I pray that Dr. Harmon and family and the entire Diocese of South Carolina will be safe from harm. News reports talk of serious flooding in Charleston and surrounding areas.
“Two persons in one nature”? Were those the Archbishop’s actual words, or did someone make a mistake transcribing them?
Welby’s track record, just like his predecessor’s, says it all. The words are immaterial. It is as if St. Francis had said “Tell what you believe, use words when necessary” to both men. The words are superfluous.
This event is obviously deeply evil. It is no surprise that evil, having taken hold of a man, targets God’s people.
I do wonder whether the shooter will be shown to have been affected by either illegal drugs or prescription anti-depressants so often linked to episodes of violence.
No one will ever report on the demonic in these shootings. This will not be seen as part of the war on Christians. Mercer had a social network name of Iron Cross. The Columbine shootings occurred on Hitler’s birthday. Also, this shooting occurred in a gun free zone. The security officer was armed only with a can of mace. There is plenty to talk about here other than gun control.
Nice Freudian slip on the part of the editor. This does"alter” things but the word in “altar”.
Why does everyone seem to be so historically ignorant? Russia has wanted warm water ports in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea since the time of Peter the Great. They have been looking at Basra for about 400 years now. Since Obama is letting them have it, they are going to take it—which is historically hilarious, since they have every intent to screw the Iranians. (Yes I realize Basra in technically in Iraq, but Iraq is now irrelevant to the equation thanks to Obama/Clinton, and is essentially under Iranian influence/domination). The reason they invaded Afghanistan in the 70s was to get access to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, either militarily or diplomatically. To coin a phrase, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.
The “merits” of Justin Welby actions on which we can make some judgments that lead us to mistrust him, having nothing to do with any wounds we might or might not have sustained otherwise:
Welby, as one of the architects of the “facilitated conversation” version of the Delphi Technique, helped engineer its implementation at Lambeth 2008 and Dublin, and that is a major reason the English hierarchy and government chose him as ABoC. As Archbishop of Canterbury his major claim to fame is that he has made “facilitated conversations” into the ecclesiology of the CoE, overriding all canons and doctrine, for the express purpose of normalizing gay clergy as standard operating procedure, and normalizing gay marital relationships in the CoE.
Given that cremation is a decidedly pagan practice, I am not sure what the basis is for complaint.
My hope is that the other justices will kindly *reprimand* Justice Hearn for showing such bias in the hearing and then go on to inform themselves on the actual facts in the case. I would rather see the justices go ahead and deliberate and come to a decision [in favor of the Diocese of SC….. of course!] by the end of the year as Justice Toal’s term is up then.
Sorry for #42. I must have pushed the wrong button. I want to reply to your ##39,40, and 41.
The invitation states “Our way forward must respect the decisions of Lambeth 1998, and of the various Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ meetings since then.” That is a pretty express affirmation that Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar remain in effect. Do you disagree?
We can debate the various points we make and will likely not agree. I think that three disagreements underlie our debate:
1. How ought the orthodox deal with those who are not? I think that Jesus provides the model. He never hesitated to speak with people who Judaism viewed as heretics. For example, Jesus journeyed through Samaria, spoke with the woman at the well, and preached the Gospel to her village. By the standards of the orthodox Jews of the first century, the Samaritans were grossly heretical. There are other examples. Jesus repeatedly entered the Temple, taught there, and debated with the Temple establishment. The point is: the orthodox are not “tainted” by meeting and speaking with heretics. I simply don’t see that the orthodox Primates will be contaminated, or suddenly persuaded to cave to apostasy, by meeting with TEC’s presiding bishop and his counterparts in the AC of C, etc. Talking to TEC is not surrender to TEC, or adoption of TEC’s theological errors.
