“The proposal does not take into account the heart of the issue and problem which is that Katharine Jefferts Schori has adopted a form of faith, theology and Christology that is so seriously out of step with historic Anglicanism and Christianity that it calls into question her capacity to give appropriate leadership on this matter. It keeps all the power in her hands. The proposal is to be in consultation with not the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus she makes all the decisions. It is a non-starter.”

7 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

I can’t tell if Canon Anderson is indignant over this proposal or trying to catch his breath after breaking a rib from laughing so hard at what is put forth as a serious proposal.

[1] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 11-30-2006 at 06:54 PM • top

It is precisely what the Network has proposed—and is generous beyond belief both by the Archbishop of Canterbury and our Presiding Bishop. If Anderson, et. al, are indeed only out to destroy The Episcopal Church, I can understand his response. If he is really seriously responding, this is pretty much a child’s response. It really does expose the ACN and AAC for what they are.
Tom Woodward

[2] Posted by TBWSF on 11-30-2006 at 07:06 PM • top

I think, Mr. Woodward, that the ACN/AAC are confirming that the problem is not going to go away by having another Primate available for consecrations, etc. The problem is that we do not trust our souls to the current PB. That cannot be changed, and having a Vicar - under the control of the PB and her chosen council - still leaves us at her mercy, and at the mercy of an apostate church. Quite simple, really - not childish at all.

[3] Posted by GillianC on 11-30-2006 at 07:19 PM • top

Mr Woodward,

I must have missed something. I thought the proposal was SENT TO the Archbishop not SENT BY him. I fail to see the generosity here of Canterbury when this is a request and suggestion for his future action by 815 and a few other bishops. Or are we suggesting that 815 is now an instrument of unity in the Anglican Communion?

It also begs the question: “If 815 giveth, can 815 taketh away?” This is their proposal, which, if acted on and put into action can be rescinded by them at some future point in time?

[4] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 11-30-2006 at 07:29 PM • top

This proposal is not acceptable. All this is, is a delay tactic and a band-aid to keep functioning together as if the divisions in TEC aren’t real. Falling for this will say that there is hope for a revelation in the discussion that will bring the two sides together.

The simple fact is that there is no agreement of what truth is and where it can be found. Because we can’t do that, we can’t continue the discussion. It’s time to act—it is no longer time to cut bait, put a hook in the water or get out of the boat.

Make sure you see this for what it is. The revisionists know that if parishes keep leaving they’re in trouble so they’re trying to stop it. Without an orthodox contingent in the church accepting the innovations, they are the UCC and MCC. See also that this doesn’t change where your time, talents, and treasure go.

Then ask yourself what they are giving up in this arrangement. They are not calling for a moratorium on anything for the acceptance of an 815 spy in your midst.

Just say NO. And not even no thank you, just no.

[5] Posted by Stephen on 11-30-2006 at 09:00 PM • top

So, all who wish to stay connected to TEC can have their ‘Kate’ and ‘edict’, too! What a deal! It sounds kinda like Jesse James is guarding the train.

[6] Posted by Doug Atkin on 12-01-2006 at 11:19 AM • top

It is indeed childish. On the part of the proposers, that is.

[7] Posted by Gulfstream on 12-02-2006 at 07:11 PM • top

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.