Thank God!

Who are the 51 bishops present, and who signed off on this? Very good news, indeed.

This looks like a very good start—-and a heartening contrast to the cold, tangled web we saw woven in New Orleans.

Let’s bear keenly in mind the need for unity among orthodox Anglicans in the United States. Think of how ECUSA reappraisers have predicted that the orthodox will splinter into fractious, inconsequential sectlets. I have never believed that, but we must acknowledge that such fractious is a real danger.

Many of us have been patient with ECUSA. Now we all need to be patient toward our orthodox leaders and toward each other. May God give us grace to do so.

In comment #4, the middle paragraph should end:
“such FRACTIOUSNESS is a real danger.”

Shouldn’t those Common Cause bishops who are still diocesans of TEC dioceses have to formally separate from TEC before engaging in any kind of “constitutional convention”?

#5 That depends on the nature of the organization and membership.  Initially, such an entity may take the form of an association progressing towards greater unification among its members.  TEC diocesan membership at this time may present no concrete violation of TEC canons.  Note also that the constitution formation has been scheduled for next year, which permits adaptation to communion/primatial developments.

Re #5: My guess is that presentments are already being drawn up for each of the signatories who are active bishops in the Episcopal Church (I haven’t seen a list yet), arguing that overt acts in furtherance of a public commitment to a “separate ecclesiastical structure in North America” are inconsistent with a commitment to active service as a bishop in TEC. Those who have not left TEC voluntarily by the time of the “constitutional convention” will be on their way out involuntarily, I suspect.

Yawn.

Dale, you are most likely correct.  As those presentments are delivered, the Primates (I pray) will legitimize this new structure.  TEC will loose in the end.

ECUSA has forfeited any claim to respect for its own rules.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Faddish new form of revisionist denial: “Yawn.”

“My guess is that presentments are already being drawn up for each of the signatories who are active bishops in the Episcopal Church”

Of course they have. And they will no doubt be cheered by the odd alliance between the finicky and the cruel.

Come on Rev. Russell,
I would think that you would be more excited to see us go.  I expect that a lot of folks in London had similiar thoughts.

I think the yawns are a result of sleepless nights.

I meant to add in 1776.  One has to start somewhere.

For starters, it’s hard to take seriously the theological acumen of a statement that begins with such a sloppy (and gramatically poor) annunciation of the Trinity. 

The proper Trinitarian invocation would be “In the Name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  The annunciation used in this communique, however, “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” has an inherently modalistic ring to it, which is precisely why it is not a part of classical theological exposition of the Trinity in either East or West.  (I cringe when I hear a priest baptize a baby in this way, as it is not only fully contrary to the formula of every orthodox and catholic rite for Baptism ever published, but it is theologically wrong).

I might be more apt to forgive such sloppiness if the grammatical structure of the sentence did not only amplify the theological problem.  The grammatical plural “to whom belong” (as opposed to the singular “to whom belongs” further creates the impression that we’re talking about three gods or one God who manifests himself in three modes) rather than the One God.  The Holy Trinity is properly referred to as “he” in good orthodox theology, not as “they”!

So, given that auspicious start—and the fact that not a single one of the 51 unnamed bishops who reputedly signed it did not catch such a basic theological error—I’ve got to start with a healthy skepticism on the rest…

Another yawn from a pecusa liberal.  They must be staying up too late trying to catch up on the latest news of the realignment.

Yawns are not authorized, but they are allowed for pastoral reasons.

#8, such a profound remark, and it adds so much to the discussion.  We’ll give you a pass though because you’re not clergy….oh, wait, you are clergy.  Disappointing, very disappointing.

Go back to sleep Susan.  You won your battle for the Episcopal Church, so take a rest.

For starters, it’s hard to take seriously the theological acumen of a statement that begins with such a sloppy (and gramatically poor) annunciation of the Trinity.

Ah, yes.  Pedantry about grammar.  The last resort of those without substantive arguments.

Sander,

While it may not be classical expression of Trinitarian theology, the statement is not in and of itself Modalistic.  I can only speculate that it was worded perhaps to emphasize the divinity of the Son—something not all TEC clergy (and bishops?) necessarily believe these days.  Futhermore, does not all the might, majesty, dominion and glory belong to the Father? Does it not also belong to the Son? And to the Spirit? 

This document is significant, but it is not the theological bedrock of common cause and thus I am willing to look past my personal preference for the wording of the opening statement.

Ms Russell,

May I ask why you are bored with the statement? I was actually hoping to read what you thought—but “yawn” is not very descriptive nor does it engage others in dialogue.  Perhaps you are tired from the hard work needed to interpret the recent HOB statement? Or is it just not entertaining enough to read a simple statement of commitment to ministry?  Perhaps you just don’t care what your Christian brothers and sisters are doing to reach the lost?  Which is interesting, because last time I checked each one of these Common Cause Partners is growing and TEC is not.  I can name a lot of parishes holding more funerals than baptisms (adults or babies).

I thought Common Cause was a political organization founded in the 70’s. Haven’t you been down this road before? After every failure to get your way, you form a new group and try again. Problem is, mass discrimination won’t fly no matter what you call yourselves!

Oh, come on, guys.  What else do you expect from Susan.  A theological discussion?

#20…William,,,Words (and grammar) do matter in theology. In fact, theology is about words and the realties they represent.

#20, it’s not grammer.  “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” is a serious misarticulation of the nature of the Trinity, just as “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” is.  Conservative blogs were abuzz because the HoB began one of its worship services with one of the alternative Opening Accamations authorized by General Convention: “Blessed be the One, Holy, and Living God/Glory to God forever and ever” for the reason that it is not Trinitarian in nature like the Ordinary Time acclamation in the BCP.  (Of course, the Easter and Lent acclamations in the BCP are not Trinitarian either, nor—until 1979—had any authorized Anglican Eucharistic rite in the U.S. or UK begun with a Trinitarian acclamation, but that was of no regard to those outraged bloggers.)

(I suppose this paled in comparison, though, to the rant on BabyBlue—picked up by Ruth Gledhill—about the translation used by the HoB for the hymn “All Creatures of our God.”  While looking for theological bogeymen, the translation’s use of “Brother Sun,” “Sister Moon,” and “Mother Earth” was lambasted, with some of the commentators finding Wiccan overtones.  Of course, each of those three phrases (which do not appear in the Hymnal translation) DO appear in the original text upon which the hymn is based—St. Francis’ “Canticle of the Creatures”—which bids praise to God from all things in the Created Order in the mode of the “Benedicite Omnia Opera.”)