2. What is this Primates meeting for? You have agreed that the ABC is not happy with the status quo in the Communion, and I think many Primates share that dissatisfaction. I have been critical of Rowan in my previous posts because I honestly believe that he sabotaged the clear decisions at Lambeth 1998, Dromantine, and Dar, and introduced the “indaba” methods you rightly criticize at Lambeth 2008 and at the most recent (and sparsely attended) Primates meeting. My point is simply this: for Archbishop Welby to try the same tactics again won’t work. Pulling another “bait and switch” will simply poison, for the remainder of his tenure, his relations with all the orthodox Primates who have distanced themselves from the Communion since Dar. I think both Abp. Welby and the orthodox Primates know this. So trying another Rowan style meeting will not only fail, but will weaken, and perhaps end, the remaining ties between the majority of the Communion and Canterbury. I agree with you that the orthodox Primates won’t “leave” the Communion, because they are the Communion. But, if the ABC sabotages this meeting, perhaps the orthodox primates will establish an alternative to the ABC as the focus of Communion relations. I don’t think Abp. Welby and most, if not all, of the orthodox Primates want such a rupture. So the purpose of the meeting is: what can we do to keep the Communion together given that TEC will not repent? This does not mean surrender to TEC. I also think that you have not taken all the personal meetings with the Primates Abp. Welby into account. As my previous posts said, it is inconceivable that the new ABC did not hear the Primates’ reactions to Rowan’s actions loud and clear.
3. How do we prove good faith/bad faith? Your comments uniformly ascribe bad faith and intentional manipulation to Abp. Welby. I think that such a harsh interpretation is not proven. As one example, I quoted the sentence from the ABC’s announcement that the Communion would respect Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar. The logic of your presumption of Abp. Welby’s bad faith must compel you to assert that such a statement is simply a lie. Such as assertion is not proven by a presumption.
I honestly do not think that these positions come straight from TEC. I do not agree with any of TEC’s theological innovations since well before 2003, and especially object to TEC’s drift away from the Gospel message. We have all been damaged by the entire sorry history. But it is not naive to evaluate Abp. Welby’s actions on their merits, not on the wounds we have sustained before he took office.
Institution, or installation?
I’ve decided that certain parties who advocated that Nato and the EU not expand eastward were right all along. One wonders how much more pacific the relationship between Russia and the West would be today if Nato had chosen to form working relationships with the former Warsaw Pact states rather than allowing them to slowly enter the alliance and eat away at the buffer zone. Everyone would probably be getting along a lot better if Nato had kept places like Poland and the Baltic states at arm’s length as its own buffer between it and the former Soviet republics that are Russia’s near abroad and are understandably considered by Russia to be within its sphere of influence. Certainly in places like Ukraine, attempting to draw in states into the greater Western European sphere has ultimately proven to be futile.
Working fine for me as of now.
I hope very much that the GS and GAFCON primates will not allow themselves to be talked into submitting to a “facilitated conversation.”
Suppose the church did not put people to sleep during the sermons and prayers. It seems like the better solution.
It couldn’t be because there are that many people doing bad things and we have better means of catching them and proving the cases, could it?
“If the January gathering of Primates does not fully address the real issues, the Communion will not survive—nor should it. “
Link doesn’t seem to work.
The Global South has taken the position that TEC and ACoC must repent of their apostasy before they are re-admitted into the full life of the Communion. Justin Welby’s real aim in this meeting is to overcome that position.
He wants to get at least some of the GS Primates to acknowledge that TEC and ACoC can be full participants in the Anglican Communion, without the need for any repentance.
This is vital, because at present the AC cannot function: If the ABC calls a Lambeth conference and invites TEC, many bishops will refuse to attend, perhaps more than refused last time; If he calls a Primates Meeting and invites TEC, many of the Primates will refuse to attend. Under those circumstances, the liberals cannot silence opposition by pointing to “decisions of the whole communion”.
And note: ++Welby cannot afford to disinvite TEC: The CofE is going down the same road as TEC, and if he concedes that TEC should be disciplined, he invites the same discipline onto his own church at some point in the next 12 months or so.
Inviting Foley Beach was an easy thing to do: Welby has already stated that ACNA is not in the Communion (in his opinion), so inviting ++Beach is no different to inviting someone from the Orthodox Churches to observe.
Continued from previous. Publius at #38 you wrote:
“First, the Communion has already split de facto. If the ABC were comfortable with that reality, he gains nothing by calling a Primates’ meeting, especially if he plans to ignore the result, Rowan style.”
The ABC is not comfortable with that reality, and indeed has said so. The rest of your point falls with that premise.
“Moreover, if the ABC sabotages the Primates’ will again, he will get a formal, official split in the Communion. Do you think he wants that?”
