Total visitors right now: 107

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

+Duncan, +Murdoch Confirm: New Province to be Formed December 3rd

Sunday, November 16, 2008 • 7:44 pm

211 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow…

[1] Posted by ElaineF. on 11-16-2008 at 08:53 PM • top

“Free at last, free at last!  Thank God Almighty, we’re free at last!”  Halleluia!

[2] Posted by Cennydd on 11-16-2008 at 09:04 PM • top


[3] Posted by Drew on 11-16-2008 at 09:10 PM • top


[4] Posted by Dana Henry on 11-16-2008 at 09:12 PM • top

Just in time for Christmas!

[5] Posted by st. anonymous on 11-16-2008 at 09:15 PM • top

Well well well . . .

I will be networking this around. It will not be long before this Tsunami is felt everywhere.

Praise God!, indeed!
We should ALL be praying for the health and well-being of this development.

[6] Posted by ZachD on 11-16-2008 at 09:20 PM • top

I wish them well.  At the same time I am sad that the foundation of an Anglican Province will be based on exclusion, discrimination, and all that is less than the unfettered, unconditional, all-embracing love of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  I would not be welcome at their table, although I would not have a problem worshiping with them.  And as time passes, I predict that fewer and fewer ordained women will be welcome as well.  I do find it rather ironic that a couple of white guys, one a bishop in Kenya, have announced this.  But I suppose they think they are getting what they want:  A church that is run by white males.  Again, I wish them well and pray that they find peace of mind in their actions.

Bruce Garner

[7] Posted by Bruce Garner on 11-16-2008 at 09:25 PM • top

Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  The Lord God reigns!

[8] Posted by Goughdonna on 11-16-2008 at 09:28 PM • top

Jesus love was all embracing but he also said we had to follow him. That, he said, was a narrow path. It is a hard path to walk but that is what he asks.

[9] Posted by Adam 12 on 11-16-2008 at 09:30 PM • top

I would not be welcome at their table

If you truly believe this, then that makes me sad.  But I suspect you are merely interpreting “welcome” in the usual liberal-revisionist way, ie “cater to my every demand”.  Which, when I think about it, is the saddest thing of all.

[10] Posted by st. anonymous on 11-16-2008 at 09:31 PM • top

How do we join?!

[11] Posted by from South Florida on 11-16-2008 at 09:33 PM • top

Bruce - nice summing up of what you would like to believe this is about.

[12] Posted by oscewicee on 11-16-2008 at 09:34 PM • top

Praise the Lord!

[13] Posted by mari on 11-16-2008 at 09:36 PM • top

Bruce #8 - everyone is welcome to be part of this church - but not everyone is welcome to be in leadership, as defined in God’s Holy Word. 

Frankly, I didn’t’ appreciate the “undertone” in your comments

I do find it rather ironic that a couple of white guys, one a bishop in Kenya, have announced this.  But I suppose they think they are getting what they want:  A church that is run by white males.


After all the crap the TEC has put the orthodox through, with depositions, lawsuits, threats, lies, THIS is your response to the Godly people who are trying to create a new home?  Shame on you!

I’m sorry if somehow you have somehow been hurt by the church in the past, but that doesn’t give you the right to intimate the things you did.  I pray you will repent.

[14] Posted by B. Hunter on 11-16-2008 at 09:42 PM • top

I am not Episcopal, but I have followed the comments in this group from time to time.  As a lawyer who practices real estate title law, I find the controversy over ownership of the local church buildings and land to be fascinating.  I will also say that it is refreshing to know that there are Episcopalians who actually believe in something and are willing to fight to get it.  I wish them all the best in their endeavor.

[15] Posted by Apocalypse on 11-16-2008 at 09:45 PM • top

Bruce wrote:

A church that is run by white males.

Bruce, I’m a Southern white guy who’s a priest in the Diocese of the Southeast of the Reformed Episcopal Church—the REC being an enthusiastic participant in this new venture.  If you go here you can see a photo of my bishop; I’m sure he’ll be interested to learn that he’s white!

[16] Posted by Drew on 11-16-2008 at 09:51 PM • top

Note the deaconess sitting in front of Bishop Duncan. 

Something new or just Pre GC03?

[17] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 09:55 PM • top

Note to Katharine Jefferts Schori: Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four dioceses playing a game can make a play-Province which licks your “real” Province hollow.