Ah yes, but my objection to the theological sloppiness of the Common Cause statement for commiting one of the most errors in defining the Trinity, is held up as “pedantry about grammar.”  Amusing.

A statement from bishops that begins this way invites the same reaction from readers as a Cover Letter for a Resume that misspells the name of the company to which one is applying.  It is subject to immediate write-off because it’s not a simple error—a grammatical problem in an online post—but reflects a lack of attention to detail (theological detail in the case of the Common Cause 51) that impeaches the seriousness of all else that follows.

#15 Sander,
As I recall the nuptial blessing in the 1928 BCP begins “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless ...”  Note that there is a comma following “Ghost” indicating the unity of the Three Persons.  I believe many in the church catholic would not see this expression of the Trinity as modalism.  I do agree with you about the number of the verb “belong”, however.

The Rev Susan can be quite apt theologically. She often reflects the “left hand” thinking which has characterized Anglicanism historically (Urban Holmes III). Of course, theological reflection and composition (which involves right hand thinking) are important for communicating the concepts and relationships present in the Christian experience, but they presuppose the fluidity of that experience and must be refined to better reflect that experience.

While it doesn’t happen often, God does use the plural to refer to himself.  Not strictly in a trinitarian way, but check the Hebrew in Genesis 1:26, for example. 

Again, there is nothing incorrect about the statement in my opinion.  It may not be the standard, but there are times when something else may be desired.  In light of recent Christological concerns in the Episcopal Church, I can understand.

#20…William,,,Words (and grammar) do matter in theology. In fact, theology is about words and the realties they represent.

Virgil, of course they do.  And if there had been anything substantive to the point of SanderD’s objections beyond an attempt to throw out a red herring (as in yours), I would have responded in kind.

As in:

No, theology is not about words.  Theology is about God, as God and his works are its subject matter. Theology uses words to refer to that subject matter.  Sometimes theology also has to reflect on the meaning of the words, and the manner of the referents.  At the same time, as Athanasius pointed out in his eventual resolution of his disagreement with those like Basil of Ancyra who were uncomfortable with the expression homooousios,, the object of theology is the reality and not the words that refer to the reality.  If there is disagreement only about words, and not about the reality, there is actually agreement.

But SanderD was not actually trying to engage in a theological discussion of the Trinitarian theology of the Common Cause Partners, and his complaint had nothing to do with the substantive content of anything in their statement.  He was just looking for something about which to complain, and when all else failed, he made fun of their accents.

I’d say arguing with those who want to argue about the introduction but not on the content of a document expressing in great clarity long-awaited action is pretty silly. Of course, one would expect more from worthy opponents. It’s a triffle (yawn) boring.
Let them go.

God bless you all, but may God’s especial blessing be upon those who know that they need nothing beyond what Christ has already done. Go and work and pray and sing and create your new union.

Where are the appendices?  This is not a minor point.

Translate “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” into koine Greek and one can see the modalistic (or even tritheistic) tendencies.

Susan’s yawn was about SanderD’s grammar lessons.  Me, I think of the historical process repeating itself in the ECUSA/TEC.  (I) There was the whole problem with the Brits as non-present bishops, no need for confirmation, and the Methodist movement.  The Brits blew that one.  (II) Then there was the PECUSA blowing off the evangelical churchmen resulting from (I).  This is where we get the Reformed Episcopal Church (for which see FOR THE UNION OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTENDOM: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians by Allen C. Guelzo).  (III)  The ECUSA/TEC blowing off the conservatives in the Anglican Communion (GC2003/2006, HOB 3/07 and 9/07) and the ECUSA/TEC (GC2003/2006 plus HOB 3/07 and 9/07).

Once again, the ECUSA/TEC has managed to forfeit any chance at being a significant Gospel presence.  There’s the real yawn.

As for Common Cause, I’ll give it the same test that the Integrity-driven ECUSA/TEC go, Gamaliel’s.

Apologies for another double-post, but… In response to #27: The 1662 prayer book (well, Book of Occasional Services I suppose) does the same: “GOD the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you; and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace, that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen.”

See also, the litany in the 1662 Ordinal:
“O GOD the Father, of heaven : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
  O God the Father, of heaven : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
  O God the Son, Redeemer of the world : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
    O God the Son, Redeemer of the world : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
  O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
  O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
  O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
    O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.”

See also paragraph 5 of the Windsor Report:
“As we Anglicans face very serious challenges to our unity and communion in
Christ - challenges which have emerged not least because of different
interpretations of that holiness to which we are called, and different
interpretations of the range of appropriate diversity within our union and
communion - Paul would want to remind us of the unique source of that unity,
our common identity in Christ, and its unique purpose, the furtherance of God’s
mission within the world. We too have certainly been gifted with the grace of
fellowship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We are,
by God’s gift, in communion with the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and are
members of one another in Christ Jesus. We are, in the power of the Spirit, sent
into all the world to declare that Jesus is Lord. This grace-given and grace-full
mission from God, and communion with God, determine our relationship with
one another. Communion with God and one another in Christ is thus both a gift
and a divine expectation. All that we say in this report is intended both to
celebrate that gift and to answer that expectation.”

Just some food for thought.

Well, Fred, Virgil and Susan, I am sure you all will be quite happy together.  As an earlier post said you should be quite happy as you have won TEC.  It is your church. We are leaving, maybe not as quickly as you would wish, but we are leaving.

Never mind.  Found the appendices on the ACN website.

#20, it’s not grammer.  “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” is a serious misarticulation of the nature of the Trinity, just as “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” is.

Actually, SanderD, you said it was grammatically incorrect.  And, although I disagree with him, Peter Toon of the Prayer Book Society has argued for years the precise opposite point of yours, that the 1979 BCP invocation “In the Name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”  points to the modalist implications of the revised Prayer Book, and that the correct form is precisely the one you reject.  In fact, I would not be suprised if Toon was not behind the form used in this Common Cause Statement. Contrary to both you and Toon, I’ll stick with Athanasius. 

If you have a real argument against the Common Cause statement, make it.  Otherwise, you’re just being a boor.

Sander [#15]: You scoff at the statement’s reference to “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.”

You can find this very language on page 431 of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (blessing of a marriage). It also appears in the Windsor Report (paragraph 5).