Where do you get the idea that he thinks that – his own words indicate the opposite. And objectively he is correct - the Gafcon primates have stated repeatedly that they are not leaving the Communion. If they don’t, who else would?
“Years have passed since Dromantine and Dar and several Primates are new. The new Primates will want to have their say and vote, rather than rely on decisions taken by their predecessors.”
I have no doubt that is what CofE and TEC leadership are banking on: If you propose a departure from orthodoxy and get a “no” answer, just keep coming back. Propose again, and again, and again. Repeated “no” answers don’t matter – you only need one “Yes” answer, then you can move on to the next item in the liberal agenda.
“When the dust settles, the votes will be the same: the vast majority of the Communion will reject TEC’s reappraisals, and TEC will remain defiant.”
Which directly contradicts your argument above that by calling such a meeting ++Welby risks a formal split in the Communion. More to the point, what makes you think there is going to be any “votes”? Rowan moved away from that approach at 2008 (for the Lambeth Conference) and in Dublin (for the Primates meeting). All ++Welby wants is to have meetings attended by the GS Primates, and by an unrepentant TEC and ACoC.
“The ABC has said that he believes in collegiality. If TEC and others will be disinvited in the future, I would expect the new ABC to want that decision reaffirmed now by the Primates.”
Why, apart from blind optimism, do you think that TEC will be “disinvited in future”? You keep repeating this like a mantra, but you haven’t given a single reason in support of the notion. There is simply no rational or objective reason to think that ++Welby ever intends to “disinvite” TEC.
“Note that, despite a-d, the ABC has called a Primates’ meeting. If your analysis is right, the ABC thinks he can hoodwink the Primates yet again. That would be monumental arrogance and, indeed, folly.”
Why? I would just call it the standard CofE hierarchy way of operating: After Dublin, let things cool down a bit, let some of the Primates retire, then start the whole process again.
“We reasserters have all lived through the last 20 years and have been burned so many times that we have the right to be cynical. But let us remain open minded.”
I am being open minded. If there was any evidence at all to support your speculations, I would be happy to consider them. But there isn’t. Rather, the objective indicators including ++Welby’s own words point to this being just standard CofE and liberal tactics.
More seriously, you are advocating that the Gafcon primates should destroy their own credibility by attending a meeting with an unrepentant TEC and ACoC, when they have expressly said they would not do this.
Publius at #38, I will respond to your particular points in this post:
”...From those facts, it is reasonable to infer that this will not be just another bait-and-switch”
Sorry I don’t follow – how do the facts you list lead to such an inference? Surely the obvious inference is this: (a) the GS and Gafcon primates have declared that they won’t attend a meeting at which an unrepentant TEC is present; so (b) ++Welby calls a meeting and invites TEC anyway, but without any indication of repentance, in the hope that he can overcome at least some of the Primates’ resolve or else isolate them. Straight from the playbook of Rowan Williams.
“I respectfully suggest that if the GAFCON Primates attend, their attendance confirms my inference that this will be no ordinary Primates meeting.”
Why wouldn’t their attendance confirm that Welby has finally persuaded them to go back on their word? He will thus have ended the focus of orthodox resistance in the West also, which is premised on the Gafcon primates position that they will not share communion or meetings with TEC or ACoC unless they repent.
“Of course TEC and other Western provinces are defying Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar. But the invitation’s express statement that those decisions remain in force is saying that TEC’s defiance has not changed the Communion’s teaching regarding marriage or, for that matter, the Gospel message.”
Where is the “express statement that those decisions remain in force”? I have asked this before, but you haven’t responded. In his communique, ++Welby says we must “pay proper attention to developments in the past“ – how do you morph that into “an express statement that those decisions remain in force”? Of course you can do it, using Rowan-double-speak.
And then, in the following paragraph ++Welby states expressly that ALL previous decisions are subject to an overriding principle: “Our way forward must respect the decisions of Lambeth 1998, and of the various Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ meetings since then. It must also be a way forward, guided by the absolute imperative for the church to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, to make disciples and to worship and live in holiness, and recognising that the way in which proclamation happens and the pressures on us vary greatly between Provinces. We each live in a different context.“
That couldn’t be clearer – we “respect” previous decisions, but the “absolute imperative” is to recognise that we live in different contexts and each way of the church operating in different provinces is valid. ++Welby is stating as clearly as he can that TEC and ACoC must be included in Communion life and without repenting.