[18] Posted by Anglican Beach Party on 11-16-2008 at 09:58 PM • top

Bruce, it’s rather strange that you should make a reference to race, given that the very white, radical leftists at TEC have been making racist attacks against African Anglican bishops, three during Lambeth. Gene Robinson referred to them as “idolators”, Catherine Roskam, accused them of being “wife beaters”, and Chane from DC, accused them of being “demonic”.

It seems to me, is that TEC only seeks to use and exploit people of color, be they black, brown or what have you, but they do not respect their opinions, their right to self determination.

[19] Posted by mari on 11-16-2008 at 10:01 PM • top

Our new Province will not be run by two white guys.

It will be run by One Jewish guy.

[20] Posted by DietofWorms on 11-16-2008 at 10:06 PM • top

As a proud Wheaton grad, it is thrilling to know that this historic event is happening there in Wheaton, presumably at Wheaton College’s Edman Chapel (which seats about 2,000).  I’d LOVE to be there, but at least I can experience it vicariously (in a sense) as both of my children live in the Wheaton area and will surely be there. 

I find the symbolism of holding this exciting event at the alma mater of Billy Graham and the premier evangelical college in America quite remarkable.  Who could have imagined such a thing even five years ago?  And in +Frank Griswold’s backyard too. 

Sadly, the Diocese of Chicago is one of the most rabidly relativist dioceses in the country.  There are already a handful of new Anglican churches in the Wheaton area, with big Church of the Resurrection drawing an ASA of over 700. 

Keep watching what happens there among the western suburbs of Chicago; it’s one of the bright spots for the New Reformation.  Thanks be to God.

David Handy+
B.A., Wheaton 1977

[21] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 11-16-2008 at 10:09 PM • top

Can anyone give details on the time and specifics as they unfold?

[22] Posted by FWAnglican on 11-16-2008 at 10:10 PM • top

Mad Potter,

I’m not certain of what your questions mean.

You ask: “The Common Cause Partners are creating a new province of what Anglican Church? The new Global South led Anglican Church?”

It seems pretty clear to me.  It’s an organization made up of traditional Anglicans who do not wish to be members of TEC but do wish to be in a communion and organizational relationship with certain provinces of the Anglican Communion.

It’s that simple.

But I sense that I’m missing your real question?

[23] Posted by Sarah on 11-16-2008 at 10:16 PM • top

Oh, Mad Potter, I am praying for you, in the hope that you come to realize that you should repent of your hatred and racism, and that you make amends to all those you offended. That you commit to striving to follow Christ’s teachings. Only then will you stop being so bitter and unhappy.

[24] Posted by mari on 11-16-2008 at 10:19 PM • top

Halleluia!  Halleluia!  I feel like dancing!  This is like witnessing the declaration of independence only more important!

[25] Posted by Modest Mystic on 11-16-2008 at 10:30 PM • top

My questions are similar to those of Mad Potter. Unless I’ve missed something (which is likely), I don’t foresee +Rowan Williams recognizing this “new province.”

[26] Posted by eaten_by_chipmunks on 11-16-2008 at 10:30 PM • top

But I suppose they think they are getting what they want:  A church that is run by white males.

Our new Province will not be run by two white guys. It will be run by One Jewish guy.

As opposed to TEO which is currently run by one white woman and the Father of Lies.

[27] Posted by The Pilgrim on 11-16-2008 at 10:33 PM • top

Bruce, you ask the impossible: You want the Church to say that because you are a nice man and you are personally offended by God’s Word and the rules He has laid out for Christian behavior, we ought to ignore the Word and the rules and call God’s Word and the rules “wrong.” But the Word of God and the rules are what define right and wrong in our world. Is it really reasonable for you to demand that we turn our backs upon all the rules (by turning our backs on one, in particular) so that you don’t feel “left out?” If you want to get married, you make a covenant that you will follow the rules married people should follow. Would you say that because a husband or wife doesn’t like the rule against adultery, the rule should be suspended? Of course not! Either you agree to be faithful, or you don’t get married. You don’t insist that the rules be rewritten to allow for adultery.

We’d love to have you “at our table,” but you have cut yourself off by refusing to obey the family rules. Don’t blame us for excluding you. Love doesn’t say, “We’ll break the rules for this person because he just won’t obey the rules,” because that would place a burden on the whole family. Have you considered what you’re asking when you insist that God’s family rules ought to be broken or rewritten because you don’t want to obey Him?

