Total visitors right now: 181

Logged-in members:

Daniel
Timothy Fountain

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Petre: Secret plan to avoid church gay split

Friday, February 22, 2008 • 10:01 pm


I’m going with the “72-hour rule” on this one. I’ll believe this when I see it:

Dr Rowan Williams has held confidential talks with senior American bishops and theologians who oppose the pro-gay policies of their liberal leaders.

A handful of hardline American dioceses are already defecting from the Episcopal Church, the American branch of Anglicanism, and transferring their loyalties to a conservative archbishop in South America.

Dr Williams is desperate to minimise further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world’s bishops.

His recent comments backing aspects of sharia law have heightened tensions by further alienating Africans who are struggling with militant Islam in their dioceses.

According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues.

The scheme would allow them to remain technically within the Episcopal Church but under the care of like-minded archbishops from abroad.

The Primate of the West Indies, Archbishop Drexel Gomez, a moderate conservative, has agreed to participate, and other primates could be recruited.

However, the initiative is likely to infuriate liberal leaders of the Episcopal Church, who will see it as an attempt to undermine their authority and interfere in their affairs.


207 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

One thing about the ABC, he surely knows how to shoot himself in the foot.

[1] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 02-22-2008 at 11:07 PM • top

[ Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori] met a group of conservative bishops and theologians in New York last week after hearing that Dr Williams was sympathetic to the new proposals.

Dr Williams, whose leadership has been under growing attack from conservatives, has been privately encouraging such a development for a number of years. So far, however, he has failed to broker a deal with Bishop Jefferts Schori, a feminist who backed the 2003 consecration of Gene Robinson as Anglicanism’s first openly gay bishop.

[2] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-22-2008 at 11:14 PM • top

I don’t see pigs flying.  Hell still seems to be hot.  The Cubs haven’t won the World Series.  C’mon now.  KJS give up her authority to the barbarians and the troglodytes?  Somehow, I doubt the veracity of this report.

carl

[3] Posted by carl on 02-22-2008 at 11:26 PM • top

It’s a 99% certainty that no such idea will come about in a moment of Christian charity. This is all about power politics or it would have been graciously settled by now – to wit, every diocese or parish with the slightest legal weakness has been sued or threatened.
The difficulty for RW is that of a pilot dealing with a homicide terrorist. Since TEC has only passing concern about blowing up the communion, he is automatically at a grave disadvantage.

[4] Posted by AngloTex on 02-22-2008 at 11:26 PM • top

This sure is news to me.  Not only have I heard nothing about such a proposal - neither have I agreed to participate in it.

+JLI

[5] Posted by Bishop Iker on 02-22-2008 at 11:32 PM • top

I hope with all my Christian heart that something like this could happen.  But my common sense real world experience tells me that ABC Williams has already sealed his legacy - too little too late. As I study the Scripture I often have questions, like:  Could Schori be the AntiChrist?

[6] Posted by Runes on 02-22-2008 at 11:37 PM • top

Also from London tonight an interesting <a/ href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3418302.ece>Ruth Gledhill article</a> on the YouGovStone opinion research survey of more than 1,000 senior individuals drawn from the worlds of politics, business, media, charity and academia regarding the Archbishops of Canterbury’s comments on whether some elements of Islamic law might be recognised in Britain:

Outright support for the Archbishop was low. Just two per cent said they support what he is saying while one per cent said his comments should have gone further.

[7] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-22-2008 at 11:38 PM • top

Deja,

Yep… and those 3 percentage points match exactly the percentage of Muslims in Britain.

[8] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-22-2008 at 11:38 PM • top

Runes,

Weird as this may sound, I’ve always had much higher hopes for the anti-Christ.

[9] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-22-2008 at 11:39 PM • top

LOL

[10] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-22-2008 at 11:40 PM • top

Well if Bp. Iker knows nothing then what’s up. He is one of the strong conservative leaders whom should have been informed of this littke ditty.  So where and who did this inside info come from to get to this journalist at the Telegraph? I agree, this will never happen. The water that was under the bridge has become a flooding of the bridge. THis is certainly some bad journalism. IMHO

[11] Posted by TLDillon on 02-22-2008 at 11:46 PM • top

Sasha, et al, you may be right about the ABC, but is it so impossible to believe that he might at least be trying to do right? And if we claim to be proper Christians, then we have no business being contemptuous of anyone:
</i>“The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad ass it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.</i>—- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[12] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-22-2008 at 11:47 PM • top

And the Gledhill article concludes:

Although Dr Williams could remain in office for another 13 years, until he is 70, the furore has prompted bookmakers to start taking bets on his successor. Irish bookmaker Paddy Power has the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, as 2-1 favourite, the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Richard Chartres, at 3-1 and the Bishop of Portsmouth, Dr Kenneth Stevenson, at 5-1.

Hmmm, perhaps he is starting to get the message—if he doesn’t do something, someone else will? cool hmm

[13] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-22-2008 at 11:48 PM • top

There have been so many many many “secret plans” that really weren’t secret [after all, Petre knows about the “secret”] and that really never turned out to be what was reported, that I yawn in indifference over this.  I’d love for something like this to be true.  But . . . I loved the idea of all the other secret plans too.

Whenever the “secret plans” have been revealed in all of their ferocity . . . one always realizes that the “plan to avoid split” was really some sort of bandaid anyway that the Nurse Ratchets couldn’t bring themselves to acknowledge would not at all avoid anything.

[14] Posted by Sarah on 02-22-2008 at 11:53 PM • top

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? The Anglican Communion is an insane asylum and the ABC = Nurse Rachets?

[15] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-22-2008 at 11:56 PM • top

Even if this was a real and true deal doing it now would make it look very much like Rowan trying to appease those who are boycotting his Lambeth Tea Party. That would look very much like an insult to the godly men who have said no because of an impaired communion amongst those who have gone forward and consecrated an openly gay man to the episcopate. This would not look very good to many.

[16] Posted by TLDillon on 02-22-2008 at 11:56 PM • top

As to Bp Iker’s igrnorance on this matter, I suspect any deal-making which involves the ABC and 815 will be with the “Windsor Bishops,” not with Bps. Iker, Duncan and Schofield, nor with Abps Akinola and Orombi. They are no longer welcome in the Common Room.

[17] Posted by Stephen Noll on 02-22-2008 at 11:57 PM • top

Williams again is speaking as an academic and you simply aren’t bright enough to understand him. We next will hear how shocked he is at your response to what you, poor thing, thought he meant. Add that to ECUSA’s Schori, who speaks plainly enough for us peasants but never means what she so clearly says. Now you see how foolish it was to pay any attention to either of them.

[18] Posted by stevenanderson on 02-22-2008 at 11:59 PM • top

Could Ms. Schori-Jefferts be THE Antichrist?  Good question.  For sure, she’s one of the “many Antichrists” that the Apostle John writes about; furthermore, we can be almost certain that THE Antichrist is stalking this Earth (the Italian cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Romanist Archbishop of Bologna, did assert as much several years ago and I entirely believe him!!).

At risk of offending, assuming there really will be such a thing as “The Anti-Christ” (I tend to avoid attempts to make much sense of Revelation beyond “God wins in the end”) than I think that TEC is too small to be of much interest to him.

[19] Posted by AndrewA on 02-22-2008 at 11:59 PM • top

I suspect any deal-making which involves the ABC and 815 will be with the “Windsor Bishops,”

Now, doesn’t that prospect bring soothing relief to conservative discontent?

carl

[20] Posted by carl on 02-23-2008 at 12:03 AM • top

Jesus does not do any deals….on to GAFCON.
Intercessor

[21] Posted by Intercessor on 02-23-2008 at 12:03 AM • top

AndrewA,

Besides, the devil’s work is long since done there…

[22] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-23-2008 at 12:04 AM • top

<blockquote?plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues.<?blockquote>

Perhaps they can formally register their disagreement in the strongest terms.  That will really shake things up!

I’m afraid that as long as conservative parishes and dioceses are subject to the whims of a largely hetrodox General Convention and Executive Committee, no insultation short of formal legal seperation will be satisfactory.  I just with that Lambeth could find it within its inclusive, tolerant, pluriform truth awknowledging heart to recognize a third North American Anglican province including all the US and Canadians that want nothing more to do with their national churches.  Of course, they should have done that 30 years ago after the Affirmation of St Louis.

[23] Posted by AndrewA on 02-23-2008 at 12:06 AM • top

Stephen Noll is exactly right in #19.  The Lambeth Palace/ACO office will no longer deal with “the extreme right.”  They want to deal with those reasonable “Windsor Bishops.”  But they will not stand up and be counted when the push comes to shove.

+JLI

[24] Posted by Bishop Iker on 02-23-2008 at 12:07 AM • top

Andrew A,
Where is it written that people, places, and things have to be big in order to be worthy of satan’s interest. I believe he will use anything and anyone that he can and does. Small-Medium-Large-XLarge-XXLarge, etc….he’s not that picky!

[25] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 12:08 AM • top

I would only believe this once I see it. However, IF, and it is a BIG IF, it is true, then I think it may be worth asking whether or not such a brokered parallel would allow for the eventual alienation, within the Communion, and attrition of the heretical parts of TEC without a split Anglican Communion? Pipe dream? Perhaps. It does, however, sound a lot like what some of us hoped for at the time of the formation of the ACN.

[26] Posted by Terwilliger+ on 02-23-2008 at 12:15 AM • top

As to #12:  Mr. Rowan Williams has had almost 4½ years to prove himself otherwise!!!  If THAT isn’t enough time, I don’t know what is… [Pope Clement VII bought 6 years of time before he finally lost Henry VIII and the Church of England…] Yes, it’s an excellent quotation you picked from C. S. Lewis (I’m liking what I’ve seen so far from him), but that bloke Rowan has failed the test far too repeatedly…

Williams is no shining star,  but I think that we should continue to hope for the best from him, while not expecting much in the way of results.
Naive? yes, but then, Christianity isn’t exactly pragmatic, dontchaknow….

[27] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:16 AM • top

Even if this WERE true, I dont put any stock in it for several reasons.  A] I dont trust the man.
B] I honestly dont think that he has an idea of just how deep the current divide is; its too late for halfway measures or band-aids. The question for the ABC has been the same for years now: “Choose ye this day?!” His answer has been: “Lets all sit around a table and talk to each other.” EEEEEEHHH!!-wrong answer.
C] See ‘A’.

[28] Posted by Bob K. on 02-23-2008 at 12:20 AM • top

Warning:  gross-out factor

At one point in some Bible study or another, I heard that one of the tortures the Romans inflicted on others was to chain a dead body to the Romans’ victim.  The victim of this torture had to carry around the putrefying body, which then pass its corruption to the victim.  This gives additional (and gross) meaning to St. Paul’s question: “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”  Rom 7:24

I certainly don’t want to be chained to the rotting corpse of The Episcopal “Church”, and I doubt that those who have declined their Lambeth invitations will see this as any more than a sham, IF it proves to be true, which I doubt.

