++Venables: past the point of no return

I agree witht the archbishop.  When I read that one proposal was to create a “safe place” for disaffected parishes to go until things were “sorted out” I wanted to throw up.  Been down that road before and nothing happens.  How many times do the primates need to speak with a clear, unified voice that change is necessary?  How many times does the Communion need to be kicked in the face by the North American church to know it’s efforts are futie? This is the classic definition of insanity: doing the same thing in the same way hoping for a new result.  Until hearts change there will be no movement.  I do not know what the answer is, but this Lambeth has not made any progress in arriving at a solution to our difficulties.

Not to distract from ++Venables wise and appropriate words, but it’s worth noting that ++Mouneer has a similar thought on his blog site.

His realism and cynicism about TEC are well founded as he comments about the WCG.

In my opinion, this is not bad and it is a step forward BUT I wonder if TEC bishops will accept this in truth, or will they accept it on paper only? Bp John Chan of Washington said he has in his diocese 30 openly gay and lesbian priests. Can he make them resign or fire them? California may have more of such priests. In general the TEC bishops reacted angrily to the recommendations of the WCG.

Until ABC recognizes that he is in denial of the ultimate root of the problem which is authority of scripture ,this shooting match is done. Sexual preference is only a symptom, albeit one which is in the forefront. AC is being bought by TEC, maybe black maled, until provinces put aside their status being & accept whatthey were called for this will not die but blossom into a new ministry. I am excited about the ministry being led to from our leadership of Akinola, Orombi, Anderson & most importantly led by God.

That’s mailed

Subscribe

When I read that one proposal was to create a “safe place” for disaffected parishes to go until things were “sorted out” I wanted to throw up.

When are these shepherds of Christ’s flock going to get it through their thoroughly fogged up minds that we laity are not stupid, and, oh by the way, we’re taking names…

Mtn Gospel, unfortunately, if the ABoC is in on what is clearly a scam, there is no way he would “recognize” his mistakes, for that to have come about, he would have to be sincerely committed to his faith. His words and actions have shown him to be duplicitous. I think we have to face the fact that for all his mummery, the ABoC is playing a part, and not serving in good faith.

We are at the point of no return.

Mari,
  I agree & am saddened that it has come to this point but also exhilerated that God has given me & many others a new ministry. We should be excited that we are on the fore front of being able to serve Him more ablely. When I made the commitment to join a CANA church I was released from the bonds of secular worship. No longer do I have to worship as a watchdog but as a servant. Haleluia & praise be to God that my personal minstry has been resurrected.

If you go to the Church Times website and read the whole thing, there are some puzzling comments about GAFCON at the end. Surely Bp. Venables was not quoted accurately?

monika

Hopefully what will come from this Lambeth is that there are at least two separate churches in place of what used to be known as the Anglican Communion. Clarity will go a long way in helping everyone involved realize that they really do not want these (at least) two churches put back together. There is one part of the Anglican Communion that needs to repent and return to Christ. The other part will, of course, forgive and welcome when this happens. It is disturbing that so many bishops do not know which side should repent and which side should forgive.  On the other hand, it is allowing and encouraging folks like #8 posting here to go forward in the gospel. I felt the same way when we joined the Eastern Orthodox church two years ago.

Monika, re: Venables’ comments about GAFCON, my guess is that he was saying something along the lines of “it’s a shame that many of my orthodox brethren didn’t come to Lambeth to be heard because it makes it appear as if GAFCON is standing for separation.

This says what I thought: Lambeth ‘08 was a three-week unpaid vacation for the majority in attendance.  It did nothing except emit a lot of hot air to add to the earth’s pollution.  KJS has had her way.  Ruin Williams has been had, by whom I don’t know, but he’s obviously been had.  I read not long ago that the Queen had called him in and told him “the communion WILL NOT divide.  NOT IN MY REIGN.”  It looks as though ++RW is doing all these gymnastics in order to keep his head and please Her Majesty.
The time to separate is long past. Lambeth ‘08 just make this obvious.
Dumb Sheep.

Believe me, dumb sheep, the Queen is not as you imagine her.

Karen B., #11, it doesn’t come across to me like you state. I’m more in the same position as Monika. I found Venables’ comments rather unsettling. I think it would be wise to wait for further clarification from him before any conclusions are drawn about what he “actually” meant by what he said. In other words, don’t try to speak for him. Let him speak for himself.