[28] Posted by our eyes are upon Thee on 11-16-2008 at 10:34 PM • top

A church that is run by white males

So when African bishops are setting up missions in the United States, they get accused or border crossing.  When it looks like the border crossing by African bishops is coming to an end, CCP gets accused of rascism.

Yeah, I’m sure Akinola and Orombi were just picking fights because they were hated all those black people in TEC.

Bruce, once again you have demonstrated that the only people that really care about skin color are the liberals.

[29] Posted by AndrewA on 11-16-2008 at 10:34 PM • top

Bruce:  You speak the truth and I support your impressions 100%.  This break away “church” is a step backwards in everyway…we can see them move more and more into the past, forgetting what the Gospel has always been about…inclusion NOT exclusion.  Less and less PEOPLE will be welcomed into their ridgid theology…they will label and cast out those who do not fit.  From the groups I have experenced they are a frightened, paranoid bunch and that will only attract people who are the same.  Conform or be castout…I am just sorry they are keeping the Episcopal name…very confusing for those who may be new to the church.

[30] Posted by jessie on 11-16-2008 at 10:34 PM • top

Mad Potter almost asks a good question.  Truth is in America anyone has the freedom to form whatever religion or religious sect they desire.  The Baptists are expert at this.
I think a better question is will this ‘province’ be based on what is provable by Holy Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils or will it still serve that particular generation of the 60’s substituting social constructions for Revelation?
If so then the celebration will not last long.

[31] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 10:37 PM • top

I don’t know, but I would think ++Rowan would have to give some pretty serious consideration to recognizing the new province if seven primates (i.e., the FoCA primates) who already had done so told him that it would be a good idea in order to demonstrate good will toward the GAFCON movement. I, for one, would hate to sit across the table from ++Akinola at Lambeth Palace and tell him “no thanks”! He’s a pretty forceful personality! And don’t forget, the seven FoCA primates will have two and half months after they recognize the new province to rally support from their fellows before the main Primates Meeting.

[32] Posted by texanglican on 11-16-2008 at 10:40 PM • top

But isn’t that the problem, texanglican? Unilateral actions and bullying coercions?

[33] Posted by eaten_by_chipmunks on 11-16-2008 at 10:42 PM • top


[34] Posted by jessie on 11-16-2008 at 10:43 PM • top

Is your definition of theology ‘all opinions should be equal’?

[35] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 10:44 PM • top

Mad Potter
As you well know the new province will be recognized by Anglican Provinces representing the majority of the members of the Anglican Communion, but not Cantebury (at least not right away, maybe never).  TEC is not recognized by Anglican Provinces representing the majority of the members of the Anglican Communion, but is by Cantebury (at least for now, maybe not forever).  You seem to place great importance on the Instruments of Unity.  That’s fine.  I think the unity of the faithful is more important.  If you want to start you argument of what it means to be in the Anglican Communion means, go ahead.  I think it is quite clear the communion of provinces the TEC is in and the communion of provinces the new province is in.  You can call them what you want.

[36] Posted by JustOneVoice on 11-16-2008 at 10:45 PM • top

Sorry, meant to address “Jessie”

[37] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 10:46 PM • top

Conform or be castout…

Yeah, all those horrible Christians insisting that people give up their polytheism, their idoloty, their druken orgies, temple prositutes, abide by strict monotheistic doctrines, and be sprinkled with water before they can be included at their table which is only serving a bite of wine and bread…  What a drag they are.  A bunch of fundamentalist nuts that got together in Jerusalem and thought they were something special.  What do they know?  No one is going to want to join them, especially since we have the buildings, the money, the support of the state…  Why would anyone want to worship that Christ guy when they could have a lot more fun worshiping Jupitar or Venus?  I mean, if they want to also worship some Jesus guy, we are open minded tolerate types and that is cool, but insisting that you should only worship Jesus?  Bigotry.  Confine our sexual behavoir to marriage between man and a woman?  Plain nuts.  No one is going to go for that.

[38] Posted by AndrewA on 11-16-2008 at 10:47 PM • top

I am just sorry they are keeping the Episcopal name…very confusing for those who may be new to the church.

Yeah… all those seekers flooding into the Episcopal Church. It’s a stampede, I tell ya!