[29] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 02-23-2008 at 12:22 AM • top

If this could possibly be true (which I seriously doubt) NO!!!NO!!!NO!!! I DO NOT want to be associated with TEC in any way whatsoever!!! Not even to be the “orthodox branch” of TEC!!! And to reference an earlier post… Kate is not the anti-christ… nowhere near smart enough.
And why don’t smileys work for me???

[30] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:24 AM • top

Gordy,
Neither you or I are big enough for smiley’s. They don’t work for me either. The only one I can get is this one smile and that’s because I have to type a semi colon adn then a right ) to get it.
smile

[31] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 12:28 AM • top

#34 Sasha,
  Don’t hate or despise… those emotions should be pity and disappointment. Stupid smileys still don’t work grrrrrrrrrrrr.

[32] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:32 AM • top

Heh..Heh!!  TY

[33] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:35 AM • top

By Geord, I think he’s got it….

[34] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:35 AM • top

wink

[35] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:36 AM • top

Nice Smiley Gordy:)

[36] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 12:37 AM • top

I owe it all to you ODC :o)

[37] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:37 AM • top

I would only believe this once I see it. However, IF, and it is a BIG IF, it is true, then I think it may be worth asking whether or not such a brokered parallel would allow for the eventual alienation, within the Communion, and attrition of the heretical parts of TEC without a split Anglican Communion

The Church of England will never cut off TEC.  Not only are TEC’s innovations not too far from the current Labor dominated England’s idea of The Way Things Aught to Be, but culturally speaking, TEC and COE are too much alike.  The Oxford graduates and the Yale graduates will continue to sit together over tea and talk about how foolish all those superstitious Romans and fanatical Evangelicals are for actually taking all those pre-Modern ideas of Christianity seriously.  They will pat themselves on the back for having a “rational” and “educated” understanding of theology, a “progressive” world view and an elitest taste in liturgy, music and buildings.

[38] Posted by AndrewA on 02-23-2008 at 12:38 AM • top

Now that’s odd…. Gordy finally got the smileys to work for him, and posted a “wink”, to which I commented, ‘by Geord, I think he’s got it”. But when my comment posted, it posted before the wink-comment.

[39] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:41 AM • top

In all reality Andrew, The orthodox would never stand to even be a small part of TEC in any way unless TEC would repent and turn away. How could they and still remain faithful to the Truth???

[40] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:41 AM • top

Memo to Jonathan Petre:

Those blokes who drink with you at the pub cannot be considered reliable inside sources.

r.w.

[41] Posted by r.w. on 02-23-2008 at 12:42 AM • top

<blockquote>In all reality Andrew, The orthodox would never stand to even be a small part of TEC in any way unless TEC would repent and turn away. How could they and still remain faithful to the Truth??? </i>
They can, in the same way that Christians everywhere have ever been part of any church or deniomination, while sharing the title “Christian” with hypocrites who are anything but. There are orthodox and nonorthodox in every denomination, and God knows His own. Those in TEC who ARE orthodox ARE the TEC. The others are merely wolves in Episco-clothing.

[42] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:51 AM • top

Grrr… doggone blockquotes!! That should be:

In all reality Andrew, The orthodox would never stand to even be a small part of TEC in any way unless TEC would repent and turn away. How could they and still remain faithful to the Truth???


They can, in the same way that Christians everywhere have ever been part of any church or deniomination, while sharing the title “Christian” with hypocrites who are anything but. There are orthodox and nonorthodox in every denomination, and God knows His own. Those in TEC who ARE orthodox ARE the TEC. The others are merely wolves in Episco-clothing.

[43] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:51 AM • top

#43 Sasha,
  I have had such an experience…. I was on fire for the Lord… I had recently had my Cursillo walk…became a Lay minister/visitor…youth leader…vestry member…and then my church was stolen from me!! My parish was one of those who won’t take a stand…heads in the sand till it blows over..you know… I pleaded “You have taught me these Truths and now the national church says it ain’t so…please lead me…they didn’t…so I searched…Baptist (too legalistic..good music though… then CMA… too big and impersonal…. then my wife wanted back in the fray ( and being of Scottish heritage I enjoy a fight)... so we’re back at a good friend’s parish (a good orthodox priest)... I’m lay ministering again and on vestry… the fire is slowly coming back… so you see I have had a hurtful experience (probably nothing like yours) but I’m working through it… leaning on Christ… knowing that HE will sustain me in whatever comes our way… sorry for being long winded

[44] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:54 AM • top

Stephen Noll is exactly right.  But, since we found out in New Orleans most “Windsor bishops” don’t really care one way or another, and certainly have no problem being under Mrs. Schori’s leadership, what would be the point of such a plan?

I suspect it’s to forestall the eventual loss of the more, ahem, principled (and prominent, and large, and $$$-giving to the diocese) parishes in Windsor (sic) dioceses.  As it always does with the GCC, it seems it boils down to property, control and avoiding the embarrassment of real people publicly and pointedly rejecting the new religion.

[45] Posted by Phil on 02-23-2008 at 12:54 AM • top

#49, Gordy, your experience sounds just like mine.

[46] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:57 AM • top

#43 Sasha,
  Not “practically impossiple with out God” but in actuality it is totally impossible without God.  wink

[47] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 12:59 AM • top

TY goldndog, I don’t know why but knowing someone else went through it like me makes me feel better….that make sense?

[48] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 01:02 AM • top

Sasha wrote:
Satan likes to hit at where the greatest prominence happens to be; since he can’t (yet - hopefully that will NEVER be!!) have Rome and/or Constantinople / Athens / Moscow / Antioch / Alexandria, he may as well make his assault upon the supposedly-staid, élitist E’c’USA…

Umm . . . Satan held Moscow for 70 years, and his grip on it still has not been entirely loosened. (The patriarch was appointed by the KGB.)

[49] Posted by Roland on 02-23-2008 at 01:04 AM • top

The Holy Spirit gives the spirit of discernment to the humble faithful followers of Christ. What we do with our God-given spirit of discernment is up to us. Christians are no fools (we may be “fools for Christ”, but that is another matter altogether).
The ABC and his cohorts have been playing us for fools for far too long. With the help of the Holy Spirit, I have discerned that the ABC and his like-minded Revisionists lack honesty, integrity, godly conviction, and faithful courage. I am sure I am not alone on this discerning.
I will be a fool to continue to hope on the words (that keep changing) of this bunch of men and women (Revisionists all) with very little Christian conviction and love.

How can I, or any one, take this Lambeth “new development” seriously when my Bishop (JLI) is not even aware of this so-called plan. Any plan without the real personages is just that - talk, talk, talk, and no meaningful action.

Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX

[50] Posted by Spiro on 02-23-2008 at 01:13 AM • top

I agree with AndrewA. The Episcopal Church is pretty small potatoes. For us to say KJS is the Anti-Christ—even a rather minor Anti-Christlette—smacks of spiritual pride.

I also agree with Sarah H—I doubt that there’s a secret plan.

(My, how agreeable I am tonight! The Episcopal Church should emulate me.)

[51] Posted by PollyPrim on 02-23-2008 at 01:16 AM • top

It makes complete sense to me, Gordy… hang in there!

And Roland… just because the Patriarch was appointed by the KGB doesn’t mean that Satan was behind his appointment. If that were the case, we Anglicans would be in a pretty awkward position, seeing as how our very denomination was started by Henry VIII.

[52] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 01:17 AM • top

Friends,
It has been a long time since I posted regularly on these matters and on this site.  Forgvive me if my words are naive or if I have ignored the gravity of the current fight.
When you are thick in the battle, it’s hard to see the end of it.
Be of good faith.  Be of good cheer.  Our Father in Heaven watches over us.  Good may come of this.  We are coming to the end of this strugggle. 
I wish you all well.  This fight is a long one.  Our ends are not His ends.

[53] Posted by Rick Killough on 02-23-2008 at 01:17 AM • top

Come to think of it, why do we need a secret plan?  We had a perfectly fine public one coming out of DES, which had the advantage of being endorsed by every single primate (at least until Mrs. Schori got on the plane).

[54] Posted by Phil on 02-23-2008 at 01:18 AM • top

Actually, Father Kingsley, I know plenty of revisionists who are very honest, loving people. Their theology is completely skewed, but many do mean well.

[55] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 01:18 AM • top

This plan is DOA.

If this plan involves the “Windsor” or Camp Allen bishops, it is DOA.

If it doesn’t involve those bishops who are preparing to leave or have left ECUSA, it is DOA.

This is not a problem that ECUSA can solve.

The only thing that will stop further defections from Lambeth, and further defections from ECUSA is for the ABC to disinvite about 30 ECUSA bishops from Lambeth, agree that the human sexuality “debate” was settled in 1998, and move on, without ECUSA if necessary.

Of course, this will never happen.

[56] Posted by Randy Muller on 02-23-2008 at 01:19 AM • top

To # 59, Rick, thank you for the words of encouragement. Amen and amen, and… good night!

[57] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 01:20 AM • top

#43 Sasha,
  I was hoping you would elaborate? You still here?

[58] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 01:32 AM • top

Re (goldndog #61): “Their theology is completely skewed, but many do mean well.”
I have no intention of moving this thread in another direction, BUT in light of the never-ending discussion on then smartness of the Liberals (including the ABC), I need to say the following:

On Revisionists meaning well, let’s not forget that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The problem I have with the Revisionists is that most of them see themselves as more knowledgeable than everyone else - and sometimes, God included. No body gets it but they! We are all too dumb to understand and appreciate their high intellect and superior wisdom.

I have first-hand experience with the Revisionists: Even with all my education from some of the better American universities and law school   (BA; MA; MSc; a full year of MTh program in another Seminary and law school before I went to Sewanee for my three-year MDiv), I was still not knowledgeable enough in the eyes of the Revisionists. Even though I ended up earning my M.Div with Honors, I was never regarded with any respect - simply because of my theological and conservative stands and thoughts. The Liberals would rather put you down or ignore you than debate you.
From my junior year, I was allowed to speak or to ask NO MORE than one question in a particular professor’s class. My crime: I wouldn’t let some of their nonsense fly. I was the only M.Div student (a postulant) that attended Plano ’03, and was threatened by the semi-head of the seminary – who sees himself as the champion of the minorities. Minority status carries weight only if you are a Liberal or a gay.
I AM SURE OTHER CONSERVATIVES AND ORTHODOX have similar or even better stories and experiences. Back to the mean issue.

Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX

[59] Posted by Spiro on 02-23-2008 at 02:17 AM • top

Sarah,

Tut-tut, that’s Nurse Ratche<u> d </u>.

Louise Fletcher’s father was a rather well-known Episcopal priest who worked with the deaf and opened many churches for them.

Bob

[60] Posted by Bob Livingston on 02-23-2008 at 03:46 AM • top

Greg,
Let me know when 72 hours have passed.

[61] Posted by RMBruton on 02-23-2008 at 03:46 AM • top

This doesn’t make sense prima facie:

Dr Williams is desperate to minimise further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world’s bishops.

