. I want TEC to transform the world through Jesus into what His Gospel promises as a member of the Anglican Communion.  I’m a bit of an Anglophile as I love Monty Python, Sherlock Holmes, the BBC and even Maggie.  I’m not sure I am the “perfect” foe, but I never hide my opinion (secret meetings and plans are a reasserter thing-i.e. +Duncan, ++Akinola, +Minns, et al).  I’m not a member of Integrity and I don’t think they need the AC for legitimacy.  As a matter of fact, they have consistently lobbied ++Katharine to abandon the communion rather than the LGBTI community.  As for destroying Christian Churches, I doubt they would have any interest in that.  If the Primates withdraw they will not be starting a new Province, but rather a new denomination.  Again, I care, but if you want to leave, that’s your business.  As for TECs budgeting, look at the budget.  Despite the rantings of the increasingly addled retired Bishops, everything is right there.  +Stacey Sauls’ property committee reports are published.  The only ones hiding the money and the sources of their funding are reasserters.

July 24, 11:25 pm | [comment link]
72. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “They so desperately need to believe that they are still members of the Anglican Communion that they resort to old rectors and irrelevant ex-ABCs.  I used your article as a history lesson to answer why those exiting are no longer a part of the Anglican Communion.  What they call themselves is entirely irrelevant.”

[giggle]

Then, Brian, why do you keep saying “they won’t be Anglican” and conflating that with being a member of the Anglican Communion.

It’s QUITE relevant to you, Brian, because you are working so hard about not the definition of who is in the Anglican Communion, but who is Anglican.

Yep—it’s relevant to you Brian, or you wouldn’t be talkin’ about it so much.

Eclipse said this: “Show me where in the written documents of Anglicanism that Anglicans have to go to Lambeth in order to be Anglican . . . ”—and you, Brian, pointed Eclipse to my article on how people are or are not a member of the Anglican Communion—nothing at all about being Anglican.

Sorry, Brian—you can’t spend so much time on this thread and skating around other threads prattling about who is not Anglican and then attempt to claim that “what they call themselves is irrelevant” to you . . .

RE: “what have I got to be angry about.”

Maybe someday you’ll tell me.  But your tone is without a doubt different from even a year ago.  I’ve no idea why.  I suspect that you’ve lost something.

RE: “TEC is a slam dunk winner.  No meaningful discipline and still members of the Anglican Communion.”

; > )  . . . . And you’re not confident of that, Brian . . . but you say it like you’re trying hard.

But an example of another thing that is so disturbing is something else that you do now that you didn’t used to do—lie.  When you say this: “secret meetings and plans are a reasserter thing” . . . you’re simply lying.  You know and I know that you know that Via Media and Integrity do their plans and secret meetings like billyo . . . so why say stuff like that, Brian?

Where’s the old transparency and straightforwardness?  Not there. 

In this way I disagree with Chips—Brian used to be honest, and Brian was clear years ago that he didn’t believe the gospel.  Didn’t try to hide, didn’t try to snow anybody.

But now . . . he does.  He’s—now—got something to lose.

I’ll be interested to see what!  ; > )

July 24, 11:50 pm | [comment link]
73. Brian from T19 wrote:

Sarah

We have a fundamental disagreement that isn’t going to be resolved.  I equate using the term Anglican to describe oneself with saying that you are a member of the Anglican Communion.  You do not.

You can mock me all you want and pretend that you have some insight into my mind.  The only thing I have to lose is being an Anglican (that is for those who parse everything to death “a member of the Anglican Communion”).  Playing this silly semantics game is beneath you.

In do admit that Via Media and Integrity have had secret meetings/agendas for the “winning” of the battle, but I truly see the 2 sides as TEC and the orthodox.  Since I was thinking that way, I did not intentionally lie.  However, I apologize for misstating the facts.

I don’t believe your version of the Gospel nor in your version of Jesus.  I am not sure why you say that I am trying to renounce that.  When I use the word Gospel it refers to the True teachings of Jesus and not what is passed off in mainline Christianity.

I like our debates, but I am truly lost as to how I have changed so much.  Point me in the right direction and I will repent and walk the curved and broad path;-)  But vague references don’t help anyone.

As for this “change” that you see, feel free to ask me anything you’d like.  I have been transparent and I am willing to afdmit when I am wrong (which I have done several times on this blog).