Monika & Mugsie,
I would agree with Karen on this one.  GAFCON and the Jerusalem statement were issuing a call for ALL Anglicans back to the historic faith.  I think we all wish this would happen, but then there is the reality of where we are now and that is clearly separation..  I doubt that any wife of an adulterous husband “wants” a divorce.  What she wants is a faithful husband, but most would also say that getting the divorce is inevitable and is certainly better than suffering an ungodly marriage.  So it is with GAFCON I think.

Personally I don’t know what Mugsie & Monika are in a wad about. The truth speaks. Rowan williams waffles. KJS & TEC are just plain decieving.

As what is happening may split the radical left from the more communion left, +Orombi and +Nzimbi are setting up a ComCon vs FedCon split and they are doing so immediately.  Venables+ may have failed to understand the GS here.  Where he may have seen a real importance to +Cantuar, at least for those in his diocese and other British ex-pats, +Cantuar may be irrelevant in the GS as well as all the other instruments of communion other than the primates meeting, a form of government by oligarchy they recognize.

One has only to look at the Consitution of the Church of Nigeria and its changes since 2005 to see where power is centralized and to understand that +Cantuar and the West are simply something of peculiar historical interest and essentially irrelevant.  For +Venables+ new diocese of Anglican San Joaquin, that certainly is not true and it may not be true of his Canadian acquisitions and British ex-pats in the Falklands and his own province.  My thinking is that Venables+ simply missed that.  The immediate actions of Nzimbi+ and Orombi+ have verified that they have no respect or interest in +Cantuar.  But more importantly, the timing and immediacy of their actions IMHO prove two other things. 1: Lambeth’s bishops and their recommendations, should they stand, and those of the WCG are of no interest to them either. 2: They have the power to act without approval or any domestic oversight in their own provinces.  Without being pejorative but simply stating facts, they are autocrats and this is their principle mode of acting.

Emily, you’ll excuse me if I think Venables understands GAFCon better than you do?

#16, Mtn Gospel, I am truly amazed at your words “in a wad”. Wow! All I’m saying is that Bishop Venables needs to speak for Bishop Venables. Let him speak for himself. Only HE can explain what HE meant by what HE said, and I would prefer to let him do that. I’m not going to draw my own conclusions about what he said. I don’t believe it’s very healthy for a person to draw their own conclusions about what another person has said in ANY circumstance. That is what causes misunderstanding, rumour, false representation, etc. All things that I don’t consider to be Christian witness.

The purpose of all this is not to roll back the clock on the Episcopal Church and other bodies that have strayed from Scripture. Williams has made it clear he doesnt believe the Episcopal Church as a denomination is out of step with the Communion or the Faith. The Episcopal Church is not going to agree to something that changes the status quo. Truth is, neither would the Church of England or Williams.

The purpose is, instead, to avoid a further seperation by giving the appearance of action. Its crisis management, not reform.  Its measure of “success” will not be whether it brings the Church back to its roots, but whether it prevents other Primates, Bishops and Priests from joining a Gafcon related group.

#16,
I am not in a wad. Just pointing out something that seemed to be at odds with +Venables previous stance. Karen B. and Mugsie1 (who also shows no signs of being in a wad) both understood my point. The way he was quoted made it sound like he was backing off on Gafcon, which I doubt. Hopefully, he will clarify. I suspect that Karen B.‘s rephrasing is close to what he really said.

monika

Mugsie,
I would let +Greg speak for himself as you suggest but I doubt he will clarify those remarks anytime soon.  I imagine that he is most likely very busy at the moment.  So I hope you don’t mind me commenting on my own understanding.  It is true that GAFCON “looks” like separation to some if not many people.  He did not say that it “is” about separation.  +Greg is very concerned about this perception and shows here his disappointment in other GAFCONers who are perhaps either not aware of, or not so concerned about, this perception.  I do not find this very disturbing.  It does not indicate to me any change or weakening of allegiance.

Hello All!
Perhaps I’m naive, ignorant, simplistic, or all of the above but this whole issue with TEC seems to be very basic.  They don’t feel they are doing anything wrong, they do not believe that what they are doing is sinful.  It does not appear they will ever be convinced otherwise until they meet our Lord at the throne. 
We should move on accordingly what ever that means.  (Aye, there’s the rub!) 
Pax

OK, I’ll buy it.

What’s a wad?

#22, Spencer, you can speak for your own understanding all you want. However, this was about the “Abp Venables” said, NOT about what YOU said. by all means, offer your opinion. My concern was that a poster had tried to tell us what “Venables” was meaning by what he said. Nobody but Venables himself knows what he meant by what he said. If he doesn’t clarify that any time soon, so be it. We need to just leave it alone.