A parenthetical first remark: I wish that Mr. Petre would state the more accurate, “...by more than a fifth of the world’s bishops representing about half of the world’s Anglicans.” But moving on…

Cutting such any deal with real teeth would infuriate the TEc innovationistas. The larger African provinces have already opted out. Maybe Tanzania or Central Africa might opt out. The South Africans are in the pockets of the TEc (but they do have a new more conservative primate). India seems like a team player as do the Asians. Thus, there is little to gain and much to lose. Rowan Williams’ early invitations firmly declared that TEc and their groupies are going to Lambeth, no matter what. He will not endanger this for the likes of a few wavering provinces.

This being said, I worry about ABc Drexel Gomez. His stamp of approval of the abysmal revisionist-pandering Covenant draft perhaps signals a shift.

A more likely scenario is that there will be a proposed plan that will be hoisted (or foisted) up the flagpole. Precious TEc polity, which means what I says it means, will be evoked. Thus, approval or actually assured disapproval must come in GC 09. The orthodox or at least the comm-con variety will be placated (duped), yet again. Any wavering provinces, like Tanzania, will show up to Lambeth.

[62] Posted by robroy on 02-23-2008 at 04:17 AM • top

A day late and a dollar short, don’t you think?  Thanks, but no thanks, ++Rowan.  I’ll have no part of this!

[63] Posted by Cennydd on 02-23-2008 at 04:54 AM • top

I really find this to be completely unbelievable.  The ABC had the chance to stand up and do the right thing several years ago and he was looking and thinking of his wallet and not the spiritual health of the church.  As the leader of the Anglican church, he has failed misserably and I no longer trust or respect him.  This stunt of his is just another indication of his inability to lead.

[64] Posted by LINEMAN21 on 02-23-2008 at 05:03 AM • top

# 46 - r.w. - are you THE r.w.?  You know, RW ...
Insider information indeed!

[65] Posted by English Jill on 02-23-2008 at 07:06 AM • top

What to say? A target-rich environment.

Conservative Bishops? If +Duncan is not in on it, it doesn’t count, and if he is in on it, he would surely have informed our white knight, +Iker. Conservative Theologians? Surely not our beloved Kendall+, although he is quite capable of holding things close to the vest.

Actually, I thought that being a female was a superb qualification to the position of AntiChrist—the more the opposite to Christ, the better. And I had speculated that her current residence was Pasadena, CA, but perhaps the post above is more apposite.

The Rabbit.

[66] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-23-2008 at 07:12 AM • top

It’s up here now: George Conger report on Religious Intelligence

Doesn’t look like anything new. No consultation with Pittsburgh or Fort Worth. No way of compelling liberal bishops to participate. The Presiding Bishop supports it - enough said?

Thinking Anglicans has picked it up too.

[67] Posted by John Simmons on 02-23-2008 at 07:49 AM • top

No. 19 is right.

It might be helpful to look at this story the other way.  If avoiding schism is the endgame of the ABC, then a plan that causes more fracturing of the Communion would easily be thought to be a far preferable solution. Let’s face it.  It is all about avoidng schism at this point rather than resetting the church back on its rails.

As for Lambeth not discussing this ‘plan’ with any of the conservative bishops involved, well, that’s so predictable Las Vegas could make book on it.  The unfortunate reality for the ABC is that his problem is not with the conservative bishops, his problem is with PBSchori.  Not only does she actively promote disobedience and heresy in the church, the woman is totally in over her head as far as her executive capabilities.  Schori’s abusive and, oddly, the same time totally pathetic, iron fist in the velvet glove managerial style is far more likely to bring on schism than anything the conservative side could dream of doing.

[68] Posted by Mrs. Lawrence on 02-23-2008 at 08:09 AM • top

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, this crisis has brought about the best and the worst in all of us who are deeply involved in the Anglican church. When I meet my Maker, I will have to give an account for my un-Christ-like moments and attitudes. 
We are called to judge the fruit of people’s actions.  However, in the spirit of Mt 7:1-2, I caution you against designating persons as an anti-Christ.  Our God is a holy God, and we all should work out our salvation with fear and trembling. 
If there is truth in this report, and the Windsor Bishops are indeed involved, may we look at them with the eyes of Christ.  Many people have been praying for them.  An eleventh hour acknowledgement is still an acknowledgement.  I say this knowing full well that attempts at legal insulation would probably be futile.  But a public acknowledgement would be a huge step for many bishops.

[69] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 02-23-2008 at 08:13 AM • top

Too little too late! The exodus from TEC continues!!

[70] Posted by NewAnglican on 02-23-2008 at 08:34 AM • top

Jill,  thank you for your comment, which is absolutely on point whatever our stances may be. 

Admittedly, I have my own interests here, as I belong to a CANA congregation, but simply agreeing to some form of real alternative episcopal oversight while not giving up on the main point from TEC’s perspective—that one is “in” TEC, which presumably has implications regarding property—would be wonderful for some, and for those people in conservative congregations still in TEC, I’d be happy—but it would seem to do little to resolve broader issues, particularly with the Global South.

So here’s what they call in Washington a “trial balloon”:  why can’t ABC float the idea of dropping property lawsuits in exchange for attendance at Lambeth?

[71] Posted by Johng on 02-23-2008 at 08:50 AM • top

So far #60 is the only one who has mentioned this, but it struck me right away.  Apart from the number 20 (where did that come from?) and the actual details of administration, this is a rehash of the Dar es Salaam plan which the HoB rejected out of hand and with quite a bit of hostility.  Why does anyone think it will fly now?  Schori may have agreed to it, but will the HoB?  And when will we know who the conservatives are who fell for it?

[72] Posted by Ann Castro on 02-23-2008 at 08:52 AM • top

#26 It is my understanding that the Washington National Cathedral is operated by the Episcopal Church, but not owned by them. It is an American treasure and open to all for worship.  Possibly, the orthodox Anglicans could hold their consecrations and ordinations there if we requested this.

http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/support/about.shtml

[73] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 08:55 AM • top

I vote for the ABC as the “Anti-Christ” or at least one of many Ambassadors for Satan, because aren’t his duties “largely ceremonial”...?

[74] Posted by loonpond on 02-23-2008 at 09:18 AM • top

The link in 76 is much more informative. Seems that some of the Windsor Bishops came up with the plan, which supposedly the ABC has approved and have presented it to Katherine.

On Jan 31 Dr Williams met with Archbishop Gomez, Bishop Stanton, Prof Seitz and Dr Ephraim Radner and gave his backing to the emerging “Anglican Bishops in Communion” project, agreeing to issue invitations to the primates of the West Indies, Burundi, Tanzania, the Indian Ocean and Jerusalem and the Middle East to offer primatial pastoral oversight to the Episcopal Visitors.

The Presiding Bishop was briefed by Bishops Stanton of Dallas, Smith of North Dakota, Howe of Central Florida, and Bishop Bruce MacPherson of Western Louisiana on Feb 21, giving her “nihil obstat” to the Communion plan, one participant reported.

Apparently the details are still being worked out.

Marie at Rez

[75] Posted by Marie Blocher on 02-23-2008 at 09:25 AM • top

Reading Conger, this plan is evidently a plan to shut out the separatist dioceses and hold on to the dioceses of the “Windsor” bishops and +Howe. Schofield, Duncan and Iker have been written off and can expect a torrent of lawsuits.

The Rabbit.

[76] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-23-2008 at 09:45 AM • top

The plan does nothing for the cancer within TEC.

[77] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 09:51 AM • top

#13:

Sasha, et al, you may be right about the ABC, but is it so impossible to believe that he might at least be trying to do right? And if we claim to be proper Christians, then we have no business being contemptuous of anyone:

We are told to measure against the word of scripture. I’m afraid
the ABC does not measure up by what is said in scripture.  As proper
Christians then we have the responsibility to measure, and act accordingly.

[78] Posted by GrannieKay on 02-23-2008 at 09:52 AM • top

The article quoted at top: “...to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues.”

Sounds like a cootie-proof barrier? I mean, one wouldn’t want to associate with “those” people since one’s faith and convictions are not quite strong enough to withstand any sort of liberal cooties that might enter one’s brain (or heart)?

I suspect the reporter’s news, though, is hogwash.

[79] Posted by PadreWayne on 02-23-2008 at 09:53 AM • top

#26 It is my understanding that the Washington National Cathedral is operated by the Episcopal Church, but not owned by them. It is an American treasure and open to all for worship.  Possibly, the orthodox Anglicans could hold their consecrations and ordinations there if we requested this.

The Washington National Cathedral (aka the Cathedral of St Peter and St Paul) is the cathedral church of the Diocese of Washington,  operated by the <i>Protestant Episcopal<i> Cathedral Society, under the direction of the Cathedral Chapter, the Dean and the Bishop of Washington.  It is thoroughly TEC.  Also, take a look at…

called to embody God’s love and to welcome people of all faiths and none. A unique blend of the spiritual and the civic, this Episcopal cathedral is a voice for generous-spirited Christianity and a catalyst for reconciliation and interfaith dialogue to promote respect and understanding. We invite all people to share in our commitment to create a more hopeful and just world.

“Generous-spirited Christianity” is in fact a code word for “Liberal Chirstianity”, and the Diocese of Washington makes no bones about the fact that it wants to distance itself from the “Religious Right”.  “Interfaith Dialogue” includes inviting patently non-Christian speakers ranging from the Dali Lama the the current President of Iran.

The Diocese of Washington is completely on the side of the liberal TEC agenda.  Note that, in spite of having at least two obstentially conservative Anglo-Catholic parishes, not a single TEC parish in the District is a member of Forward in Faith, the AAC, the ACN or any other of the organizations that has dissented from direction of the church.

Now, I have a certain affection for the Washington National Cathedral.  It is a wonderful building, has a cathedral shop with a great collection of Anglican choral music, pleasant grounds, and a pretty good choir (by American standards).  But I decided awhile ago that, while I frequently visit there in “tourist” mode I simply could not take communion there and I’d rather avoid the fuzziness they dish out in tourist oriented interfaith friendly sermons.

[80] Posted by AndrewA on 02-23-2008 at 09:54 AM • top

The Telegraph’s report misses the point.  It misses, as most of the media misses,  the far more fundamental crisis, and that is the long term denigration of true, full belief in the Faith.  Once again, the headlines are all about homosexuality; once again the true problem is decades old.  The ‘plan’, if there is any truth to it, ignores the fact that it will take far, far more than simply pockets of protection around dioceses and parishes who disagree with the homosexual issue.
The other point which others have mentioned, is that the public press has got hold of the ‘story’ before the conservative dioceses have. 
I am sure that there is muttering in the wind between Lambeth palace and 815.  I am sure that Gafcon has really got their wind up, especially since we are now only a few months away from Jordan and Jerusalem.  I am sure that there is great concern over the likely absence of many, many bishops from Lambeth.  I am sure that the growing disintegration of the Canadian church is causing great alarm. 
815 and Lambeth palace are mistaken if their machinations can any longer significantly rein in the rejection of their political and religious control of the Communion.

[81] Posted by Bill C on 02-23-2008 at 09:54 AM • top

An overstatement, but perhaps like NICE Belbury, they have brought Deep Heaven down on their heads.