I have concerns about the eventual outcome of the Common Cause Partnership in that I think it will end up just being the “Orthodox” ECUSA people taking over the vineyards which have been planted by those who remained faithful for many years and evicting those who did the planting and the nurturing from their workshops, but the Trinitarian opening to the statement is not even at the top of my concerns.

As #27 Pointed out, the following are the Blessings (after I now prounounce that they are man and wife…) (It looks like the “so” before “fill you with…” is the only difference).  Canada’s 1962 BCP also has the same language.

1928 BCP(USA)
GOD the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you, and fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace; that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen.

1662 BCP
GOD the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you; and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace, that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen.

While the statement may conform to the usage in the 1662 Prayer Book, the Windsor Report and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we can surely agree that it does not reach the standard of Trinitarian rigor that is the norm in ECUSA.

41, What Trinitarian rigor?  I think that was your point.

“The standard of Trinitarian rigor that is the norm in ECUSA”—-Mark McCall

As in, “Coffee, tea, or milk?”

SanderD, an arrogant, haughty theologian is an oxy-moron.

You may infer that “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” invokes Sabellianism (or infer whatever you wish), but it is entirely consistent with the Scutum fidei.

Susan Russell might be bored with the line, not resting until the millions of unreached souls in North America are brought to Christ, but I am getting fired up.

we can surely agree that it does not reach the standard of Trinitarian rigor that is the norm in ECUSA

Thank goodness I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that!

Oh, dear. I just noticed I used a double negative in my comment about Peter Toon above.  I await anxiously to discover the hidden heresy lurking in my grammatical slip.

#43… more like ... ribbed, lubricated, or sheepskin?

It may seem like a small distinction, #27, but the declarative statement used at the beginning of the Nuptial Blessing is different because it does not begin with “In the Name of…”  There is some Western Catholic tradition of imparting the blessing of the Three persons of the Trinity distinctly.  (A small trace of this distinction is seen in the fact that when a Bishop blesses the congregation, he/she properly uses three crosses of the hand—one at each Name—as opposed to the single cross a priest uses for the Trinity in sum).

The Name of God is a different matter altogether.  The Name of God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one “entity.”  When the 1979 BCP was being debated at the 1976 Convention and in the Standing Liturgical Commission before that, there was some question raised as to the propriety of the Eucharistic acclamation “Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” because the correct formulation from the Easter Divine Liturgy is “Blessed be the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  The “God colon” is a western formula that, as I pointed out in my first post, is not tolerated in good Eastern theology because it is deemed too close to the modalistic/thri-theistic formula “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.”  The Prayer Book drafters kept the “God colon” formula, however, because it does not use the phrase “in the Name of.”  (I am aware that even “In the Name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is accepted in western theology—whereas the form used in the bishops’ statement here is not—but the Prayer Book drafters wanted to be sensitive to Eastern Orthodox interpretations as well, particularly because the formula in the BCP is based on the formula of the Divine Liturgy.)

The form in the Marriage Office is different entirely, as it is a blessing, not an invocation or an acclamation about the nature of the Trinity.

I have written before—on this blog, I believe—about my similar disdain for liberal sloppiness in stating the Trinitarian Name: “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer,” for example.  (When the first draft of what became “Renewing Our Worship” was released in 1985 for study, it met quick opposition from the HoB’s Theology Committee for this theological error, and the House—in an effort led by the then-Bishop Coadjutor of Chicago, Frank Griswold—demanded orthodoxy in the naming of the Trinity in future drafts of “Renewing Our Worship.”)

The Church catholic, throughout the ages, has spent a great deal of painful energy bringing specificity and precision to the doctrine of, and the Naming of, the Holy Trinity for the simple reason that Trinitarian doctrine is the most precise exposition of who God himself is and what is the “culture of God” (to use a phrase with deep rooting in North African theology).  I have disdain for any slopiness in this regard, be it from the left or the right, because orthodox Christianity has always demanded precision on this point.

#30’s assertion that this amounts to “making fun of the accents” of the signers of this document would be funny if it were not so self-parodying and so dismissive of the need for proper theology in the Church on the doctrine of God’s Most Holy Name. 

(Moreover, I’ve never really detected an accent in Bishop Duncan’s speech, but perhaps I have to listen more closely!)

Inappropriate comment delete by elf.

RE: “While looking for theological bogeymen, the translation’s use of “Brother Sun,” “Sister Moon,” and “Mother Earth” was lambasted, with some of the commentators finding Wiccan overtones.”

Actually, it was the fact that the song had been [mis] translated to imply that “Brother Sun” should be praised rather than the sun’s creator.  I looked at the song and barely raised an eyebrow since it was fairly standard liberal ECUSA tripe.

RE: “You can find this very language on page 431 of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (blessing of a marriage). It also appears in the Windsor Report (paragraph 5).”

Irenaeus . . . “doh!”  ; > ) 

And “oops” . . . ; > )

And . . . “well . . . never mind.”  ; > )

For my part, I recognize Sander’s ponderous comment as the gratifyingly bitter response of a man who is simply irked and needs to express it in some way without saying on a public blog “I’m irked.”

One last point on the Marriage Office: as I pointed out above, the Nuptial blessing is not up to challenge as to its orthodoxy because it is the pronouncement of a blessing, not the invocation of the Name of God.  Just a few pages earlier, the Celebrant pronounced the couple husband and wife “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” NOT “in the Name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.”

The attempt here to defend Trinitarian sloppiness is perhaps not surprising, but dispiriting nonetheless.

RE: “The attempt here to defend Trinitarian sloppiness is perhaps not surprising, but dispiriting nonetheless.”

Not certain why it would be “dispiriting” . . . reasserting Anglicans don’t share the same foundational worldview as reappraisers.

That’s a bit like my going to the Integrity blog and making some reasserter pronouncements and then stating that it’s so dispiriting when reappraisers don’t agree with my pronouncements.

Hard for me to believe that progressives going onto a reasserting blog would be “dispirited” by reasserters disagreeing with them.

I have read the statement of Common Cause Partners with great interest and with gratitude for the work and servant leadership that is going on in their ministries. It is especially encouraging to hear them say

“We will make disciples who make disciples and plant churches that plant churches”

It is disappointing but unsurprising that this ministry is greeted by some with yawning, and some by yapping. Perhaps I can encourage those to exercise some of their intellectual prowess by helping me to discern the truth in the assertion that a brass bass bridge will yield better lows and an aluminum better mids and highs. Any sources especially post- Reformation ones would be appreciated.