July 25, 12:08 am | [comment link]
74. William#2 wrote:

“I don’t believe your version of the Gospel nor in your version of Jesus.  I am not sure why you say that I am trying to renounce that.  When I use the word Gospel it refers to the True teachings of Jesus and not what is passed off in mainline Christianity.”
An interesting statement, Brian T19.  Is TEC no longer part of “mainline Christianity?”  When Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me,” that is a “true teaching of Jesus” that your PB denies.  It won’t do to grub around as Episcopalians want to do and say this means “more” than what it literally says.  Did Jesus come to save the world or not, Brian?  Did he come to be “one” of “many” ways to save the world as your church now teaches?  When Jesus says that salvation comes through Him, and Him alone, when we deny that are we “loving the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, and soul?”  To love God, do we actually have to love HIM, or are we loving HIM by loving the various versions of HIM passed off by your church? 
On a lighter note, if I can get your buddy Sarah to hook up with me, do you think my wife will accept the explanation that I was really loving her through Sarah?
There is a fundamental disagreement about what Christianity is; you and Sarah agree on this from her past writings.  TEC, and the AC are two churches attempting to co-exist under one roof.  Its a house divided against itself that cannot stand as Jesus said.  The liberals, conservatives, and moderates within both entities continue to have their meetings, dialogues, and resolutions to effect a POLITICAL compromise to keep the bureaucracies and buildings together and I am here to tell the Harmons, Radners, and the Rowan Williams of the world IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN, FOLKS.
Unless, you are willing to quit believing your core beliefs, for your job, pension, building, ministry, “membership in the Anglican Communion,  your best friend who sits in the pew next to you, granddaddy buried in the memorial garden, whatever it is.  Give it up, folks.  Give it up and follow the Lord.  He’s promised it will be ok.  Trust Him.

July 25, 8:21 am | [comment link]
75. Eclipse wrote:

Brian :

How very sad that you cannot grasp it.  Don’t know what to tell you on that one…. looks like William 2 has picked up another interesting insight into your beliefs.

chips:

No, I agree that we need to work as hard as we can to keep a place in the Communion… and this is what the primates and others are trying to help us do.  I also think if a church or a diocese as a whole wants to keep a building, they should be allowed to do so.  It is their building and they have maintained and taken care of it.  However, we have to remember in the midst of these battles that they are not essential - if we stay true to Christ and his Gospel then we’ve already won what was essential… that is what is of eternal value.  TEC is on the way out - it has no future because it’s cut itself off from the Vine… it’s only a matter of time before it withers and dies off.

Re:  Being Anglican

Sarah has nailed this point so well - I defer to her excellent analysis.  Well said.

July 25, 11:14 am | [comment link]
76. Brian from T19 wrote:

An interesting statement, Brian T19.  Is TEC no longer part of “mainline Christianity?

I suppose that depends on the priest.

When Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me,” that is a “true teaching of Jesus” that your PB denies.

Whether that is a true teaching of Jesus has been open to debate for 200 years now.  John is the least accurate of the four Gospels.  Most priests and Bishops in TEC are universalist to some degree

It won’t do to grub around as Episcopalians want to do and say this means “more” than what it literally says.  Did Jesus come to save the world or not, Brian?

No.

Did he come to be “one” of “many” ways to save the world as your church now teaches?

No.

When Jesus says that salvation comes through Him, and Him alone, when we deny that are we “loving the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, and soul?” To love God, do we actually have to love HIM, or are we loving HIM by loving the various versions of HIM passed off by your church?

Either way.

There is a fundamental disagreement about what Christianity is; you and Sarah agree on this from her past writings.  TEC, and the AC are two churches attempting to co-exist under one roof.  Its a house divided against itself that cannot stand as Jesus said.

I think you mean TEC and most of the Global South.  Another way to put it is all First World countries vs. most Third World countries.  The Anglican Communion as it exists today pretty much divides along those lines

The liberals, conservatives, and moderates within both entities continue to have their meetings, dialogue, and resolutions to effect a POLITICAL compromise to keep the bureaucracies and buildings together and I am here to tell the Harmons[+], Radners[+], and the [++]Rowan Williams of the world IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN, FOLKS.
Unless, you are willing to quit believing your core beliefs, for your job, pension, building, ministry, “membership in the Anglican Communion, your best friend who sits in the pew next to you, granddaddy buried in the memorial garden, whatever it is.  Give it up, folks.  Give it up and follow the Lord.  He’s promised it will be ok.  Trust Him.

I agree with you there.

July 25, 11:26 am | [comment link]
77. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “When I use the word Gospel it refers to the True teachings of Jesus and not what is passed off in mainline Christianity.”

We know, Brian.

RE: “Playing this silly semantics game is beneath you.”

I merely pointed out—with great clarity—YOUR silly semantics game which you are attempting to play but not doing a very good job of.

RE: “In do admit that Via Media and Integrity have had secret meetings/agendas for the “winning” of the battle, but I truly see the 2 sides as TEC and the orthodox.  Since I was thinking that way, I did not intentionally lie.  However, I apologize for misstating the facts.”

Thanks, I sincerely appreciate it.

RE: “Give it up, folks.  Give it up and follow the Lord.  He’s promised it will be ok.  Trust Him.”

William, you still don’t seem able to let it go that other people have and will continue to make very different decisions from yours.  It’s been three years for you on this blog of exhortation to people to come to the same conclusions and values that you have.

Have you ever asked God why you can’t let other people’s decisions go?