[82] Posted by Bill C on 02-23-2008 at 09:57 AM • top

Is this just a desparate attempt to salvage Lambeth as something meaningful?  I was just wondering…

[83] Posted by ElaineF. on 02-23-2008 at 10:01 AM • top

Methinks I have heard it all before.  Why wait for the dust to settle and those left to pick over the bones of what was once ECUSAECUSA started its trend toward decline for me some 30 years ago.  I happily walked out of the parish that I had been baptized in, served in and considered my home.  Those that stayed in EUSA snickered at us for meeting as Continuing Churches in store fronts, funeral homes and such, when your bishops took away our property, saying “that shall never happen to us, the crisis and revision shall not touch us” and yet it has.

[84] Posted by Capellan on 02-23-2008 at 10:09 AM • top

one wouldn’t want to associate with “those” people since one’s faith and convictions are not quite strong enough to withstand any sort of liberal cooties that might enter one’s brain

[#88] Not at all, PadreWayne. We simply want it made clear that the religion that styles itself as “liberal Christianity” is not in any sense Christian.  A Christian is defined by what he believes; not by some subjective relationship to an unknown self-defined entity called “Jesus” - where Jesus can be the Son of God, or sufi healer, or great teacher, or reincarnation of the Buddha; Risen Lord, elected president, or rotting pile of bones; Virgin born or roman bastard; spotless Lamb, or sinful man.  That’s all we want - differentiation between the Truth and the Lie.

To which the typical liberal will respond “What is truth?”  And that pretty much sums up the argument.

carl

[85] Posted by carl on 02-23-2008 at 10:11 AM • top

The article quoted at top: “...to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues.”

Sounds like a cootie-proof barrier? I mean, one wouldn’t want to associate with “those” people since one’s faith and convictions are not quite strong enough to withstand any sort of liberal cooties that might enter one’s brain (or heart)?


Um, no.  It’s more of a barrier to insulate these bishops, their clergy and flocks from the ravening TEC wolves that would inhibit them, sue them, and rob them of the properties into which they have put their lives’ work.

I suspect the reporter’s news, though, is hogwash.

Well, there’s one thing on which we can agree.

[86] Posted by st. anonymous on 02-23-2008 at 10:14 AM • top

#88 I wouldn’t call this a “cootie-proof barrier”. They are telling the media they have decided to use condoms - can be we believe that?

#89 Check very carefully on who _owns_ the Washington National Cathedral. It is my understanding it is not 815 or the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, although they might want you to believe they own it, they are just entrenched there. Their program is certainly TEC, because TEC operates it and spreads media in that regard. It is like saying NPR is independent of political bias.

If TEC were told to leave the building, could they prevail in a lawsuit over the property?

[87] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 10:15 AM • top

The situation in TEC isn’t new, it’s been evolving for the past 40 years.  What didn’t help was the number of liberal clergy who flocked to the seminaries during the Vietnam war to avoid the draft and are now in leadership positions within TEC.

I heard someone say that the reason things have gotten so bad is because we let it happen.  We went to church, sat in the pews then went home, thinking all was well with the world.  We’re probably as much to blame as anyone because we saw what was happening in our church, disagreed with it, but did nothing to challenge it or stop it. 

If history has taught us anything it should be that sitting back and letting things evolve like this is a mistake.  The communion sees the direction TEC is going, but how long will it sit and wait before any action is taken, another 40 years? 

People aren’t leaving TEC, TEC left the people.  It is the process of creating a new religion.  What the AC needs to understand is that the group representing less 3% of the total members in the AC is causing most of the turmoil.  If it isn’t brought back into the fold of the Anglican traditions, than it should be disassociated fromthe worldwide communion.

[88] Posted by The Templar on 02-23-2008 at 10:39 AM • top

Thanks anyway but I left TEC. I don’t plan to go back.

[89] Posted by dedaze on 02-23-2008 at 10:56 AM • top

It seems to me that any plan without serious sanctions on the TEC for non-compliance is a non-starter. In the words of President Reagan - “Trust, but verify.” TEC has discovered that they can agree to anything, proceed to do its opposite and nothing bad ever happens to them.

[90] Posted by Terry on 02-23-2008 at 11:17 AM • top

RE: Primatial Oversight
This is what was agreed upon:

At their February 2007 meeting in Dar es Salaam, the Primates of the Anglican Communion called upon the US Church to adopt a Pastoral Council with members appointed by both the Presiding Bishop and Dr Williams and the Primates that would provide episcopal oversight for traditionalists unable to accept the ministrations of their bishops, and for dioceses at odds with the Presiding Bishop.

This was not part of that agreement:

On Sept 20, Bishop Schori revisited the issue on the opening day of the US House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, ultimately appointing 12 Episcopal Visitors to serve as her surrogates to traditionalists.

The 12: Bishops Frank Brookhart of Montana, Clarence Coleridge of Connecticut (retired), Philip Duncan of the Central Gulf Coast, Duncan Gray of Mississippi, Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina, Rayford High suffragan of Texas, John W Howe of Central Florida, Gary Lillibridge of West Texas, Rodney Michel of Long Island, (retired), Michael Smith of North Dakota, James Stanton of Dallas, and Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island were delegated the authority to visit dioceses on behalf of the Presiding Bishop.

However, the Presiding Bishop retained the authority to “take order” for ordaining and consecrating bishops and to oversee the discipline of bishops. As of mid-February, no diocese had taken up her offer for an Episcopal Visitor.

This is a last ditch effort and looks much like Howard Hughe’s Spruce Goose! It won’t fly!

[91] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 11:41 AM • top

#96 Dr. N
RE: “The plan does nothing for the cancer within TEC.”

You got that right! Band-Aids will solve nothing and come off when wet! And this plan is all wet!

[92] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 11:51 AM • top

We are told to measure against the word of scripture. I’m afraid the ABC does not measure up by what is said in scripture.  As proper Christians then we have the responsibility to measure, and act accordingly. “

I agree 100%, Kay(comment #87), but acting accordingly does not give us the right to be snide, or contemptuous, or snarky, and I’m seeing a lot of that lately.
Sometimes I don’t know which is worse: on the one side, you have the liberals, many of whom mean well but who have made the mistake of loving the SIN along with the sinner, and have ended up bringing all kinds of heresy into the church in the name of inclusiveness. On the other side, you have some conservatives who don’t seem to love much for anybody but themselves and those who share their race, culture, and social station.
I’ve been watching this thing evolve for a good number of years now, and investigating some of the loudest “conservative” voices, and I’ve found out quite a lot. Some of them are genuine conservative Christians like you and me, Kay, who have the interests of Christ and their fellowman at heart, but others are anything but.
There are people on the conservative side of this thing who are involved with white supremacist organizations, such as the League of the South and Stormfront. (You and I know some of those people, Kay—I was barred from posting on one yahoo group after I disagreed one too many times with Lee Poteet’s assessment that the Confederacy was “Christian”. Another LoS member pastors a “safe, Anglican” church down in Gulfport MS… I could go on.) Other “conservatives” are or have been involved with various sectors of the theonomist movement (ala the Chalcedon Foundation, et al), and still others are up to their eyebrows in big-money conservative (secular) politics. They talk a good talk when it comes to being against sexual sin, but their orthopraxy gives the lie to their orthodoxy when, in practice they lump minorities (and lower-income people and any others with whom they would rather not associate in with the sodomites), and do things like claim that Southern slavery was a biblical institution, and that the South was the real hero in the Civil War, and that we ought to abolish government-funded social services, etc.
Most of these bad boys are not interested in healing the Anglican communion, either. Rather, they have decided that it is beyond repair and are busy trying to tear down what’s left of it. 
The present trouble in TEC is a theonomist’s dream come true, because at one time, the Episcopal Church was the one orthodox Christian denomination that was proof against their nonsense; now, however, TEC is in shambles and both the conservative and the liberal extremes of the lunatic fringe are hard at work to see that it remains that way.

[93] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:00 PM • top

Fr. Kingsley,

You are certainly right about the lack of sincerity in any Christian utterings of the leftists who have seized control of the Episcopal Church.  My gift of discernment tells me that they are sham Christians who are using the influence and money of the Episcopal Church to advance an agenda that is not religious in any way unless you reckon their political ideology as a religion.

I worked for decades in the education establishment and the same “long march” of the left has occurred there.  The Episcopal Church was taken over in the same way that Riverside Church in New York City was taken over in the sixties.  When it became know that the church had become the beneficiary of a wealthy person who had just passed away, every Trotskyite communist in the city came and joined that congregation.

Believe me, Griswold and Jefferts are not Christians any more than Spong and Swing.  It would be charitable to call them heretics.  For all that I pity them and pray for their conversion.

What has happened to the Episcopal Church is far worse in theological implications (not human suffering)  than what happened to the Russian Church under the Bolsheviks.

[94] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-23-2008 at 12:12 PM • top

Just for the record, the “Spruce Goose” did fly…..
.
.
.
.
....once.

[95] Posted by Stefano on 02-23-2008 at 12:23 PM • top

Another “plan” that as before, will keep the revisionists happy by focusing on institutional “integrity & cooperation”, rather than addressing the false teaching that left unchecked, will lead to death.
I’m neither impressed nor encouraged by this effort and would hope that orthodox Anglicans will not be sidetracked by its overtures.

[96] Posted by MikeSWFL on 02-23-2008 at 12:26 PM • top

You are certainly right about the lack of sincerity in any Christian utterings of the leftists who have seized control of the Episcopal Church.  My gift of discernment tells me that they are sham Christians who are using the influence and money of the Episcopal Church to advance an agenda that is not religious in any way unless you reckon their political ideology as a religion.

There’s a ditch on both sides of the road, Father John. There are conservatives who are doing the very same thing—I know of one Anglican group in particular whose diocesan coat of arms is based on the Confederate battle flag! That group isn’t even Episcopalian,  yet they act as though they also have “a dog in this fight”. Hmmmm…

[97] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:32 PM • top

Stefano,
Thanks for the correction, but it did take several tries and it doesn’t fly at present nor did it fly after its one flight so IMHO it doesn’t fly. But thanks for the correction. smile

[98] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 12:36 PM • top

If this “debate” is about the Confederate battle flag and not about rank heresy I must be on the wrong web site.  I apologize and withdraw.

But for the record there is no connection between the mentioned flag and heresy.

[99] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-23-2008 at 12:38 PM • top

I know of one Anglican group in particular whose diocesan coat of arms is based on the Confederate battle flag! That group isn’t even Episcopalian, yet they act as though they also have “a dog in this fight”. Hmmmm…

goldndog,
I beg to differ! Anyne one who is a part of the Anglican Communion has a dog in this fight, since it is the Anglican Communion that is being ripped. Anyting that threatens the Worldwide Anglican Communion will effect all those who are in it. So they do have a dog in this fight! IMHO

[100] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 12:40 PM • top

Heresy is sin, but it is only one kind of sin, John. And the things that the Confederate flag stood for (and still stands for) are every bit as bad as the current rot supported by Katherine Schori and Co.
As a matter of fact, one reason that the liberals have gained so much ground is that they are part of a reaction AWAY from elitism, racism, and all that. The devil has used this move toward inclusiveness, which is a GOOD THING, to trick the church into opening the door to SIN.