On another subject than grammar, I am excited to see a return to the actual mission of the church:

“We are committed to the Great Commission. We will make disciples who make disciples and plant churches that plant churches, not resting until the millions of unreached souls in North America are brought to Christ, until all groups on the earth have indigenous churches firmly begun within them and our Lord returns in glory.”

This is definitely where Christians need to focus energies and thoughts.  This document is a step in the direction of the real mission of the church.

this is a sad statement, in no way consistent with what the ABC & the primates have indicated in terms of focus or process

as Wimberly wrore in his reflection on the recent HoB mtg:

I know that many people think we are going to reach a point when “we will all have to make a decision. ” I don’t see that point now or in the near future.  I

Ralinda (#13) and Susan (#8):

Maybe it’s an old wives tale but I though yawning was a sign that the brain was not getting enough oxygen.

Good for these churches.  Better to organize than not to be organized.  To be honest, if there were a way just to give each other space, it might be the best - let each other have some integrity, so to speak.  I admit, I am… skeptical about how long this will last, in part because the personalities are so diverse, and the main unifying force is a view of homosexuality as reliable as scripture’s understanding of cosmology.  Hope it works for them.

I wouldn’t even mind if they became part of the the various Anglican international structures.  What is bothersome would be their attempts to supplant, rather than complement, The Episcopal Church in the international structures.

55, Of course you don’t.  But then the ABC has approved what TEC is doing.  He has made his decision and we are leaving.  Enjoy.

On the point of the Windsor Report using the same language, it does not.  “worship of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” is perfectly appropriate.  It is even appropriate to worship the three singularly, as well as in tandem, or as groups of two.  It is NOT appropriate to Name God in a manner that can be severed into three parts. 

And that gets to my theological point: I can praise God the Father, I can praise God the Son, and I can praise God the Holy Spirit—or I can thank or pray to each individually—but I cannot claim that each is the Name of God (ie: “In the Name of the God the Father, Amen.  Of in the Name of God the Father and God the Son, Amen.)  The Name of God is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” period.  All else is heresy by the councils of the Church.

To my awareness, no orthodox liturgy of the West or the East has ever used the phrase “In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit”—and if I am overlooking one—I would similarly question its theological precision.

(Finally, on the point of Dr. Toon, the reason the drafters of the Prayer Book rejected his precise argument when it was presented to them by others is that a colon, grammatically, implies that what follows is are parts of what precedes is, not that there are three separate modes.  A neopolitan ice cream bar: strawberry, chocolate and vanilla does not, in English grammar, imply three chocolate bars.  The essential point here is that those who have held up the critique of the “God colon” formula over the years generally would find the formula in this Common Cause statement to be less orthodox, not moreso, because the strictly proper, universally Naming formula is “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen”  And UNLIKE the blessing at the end of mass (where the bishop makes three crosses but a priest makes one, in the invocation nothing other than a single cross is made because the Name is One, not three).

John, you and TEC will remove yourselves.

SanderD, so tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  So pray tell us, what is the precise magical language that we need to use?  If you say it right and with the right inflection does God have to do what you want?

#57, John, “the main unifying force is a view of homosexuality as reliable as scripture’s understanding of cosmology.”

You obviously have not been paying attention.

“What is bothersome would be their attempts to supplant, rather than complement, The Episcopal Church in the international structures.”

Well, get ready, because that is coming.  Br. Michael is right.  You guys are removing yourselves.  It’s hard to be part of an international structure when the other parts of that structure reject you, and when YOU have rejected the parts of that structure.

this is a sad statement, in no way consistent with what the ABC & the primates have indicated in terms of focus or process

Certainly not consistent with the incoherent mess that the HOB and [apparently] the ABC gave us in New Orleans last week that clearly rejected what the Primates requested at Dar Es Salaam, but quite consistent with what the Global South Primates requested in Kigali September a year ago when they stated: “We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. 

I am surprised it has taken this long, but rather late than never.

SanderD if the name of God is crucial how about Yahweh?  Does that do it for you.

Finally, on the point of Dr. Toon, the reason the drafters of the Prayer Book rejected his precise argument when it was presented to them by others is that a colon, grammatically, implies that what follows is are parts of what precedes is, not that there are three separate modes.

Some punctuation would really help this sentence be more comprehensible. I got lost at the “is are” crossroads, but eventually found my way back. Sander, what you are saying would bear more weight with me if I had ever heard your pronounce on the irregularity of the very, um, diverse “trinities” TEC has espoused here and there.

“I wouldn’t even mind if they became part of the the various Anglican international structures.  What is bothersome would be their attempts to supplant, rather than complement, The Episcopal Church in the international structures.”
If TEC had not fought even the establishment of a complementary structure tooth and nail since Windsor, that might have been an option. 
But on to fight over the Oxford comma!

Evidently Susan+ has not returned to read all of the snippy remarks directed at her personally instead of the persons commenting on the statement itself—a common practice on this blog. She may not have returned because she knows better.

SanderD, thanks for injecting some theological orthodoxy into this discussion.

I only yawn at AAC press releases. It is a sad commentary on the state of the Church that a group of schmatics should write of “repentance for past divisions” in the very act of forming a new division. We’ll see if they succeed, and if they do, what will come of it. I’ll read the Appendix before commenting further.

As one who will actually be affected by the work of the Common Cause Partners, I welcome the statement from the College of Bishops. 

Several of these bishops have opened themselves to presentments from TEC and I, for one, am grateful for their courage.

There will be much made about nuance of language - usually from those who stand outside as observers and critics.  What is important is that a new Anglican Province has a real chance to emerge.

Orthosox faith has never been about complementing heresy, pendennis; it is always about replacement.  As pecusa dies the realigment is the replacement.

Bob from Boone, and “yawn” isn’t snippy?  Let’s be consistent, shall we?

That should be orthodox above - I must have Red Sox on the brain.

Just for the fun of it, I compared this statement with the New Orleans House of Bishops statement.  Although the HOB statement mentions “God,” “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit,” and “Christ,” it includes zero examples of any Trinitarian formula, and zero examples of the names “Father” or “Son.”  Of course, we know that it is the Common Cause bishops who are suspect for being weak on Trinitarian theology.

SanderD, thanks for injecting some theological orthodoxy into this discussion.

Oh, yes.  Thank you, SanderD.  You have indeed provided occasion for theologically orthodox reflection this afternoon—though not in the way you had intended, I’m sure.

You must have missed reading the statement yourself, Bob from Boone.  The statement speaks to uniting the various groups into one, orthodox jurisdiction.  As pecusa walks apart from the Anglican Communion there is a province forming to replace the true schismatics, that is, the protestant sectarians who wish to be known as TEC.