As to my stating I was “disturbed” by what he said, that’s my honest observation. The bottom line is that I don’t know what HE meant, so I’m up in the air about it. I’m not going to draw any conclusions. Time will tell us what Venables meant by his words. I’d prefer to wait until such time as his meaning comes clear.

I read the word “looks” to relate to appearance as opposed to a statement of probable occurrence (e.g., ‘tut tut, looks like rain’).  That seems more consistent with the content of what was produced by GAFCON, which affirmed membership within the AC. 

I say this while noting that there is a difference between (i) continuing to subordinate one’s province to the office of the ABC; and (ii) breaking communion with all non-GAFCON bishops, including the ABC.

IMHO, there was a devaluation of the office of ABC as an instrument of unity that occurred when the ABC thwarted the DES Communique.  The PM had been authorized by the Lambeth Conference to handle issues like this.  Unfortunately, the ABC, as one instrument of unity, interfered with the actions of two other instruments of unity.  At that point, it is reasonable to conclude that the instruments of unity are compromised, regardless of how much we might wish it were otherwise.

This is context for evaluating the meaning and authority of the WCG, its observations, and the final statement.  Note that the WCG was appointed by the ABC alone, so that it holds no particular relationship to the deliberative bodies of the Lambeth Conference, the ACC, or the PM.  In addition, the final statement will be something other than a deliberative resolution of the Lambeth Conference.  This means that the observations are basically just a report to the ABC.  Who knows what meaning should be ascribed to the final statement - cynically, that may depend on the statement’s content and the observer. 

At any rate, the relevance of these documents to the rest of the communion depends on ratification by one or more of the other instruments.  Of course, if the WCC is taking up loose reports for consideration, it might as well consider the JD of GAFCON too.

John Simmons, it means a bunch, rolled or bunched up fabric, etc.. and is used to describe someone who is upset, as one would be.. I’m trying not to type the expression that some might consider offensive.. perhaps the best way to say it is, how upset one would be were they to have been given a wedgie.

Mari, thank you so much. I think I discern your drift. Over here in Lambeth-land I think we would say that one had one’s knickers in an awful twist.

1) In analyzing ++Greg Venables’ remarks, it is important to remember he speaks more precise English than we do in the US.  As Tired points out, “looks” means “gives the appearance” not “is” or “will be” or “is most probably.”

2) The other statement that comes under some fire:
“Let’s at least say we don’t agree with love.” is, clearly, not punctuated correctly.  If the writer had paid attention (unless it was intentional, I don’t know the Church Times) it would read:

Let’s at least say “we don’t agree,” with love.

Which is to say, if we must disagree, let us do so in a Christian and loving manner.

At least, I am going to believe I am correct until and unless Bishop Greg comes along and tells me I’m wrong.

29
Thanks,tjmcmahon. You have said what was meant.
Keep praying, please!

Thank you +Gregory. All clear now.

monika

    Thanks!
All is well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

We are praying!

330, Gregory, Thanks for checking in. I still have one question for you if you are still online. The sentence in question for me is one that tjmcmahon referred to in his comments. It’s this sentence: “It looks like GAFCON is about separation, and that’s not where I want to be.”

I did interpret the word “looks” the same way as tjmcmahon did. I’m Canadian and am only second generation Canadian removed from England. The English I was raised with is probably not much different in nature from your own. What I wondered about is what you meant by this whole sentence. It can be taken to say: It looks like GAFCON is about separation, and that’s not where I want to be (as in I don’t want to separate, but GAFCON does). Do you see where I may have been concerned about this statement when placed beside your previous statements regarding GAFCON, and the AC in general? I’ve always had the impression that you want to remain part of the AC. My question from what I read today would be this? If GAFCON leaves and starts a separate body from the AC, then where would you stand? Would you remain with the AC, or would you go with GAFCON?

You are the only one who can answer that question for me, so any others reading this, please don’t answer for Gregory Venables. I want hear his answer directly from him.

Thanks,
Mugsie

Sorry that should have been #30, not 330. However, I’m sure you know what I meant.

#33
Now now.. You know he cannot answer what you ask, at least not now.  Have patience and then let us see…  My gut tells met that ++Venables will not disapopint you, however I would be disappointed in him if he made any remarkes before things are allowed to unfold.  In the mean time the best all of us can do is just as requested, let us be in prayer.