[101] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:49 PM • top

OneDayCloser, you are right, and I stand corrected. I should have concludedmy comment,  “I wonder about the nature of the Diocese of the South’s “dog”. ”

[102] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:53 PM • top

goldndog
Not that I mind a good argument about the Civil War - seeing as I was Re-enactor at one time - but the Confederate Battle flag has nothing to do with this thread.
carl

[103] Posted by carl on 02-23-2008 at 12:55 PM • top

So you’re saying that if we could some how do away with the Confederate flag it would help eliminate heresy in the Episcopal Church?

[104] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-23-2008 at 12:57 PM • top

Carl, in itself, you are right, it does not. I think that we drifted in that direction when mention was made of political agendas, and I pointed out that some conservatives have political agendas too, and that some of those agendas are every bit as bad as those of the liberals. The Confederate flag got thrown in because many of those conservatives in question hold the Confederate flag and what it stands for in very high regard.

[105] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 12:59 PM • top

“Actually, Father Kingsley, I know plenty of revisionists who are very honest, loving people. Their theology is completely skewed, but many do mean well.”

Uh huh. Don’t carry that attitude too far. That is where our problems started. Remember the road to hell .......
AP+

[106] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 02-23-2008 at 01:03 PM • top

So you’re saying that if we could some how do away with the Confederate flag it would help eliminate heresy in the Episcopal Church?

That’s a straw man, John. But if we could somehow get rid of a certain sector who reveres what the Confederate flag represents, we could get down to the business of curing the church of her Liberal heresies, unencumbered by backstabbing from groups who have no desire to see such a cure take effect.

[107] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 01:04 PM • top

O.K., so you’re saying purging the Episcopal Church of people who revere the Confederate flag is the number one priority, and must be accomplished before tackling the problem of the heresy of the current TEC leadership?

[108] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-23-2008 at 01:15 PM • top

No, John, because such a purge isn’t going to happen. I’ll settle for “outing” them, tilting at the occasional straw “dog”, and making those who truly have the Church’s best interests at heart aware of their presence and intentions.

[109] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 01:22 PM • top

lots of good comments…read through all the comments in one sitting as opposed to comment by comment giving me the opportunity to get an overall feel .....which is, in my opinion ,one of total disdain for TEC… and not much support for the Anglican Communion even #49, Gordy talks about the experience that all or at least most of us has hurtfully experienced within our beloved churches.  Father Kingsley in #66 talks about being ignored and put down…ditto there too.  #97..DJ talks about TEC creating a new religion..I don’t know if it is a religion anymore its more like a social club…but it certainly is not what “we signed up for”,  the comment that most people who have left would never come back is what I from people who have made that hard decision.  I think that this is such a heart wrenching decision; to leave, once made, I doubt that I would be willing to come back ( or to trust “the church” again)..so were does this lead us…probably   it depends on where you are…if you are in SC, you still have a safe place, if you are in NC you probably have to leave TEC….for certain we will never be the same again and maybe that is a good thing.

[110] Posted by ewart-touzot on 02-23-2008 at 01:44 PM • top

“I think that this is such a heart wrenching decision; to leave, once made, I doubt that I would be willing to come back ( or to trust “the church” again)..so were does this lead us…probably it depends on where you are…if you are in SC, you still have a safe place, if you are in NC you probably have to leave TEC….for certain we will never be the same again and maybe that is a good thing..”

Well spoken, but I’m staying, for the time being. The heretics appear to be in charge, for now,  but I think that God is bigger than the heretics. If He ever WAS with the Episcopal Church, He will carry the day in this present mess, and if He doesn’t, then He was never with us to begin with. God grant us the wisdom to know the difference….

[111] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 01:50 PM • top

I am cross posting this from another thread here, because the issue is the same when considering staying/leaving TEC.

As you pray, recall the parable of the sower and how wise it is to sow on fertile ground. Don’t fret about spending time planting where the birds carried seed away, where the shoots withered and died, or where they were choked by thorns. Looking back to fix TEC is not growing the Kingdom. This story is important:

Matthew 13: 3-32
Mark 4: 3-30
Luke 8: 5-18

[112] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 01:54 PM • top

goldndog,
Although your stance and pronouncements are admirable, I must say….Please read Jude!

[113] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 01:58 PM • top

So Dr. N… You are saying that TEC is a lost cause, and recommend that we not even try to fix it? May I ask, to what denomination do you belong?

[114] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 02:03 PM • top

I moved from TEC and am supporting an AMiA and a CANA congregation. I am also traveling and visiting congregations in TEC and other mainline denominations, trying to understand what is best for the future of the Church and my family. My children are grown and are struggling with the same issues.

At this point, I see the AMiA and CANA congregations are fertile ground, growing rapidly, and planting Churches. The TEC congregations are withering and members scared to speak and grow, denying the national problems are local, or are pushing the liberal causes out of sight. I don’t see the situation better in the Lutheran, Methodist, UCC, and Presbyterian denominations.

These are only a few words, but hopefully capture the direction I found appropriate to take.

[115] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 02:15 PM • top

“So Dr. N… You are saying that TEC is a lost cause, and recommend that we not even try to fix it? May I ask, to what denomination do you belong?”

Well Goldndog, whoever you may be, what I hear you saying is that this is a North-South disagreement, where clearly a large part of the South is wrong, and where the majority of the North is right.  The last nine years have shown us that ECUSA is flying in a different direction and moving further and further from traditional Christianity. 

The ‘plan’ as delineated by +Howe
appears to me to be one that essentially supports the ‘integrity’ of ECUSA and maintains the status quo.  ECUSA is right not to change, but seeks to contain the orthodox in an apparently safe environment and removes the need for the steady haemoraging of the denomination. 

There is no mention of ‘fixing’ ECUSA, there is no recognition that ECUSA is no longer a Christian church (sin: well we don’t talk about sin; 39 Articles: well it is an interesting, rather obsolete document; Jesus: ah he’s important, but as +Schori said, great teacher, great role model, but he is only one of the ways the Great Commision: well has to do with feeding the hungry, winning souls to a saving knowledge of the Lord -well we don’t see it like that).

This plan is a plan concocted by those who are far, far in truth and in spirit from the early Church.

[116] Posted by Bill C on 02-23-2008 at 03:00 PM • top

BillC [125] and goldndog [123]. There are faithful people in TEC congregations and in other denominations. We learned during the Reformation of the 16th Century that the purpose of reform is to place Christ at the center of our individual lives as our mediator to salvation. That is possible for all of us, and in any context. I do not say that leaving TEC is right for everyone.

I think it is important that we prayerfully consider where we, as individuals, sow our seeds and what ground will be fertile to the Church. What is workable for one person will not be for another or even others about us.  At harvest time, the withered will simply not be fruitful.

I am very pleased to see the rapid growth of CANA and AMiA congregations. This is in part due to the vitality and reforming Spirit within these groups that have taken the stand to build the Church. TEC is not a victim of orthodox dissent; it is trying to sell a heirarchy and political agenda.  At least at the national and Canterbury levels, it has lost its mission and is doing social work rather than spreading the Gospel. Its losses come from expectations that are not growing individual relationships with God within the community.

Certainly, it isn’t a North/South thing. I won’t enter that discussion, except in jest. wink

[117] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 03:36 PM • top

One further point is really worth making.

If we look back at the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, we see very similar issues of politics and heirarchy. The events that spawned the protestant denominations did not destroy the long-term existance of the Roman Church. I don’t see TEC and other protestant denominations going way, but rather morphing and realigning in time. Hopefully, this realignment can be realized in North America without many of us being burned at the stake. We should be mindful and careful for our brothers and sisters in Africa and other parts of the world.

I am most concerned about teenagers who are coming to the faith and elderly, who are doubting where their church has placed them. As I am getting older, I keep concern about what legacy I will give to my children and the C (c)hurch that may bury me.

[118] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 04:07 PM • top

I’d like to get back to the original assertion that many of these revisionists bishops are not Christians, but merely using the Church to further their personal political agenda.  Who could begrudge works of corporal mercy?  But using the Church and it’s influence and power to undermine traditional morality in the altering of the sacrament of marriage and the replacing of the gospel message with Millienium Development Goals combined with the PB’s refusal to say that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, that no man cometh unto the Father except by Him, tells us all we need to know.  They have placed an absolute priority on obtaining a protected minority status for homosexuals and relegated the Great Commission to something that smacks of elitism, sexism,racism, homophobia and disrespectful of other religions and cultures.  They have in effect repudiated Jesus, His divinity and His mission.  How can this be anything other than the end of the Episcopal Church and the birth of another branch of unitarianism?

[119] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-23-2008 at 04:17 PM • top

In response to:  “However, the initiative is likely to infuriate liberal leaders of the Episcopal Church, who will see it as an attempt to undermine their authority and interfere in their affairs:P…...who cares?

Do the math, infuriate 73% of the communion, or 3%?  TEC represents less than 3 % of the entire communion so who cares if this “infuriates” them.  Best thing that could happen is to kick TEC out of the communion entirely and be done with it.

[120] Posted by The Templar on 02-23-2008 at 04:56 PM • top

Best thing that could happen is to kick TEC out of the communion entirely and be done with it.

#129 DJ
I wish! But I’m afraid that that wish will never come true. Not even over the rainbow!

[121] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 05:06 PM • top

#130 One Day Closer….you’re probably right but I think it’s going to go down a little differently anyway.  It’s pretty obvious that the Africans are getting fed up with all this revisionist nonsense and heresy and if the Americans and if the ABC won’t make a they’re going to make it for them and it’s going to be in the form of a totally separate Anglican Communion.  I will not be surprised in the slightest if later this year, or perhaps earlier, we’re going to see a total breakaway of the Africans followed by the Southern Cone folks and the formation of an orthodox Anglican Communion.  If something isn’t done to get TEC back in line, I truly believe the communion as we know it is finished.  The Ugandans are getting really fed up with all this.  Word to the ABC….....you’re paid to make decisions…..MAKE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[122] Posted by The Templar on 02-23-2008 at 05:23 PM • top

No.  As a new Christian, just 16 months old, I feel I must speak.  I have been lurking in here since shortly after becoming a Christian, at 45, after a life of atheism.  I was baptised by an apostate named Rev. Dale Yardy at St John’s Anglican Church in Sardis BC.  That is, as I found out within the diocese of New Westminster, home turf to the adversary.  I must live with that blemish forever!  No-one told me that the church of my ancestors had been taken over by villains.  I only wish that someone had spoken the truth to me prior to this error.  This site is the only place I have found that does not bend to the will of the evil one.  Words such as those coming from the AC of C and TEC are meant to defeat you!  They will brook no quarter from the likes of God fearing people.  They are bent on purposes that are not Christian!  Don’t fool yourself into believing that conversation is anything but a means to their ends.

I am sorry.  I will collect myself and continue at another time.