#57

I don’t see the connection between biblical cosmology and scriptural teachings about homosexuality. Extra-biblical authorities, such as science, are in a position to judge the reliability of biblical cosmology, but as Christians we can’t let these authorities decide on matters of faith and practice such as biblical teachings about homosexual activity. Whether homosexual activity is sinful or not is going to be determined by the progress of science; nor are the positions of the heavenly bodies and their movments going to be decided by the Church.

Sorry, I meant:

Whether homosexual activity is sinful or not is b] NOT going to be determined by the progress of science;

Just a note:

The canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon was written by St. Francis of Assisi, and echoes the psalmist (eg., Ps. 148) calling on all nature to worship and bless God, their (and our) creator.

It seems to me that the ACN will remain the flagship!? It seems to encompass several foreign jurisdictions’ American offshoots Kenya, So Cone, and Uganda plus the American dioceses’.  Although it would appear to have only one vote - I think that is a good thing in that those foreign missionary efforts appear to already be included within what will likely be the surviving entity after the mergers.  Is that how it reads to those in the know?  I was kinda hoping that we would hear of more Anglican Districts being formed like Virginia.
It also appears that at least in the short term this entity will encompass dioceses that intend to remain within TEC!?  I wonder at what point that will become impossible.

tonyincny - Oh, I think we agree on that.  I just meant that I think there was a time, long gone, when TEC (then ECUSA) might have stayed things by setting up real adequate alternative oversight.  We’d then still be disagreeing and arguing but not necessarily have lawsuits, depositions and aso bitterly a shattering global communion.

I wonder if someone could chart the following: 1- the accelerating decrease in pecusa given parishes and individuals leaving plus the aging population left in pecusa.  2- the growth of the realignment partners through evangelism, church planting, and parishes leaving pecusa.  3- determine in what year the lines intersect.

As 2.5 million became 2.4 then 2.3 then 2.2, it shouldn’t be too hard to chart for a mathematically inclined person.

And we agree on your comments in 79, pendennis.

Bob: “Evidently Susan+ has not returned to read all of the snippy remarks directed at her personally instead of the persons commenting on the statement itself—a common practice on this blog. She may not have returned because she knows better.”

Perhaps if she posted something worthy of a more substantive response…She got the response she deserved.  Dry your eyes…

enough with the bickering, who are the Common Cause bishops? why are they not identifying themselves?

#78, or even better, plot the high growth leading up to 1965, when there were 3.5 million members in a population 2/3 of its current size.
There could have been a church of 10 million by now, had not the Left decided to begin ‘experimenting.’

In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.

“Finally, on the point of Dr. Toon, the reason the drafters of the Prayer Book rejected his precise argument when it was presented to them by others is that a colon, grammatically, implies that what follows is are parts of what precedes is, not that there are three separate modes.  A neopolitan ice cream bar: strawberry, chocolate and vanilla does not, in English grammar, imply three chocolate bars.”  (SanderD in #59)

That is not exclusively true, Sander.  One could, for example, write (in perfectly good English):  “Plus-size Models:  Big, Bold,* and Beautiful!”  [*Sic; may the Oxford comma once again reign!]

In this example, I list a series of qualities (descriptors or, if you will, modes) describing what precedes the colon.  It’s every bit as valid in English punctuation and grammar as is your Neapolitan example.  What follows a colon is simply some sort of a comment upon, or detailing of, what precedes it.  If a series follows the colon, the items or clauses comprising that series may be a series of components, as you say, or they may be a series of modifiers/descriptives.  From which it follows that both contructions—“God:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” are essentially equivalent, and equally susceptible (or not) to being read as modalism. 

So, having inserted my 2 cents, I’ll leave you to battle out that fine point of theogrammar with Dr. Witt and others.  However, the frustrated schoolmarm in me is frankly *appalled* by the following assertions:

1.  “The grammatical plural “to whom belong” (as opposed to the singular “to whom belongs” further creates the impression that we’re talking about three gods or one God who manifests himself in three modes) rather than the One God.  The Holy Trinity is properly referred to as “he” in good orthodox theology, not as “they”!”  (SanderD in #15)

and

2.  “I do agree with you about the number of the verb “belong”, however.”  (mactexan in #27)

Um, folks, the subject of the verb here is *not* God, whether singular or plural.  The subject is:  “all might, majesty, dominion and glory”; “whom” stands in for God (singular or plural), and God is therefore the indirect object.  The verb must accord in number with the subject; ergo, the correct number of the verb here is plural,—> “belong.”

Still not clear?  Try this: 

If you have “who” or “whom” standing in for a preceding referent, one should be able to separate out the more complex, hifalutin’ sentence into discrete simple sentences or clauses, and one can then determine the appropriate cases and numbers from these.

Thus, “In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.”—>  “In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit” + “All might, majesty, dominion and glory belong to [God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.]”

Without revisiting your colon, SanderD, I trust you will now see that “to whom belong” is the only correct phrasing, and quite irrelevant to any Trinitarian versus Modalist or Tritheistic concerns.

Btw, could you explain how you justify conflating Modalism with Tritheism?  (E.g., you write in #48:  “...the modalistic/thri-theistic formula…”)  Modalism is the exact opposite end of the spectrum from Tritheism; in Modalism there is one God, who manifests/expresses himself in different activities and is called by different names accordingly (i.e., instead of “One God in three Persons,” “One God in three modes of activity”), whereas in Tritheism, there are not only three distinct Persons, there are three wholy independent, self-sufficient Gods—“*Three* Gods in three Persons.”  No?

My copies of Strunk & White, Fowler’s (both the old and the new), and Eats, Shoots, and Leaves are all in my office, and I can’t get to them until Monday.

Darn!  Come, my fellow pedants.  Can’t anyone consult the relevant references here?

The only thing worth saying to Susan Russell and all of Integrity is

......................................................................hhmmm?  Why waste breath talking about her?  She is irrelevant.

But here is what this article is all about:

Who actually signed this thing?  Who actually signed this thing?  Who actually signed this thing ?  Who actually signed this thing?  Who actually signed this thing?  Who actually signed this thing?

Huh—Who Who WHO??

If ANYBODY from Albany is reading this:  throw us a line.  All the chips are ON THE TABLE.  We need a word about our future NOW

I should add that readers may go here to pursue this marginally-interesting-but-ultimately-off-topic-argument:
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/jargonbuster/b-c/colon?view=uk

It helpfully provides ammunition for both sides.