[39] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-16-2008 at 10:48 PM • top

To answer the charge that there will be fewer women clergy in the Anglican Province of North America (oh, I just love saying that new name!), I don’t think that will happen because there are steps being taken to preserve women’s ordination as an issue pertaining more to conscience derived from hermeneutics than to primary issues of faith. 

However, speaking as a woman called to ministry, I would rather serve as a layperson in a Bible-as-inspired-Word-of-God-dependent and Jesus-as-God-loving Church than as a priest in a pride-led-stiffnecked-people-bent-on-rebellion-from-God church.  There are some things that are just more important than social justice like honoring God!!!

[40] Posted by Modest Mystic on 11-16-2008 at 10:49 PM • top

It will be interesting to see if ++Rowan recognizes them.  Based on his past actions I’d be surprised if he moved at all quickly to do so.  However, if he is truly interested in unity, he may need to do so to keep the “great schism” he seems to fear more than Hell itself from occurring.  But I really think that whatever ++Rowan does or doesn’t do may not matter, I think his days as ABC are numbered.  The determining factor on who gets to claim the name “Anglican” may depend on who the next ABC is.

[41] Posted by Big Chief on 11-16-2008 at 10:50 PM • top

Jessie….alas, it is the orthodox believers who have been excluded. Our priests and bishops have been driven out of TEC as the Episcopal Church has abandoned the Word of God and “the faith once delivered.” The casting out has been TEC’s modus operandi for years. Conform, they’ve told us, or you will be denounced, demeaned, derided, sued, hated, humiliated, publicly attacked, threatened, deposed, and made to wish you had never been born.

We have endured all this and more. Even so, we are ministering the love of Jesus Christ and we are seeing Him perform miracles wherever He is lifted up. We don’t have time for paranoia or pettiness, and we generally don’t defend ourselves against the hate that has been heaped upon us by TEC folks. We just keep on keepin’ on and looking to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith. We’re the happiest bunch of folks you’re likely to encounter anywhere.

[42] Posted by our eyes are upon Thee on 11-16-2008 at 10:50 PM • top

Hey, check it out.  I hereby declare myself invisible!!  Nevermind that the laws of physics don’t allow for my self-declaration to actually work. Afterall, if I can get a majority of people to agree with me who will bully those who don’t, my self-declaration of invisibility will have been effective! Ok, now check this out.  I hereby a declare the beginning of a new province of the Anglican Communion!

[43] Posted by eaten_by_chipmunks on 11-16-2008 at 10:53 PM • top

Just wondering:
No not all opinions equal…all people…all people created in the image of God…you know, the people Christ ministered to when he walked this earth, the poor, the outcasts, the suffering.  In my “opinion” we are all equal…our souls are all the same in the sight of God.

[44] Posted by jessie on 11-16-2008 at 10:54 PM • top

Jessie [33] It’s interesting that you use this line “Conform or be castout”  seems to me that has been TEC’s slogan when it has been systematically putting the squeeze on the orthodox in the church.

[45] Posted by keepdfaith on 11-16-2008 at 10:55 PM • top

This is great.  I am excited.  I pray God continues to guide and lead us, and gives us godly oversight.  YAY!

[46] Posted by paulphillip on 11-16-2008 at 10:55 PM • top

So Jessie does that mean all or the elect and do we get to do whatever we want or live by our rules or precepts or do we obey God or accept His teaching as suggestion?

You say everybody’s soul is equal but what about what Jesus says?  As I recall he never granted anything without condition of obedience and belief.

Can you offer some Scripture to support your contention?

[47] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 11:01 PM • top

Thanks be to God!  When will SC join the new province?  Hopefully they will quickly get on with the business of planting churches all over NA.

[48] Posted by physician without health on 11-16-2008 at 11:03 PM • top

Jessie - Yes, we are all the same.  We are all broken images of God - sinners in need of a Savior.  But it is God who says what is sin, not us.  It is God who tell us who should be pastors, not us.  It is God who builds His Church, not us.  Our job is to preach the Gospel in all its purity as it was given to us by the Apostles and revealed in the Scriptures, not clever philosophies invented by men.

[49] Posted by Harry Edmon on 11-16-2008 at 11:04 PM • top

22 and 28,
We’ll just have to see who recognizes what, won’t we?  What we do know is that 50 million Anglicans no longer recognize the legitimacy of TEC’s leadership and most of her bishops.  At this point, we also know that the ABoC does not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the bishop of N. Hampshire, nor does most of the Communion recognize the legitimacy of TEC’s discipline, and almost the entire Communion decries TEC’s use of lawsuits to impose its will on laymen and parishes.  I would worry about my own house if I were you.