[123] Posted by Newly minted on 02-23-2008 at 05:30 PM • top

Newly minted: Welcome to the family of God. Its a good thing that you have learned a hard lesson early on-there are plenty of wolves in sheep’s clothing who seek to corrupt, both doctrine, and Christians themselves. My prayer for you is: “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,
  so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;
  having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” (Philippians 1:9-11).
  “And though the Lord gives you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your teachers will not be moved into a corner anymore, but your eyes shall see your teachers.
  Your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” whenever you turn to the right hand or whenever you turn to the left.” (Isaiah 30:20-21)

[124] Posted by Bob K. on 02-23-2008 at 05:53 PM • top

Newly Minted,

Welcome aboard, and thanks for the kind words. Now buckle up and hold on tight - things are going to get a little bumpy from here on out!

[125] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-23-2008 at 06:47 PM • top

That was the captain speaking.

[126] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-23-2008 at 07:06 PM • top

Late to the thread, but let’s all sing together now:

How many winds can 20 bishops blow
Until they are E-visitated?
The same number of bish-ops minus 8
When they’re E-viscerat-ed?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the Wind.(TM),
Camp Allen, and 09’s General Convention!
The answer, my friend, is twisting in the Wind.(TM),
Camp Allen, and 09’s General Convention!

By the by, since the HOB can’t bind the GCC to any plan of action, how’s it the PB can?  Has she acquired super-papal powers or is this the result of the curial actions of her advisors over and above the alleged twenty bishops curiously twisting in the Wind.(TM)?  Did the Executive Council give her secret powers under a protocol in Ecuador?  Does that qualify as foreign interference in that case?

Hmmm?

[127] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 02-23-2008 at 08:30 PM • top

As for KJS being the antichrist:  I don’t think she has the talent, strictly topwater.  Now maybe she could be the Beast from out of the Sea!

[128] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 02-23-2008 at 09:37 PM • top

Well Goldndog, whoever you may be, what I hear you saying is that this is a North-South disagreement, where clearly a large part of the South is wrong, and where the majority of the North is right.  The last nine years have shown us that ECUSA is flying in a different direction and moving further and further from traditional Christianity.

No, Bill, I’m NOT saying that this is a North/South thing, it’s an orthodoxy vs.heresy thing.  As you say, “ECUSA is flying in a different direction and moving further and further from traditional Christianity”, and that is what originally gave rise to the conflict. This is due largely to the influence of liberal, Schori/Robinson/Spong types, and it has nothing to do with North or South.

The North/South angle comes into play because certain theomomist/neoConfederate types are trying to take advantage of the mess in the Anglican Communion to win disaffected Ecusans to their various denominations and viewpoints—in effect, they themselves are not part of the major conflict taking place within the Anglican Communion, but they ARE fanning the flames as they wait around to scavenge the corpse of ECUSA.

[129] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-23-2008 at 11:46 PM • top

Goldenhog is right! just take a look at this website that has a semi-official status with the Episcopal Church and you will see how the neo-Confederates are helping fan the flames of hatred and rebellion against Schori et. al.

http://www.leonidaspolk.org/

[130] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-24-2008 at 01:58 PM • top

Goldenhog is right! just take a look…

Good morning, Father Roddy, and thank you for presenting me with such a lovely Matthew 5:11 today, LOL!
God bless…..........

[131] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 02:13 PM • top

You are very welcome! And God bless you too.  I’m praying for you now.

[132] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-24-2008 at 02:18 PM • top

goldndog,
Is there any chance you could be more explicit for those of us in other parts of the country? I have no idea what you are talking about.

My impression from reading the Stand Firm blog is that it is the reappraisers who make racist and classist comments (about the GS Provinces and Primates). I do agree that it is primarily the reasserters who make sexist comments.

[133] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-24-2008 at 03:08 PM • top

I live in the south and I have no idea what he is talking about. My church is also happily intergrated, so hang the racist plaque elsewhere, please.

[134] Posted by oscewicee on 02-24-2008 at 03:51 PM • top

Deja Vu,
There is a ideological group that is very active in America today who derives its worldview from the writings of John Rousas Rushdoony, his son in law Gary North, and (formerly) Howard Ahmanson, JR.. These fellows are called Reconstructionists, or Dominionists, or Theonomists, and they want to make over the church and society to conform to their worldview, which bears little resemblance to orthodox Christianity. They have courted and recieved much support from neoConfederate and Kinist groups such as the League of the South, and one of their tactics in recent years has been to publish books wherein they revise history, claiming that the South was Christian and the North was not; many in the movement, most notably the Reverends Douglas Wilson and Steven Wilkins (of Auburn Avenue and Federal Vision fame), claim that Southern slavery was a benevolent institution.
They have been especially active in the Presbyterian church, particularly in the PCA congregations throughout Southern states, but this ideology has begun to infect Anglicanism as well. Many of these Neo-Confederate types are gaining membership for their own fringe dioceses by courting those who have become disgusted by the nasty carryings on in the Episcopalian church, and while these wolves in sheeps’ clothing rightly decry the liberal heresy which has infected 815 (and I cannot stress enough that I do maintain that Schori and Co. ARE HERETICS), they have no wish to see that heresy abate and Episcopalianism return to orthodoxy, because their apparent aim is to fill their own pews at the expense of the rest of the Anglican communion.

[135] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 06:33 PM • top

goldndog, do you have any figures on these groups? I live in the deep south and I don’t know anyone who would take this garbage seriously. I can’t believe they have that big an impact on anything. My mother is Presbyterian and certainly this kind of swill isn’t being preached in *her* church. Aren’t you making a bit much of some extremists/idiots on the lunatic fringe? Where are the fringe dioceses to which you refer? Dioceses of what church, since you seem to indicate they are not part of TEC?

[136] Posted by oscewicee on 02-24-2008 at 06:36 PM • top

AMEN, Sasha!!!

[137] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

Oscewicee, check back here in a day or two, and if this thread is still open, I’ll try to get some statistics together for you.
Meanwhile, you can research this on your own by following the links in my last comment and following the links you find in THOSE articles. As I said, this movement has been most active so far in Presbyterian circles, but it is growing. It is beginning to infect Anglicanism, and has taken root in mainstream Baptist circles.
For example, just this year, an exemplary Hebrew professor lost her position at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary simply because she is a woman, and the members of this movement, including universtity president Paige Patterson,  believe that no woman should ever hold authority over or teach any man, based upon 1 Timothy, where the Apostle Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man.” http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/012007dnmetnubaptists.176f48d.html
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/01/strange-belief-that-woman-cannot-teach_19.html

[138] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

Oscewicee, check back here in a day or two, and if this thread is still open, I’ll try to get some statistics together for you.
Meanwhile, you can research this on your own by following the links in my last comment and following the links you find in THOSE articles. As I said, this movement has been most active so far in Presbyterian circles, but it is growing. It is beginning to infect Anglicanism, and has taken root in mainstream Baptist circles.
For example, just this year, an exemplary Hebrew professor lost her position at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary simply because she is a woman, and the members of this movement, including universtity president Paige Patterson, believe that no woman should ever hold authority over or teach any man, based upon 1 Timothy, where the Apostle Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man.” http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/012007dnmetnubaptists.176f48d.html
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/01/strange-belief-that-woman-cannot-teach_19.html

[139] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 06:54 PM • top

Hmmm… I wonder why that posted twice?
Sorry ‘bout that.

[140] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 06:57 PM • top

goldndog, the belief that women should not hold authority over a man is not something from the fringe elements. Sadly, it’s a belief held over much of the world. Baptists have been struggling with this one for a long time, haven’t they?

[141] Posted by oscewicee on 02-24-2008 at 06:59 PM • top

“I’d better apologise forthwith for potentially helping to turn this thread into a forum on women’s ordination - something I fear is unwelcome on this Weblog!”

Me too…  and that wasn’t my intention, in mentioning the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary debacle, and the woman in question was a language professor, for crying out loud, not a minister. But there are those in some of the fringe groups who believe that it’s a sin for a man to even accidentally learn something from a woman (no, I’m NOT kidding), much less learn something from her deliberately by sitting under a female professor; and, this movement is going mainstream, as the incident at Southwestern demonstrates.

[142] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 09:28 PM • top

goldndog, please read the new post “Hills of the North: A Sea of Bishops”. Is that similar to what you have been writing about on this thread?

[143] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-24-2008 at 09:37 PM • top

Quite similar. Of course, not every self-ordained Anglican “cleric” is a NeoConfederate, a racist, or a reconstructionist, and there are some properly ordained fellows in established Anglican groups who could be described as being one or all three. But, this IS pretty similar to what I’ve been describing.

[144] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-24-2008 at 10:17 PM • top

Goldenhog is right! just take a look at this website that has a semi-official status with the Episcopal Church and you will see how the neo-Confederates are helping fan the flames of hatred and rebellion against Schori et. al.
http://www.leonidaspolk.org/

Concerning that Leonidas Polk site that “anglicancatholicpriest” mentioned:
Leonidas Polk (April 10, 1806 – June 14, 1864) was a Confederate general who was once a planter in Maury County, Tennessee, and a third cousin of President James K. Polk.
  “Polk also served as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana and was for that reason sometimes known as The Fighting Bishop.”
“At the outbreak of the Civil War, Polk pulled the Louisiana Convention out of the Episcopal Church of the United States. His friend and former roommate at West Point, Jefferson Davis, prevailed upon Polk to accept a commission in the Confederate States Army.”
“Polk was scouting enemy positions with his staff when he was disemboweled by a Federal Parrott shell at Pine Mountain near Marietta, Georgia, on June 14, 1864. Although his record as a field commander was poor, Polk was immensely popular with his troops, and his death was deeply mourned in the Army of Tennessee.”
Bishop Polk was the leading founder of The University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee; “Sewanee’s On-Line History Museum published a full-page tribute to Polk in the program of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in June 2006, echoing Bishop Elliott’s claiming Polk as a martyr to the faith and praising his achievements as both bishop and soldier. The announcement was a portion the Leonidas Polk Bi-Centennial Memorial Series, the year-long event that included June 14, 2006, a day during the meeting of the General Convention, and the 142nd anniversary of Polk’s death on Pine Mountain. The tribute was criticized by some historians of the Episcopal Church, because Polk supported Southern slavery; they also disputed his “martyrdom”.” (excerpted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Polk )

Basically, Polk was a slaveholder who pulled his diocese out of the Episcopal Church because of secular political concerns, ie, the Civil War.
It appears to me, at least,  that he put down the yoke of Christ to take up the yoke of secular affairs, the sword, and the gun.  He was a “martyr”, alright, but he died for the “right” of some human beings to own other human beings, and apparently, there are those in the South who share the religion of Polk, and revere him accordingly, including anglicancatholicpriest , and, judging from their choice of a coat-of-arms, his diocese, as well.

The parallels between Polk and Schori are quite interesting, too—It appears to me that both perverted their calling to pander to the mores of “the World”, or at least their political and ideological sector of it.