WOW!  This is the first press statement from the various conservatives that actually says something useful.  No more whining.  The time has come for action.

#84, on three of your main points:

First, I do not intend at all to coflate modalism and tri-theism.  Clearly, they are polar opposites.  The exquisite failure of the equivocation used in the Common Cause statement is that it is open to misinterpretation as the heresy on BOTH ends of the spectrum: both tri-theism and modalism.  That is why orthodox Christian theology does not permit it.  As an interesting excercise, search the web for “In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.”  You will get less than 500 hits, most of them on home-grown sermon sites or house-made liturgies, where theological precision is not the order of the day.  So, just as a starter, the theological company that the Common Cause communique is keeping is, shall we say, less than blue ribbon.

Second, the problem with your grammatical statement on colons (“Plus-side models”) is that “models” here is plural.  You are amplifying my point.  The reason the colon in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is okay is that the word God is singular.  “Gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” woud, of course, be wrong.  That’s why the colon was theologically acceptable to the BCP drafters, and why the argument that Dr. Toon and others make (which is not, strictly speaking, without merit) did not sway them on the translation they used.  Once again, though, if one accepts Dr. Toon’s critique of the BCP Eucharistic acclamation, the form used by the “Common Cause 51” is even less correct, not more.

Finally, your point on the grammatical structure of the sentence “In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to whom belong…” is just not correct.  The phrase “all might, majesty, dominion, and glory” is NOT the subject of the verb “belong.”  You would be correct if the sentence were: “God, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion, and glory.”  Once again, though, the fact that this is an invocation makes all the difference.  An invocation is, by definition, not a complete sentence.  It is a fragment of the sentence used in liturgics, whose unspoken subject is “We” and whose unspoken verb is “gather” or “pray” or “worship,” with the object of all of that being the spoken invocation itself.  In the case of this document, a grammatical sentence picking up on the implications of the Invocation sentence fragment would likely read something like: “We publish this in the Name of…” or “We are bound together in the Name of…”  Thus God is the object of the verb “publish,” for example, and the subject of the verb “belong.”

“To God belong majesty, might…” is correct in its context, incorrect in the context of “In the Name of God, to whom belong majesty, might…”

The posts here have been honest and enlightening, besides Susan’s “Yawn” that seemed a bit strange, and I was carefully studying them, but almost abandoned the topic when Sander started on punctuation.  I had to laugh when I remembered an Egyptian Orthodox Lady who was the chief translator in our Chartered Accountant’s office in Cairo.  One day we finished our business and she asked if I were a Christian. I told her I was an Anglican, she said she was Orthodox.  Being very serious, I asked her the basic difference between the Orthodox and the Coptics.

“Oh there is a tremendous difference!  When we make the sign of the cross, we go from forehead to chest, then to the left shoulder and finally to the right shoulder. The Coptics go from the forehead to the chest, then right shoulder first, then to the left shoulder.”

I should add that she was very serious.  I had to carefully thank her for explaining,

Thanks, Oldman for the levity!

Okay, c’mon y’alls. This isn’t about commas or colons, or even about whether a couple of guys want to schtup each other. This is all about “Who do you say I am?” and “If you love me, you’ll keep my commandments.” It is totally entwined with questions of the redeeming power of Christ acting through the Holy Spirit to change lives and set sinners on a new and unexpected path towards healing and wholeness.

Time and again ECUSA has made common cause (if you will) with the most blatant aspects of American secular liberalism. I care not one whit that they’ve tried (clumsily) to dress it up in God language.

Name one (ONE!) secular liberal cause that ECUSA has not adopted as its own. That they have moved in this direction by claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit in direct contradiction to well studied scripture demonstrates most unequivocally that they have chosen to reject God’s own wisdom and replace it with their own.

The tragic irony is that their secular cultural “wisdom” is almost exactly what historical demographers such as Strauss & Howe (‘Generations’ 1991 and ‘Fourth Turning’ 1997) project for the end of an era dominated by an ‘Idealist’ generation. Baby Boomers and their beliefs are expected to attain peak power in 2008, after which their decline will be stunning in its rapidity.

The reasserters, global south, and Pittsburgh bishops are to be commended for refusing to be sucked down the drain along with the self-absorbed mental, emotional and spiritual sewage of a generation that as a whole personifies original sin—I will be as God.

It’s time someone told these spoiled, perpetually-adolescent brats NO! It might be the first time in their lives. And perhaps by the Grace of God a few of them will actually pay attention long enough to give themselves a much different and more satisfying future.

FWIW, I’m a ‘49er and know the Boomers much too well.

Here is my initial take:

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/09/last-one-out-turn-off-lights.html

Though the Copts are not Chalcedonian, when they invoke the name of God they do so with the following formula: “In the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God!”  for whatever that’s worth!

The grammar is entertaining, but even better is to find an American Anglican post-meeting statement which invokes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, however linked grammatically.

Before this I thought I was the only one, inspired by Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, who might consider fixing flying apostrophes in the produce section at the grocery store.

Sander, I’m sorry, but I think Nadine has you skewered on the grammar issue.

And now it’s time to discuss the original thread. This isn’t English class.

-Elf Lady

It’s strange, but I don’t know how to deal with what’s happening. I accept that TEC never has had any intention of making provision for reasserters - I hoped that some sort of consensus solution could be found, I guess. I remember how I felt when I was in my 20s, making the decision to join TEC. It was excruciatingly important to me. I had had what I felt was a conversion experience. It has seemed more and more like I converted to nothing, that there was a church ... once ... but it’s been fading away before my eyes. That said, I am glad someone is taking steps to provide a church home for reasserting Anglicans in the U.S., since TEC refused to do so.

And so begins the fracturing of the Communion & the restructuring thereafter.

Oh, and you’re right, Sherri - Nadine has Sander seriously skewered on the grammar issue.  But it does continue to prove that liberals cannot read plain English…

Thanks for your comments on the CCCB statement in your blog, albion.

My take is that there is not only much to do within the partnership that has developed, but also more to do to bring in partners not yet at the table. I am in one of those groupings that would like to be at the table, but has not yet been permitted in the door. There was much hope and enthusiasm 15 months ago, as seen in this photographic recollection in my own blog: http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/2007/09/pittsburgh-and-ceec.html

I look forward to a revitalization of that hope.

MJD_NV, I think we have to allow that *Nadine* can read plain English - and convoluted, too.

