Destroying churches and burying people alive is not abuse, apparently:
And neither does China engage in industrial espionage or island-building.
I suppose when you define freedom to mean you are free to only obey without question the dictates of the Communist Party and its leadership at the threat of disappearing, then, yes, objectively China has guaranteed religious freedom.
Oh good. I wonder how they did on “Lives Changed Through Conversion”?
Thanks for sharing this.
“There was no hiding the fact that we had great differences, nor diminishing the sorrow that some Provinces (Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda) had chosen not to attend for reasons which I fully understand. I hope they are reassured by the conclusions we reached which fully backed up those of the Primates’ Meeting.”
One sentence true. One sentence made up out of the whole cloth. You pick.
“There have long been predictions that religion would fade from relevancy as the world modernizes, but all the recent surveys are finding that it’s happening startlingly fast. France will have a majority secular population soon. So will the Netherlands and New Zealand. The United Kingdom and Australia will soon lose Christian majorities. Religion is rapidly becoming less important than it’s ever been, even to people who live in countries where faith has affected everything from rulers to borders to architecture.”
Euro-Western-centric. But later lip service to the rest of the world.
I hope surgery went well and recovery is also on schedule. A friend who has had two hip replacement, plus a resurfacing, says the key is to take rehab very seriously and to follow instructions precisely.
TJ’s last item led me to wonder how long it will be before all the Episcopalians that are left are Bishops.
Whatever happened to “let your yes be yes and your no be no”? (Matthew 5:37)
Yes, that horse has left the barn under Justice Kennedy’s (and the majority of the court’s) broad definition of “equal protection.”
I concur with the above.
Absolutely correct, Jim.
All these same types of arguments and evidence (even stronger) existed to support laws against homosexuality and restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. They were held insufficient to meet the “rational basis” test.
The same will happen with polygamy. You can’t legalize same-sex marriage and continue to ban polygamy, because the arguments for both are identical.
Secular governments probably are more concerned about the complicated inheritance situations, family insurance issues, increased numbers of dependents on tax returns, etc than any of the above associations (not causal) mentioned in the quote above. I predict that laws against polygamous relationships will eventually be struck down by the courts in the U.S. just as prohibitions against same-sex marriage have been struck down. Once people start playing the “you can’t deny our love” card, the game is lost.
Today is also Palm Sunday on the traditional church calendar.
TEC says to the Primates: “Fiddlesticks to you. What are going to do about it?” So what are they going to do about it?
[Slightly edited by Elf]
TJ, you may be right, but by that time nobody in the majority communion (GAFCON), will care.
Nothing “mute” about the meeting…lots of noise.
True, but at this point, to read the TEC reports, you would think that the ACC voted down the Primates requirements.
Took me a while, but I now see the logic by which Welby is working- or maybe, how the maneuver is supposed to work.
1. Primates issue communique, Welby promises to uphold consequences.
2. Welby allows TEC to attend meeting with the excuse that ACC is out of his jurisdiction.
3. ACO gerrymanders meeting so nothing is voted on until last day.
4. Let Douglas find out through various whispered conversations that if he runs for the open chair position, he will lose by the same margin TEC lost in the Primates meeting. Suggest to Douglas it would be best for all concerned if he did not run.
5. The resolutions are presented in a particular order- with TEC voting on the various doctrinal and polity issues.
6. Vote to receive Primates statement and IN THE FUTURE “walk with” the Primates.
7. So, for the next 3 years, no TEC member will vote on any polity or doctrine matter in the ACC.
8. Schedule next ACC meeting for just past the end of 3 years (so the communique will expire before the next one- Rowan WIlliams playbook, page 9)
9.Announce that ACC has agreed to uphold Primates communique.
So, he arranged things so all the doctrine and polity stuff was done BEFORE the ACC voted on the communique, and of course, after they voted, it is a mute point, because the ACC won’t meet during the timeframe of the communique.
Which, if the plan is what I think it is, leads us up to 2 and a half years from now, when….
10. Primates meeting scheduled for early 2019 is canceled on some pretext (TBA) which will result in…
a) 3 years runs out, and Primates cannot extend or strengthen “consequences” for TEC after 2018 GC.
b) Primates do not have opportunity to make recommendations on Lambeth invitations.
c) Instead, ABoC meets with liberal standing committee primates (ie- ++Mouneer absents himself), TEC gets back to running ACO and ACC, and Welby invites 200 TEC bishops to Lambeth- which will constitute 2/3 of the bishops that attend.
The horrible economy since 2007 has taken a huge toll on people.
One may recall that, in the US, TEC has argued in litigation (and not without support, based on Robert’s Rules of Order, though it is not altogether clear and who knows what a UK charitable corporation applies) that voting to receive a report means nothing other than that it was physically received. (They argue that without voting to approve the report, it is not approved even though received.) This was back in the Virginia property litigation, concerning the Protocol for Departing Congregations agreed to by the Bishop and his chancellor, which the Standing Committee voted to “receive”, but later said was not approved when the Bishop changed his mind.
Ah, now with the TEc reports about their participation and voting, we can coin an new term for truthiness! A Welbyism. Comfort may be taken, I suppose, that this is progressive down the alphabet from Rowanism. See how progressive they all are!
2, If you are not a word you don’t have a gender, you have a biological sex.
I’m surprised. I figured after I saw this that the Piskies would be off to storm Lambeth Palace
I note that TEC went so far overboard with its PR that the ACC actually issued a real press release, and not just the usual fluff-
(Not that the Gafcon Primates meeting would have anything to do with it, but I think the ACO and Lambeth really, really want the GS to see this rather than the TEC version)
This Anglican Fudge is unbelievable because as usual everything was done and nothing was done and TEc has its cake and eats it too.