[145] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-25-2008 at 12:08 PM • top

I don’t completely understand why we get so excited about the ABC. This matter of sharia in the UK seems to be a reasonable thing to support in a pluralistic society. After all, he is the head of the C of E, and in Britain his voice was speaking for reason on that matter.
Were he to suggest that sharia be incorporated into other countries’ laws would be ludricrous. Lest we forget, much of what he says is not primarily for foreign consumption. In other words, he was speaking for the C of E and not for the Communion.
I understand the concern of many African bishops in their ongoing struggle with Islam, but conditions in the UK are far different than Central and West Africa.
It almost sounds like the Africans are lookin’ for a fight. But they wouldn’t do that, would they? Right!

[146] Posted by CaptainBob on 02-25-2008 at 08:07 PM • top

Sharia law is wrong everywhere and for everyone…correctness does not stop at borders…this man spoke as the head of the church of England and the Queens representative…what he suggested is unbelievable. We do not applaud cannibals or any other unacceptable behavior because it has always been done that way…there

[147] Posted by ewart-touzot on 02-25-2008 at 08:25 PM • top

Concerning # 161, sharia is far more moderate than radical (lunatic fringe) Islam. In fact, when it was first promulgated sharia was considered quite progressive by scholars.  Not that it bears the stamp of the Holy Spirit, but where it might tend to further domesticate Britain’s Islamic community it seems a reasonable act of public policy in its inclusion into Britain’s Common Law.
The Saudi Arabia’s wahabist interpretation of sharia allows a man to order the death of his daughter for disobedience or unchastity. Further, I read recently a woman was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for “witchcraft.” I’m positive the ABC and the prime minister have no intention of allowing that kind of law (or interpretation) to be a part of the British system.
I have to remind myself that the ABC is also an instrument of the state and sometimes he will be expected to go along with the government’s decisions. Sadly, practical politics and Christian (biblical) values are often not comfortable with each other.

[148] Posted by CaptainBob on 02-25-2008 at 11:27 PM • top

The Saudi Arabia’s wahabist interpretation of sharia allows a man to order the death of his daughter for disobedience or unchastity. Further, I read recently a woman was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for “witchcraft.” I’m positive the ABC and the prime minister have no intention of allowing that kind of law (or interpretation) to be a part of the British system.

Let’s hope not. But by opening the door to even a moderated sort of sharia, Britain may be opening a Pandora’s box. People get nutty when they begin to mix politics and religion, and the phenomenon is not limited to Islam. In Africa, Christian based groups routinely torture and kill children and infants accused of “witchcraft”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver
Nor is the practice (or at least the idea behind it) limited to third world countries—the late J.H.Rushdoony, whose interpretation of Christianity has become popular in a number of American Reformed circles, envisioned a society where laws would be based on the Law of Moses, and called for restoration of the Old Testament law which included the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder, such as apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, sodomy, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, </b>and, in the case of women, “unchastity before marriage.”</b>
Rushdoony’s ideas caught on, too—other past and present Reconstructionist leaders include Gary North (Rushdoony’s son-in-law), < a href=“http://www.theocracywatch.org/ahmanson.htm”>Howard Ahmanson, Jr.</a>, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, and Andrew Sandlin, and Kevin Clauson of the National Reform Association, who writes,
</i>“America and other nations can be Christian if they adopt biblical laws in state, church, family, and all other entities and associations. We cannot trust man (individually or collectively); we must trust God and His immutable law. If civil magistrates will not apply the Old Testament law, then what will they apply? The law of man. If we will not be ruled by God, we will be ruled by tyrants.” (see p. 67, God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. Gary Scott Smith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989). Kevin Clauson of the National Reform Association.</i>
It’s all very odd, fringe-y stuff, rather reminescent of the Salem witchcraft trials or the Spanish Inquisition, and not something which we Anglicans could ever be a part of….. or is it?

The Right Reverend Ray R. Sutton, Ph.D.,  who currently serves as Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Mid America of the Reformed Episcopal Church, claims that the Reconstructed Biblical theocracies would be “happy” places, to which people would flock because “capital punishment is one of the best evangelistic tools of a society.”
There IS a ditch on both sides of the road, people.

[149] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-26-2008 at 07:13 AM • top

Whoops, one of the links didn’t come through. That should have read,
“other past and present Reconstructionist leaders include Gary North (Rushdoony’s son-in-law), Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar…”

[150] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-26-2008 at 07:22 AM • top

I read this in the blog at http://www.ecusa.anglican.org.

“Clergy sorry for rejection over sexuality
Sarah Price
Brisbane Times (Australia)
February 24, 2008

UP TO 100 reverends, ministers and pastors will march in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras to apologise to those rejected by churches because of their sexuality.

More than 30 clerics - from the Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal and Uniting churches - planned to march and more than 60 had signed an apology, 100 Revs group spokesman pastor Mike Hercock said.

“Church has been a hostile place for a number of people, including the homosexual community. It’s really trying to get away from the ideology of throwing rocks,” he said.

Now that ought to be a spectacle to behold.  Clergy dressed in their robes with crooks, miters and stoles and all the finery marching behind a bunch of guys in black jock straps and motorcycle hats prancing around with another bunch of guys in black sequin gowns and giant pompador hairdos.  What a pew filler that will be.

[151] Posted by The Templar on 02-26-2008 at 03:57 PM • top

That’s interesting, DJ.  While they’re about it, those apologetic liberal clergy can also apologize for persecuting the orthodox, for their racism towards Akinola and other faithful African Anglicans, for breaking faith with past generations of devout Christians, and for the global schism that they have caused.

[152] Posted by st. anonymous on 02-26-2008 at 04:38 PM • top

re # 165: “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
    “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

[153] Posted by Bob K. on 02-26-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

In this absolutely whacko world, I would not be suprised in the absolute slightest to see TEC lobbying for reparations for homosexuals.

[154] Posted by The Templar on 02-26-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

“the states, especially the Southern states, need a watchdog with a loud bark and the strong teeth to back it up.”

Posted by goldndog on 08-31-2007 at 08:30 AM

No, Bill, I’m NOT saying that this is a North/South thing, it’s an orthodoxy vs.heresy thing.  As you say, “ECUSA is flying in a different direction and moving further and further from traditional Christianity”, and that is what originally gave rise to the conflict. This is due largely to the influence of liberal, Schori/Robinson/Spong types, and it has nothing to do with North or South.

Posted by goldndog on 02-23-2008 at 10:46 PM

[155] Posted by Wally on 02-26-2008 at 07:37 PM • top

Hi Wally… I just noticed your comment, #169, and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but I think I can guess.

You snipped half of a sentence from a comment I made back last July on a thread that actually WAS about the North and the South (it had become so due to thread drift), and quoted it here out of its original context. We were talking about POLITICS at the time, as much or moreso than religion, as a look at the rest of my comment would have shown you.
I wrote:

The Southern states have a history of good-old-boy politics, and, both in and out of the South, people need to be protected when their local politicians become the pawns of the moneyed set.
Our government is only as Christian at its constituents, and the states, especially the Southern states, need a watchdog with a loud bark and the strong teeth to back it up.

In this CURRENT thread, the one which we have been discussing here this week, we were talking about the heresy of Schori and her associates, and how it has split the church. Various things were said, and I brought up how certain wolves from the far RIGHT side of this conflict are using the situation to stock their own pews with disaffected people fleeing TEC. My point was that most of these wolves could care less about trying to restore TEC to orthodoxy, since it is in their interests that the present situation should continue. 
Such wolves are, of course, found in both the North and the South, and as I explained in the latter half of my comment, (the part which you conveniently left out when you quoted me the second time ) the North/South angle only comes into play because :

“certain theomomist/neoConfederate types are trying to take advantage of the mess in the Anglican Communion to win disaffected Ecusans to their various denominations and viewpoints—in effect, they themselves are not part of the major conflict taking place within the Anglican Communion, but they ARE fanning the flames as they wait around to scavenge the corpse of ECUSA. “

Now, theonomists are everywhere, as are other false shepherds, but demographically speaking, the North does lean more towards liberalism, just as that South tends more towards theonomy and conservatism, (and of course, neoConfederates are mainly a Southern phenomenon as well), so to that extent, it CAN be said that my statement was about “North and South.” (The fact that Anglicancatholicpriest chose to bring up the fact that his church reveres as a martyr a slaveholding bishop who died defending the right of people to own other people sort of adds a North South emphasis to this whole thing too, LOL)

But my main points in all of this have been that
A.) that there IS a ditch running along either side of the road,
AND
B.) that both the Liberal and the Conservative ditches are teeming with wolves,
AND
C.) that while the Liberal wolves are upfront about their apostasy and are a cinch to spot,  the conservative wolves rather resemble sheep,  and they have been quietly feeding off of this whole split since it began.

[156] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-26-2008 at 11:18 PM • top

Sorry Cynthia, I’m new here.  Does everyone know that you are in the left ditch?  You have been upfront about your other political beliefs haven’t you?

[157] Posted by Wally on 02-26-2008 at 11:36 PM • top

Odd you should say that, Wally—most folks accuse me of being right of center. Care to explain?

[158] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-26-2008 at 11:51 PM • top

So gldndog is also called Cynthia?

[159] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-26-2008 at 11:53 PM • top

Yes, I am Cynthia. There are a number of folks here who know me from other lists; some also know me as CJ.

[160] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-26-2008 at 11:55 PM • top

Now, about that comment, Wally: no one here has asked me about my political beliefs—what would you like to know? I’d be glad to share them with you if the moderators don’t mind, though politics, except as they pertain to religion, are not the purpose of Stand Firm.
As for my religious beliefs, you can find them in the Bible, the Apostles Creed, the 39 Articles, and in Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” (which I highly recommend).

[161] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 12:24 AM • top

Not germane to this thread.  Will wait until it becomes germane.

Give my regards to Mark Harris.

[162] Posted by Wally on 02-27-2008 at 08:25 AM • top

Sorry, Wally, you’ll have to do that yourself.
Until you mentioned him just now, I had never heard of Harris,  and according to Google, Harris is the bisexual widower of the late Martha Raye, which means that your comment is just a snide, nasty little insult ... sort of like what I was complaining about, in a comment halfway through this thread:

I agree 100%.... but acting accordingly does not give us the right to be snide, or contemptuous, or snarky, and I’m seeing a lot of that lately.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them…

........and your fruit is giving you away, Wally, as does Anglicancatholicpriest’s.
 
Until next time…

[163] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 12:19 PM • top

I just remembered that there is an Episcopal Mark Harris… duh!But that doesn’t change the intent of the insult, certainly.

[164] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 12:37 PM • top

Now, theonomists are everywhere, as are other false shepherds, but demographically speaking, the North does lean more towards liberalism, just as that South tends more towards theonomy and conservatism, (and of course, neoConfederates are mainly a Southern phenomenon as well), so to that extent, it CAN be said that my statement was about “North and South.”

Forgive me, goldndog, but I think your hijacking of this thread has been about nothing much at all. That the far right nuts are out there is undoubted. That there is a “ditch on both sides of the road” is a certainty. That the far right nuts have any significant play in the present situation in TEC ... is very difficult to believe and I haven’t seen any convincing evidence. Nor have I seen the promised statistics.