Folks,
In fact, I would love to have the 1662 prayer book (take out the Queen in the US, Leave Her in in Canada) with a few minor updates.  In fact, THAT IS EXACTLY what the BCP of the REC (2006) is.  In fact, for those who like the “Scottish Eucharist” (1928 and all USA books) it is in there as the “alternative” right after the 1662 Service.
As to the Nicene Creed, we did put “Holy” back in (One HOLY Catholic and Apostolic Church). 
Why do we need “modern language?”  As “Ad Orientem” says, Christianity has been Proclaiming the truth since AD 33. And I disagree with those who say that the Church of England began under Henry VIII.  It began much earlier when the faith was taken to Lindisfarne and even earlier.

The Church in England is one thing.  The Church of England is something else.

Sander, grammar quibbles aside, the important thing is, do you believe that Jesus is both true God from true God and also fully man.  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God, the One who inspired men of old to write the Scriptures and preserve and transmit them faithfully, inerrant (of indispensible importance), excluding books that were either not inspired by God though useful or were outright fabrications (ex. Gnostic “gospels” written centuries after the crucifixion) and who will never contradict Scripture but only reveal its true meaning and bring to our rememberance all things of Jesus the Saviour.  The late Walter Martin had a great litmus test for Mormon and Jehova Witness false belief about Jesus.  They would readily assert that Jesus was the Son of God.  Both would deny the divinity of Jesus as God the Son, who called Himself the way, the truth and the life, through whom alone we may come to the Father.  Common Cause seems to believe and affirm those very things.  Do you?

anglicanhopeful wrote:
Yawns are not authorized, but they are allowed for pastoral reasons.

Very clever, anglicanhopeful.

Lumen Christie, You asked who signed this document? Good question. I bet your bishop did not. He was still in NO voting yes on the HOB’s statement, or at least, not voting no. It will be interesting to see how long it will take to get a report from him on the meeting. I haven’t checked all the news this morning, but as I recall his diocese is still waiting for the report he promised to give on the March HOB’s meeting. Remember his Priests’s and Deacons’ update: “I’m still on the road and in a few days I’ll give you my impressions of the meeting.” Albany is still waiting. What I’m waiting for is a group who has the courage to leave this once orthodox diocese and start up a CANA or AMiA mission. Any interest out there?

Yet another denomination is being born.  There are so many as it is in the U.S. – 10 of thousands.  There are so many “Continuing Anglican” denominations, too.  So, some people and groups will come together and in time there will be more splitting up.  We can’t help ourselves once going down that road. 

There is always great excitement and expectation when something new is born.  Goodness knows, the Evangelical/Protestant denominations and churches in this country have not done a very good job attracting/bring in the unchurched.  Perhaps this new denomination will be more successful than the rest of the American Protestantism. 

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.  It will be interesting to see where things are 25 years from now.  I remember a Reformed Episcopal Bishop recommending strongly a few years ago that dissenting TEC bishops not create a new thing.  The REC has not faired very well over time, despite the promise of new found purity and excitement when they broke from the American Church last century.

As was mentioned somewhere else, for a new entity to be declared the official provincial structure of the Anglican Communion, 2/3rds (I think) of the ACC must give approval (aside from recognition by the ABC).  I don’t think that is going to happen.  I don’t think there is the support internationally for such a thing.  Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, and Uganda do not even have full agreement within their own provinces about recognizing a new thing and rejecting an old one.

Yes, 25 years from now will be interesting.  (And don’t bother with statements like, “Oh yes, TEC will be dead and the new Anglican Church in America will be glorious.”  Know one knows the future, but God.)

#104: Of course, I believe that Jesus is both True God and True Man, Word of the Father, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the Second Person of the Trinity.  As I said above, Trinitatian doctrine is the most fundamental piece of orthodox theology because it reveals precisely who God, what God’s relationship with himself is, and—as a consequence—what his relationship with mankind is.  This was never about grammar (though the statement’s poor grammar amplifies its theological error).  It is about a statement that invokes the Trinity in a way that a first-year theology student would know better than to do.  And as I said, it doesn’t bode well for what follows. 

Indeed, the statement’s use of the word “reconciliation,” for example, is at a complete disconnect from what “reconciliation” means in a theological context.  Here, I would point out that unless one properly understands the Trinity, one cannot possibly understand what the word “reconciliation” means in Christian theology, and one is thus prone to using the word in the sloppy (and disingenuous) secular nature it is used here.  Reconciliation/atONEment is so central to the identity of God the Holy Trinity, and a consequence of the relationship between Father and Son in the communion of the Holy Spirit: a relationship which is then imparted to human beings by the Son through the agency of the Spirit.)

The CC statement begins with a basic theological assumption about what reconciliation means in the context of the Church that is flatly contrary to what reconciliation means in the “culture of God” (a phrase I used above when trying to explain why I thought the anti-Trinitarian heresy embodied in the phrase “In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” is more than an issue of semantics.)  The statement’s subsequent assumptions about what reconciliation means (and more fundamentally, what it does not) can only be rationalized in a theological economy that does not properly understand the Trinity and God’s relationship to man that is revealed through orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

Unfortunately, the whole statement—and the whole “theology” of schism masquerading as reconciliation that undergirds the work of Common Cause—suffers from a sort of dimestore theology that is forgiveable (though not commedable) for people in the pews but totally inexcusable when coming from bishops of the Church.  And it begins with the Trinity.  God bless the Archbishop of Canterbury for deciding that next year’s Lambeth Conference will focus almost exclusively on theological education.  For the sake of the Church, let’s pray that these 51 bishops are still part of the Communion at that point…

The “modalism” argument is assuming a motivation & facts not in evidence.  The phrasing may not be pleasing to you, but claiming it to be modalistic is merely opinion and grasping at straws.

I see nothing in their statement that misuses reconciliation.  Nor do you put anything in your posts that explains such a critique. 

“The whole “theology” of schism masquerading as reconciliation” is pretty much what the General Convention Church has been doing for years, Sander.

WE need a Constantine now to call a great council at our own Nicea - I suppose this is Las Vegas.
The fragmentation is predictable and understandable, but it neednot last forever. If the real common cause Anglicans would be willing, we need to redefine those core elements that define the Anglican identity, for the fragmentation is actually an identity issue and we should treat it tht way. And this council can get on with its business because it will not have to deal with TEC which is now outside in the gathering darkness. Is there not an irreducible core to which all Anglicans can give assent? I don’t know the answer, and yet there ought to be because if there is not, our identity is as porous and evanescent as TEC’s now is. LM

RE: “Unfortunately, the whole statement—and the whole “theology” of schism masquerading as reconciliation that undergirds the work of Common Cause—suffers from a sort of dimestore theology that is forgiveable (though not commedable) for people in the pews but totally inexcusable when coming from bishops of the Church.”