Finally, and contrary to your last point in the above quote, this DOES show that the Communion teaching regarding marriage and the gospel message has changed, because it affirms that such teaching is subject to context.
“If Abp. Welby really wanted to continue Rowan’s policy regarding TEC, he would not have called a Primates’ meeting at all.”
An assertion completely at variance with the facts: Rowan’s tactics were to (i) keep calling Primates meetings, (ii) fail to implement any determination by previous Primates meetings that he didn’t like, and (iii) try each time to talk the Primates around to letting TEC continue in full participation in Communion life, but without repentance.
All the indications are that ++Welby is operating 100% from the Rowan Williams playbook.
To be continued….
Hi Publius at #38,
Before responding to the detail in your post, I need to make something clear: I think your position could have come straight from the pen of TEC. It is truly a devious one – you may not have intended it so, but that is its effect.
The biggest issue for the liberals in TEC and CofE is the refusal of the Global South to engage with TEC or ACoC until they see tangible evidence of repentance. (The implications for a CofE which is hell-bent on following the same path as TEC are also obvious)
By inviting the Primates to a meeting attended by TEC and ACoC, with no indication whatsoever of repentance, ++Welby seeks to strike at the heart of their resistance.
If ++Welby was sincere, he would have talked to TEC about what they could bring to the table before any meeting, i.e. what indications of repentance. Even a moratorium on law suits, or the beginning of a constructive engagement with ACNA, or resiling from KJS’ previous public statements rejecting orthodox Christology, would have been something. But there has been nothing at all.
This is standard liberal tactics – propose a departure from orthodoxy, but even if you get a “no” answer a hundred times, just say, “of course”, then ignore it and keep proposing. Sooner or later you will get a “yes” answer, and you only need one. Then move on to the next item in the liberal agenda.
++Welby knows full well the GS and Gafcon position, so he just ignores it and proposes that everyone meet together anyway, without the slightest indication of repentance from TEC and ACoC. Nor does he give any indication that he thinks TEC and ACoC should repent – which is hardly surprising since CofE is following closely in their footsteps.
I will respond to your particular points in further posts.
At the end of the Second World War Britain spent much energy, time, and treasure to maintain its seat in the places of world influence and power, even as the empire dissolved. This piece fine example of a post-colonial Britain (through the Archbishop of Canterbury), where it retrenches and feels powerless in the greater world. I’m not sure which Britain (or Archbishop of Canterbury) was or is the better or the more truthful.
The BBC World Service did good coverage prior to the election, questioning the Catalonian leadership’s claims and at the same time spouting the party line (re. Scotland) over how poorly the EU looks at devolution of modern states in general. The separatists claim that the EU will automatically accept Catalonians separated from Spain as EU citizens - that is really not a given.
It’s all interesting to watch from this side of the pond; but, I’m not an MEP, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Let us hope that when light is shed on a circumstance it can lead to circumspection. We used to have a saying in politics here…if it didn’t make the newspaper, it didn’t happen.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Yes, thanks be to God for the primates of the Global South and GAFCON! They are true Anglicans!
#1. Is it allowed? Depends. Do you think people should follow a code for ethics for their position as a judge? If so, then no…. it is not allowed. Even Supreme Court Justices are under the SC Code of Judicial Ethics. There is also a SC Commission on Judicial Conduct which will take complaints about SC judges. Here is the local Charleston paper’s article about Justice Hearn.
“If you are seeing young, upwardly mobile Western citizens who are choosing to join a terrorist organization many miles away from home versus whatever options they feel they have at home – you are losing the battle of ideas,” says Erin Saltman, a radicalism expert at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London.
Ha! “Young, upwardly mobile Western citizens,” kids who live their lives in an increasingly empty, secular world where the chief activity is earning a wage and then using it to buy junk. No wonder the West is losing the battle of ideas.
In short, they become the recruit’s new best friend, someone who likes them, respects them, and understands them. This grooming takes place during frequent discussions of shared grievances. There is plenty to talk about with ongoing atrocities against Muslim men, women, and children, objections to US intervention in the Mideast, and widespread discrimination against Muslims in the West.
