From the AAC: What The Tanzania Comnmunique Asked for, and What the Bishops said in New Orleans

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal- Anglican: AnalysisAnglican PrimatesPrimates Mtg Dar es Salaam, Feb 2007Episcopal Church (TEC)TEC BishopsSept07 HoB Meeting* Resources & Links

12 Comments
Posted September 28, 2007 at 6:32 am

To comment on this article: Go to Article View

The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6439/



1. MargaretG wrote:

The (UK) Church Times has as its question of the week—

Has the US House of Bishops responded adequately to the Primates’ demands?

At the moment only 28 people have voted and it is split 50/50. People might like to go there and vote:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/question.asp?id=45141

September 28, 7:10 am | [comment link]
2. Makersmarc wrote:

I wonder what the response would be if people knew that the assumption of communique is faulty from the beginning, namely that the Primates have absolutely no right or legitimate authority to “demand” anything in the first place.  It’s hard to reach any place where we can walk together when things are intentionally set up to fail.

September 28, 8:15 am | [comment link]
3. Brian from T19 wrote:

Good summary of +Stanton’s much better document.  Too bad they didn’t figure out how to format columns;)

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 28, 9:31 am | [comment link]
4. pendennis88 wrote:

#2 - They did not demand.  They asked.  TEC said no.  People know that.  Consequences will follow.  TEC has no right or legitimate authority to demand they not.

September 28, 9:32 am | [comment link]
5. Albany* wrote:

#2 I think #4 rather nailed it, don’t you? The problem with your reasoning is that the freedom you embrace for TEC exists elsewhere. Those who fancy themselves “activists” seem always surprised by consequences from the other direction. It is part of their inherent childishness. “You won’t tell me anything…” Well in fact…

September 28, 9:55 am | [comment link]
6. Kevin Maney+ wrote:

Excellent use of a graphic organizer to compare/contrast what was asked for and what was done. Clean and straightforward.

September 28, 11:02 am | [comment link]
7. KAR wrote:

Even us simpletons can follow this document smile

September 28, 11:27 am | [comment link]
8. Makersmarc wrote:

#5 No, I do not think so.  I was responding to what Margaret #1 indicated was the question posed in the Church Times; she used the word “demand.”  Folks want honesty and clarity?  The honest and clear thing to say is that regardless of the actual word in the communique, no one, from either end of the spectrum or inbetween, has any illusions about whether they were “requests” or “demands.”  The word “request” was a very thinly veiled, politically correctly worded, demand.  If not, why all the hoopla?  If not, why the commentary about “consequences”?  I’m not commenting so much on the EC’s freedom as I am on the consequences that *everyone* experiences when those who cry “orthodoxy” claim power and authority for themselves that they otherwise do not legitimately have.  No one wins in that situation, including the ones who perpetuate such coercion.  Their need for repentance is very bit as great as those on whom they would exact consequences.  There is a better way and that is to hold true to the breadth that has always characterized the Anglican tradition.  For anyone to be diminished, from the EC to the GS, dimininshes us all and worse, diminshed the witness to the savior Christ found in the many diverse faces across the Communion.  The problem is that such “demands”, by whatever word you use, diminishes even those who do demanding.  I think *that* about nails it, don’t you?

September 28, 2:59 pm | [comment link]
9. dpeirce wrote:

Bide your time MercyMike; you probably can relax and enjoy the victory. No reason to get exercised now.

Re “walking together”, there’s the old idea of the fox and the rabbit walking together… and of which “converted” which. Orthodox and apostate simply cannot walk together… the orthodox leave or become apostate. No middle way; the middle way is just slightly less apostate than the left way.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

September 28, 5:39 pm | [comment link]
10. Albany* wrote:

#8 “Their need for repentance is every bit as great as those on whom they would exact consequences.”

I fully agree with you there.

But to be fair, haven’t we entered the Twlight Zone of cause and effect?

September 28, 5:54 pm | [comment link]
11. Makersmarc wrote:

#9 Are you referring to me?  The guy who blogs by the name of MercyMike lives in England and I didn’t see him comment here; I live in Indiana.  Two points:  1) I refer back to faulty assumptions, i.e. the (astoundingly errant) charge of apostacy; no one is denying Jesus as the incarnate, crucified and risen savior, etc.  It would seem to me you could expend time and energy far more constructively than going out of your way to foster a crisis mentality; and 2) If you can’t embrace the (classical Anglican) via media, I would suggest that you might be happier in some tradition other than the Anglican one.  I certainly would not be happy in an “Anglican” tradition that bears no resemblance to anything ever understood as Anglican.

#10 Twilight Zone…yeah, I think *that* about nails it!

September 28, 7:56 pm | [comment link]
12. dpeirce wrote:

Yes, MM.

Whoooshhh!

In faith, Dave (Former Episcopalian of 51 years, now RC)
Viva Texas

September 28, 8:01 pm | [comment link]


© 2017 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com


<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)