I wonder if SanderD understands that when progressives use the words “masquerading,” “reconciliation,” “dimestore theology,” and . . . most especially the phrase “totally inexcusable when coming from bishops of the Church”  reasserters get all giggly inside.

Probably not—but it’s a feeling a bit like having champagne bubbling up in the brain.  ; > )

“And now it’s time to discuss the original thread. This isn’t English class.”  (Elf Lady commenting in #97)

Well, yes, except…  SanderD was making theological assertions based on his reading of what theology he thought was being advanced by certain alleged grammatical constructions.  So his “theogrammar” ought to be open to being itself analyzed, no?  I therefore beg Elfin indulgence for this reply to his #89…

1.  “First, I do not intend at all to coflate modalism and tri-theism.”  OK, SanderD, thanks; but your slash between the two terms implies a conflation.  Thanks for clarifying your intended meaning.

2.  “Second, the problem with your grammatical statement on colons (“Plus-side models”) is that “models” here is plural.  You are amplifying my point.  The reason the colon in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is okay is that the word God is singular.  “Gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” woud, of course, be wrong.  That’s why the colon was theologically acceptable to the BCP drafters, and why the argument that Dr. Toon and others make (which is not, strictly speaking, without merit) did not sway them on the translation they used.  Once again, though, if one accepts Dr. Toon’s critique of the BCP Eucharistic acclamation, the form used by the “Common Cause 51” is even less correct, not more.”

Er, *no*. 

Let’s fisk this a bit, shall we? 

“Second, the problem with your grammatical statement on colons (“Plus-side models”) is that “models” here is plural.  You are amplifying my point.  The reason the colon in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is okay is that the word God is singular.” 

Huh???  In my example, a plural worked perfectly fine.  And one could do so as well with a series not of attributes per se (as in my “plus-size models” example) but of components; e.g., “Anglicans:  High Church, Broad Church, and Low Church.”  So either a singular or plural noun can precede the comma, and after the commas can come three clauses, three attributes, three modes, three adjectives, three (or more) whatevers, and they can describe “modes” just easily as they can signify components.  Your attempted distinctions just don’t hold water.

““Gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” woud, of course, be wrong.”  Um, not necessarily, except as a matter of orthodox theology—but grammatically, not so.  “Goddesses:  Hera, Athena, Aphrodite” would absolutely *not* be wrong.  And, for that matter, “Goddess:  Hera, Athena, Aphrodite” works grammatically as well, and can be interpreted to mean either that each of these is a distinct goddess, or else that each of them manifests a core “Divine Feminine,” i.e., “Goddess.”  So here too, your theogrammar collapses.

“That’s why the colon was theologically acceptable to the BCP drafters, and why the argument that Dr. Toon and others make (which is not, strictly speaking, without merit) did not sway them on the translation they used.  Once again, though, if one accepts Dr. Toon’s critique of the BCP Eucharistic acclamation, the form used by the “Common Cause 51” is even less correct, not more.”  The BCP drafters and Dr. Toon make mirror-image mistakes.  They are both correct as to what is permitted after a comma, and both incorrect as to what is *not* permitted there. 

3.  “Finally, your point on the grammatical structure of the sentence “In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to whom belong…” is just not correct.  The phrase “all might, majesty, dominion, and glory” is NOT the subject of the verb “belong.” You would be correct if the sentence were: “God, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion, and glory.”” 

Um, but SanderD—that *is* *content* of the underlying sentence, except that what you wrote is not actually a sentence; the correct underlying sentence (in the clause at issue, mind you, not the whole text) is:  “All might, majesty, dominion, and glorybelong to God.”  “All might, majesty, dominion, and glory” *is* indeed the subject of the verb “belong.”  Had you analyzed this grammar otherwise for the nuns who taught me, they’d have rapped your knuckles with a ruler.  (Repeatedly.)

Which moves us along to an astonishing grasping at grammatical straws by you:

“Once again, though, the fact that this is an invocation makes all the difference.  An invocation is, by definition, not a complete sentence.  It is a fragment of the sentence used in liturgics, whose unspoken subject is “We” and whose unspoken verb is “gather” or “pray” or “worship,” with the object of all of that being the spoken invocation itself.  In the case of this document, a grammatical sentence picking up on the implications of the Invocation sentence fragment would likely read something like: “We publish this in the Name of…” or “We are bound together in the Name of…” Thus God is the object of the verb “publish,” for example, and the subject of the verb “belong.””

Look, “God” simply *cannot* be the subject of “belong” here; grammatically, it is preceded by the preposition “to” and takes its case accordingly as an indirect object.  If “God” is the subject, then what follows is:  “God belongs to all might etc.,” which is either a grammatical absurdity or a theological atrocity, or both. 

“In the name of God” is indeed an invocatory clause, akin to “By the power vested in me by the State of New York…”  What the “to whom belong” clause does is add/embed the content of the sentence “All might etc. belong to God” as a comment upon “God” in the invocatory clause.  You are quite correct that there’s an implied “we gather/pray/worship”—and these are the true subject and action.  But the subject of the “comment about God” clause—i.e., the clause that is (a) embedded *within* the “invocatory clause,” which in turn is (b) hung upon the implied “we gather” sentence as a comment upon the manner in which we gather, remains “All might etc.,” just as when that thought is expressed as a freestanding sentence.

I’ll pray for your grammatical skills. 

More importantly, SanderD, look—I eschew labels, but with respect to the current troubles, I believe I fall somewhere between (a) the majority of folks on this blog and (b) you.  So I’m not entirely unsympathetic to your views.  But the grammatical analysis you employed is a mighty weak thread by which to hang your theological analysis, and by which to dismiss this statement without reading it more deeply, as you claimed you could not because of the alleged bad grammar indicating flawed basic theology. 

Frankly, if that’s the level of theological parsing coming from the reappraising end of the pew, it’s enough to push some of us in the middle to look more closely at moving further along toward the reasserters’ end of the pew.  So if you want to make your case, a bit more rigor, and a bit more addressing seriously the reasserters’ arguments, and a bit less petty theogrammatical parsing, might help.

For what it’s worth…