Notice how stories like this never come out and say if these kids are in fact Muslims, whether because their parents are or because they converted. Only when the story gets to the part describing how these kids are recruited by ISIS is the fact they identify as Muslim brought up, and even then it’s not made plain, it’s just assumed the reader will make the connection judging by topics the recruiters are bringing up.
I want to respond to some of the points you made in #37.
1. I think Archbishop Welby’s actions have differed significantly from Rowan’s.
a. Abp. Welby visited all the Primates personally before calling this meeting. In those meetings, it is inconceivable that the Global South Primates would not have complained of the entire sorry history of Rowan’s handling of Dromantine, Dar, Lambeth 2008, and the last Primates meeting. I would think that Abp. Welby would have asked the Primates if there were any circumstances under which they would attend a Primates meeting now. The GAFCON statement notes that they would not attend any meeting at which TEC is represented, and from which ACNA is excluded. Note that another thread quotes a Global South source as saying that TEC’s defiance would be the first item on the agenda of this Primates meeting. Note also that Abp. Beach’s statement said that he expects the GAFCON Primates to attend. From those facts, it is reasonable to infer that this will not be just another bait-and-switch meeting after which the ABC and the ACO thwart the Primates’ decisions. I respectfully suggest that if the GAFCON Primates attend, their attendance confirms my inference that this will be no ordinary Primates meeting.
b. Of course TEC and other Western provinces are defying Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar. But the invitation’s express statement that those decisions remain in force is saying that TEC’s defiance has not changed the Communion’s teaching regarding marriage or, for that matter, the Gospel message. In this regard, another thread notes that the Church of Wales has apparently stepped back from endorsing same-sex marriage. I wonder if this is a hint that the wind from Lambeth changed.
2. If Abp. Welby really wanted to continue Rowan’s policy regarding TEC, he would not have called a Primates’ meeting at all. There are several reasons for this.
a. First, the Communion has already split de facto. If the ABC were comfortable with that reality, he gains nothing by calling a Primates’ meeting, especially if he plans to ignore the result, Rowan style. Moreover, if the ABC sabotages the Primates’ will again, he will get a formal, official split in the Communion. Do you think he wants that?
b. I think that the ABC wants to “call the question” regarding where the Communion goes from here. Years have passed since Dromantine and Dar and several Primates are new. The new Primates will want to have their say and vote, rather than rely on decisions taken by their predecessors. When the dust settles, the votes will be the same: the vast majority of the Communion will reject TEC’s reappraisals, and TEC will remain defiant.
c. The ABC has said that he believes in collegiality. If TEC and others will be disinvited in the future, I would expect the new ABC to want that decision reaffirmed now by the Primates.
d. Historically, TEC has paid most of the ACO’s costs. Many commenters have said that the ABC would never defy the ACO’s paymasters. I wonder whether TEC can still afford to fund the ACO at historical levels. Other threads have detailed TEC’s disastrous financial position.
Note that, despite a-d, the ABC has called a Primates’ meeting. If your analysis is right, the ABC thinks he can hoodwink the Primates yet again. That would be monumental arrogance and, indeed, folly. If Katherine Jefferts Schori were the ABC, I could see such arrogance behind these developments. I do not see such arrogance in Archbishop Welby.
3. We reasserters have all lived through the last 20 years and have been burned so many times that we have the right to be cynical. But let us remain open minded.
You have to wonder at that response to the question of the reality of God. There is a rational way, but he chose to not explain it.
1960 - the birth of my beloved bride.
There is surely a great irony here. Just as our inept and self-serving European Union administration drives harder and harder towards a united states of Europe, the member states of the EU fragment. If Catalonia breaks away from Spain, the Basques will not be far behind. Belgium is already a myth as a unitary nation being hopelessly split between Flemish and Walloon. Here in the UK we face a challenge in retaining Scotland. I would have thought that the EU might give some thought to preserving the integrity of its member nations. But then again, this is the European Union that, faced with 800,000+ migrants this year, plans to settle 120,000 of them, has no policy of what to do with the rest, and gives Greece no help at all as the refugees and migrants pour in. No wonder the Catalans want out.