[165] Posted by oscewicee on 02-27-2008 at 12:55 PM • top

On the other hand, reading on other threads makes me think I may owe you an apology goldndog. Sorry.

[166] Posted by oscewicee on 02-27-2008 at 01:51 PM • top

OK.. here goes again:
Sorry I’ve been so slow, but, I have been giving you evidence—there are links in my comments, like this one.
As for statistics, I’m not sure what sort of statistics would be helpful here - there aren’t many graphs and tables about who’s a theonomist and who’s not.  The problem is much more widespread in Presbyterian circles, particularly the PCA, which has been torn apart by it, but this stuff is beginning to creep into the Anglican Communion.
Here is a good article for starters:
http://humanityinprint.blogspot.com/2006/02/theocratic-dominionism-and-ideals-of.html
and this:
http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-vision
and here’s another, with lots of links in it:
http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/09/speaking-perverse-things-more.html

Note the names appearing in the articles—Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson, Gary North, and our very own Reformed Episcopal Bishop Ray Sutton.

These fellows are worth reading about.

Steve Wilkins is a founding director of the white separatist, secessionist organization, the League of the South.  Wilkins has a church - the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, La.,- where he preaches a reconstructionist brand of Christianity. Some quotes from Wilkins:
“Slavery as it existed in the South ... was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.”
“There has never been a multiracial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.”
“Slave life was to them [slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.”

Douglas Wilson, who pastors a church in Moscow, Idaho, has co-authored a book with Wilkins, “Southern Slavery: As It Was”(published by Wilson’s “Canon Press” in Moscow), which argues that “southern slavery was not only sanctioned by the Bible but, thanks to the patriarchal kindness of their wise evangelical masters, a positive, happy, and pleasant experience for the majority of southern blacks.”
...The History News Network, 12/20/04

Bishop Ray Sutton is an Anglican, and the pastor of Holy Communion Church in Dallas; he was the pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tyler, TX, before it changed names to Good Shepherd Episcopal Church (REC). Also associated with that church were Gary North (more on him, below), David Chilton, and Gary DeMar.

Bishop Sutton’s friend Gary North (the Gary North of Y2K fame)  is a prolific commentator at Lewrockwell.com. He’s also a “Christian reconstructionist,” whose ultimate goal, in his own words, is to
“use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

When Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that’s fine with Gary North:

“When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime,” he writes. “The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death.”

Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.”

“Why stoning?” asks North.
“There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost…...executions are community projects—not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his’ duty, but rather with actual participants…..That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians.”

North elaborates elaborates in the “Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments” that “The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer’s head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder.”

Our good mainstream Anglican Bishop Sutton is an associate of North, and he apparently agrees with him, at least to an extent—Sutton says that people would flock to these theocracies because “capital punishment is one of the best evangelistic tools of a society.”, and as far as I know, he has not disavowed that statement. (and if he HAS changed his mind, I would be happy to eat a heaping helping of crow, and say that I’ve been wrong about him.)

If you ask me, this is heresy, every bit as much as what Schori is spreading…. and with that, I think I’ve “hijacked this thread” enough. Anyone wanting any more conversation along these lines can email me privately, at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) .

[167] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 03:14 PM • top

I’ve tried to post this three times now… test

[168] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 03:14 PM • top

On the other hand, reading on other threads makes me think I may owe you an apology goldndog. Sorry.

Hey, no problem. And if you do want more info, feel free to email me. smile

[169] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 03:18 PM • top

Goldndog wrote in comment 177

“Sorry, Wally, you’ll have to do that yourself.
Until you mentioned him just now, I had never heard of Harris”

Have you never corresponded with the Rev. Mark Harris?
Aren’t you Cynthia R. Gee?

[170] Posted by Wally on 02-27-2008 at 05:19 PM • top

Yes, Wally, I am Cynthia R. Gee, but I don’t THINK that I have ever knowingly corresponded with Rev. Harris. That doesn’t mean that I positively haven’t, though, because I write a lot on all kinds of blogs and lists, and over the years I have talked to all kinds of people.
You have me wondering, now, though….I might have talked to him and forgotten all about it, especially if it happened years ago. I’ll do a Google blog search on my name and Harris’s, and see what turns up.

[171] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 10:16 PM • top

I did a Google search, Wally, and found nothing. The only Mark Harris that came up along with my name is a “Mark L. Harris” who owns a website that is not connected with the Church at all.

It seems that YOU know more about all this that I do; judging by the tenor of your comments, you seem to believe that you have read something written by me that you think makes me look like a liberal, or worse.
Well and good—not everything I’ve ever thought and said has necessarily been right, after all, though hopefully I’ve grown wiser over the years.  But I AM curious… what the HECK are you talking about?

[172] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-27-2008 at 10:26 PM • top

Posted by goldndog on 02-27-2008 at 09:16 PM
“I write a lot on all kinds of blogs and lists, and over the years I have talked to all kinds of people.”

How right you are!

[173] Posted by Wally on 02-28-2008 at 08:39 AM • top

Good morning, Wally.

[174] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-28-2008 at 08:47 AM • top

Call me Red Neck.

[175] Posted by Wally on 02-28-2008 at 08:55 AM • top

“A redneck is a man’s best friend when you’re fighting Yankees.”
                                              Waylon Jennings

[176] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-28-2008 at 09:07 AM • top

Call me Red Neck.

No surprise there, but I’ll stick with calling you “Wally”, because the Bible says that we should not return insult for insult :
1Pe 3:9   Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

God bless….

[177] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-28-2008 at 09:15 AM • top

Glad you quit using that epithet.  Thanks.

[178] Posted by Wally on 02-28-2008 at 09:20 AM • top

But look at her posts above.  She writes disparagingly of the Southern People and connects them to some conspiracy theory called “Theonomy or “Hyper patriarchy.”

If she wrote this way about any other ethnic group she would be banned from this site.

[179] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-28-2008 at 09:25 AM • top

I know, that thing about “keep a special watch on the Southern States” really burned me up.

[180] Posted by Wally on 02-28-2008 at 09:35 AM • top

She writes disparagingly of the Southern People and connects them to some conspiracy theory called “Theonomy or “Hyper patriarchy.”

There’s a rather large difference between reporting facts (or even opinions) and calling names, Father Roddy.

....and, I never wrote disparagingly of ALL southern people, I simply pointed out that SOME of them are promoting racism, theonomy, and other bad things. 
BTW, it is interesting that you should refer to southerners as an “ethnic group”.

[181] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 02-28-2008 at 09:45 AM • top

White Southerners are an ethnic group, just as Black Southerners are an ethnic group and they compose two parts of a larger social group known collectively as Southerners.

But the use of the epithet “redneck” is reserved for White Southerners and is every bit as offensive as other ethnic slurs such as “Hunky”, “Wop”, “Pollack”, “guinea”, “Mick” or other names to vile to mention here.

I too am glad that you have now chosen to eschew the use of this slur.

[182] Posted by Wally on 02-28-2008 at 09:56 AM • top

Scrolling carefully up the thread, I don’t see any place that goldndog has called Wally Redneck. I did see that Wally has invited her to do so. Did I miss something?

Goldndog, in your list of names in your posts above, I did see people from states outside the south mentioned. So perhaps you would be advised not to warn people about the south? Southerners do get tired of that kind of thing and very few of us are like we are commonly painted.

So. Did you and Wally come here to continue an argument you’ve been having somewhere else? Are either of you Anglican?

[183] Posted by oscewicee on 02-28-2008 at 10:07 AM • top

She said “no surprise there,” insert any other ethnic slur in the place of “redneck” and read that aloud to yourself and see how it sounds.

She has used the term pejoratively in past online posts.  Her generalized comments concerning the South indicate a deep seated prejudice.

[184] Posted by Wally on 02-28-2008 at 10:20 AM • top

Yes, well I’m not sure what you expected when you invited her to call you redneck? You don’t answer my question about whether the two of you just came over here to carry on an argument started elsewhere. If she’s prejudiced against the south, she’s hardly the only one and I reckon our hides are thick enough.

[185] Posted by oscewicee on 02-28-2008 at 10:24 AM • top

White Southerners are the last last group,ethnic or not, that it is o.k. to beat up on.  “The Beverly Hillbillies” is just an extreme example of making fun of White Southerners and “Deliverance” an extreme Example portraying those same people as monsters.

If you do not believe that redneck is a term of great insult I invite you to walk into any small roadside bar south of the Mason/Dixon Line and start using that word in an audible voice to your companions.

[186] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-28-2008 at 10:38 AM • top

How many years ago was the Beverly Hillbillies? The secret to avoiding an insult is not to accept it. Not to whine about it. I’m sorry, I’m southern born and bred, and I love the south, but I’m not going to get in a snit about the mighty insult “redneck” (especially when it is the “victim” who asked to be called that). It is hardly worse than insults some white southerners have hurled at other ethnic groups. This is a no-whine zone, isn’t it?

[187] Posted by oscewicee on 02-28-2008 at 10:45 AM • top

I am a charismatic Anglican.

[188] Posted by Wally on 02-28-2008 at 10:46 AM • top

Did you two date in high school?

[189] Posted by James Manley on 02-28-2008 at 10:53 AM • top

Wally and Goldndog - Please practice what you profess and go pray to see if this is truly what God is asking you both to write.

[190] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 02-28-2008 at 11:06 AM • top

goldndog, I can’t speak for some of the earlier Anglican offshoots, but I don’t think it is accurate to imply that the orthodox Anglican movement is influenced in the by what some have called the neo-confederate movement.  I am familiar with the League of the South, which I agree is just a dressed up, more politically correct version of the White Citizens Councils of the mid-twentieth century.  Organizations such as this are understandably offensive to black citizens of this country and should be repudiated by the orthodox Christian leaders.  The idea of promoting southern succession, over 150 years after the civil war, is just bizarre.  The criticism of mixed race marriages by some in the League is pathetic.  No informed Christian would subscribe to these beliefs, or be associated with these types of groups.  Certainly none of the ACN , CANA, Uganda leaders do.

In reality, many of the vibrant new Anglican churches are much more integrated than their liberal Episcopal counterparts, and their connections with the African Anglican churches reflects a healthy understanding that color is of no consequence in God’s Kingdom.  It is the liberal Episcopal leadership that maintains a patronizing, colonial attitude toward people of color.

[191] Posted by Going Home on 02-28-2008 at 11:08 AM • top

I also seem to remember Sarah posting a question about theonomy on this site quite a few months back and there were over 100 replies and none were theonomist answers to the question.

[192] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-28-2008 at 11:16 AM • top

I get the feeling that this is just a smear effort? Neither here nor in a private post did goldndog produce anything concrete to show a theonomist/whatever influence on either the anglicans or the Presbyterians.

[193] Posted by oscewicee on 02-28-2008 at 11:37 AM • top

Not really thrilled about where this thread has gone - let’s move along.

[194] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-28-2008 at 11:51 AM • top

Comments are closed.

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.