What do you call it when all Anglicans begin at Point A and ambulate in all infinite directions at the same time? Walking together if you are in the Global North coterie and walking apart everywhere else.
But if these are just the resolutions of a UK charitable corporation, of what import are they?
The headline should read, “Anglicans meet and decide to not decide anything.”
This gives TEc a “Get out of jail free” card, and proves that the ACC is useless as an “instrument of communion”.
Throwing the ball back to GAFCON to make the next move.
Probably one of the greatest reasons the Methodist Church grew in America was its staunch opposition to alcohol and its support of prohibition. Certainly my grandfather changed to the Methodist Church (his family were Presbyterians) because of its policies on prohibition (my great-grandfather used to get drunk and then beat my grandfather as a child, giving him a hatred of alcohol for the rest of his life). Today we look on Prohibition as a failed experiment, but in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was widely supported by those who saw drinking as having major negative effects on individuals, families, and society.
Of course, now that is a distant memory, and it has become just another liberal mainline denomination.
Note how “Gender” has taken the place of “Sex” in these resolutions. The revisionist approach has been to substitute gender in the place of sex and at the same time to re-define gender to mean: however a person chooses to define him/her/itself on any given day.
Walking together except for TEc at 815 (Resolution 16.03: Gender Equality and Justice) and cOE whose ABC cannot call for a Lambeth Conference and expect attendance (Resolution 16.11: Continuing Indaba). Yeah, walking ......................................... apart.
The ACC resolutions will never be made public at all. They will have to be inferred when a reasserter hits a tripwire by adhering to the faith and doctrine received from the apostles and is sanctioned for it by the revisionists.
My bet is that new Standing Committee member, Bishop of Nairobi Joel Waweru, Anglican Church of Kenya, has caught another stranger with a suspect copy of the resolutions and they are being vetted by TEc to make sure they aren’t forgeries.
If the UMC was created to be a theologically diverse place joining “liberals, evangelicals, and pietists” (because they are exclusive choices) under one denominational roof, and if nothing that occurred in the history of the denominations that mergered to formed the UMC matter, then the writer is drawing correct conclusions: the processes in the UMC are more important than what it believes and they must be protected as they alone provide United Methodism with coherence.
I realize there are individual churches, pastors, laymen, and schools in the UMC that do care about the substance more than the form. But, reading this makes me wonder if the UMC might not be more accurately described as the minor league of the Unitarian Universalist world. A place for people not-quite-ready to let go of their based-on-a-true-story beliefs and reams of meeting minutes to leap over to the Big Show.
I would bet that we will have them in hand within hours AFTER the end of the Gafcon meeting, since the content (which will include doctrine, polity, matters of faith and order. and agreements with other churches) will have been discussed and voted on by TEC representatives. This will fly in the face of the ABoC’s statements after the meeting about the Primates’ requirements having been received and implemented. And he doesn’t want the documentation of that on the table at the Gafcon meeting.
Just a guess.
Thanks Elves. I love this song; and was actually thinking about it while I was working out this morning.
You can find out more about faux-bishop Kunonga here:
“He is a very direct man, decisive, and said let’s have a DNA test because certainty is better than doubt.”
Except in matters of Primates and the Anglican Communion, eh?
I am not in a position to say this was not what happened, but considering other events it seems an unusual cause for the firings. Were I to guess, I would say that this article may have been produced because someone wanted something on the subject at that moment in time and they found someone to interview who was willing to have their name in the news. Or, perhaps, it’s a poor attempt at spinning the story away from what really happened.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive reasons.
“Gender bias”? That sounds considerably more vague than the sort of thing which would cause suspensions and firing. And isn’t it ironic to hear this about a church which has been gung-ho on ordaining women to the extent that those who disagree with the concept have been driven out?
I cannot comment on Abp. Kwong- as far as I am aware, he seems to have left little in the way of commentary on the last 15 years of crisis in the Anglican Communion. So I will leave it to others to comment on his orthodoxy and fitness for the office.
However “...Anglican Consultative Council – the legally constituted body that brings together Anglican churches…” ALL the various churches, committees and organizations within the Anglican Communion are “legally constituted.” This is another attempt by the ACO to give the ACC authority beyond the “consultative.”
Is this is a huge theological question? The world is going to hell in a handbasket and is in desperate need of hearing the Easter gospel message. It is in desperate need of meeting the living Christ. Therefore, for me, of the top 1000 theological questions, this one is 1001.
Unimportant organization facing irrelevant choice.
I can sympathise with this point of view. In rural Newfoundland we have many small churches where it is difficult to move the altar out. I feel comfortable celebrating back on to the congregation for the very reason Rev. Taylor lists. I am particularly uncomfortable with the congregation saying the Creed while facing me. I want to move to the front of the altar at that time. I have occasionally stopped in front of the altar on the way back after the sermon to say the Creed.
Neither for me.
Hobson’s Choice - TEC’s friend or Beijing and Canterbury’s?
Both have access to money - pots and pots of it.
Oh, I say, if someone printed an article over Ruth’s byline electronically and digitally applied to said article, would that be a ‘forged’ article or a forged article.
So in point 9, Bishop Idowu-Fearon has staked his reputation and position on that Bishop Waweru had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation or use of the false document that purported to be signed by Archbishop Wabukala. But does anyone yet know who did create and use that document?
Billqs- If my understanding is correct, English and Swahili are both official languages of Kenya (among several languages spoken there). The archbishop does indeed speak and write fluent English- although often with a grammatical construction that might indicate it is his second or third language. That the letter does seem to be “King’s English”- but as I said, in no small part seemed to be lifted from the letter of the ABoC to the Primates, so I am not concluding it was written by someone from England, but someone familiar with the ABoC letter.
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)