Hi Publius at #34, you wrote:
“Your comment in #27 seems to assume that Abp. Welby is simply prevaricating in the same way as did Rowan. On what evidence do you base that conclusion?”
I am stunned that anyone would think otherwise, frankly. I can’t off-hand think of a single thing ++Welby has done that differentiates him from ++Williams. If he was different, he would have made an honest and serious attempt to restore the damage that has been done to the Communion. He has done nothing at all.
“You have listed several actions that you want the ABC to take as conditions precedent to a meeting of the Primates. I respectfully submit that the ABC’s invitation itself states that the Primates’ meeting will be held on the basis that all of the decisions of the Communion (including Lambeth 1998, Domantine, Dar, etc.) remain in force….”
No, I’m sorry but I have to stop you right there, because that’s just incorrect. Firstly, you can’t hold a meeting “on the basis that [various Primates meetings] remain in force” when they self-evidently are not in force! If the decisions of those meetings really are in force, then let the ABC himself start ACTING as though they are in force.
Holding a meeting “on the basis that” decisions remain in force, whilst at the same time the ABC and his predecessors have done nothing to enforce them is precisely the kind of double-speak that we came to expect from Rowan Williams. And now, from Justin Welby and his apologists.
“Moreover, the invitation to Abp. Beach is just the sort of “active steps to start the process of recognizing ACNA” that your comment suggests.”
I disagree. Various groups are invited to meetings with the ABC on a regular basis, without any suggestion that they are part of the Anglican Communion. ++Welby’s last public statement on this was quite clear - ACNA is not part of the AC. He has had plenty of time to reconsider that or clarify what his remarks really meant if there was any misunderstanding. Let’s be clear on this - an invitation to attend parts of a meeting does not affect one iota Justin Welby’s position on ACNA.
“If you assume, arguendo, that Abp. Welby is not prevaricating now, the difference between your proposal and Abp. Welby’s seems to be that you would not invite TEC, the AC of C, etc. to the meeting at all. bp. Welby is clearly inviting them without their prior repentance and reversal of the course they have been on for decades, most clearly since 2003. ...”
Of course. That is why so many primates (not just Gafcon I might add) declined to attend the last Primates Meeting in Dublin.
“I respectfully submit that forcing TEC’s Presiding Bishop to face and answer the rest of the Primates is stronger discipline than simply disinviting them.”
This is precisely the argument that has been used for the repeated failures by Welby and his predecessors to “disinvite” TEC and ACoC over a period of more than ten years. Your solution has been tried many times already and has failed many times already, as it was always going to. The reason it fails is that neither ++Welby nor his predecessors were ever serious about disciplining TEC, and hence they never have.
What we are seeing now is the incremental, let’s-talk-our-way-around-the-orthodox-objections approach which Rowan Williams used to such good effect, and now ++Welby is doing the same.
“I do not believe that, at this point, TEC or the AC of C, etc. will reverse course.”
In this one thing I agree with you, but a primary reason for this state of affairs is that TEC and ACoC have NEVER been disciplined by Canterbury before. If ++Carey had stated clearly to TEC: “Go down this road [of blatant liberal theology, rejecting orthodox Christology and consecrating practicing homosexuals] and you will be in impaired communion with Canterbury”, then the orthodox would have had a very good chance of saving TEC. Even if Rowan Williams had made such a statement early on, the situation might have been saved. The reason those things did not happen was because it suits Canterbury (the institution, not just the incumbent) for TEC to blaze the trail that Canterbury itself is now following.
“Assume that, at the Primates’ meeting, TEC, et. al. stay their course. At that point, it seems to me that the Primates, including the ABC, will discipline them.”
Your naivety is touching. Neither the ABC nor his predecessors have ever disciplined TEC and they aren’t going to start now. They will do what they have always done - talked sweetly to the orthodox in order to lull them, whilst the liberals in TEC and CofE continue to cement their position.
“Having said that, Jesus always offers sinners unlimited opportunities to repent.”
And herein lies the problem - you appear to be conflating “opportunity to repent” with “discipline” and setting them off against each other. Jesus and his Apostles made clear that someone who declines to repent must be disciplined or else they will never take up the opportunity, which is always open to them, to repent:
“And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? ... So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” [1 Cor 5:2, 4-5]
Those who have stopped Canterbury from disciplining TEC and ACoC, from 1998 until now, are actually the worst enemies of those entities and the people in them.