You can derive some comfort, I suppose, in the knowledge that Brian the Revisionist would desperately like for orthodox Episcopalians to give up their fight for the Anglican Communion’s integrity.  ; > )

But you know, William, should the communion fracture I’ll be doing exactly what I have said that I will do for four long years.  It is what I told you that I would do back in 2004, repeatedly.  I will leave the Anglican Communion and Anglicanism itself as well.  And I will not regret a single instant of the time which I have spent for the past four years, since there is something else crucial that has been accomplished, whether the Anglican Communion is salvaged or not.

And you know what?  When I leave the Anglican Communion in the event of its fracture . . . you and I will still not agree.  And you will still be as unsatisfied as you appear to be now in other Anglican’s choices.

July 25, 11:38 am | [comment link]
78. Eclipse wrote:

Sarah:

William, you still don’t seem able to let it go that other people have and will continue to make very different decisions from yours.  It’s been three years for you on this blog of exhortation to people to come to the same conclusions and values that you have.

I would agree with this - I would also agree that depending on your ‘bridge’ upon which you stand it makes a major difference.  Some of us have the privilege of being in orthodox dioceses - this makes a big difference.  Some of us have the blessing of an orthodox priest - that makes a big difference.  Some of us had neither (which was our case) so we had to seek refuge with those who still proclaimed the Gospel - it makes a difference. 

I also believe, after walking this path for 4 years that God has allowed this struggle for so long to help as many ‘jump into the lifeboats’ as possible.  If we would have left in 2003, for example, we would have done so with many of our brothers and sisters in Christ still waiting for the Titanic to repair itself.  Remaining TEC for those years gave it 1. a chance to repent 2. a chance for others to come to understand and realize what was at stake. 

So, Sarah, you are doing what God has called you to do - I do not envy you, but I appreciate your calling and support you in it.  I hope , however, if you have to leave TEC, it does not mean you will cease to be Anglican - because, frankly, I think well you and don’t want to loose your thoughtfulness or ideas to another branch of the Faith.  We Anglicans mustneeds stick together. 

Brian :

If you choose not to believe the Gospels what can you believe?  That is very sad indeed… to believe in a God Whose belief in the Scriptures you refuse to accept… it’s actually rather an oxymoron.

July 25, 1:08 pm | [comment link]
79. William#2 wrote:

Sarah, its always nice to hear from you.  But to answer your question, “william why won’t you let other people’s decisions go,” gosh, why post on a blog in the first place Sarah?  Perhaps God wants me to say to the people who visit this blog the things I have said.  As the church planter I have become, man, I wish I had about a hundred Sarahs helping me and others reach the 100 million plus unchurched in America instead “fighting” for the AC, but again HEAR ME CLEARLY I am willing to look you in the eye and say I could be wrong about this.  God may have a special call on your life.  To give you a direct personal comparison, what I am experiencing now through Jesus Christ versus my years in TEC, I initially thought man, TEC—what a wasted life!  But now, I see that my time in TEC was part of the preparation of what God wanted me to do, so it was not a waste.  So, what you are doing now may seem like a waste to me because my eyes that were blind now see how desperately we need Jesus centered churches in America instead of trying to save something that is dead, but again, God may be putting you through this as part of what He is preparing you to do. 
The bottom line though is that a true Christian witness cannot remain within a dead, apostate church.  It must come out, the timing of which I freely concede is up to God.  The exhortations I present here are precisely what I said above: don’t stay because of a building, a minstry, a friendship, a pension.  And I know for an absolute fact that many stay solely for those reasons, not for what may be indeed a unique call on the life of someone like Sarah. 
Eclipse, thank you for your words above.  I agree with you. 
Brian, when you say that Jesus did not come to save the world, wow, all I can say is brother, I will pray tonight for someone to lead you to truth because you are not there my friend.

July 25, 2:10 pm | [comment link]
80. Brian from T19 wrote:

Brian, when you say that Jesus did not come to save the world, wow, all I can say is brother, I will pray tonight for someone to lead you to truth because you are not there my friend.

Thanks man-everybody can use some prayer!

July 25, 3:31 pm | [comment link]
81. William#2 wrote:

Brian, you are welcome.  In return, I will humbly ask you to pray for me as well, there’s so many specific things but this isn’t a blog to get too personal I suppose, just that when God speaks to me, I will hear, listen, and obey—is that ok?

July 25, 3:35 pm | [comment link]
82. Brian from T19 wrote:

Consider it part of my faily prayers, William

July 25, 4:51 pm | [comment link]
83. Brian from T19 wrote:

ooppss…daily

July 25, 4:51 pm | [comment link]
84. Pageantmaster ن wrote:

Needless to say, Petre’s article has now been ‘clarified’.  Dr Sentamu neither appears to have said that sexual ethics are not core nor expressed a threat to those not attending in the way the original article expressed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/25/nsentamu125.xml

July 25, 6:30 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Peter Irons: Does the religious majority rule?

Previous entry (below): Iran, U.S. to Discuss Iraq This Week

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)