You also wrote:
“I think that, when the dust settles, TEC, the AC of C, and the other reappraisers will be the churches that increase their distance from the rest of the Communion.”
Why would they? TEC and ACoC are already closer to Canterbury than they have ever been. I think it is pretty clear that they will be the close ones and it is the orthodox who will be distant. However, what Welby hasn’t yet grasped is that the orthodox provinces are starting to see a future that doesn’t require Canterbury’s involvement in the Communion at all.
“One other thought: at this point it is clear that the Communion will not survive in its current form.”
In my opinion the Communion is already “not in its current form”. The Lambeth Conference has been cancelled unilaterally by ABC, as has the Primates Meeting (this January meeting does not purport to be a Primates Meeting), so the things that used to give a veneer of stability to the concept of an AC are already gone.
What is left is a concept of an Anglican Communion that predates the first Lambeth Conference in 1867: a communion of various Anglican churches around the world, based on share values and doctrines. That concept existed before the first attempts by Canterbury to give some structure to it, and it looks like the concept has now outlived Canterbury’s structures.
“In the end, our confidence is not in any structural reorganisation, useful though it may be, but in the saving grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and in the abiding truth of the Bible. That is what empowers us and this is the assurance we bring to our broken world.”
Thank you, Gafcon Primates.
“... the Archbishop of Canterbury is calling a meeting of Primates to see if the Communion can be saved by making relationships between its Churches more distant rather than closer.”
Very well put.
It may end up being a one-day event.
I see the spin factor has not altered a bit. I have as much hope for this as for inadabavoodoo under Row, Row, Row.
People keep repeating that his visit is historic and his addresses are historic. While the fact that a pope has come to the US is something that will be remembered in the history books is certainly historic in that it will be history, when I see that word, I think of something more.
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
“They slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.”
Those are /historic/ words at truly memorable moments in history. I haven’t seen anything so far that suggests Francis’ visit and his words will be remembered down through the years any more so than any other pope’s visit to the US.
I think “depose” means “depose as a witness for court”, not “remove from ordained ministry”.
#2—I think “depose” here is referring to taking a person’s deposition (oral testimony under oath before a court reporter) for use in legal proceedings.
I would like to pay tribute to Ken whom I knew for a time in my Anglican past in the 1980s through the Jubilee Group. He was an incisive thinker, and that rare thing, a theologian with deep roots in the everyday reality of the priest or pastor’s life. So much academic theology is an intellectual game. By contrast Ken could think and write in way that made you think, but was also earthed in real life.
Looking back, though, I wonder at the optimism we felt, the sense that there were answers to questions. As the item above about an opinion poll survey makes clear, since then the UK has slipped further and further away from its Christian faith.
Good question. I believe in either 2006 or 2009 there was a proposal before GC to allow inhibition of lay people, but it was soundly defeated. As an aside, there were two deacons in my former TEC diocese who had made a list of people lay they were going to have inhibited, and I have it from very solid authority that I was #2 on their list. That said, Bruno does have the power to license and revoke the licenses of various lay ministries, and he can always declare them a mission and fire the vestry.
A query for purposes of clarification: how can a bishop depose a lay person? What does this mean? Does it mean suspend them from communion?
#1, agreed. And it’s interesting: I read beforehand that they were expecting 15,000 and now I read that there were only 11,000 on hand. Did folks just now show up?
Jon Bruno refusing to be conciliatory. Who would ever have believed that?
Is a judge allowed to be so blatantly biased?
Did anyone actually greet the Pope? It looks like a big production and photo op to me.
I wish Quinn well, but in some ways, moving to Trinity Cathedral is a step down: the church has lost half of its attendance since 2007 (down to less than 50 persons on an average Sunday), and plate-and-pledge has dropped to about $130,000—a very modest amount for a Cathedral. Church of the Nativity in Crafton has a similar attendance, but probably has much more modest upkeep expenses compared to Trinity. With the revitalization of downtown Pittsburgh, there is a growing downtown population that the church could serve, so hopefully they will be able to connect with new residents.
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)