[50] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-16-2008 at 11:04 PM • top

RE: “Sarah, My question is simple, what Anglican Church is creating or accepting this new “province”?”

The Anglican Churches of several provinces of the Anglican Communion.

But why is this important to you?

[51] Posted by Sarah on 11-16-2008 at 11:05 PM • top


Thanks for posting this video clip.  An unexpected joy for me was to see a friend sitting right in front of +Duncan (i.e., in front of his left hand).  That would be Deacon Anne Beaseley, wife of Fr. William Beaseley of AMiA, who organized the first Anglican Awakening in Chicago 8-9 months ago.  And on her left, directly in front of +Duncan, is Keith Hartzell, the gifted guy in charge of ministry to the many, many college students at big “Rez” (Church of the Resurrection) in Wheaton.  What a nice surprise that the camera angle happened to show them.

David Handy+

[52] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 11-16-2008 at 11:12 PM • top

keepdfaith and others…As I recall conform or be cast out was your group…TEC has been a place where we have all had differences in opinion but we all worshiped at the same table.  Your group said time to draw a line in the sand with +GR and time to move on.  TEC at this point (after years of trying to make it all work and being told “NOT GOOD ENOUGH” and that you were unwilling to compromise, Go if you must.  But then you said we want to form our new churches and providences on TEC resources…time, money, and property.  We said go if you must…but you all said we will go but we want to have all the things we had in TEC with us. When we said no, you turned the tables as if you have been the victims.  The pity party that goes on, on this site is a hoot. If you are all so happy about the action you have taken and the movement into this new realm of christianity then rejoyce and be glad…but stop with the poor me stuff.  TEC never through you out, you left because you disagreed.  Sometimes I just want to tell you all to grow up and stop with this whining.  Go if you must, and stop blaming your problems on the past and get on with things.  And just wondering…read the entire NT, God loves us all, no matter what we have done wrong.  We are all sinners, one not any worse than the other, and he loves us all.  I have yet to find scripture that says God will forgive you of your sins, unless the people around you think differently, or don’t agree with your opinion.  No he says we are forgiven before we ever commit the sin…all of us.  Leave the judgement of others up to God, and worry about yourself and the things you will need to answer for.

[53] Posted by jessie on 11-16-2008 at 11:22 PM • top

You said all souls are equal that is different than God loving us all.  The question always revolves around choice.  You sound as if by “rigid theology” that you do not want to have to make choices.  Is that true?

[54] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 11:26 PM • top

The creation of the new province will have no effect on the title to the land and other property.  That dispute will only accelerate.

[55] Posted by Apocalypse on 11-16-2008 at 11:27 PM • top

Fr. Handy, I’m with you about the significance of having it at Wheaton.  Although I’m not a Wheaton alum. I have friends who are and I know what a positive, evangelical influence the college has had through the years.

[56] Posted by Jill C. on 11-16-2008 at 11:28 PM • top

jessie, what you consider “progressive”, stripping Christ and his teachings from the faith, elitism, barely veiled racism, hatred and intolerance, exploitation, colonialism, is actually regressive. It reflects a time when Christ’s teachings were ignored, in favor of promoting the powers of a corrupt elite, and excusing their abuses of power, denial of human rights.

TEC removed Christ from the church, by doing that, they removed what was worthwhile in it. Deliberately violating the very rules of the faith, demeaning it by embracing sin, everything Christ spoke out against, and then they sought to diminish Christ.

The Gospel has been about praising God, reaching out to others to bring them into the light, but the decision is theirs to make, because it requires accepting the obligations of a Christian, admitting one’s sins and committing to sin no more. It’s not a social club, or a designer label.. one must be willing to take up the cross upon occasion, as there will be those who resent and will denigrate the faith, and persecute the faithful.

[57] Posted by mari on 11-16-2008 at 11:30 PM • top

I would be interested to know if the new province will want title to property just as TEC, UMC, etc.?  Will each parish own it’s own or will property be held in trust for whoever ascends to the position of “Presiding Bishop or Archbishop or the institution he or she will represent?

[58] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 11:34 PM • top

just wondering:  we (I) make choices everyday…I pray to the same God that you do and I do my best to be the best person I can be.  I fall short…all the time.  I see the people around me in the same way.  They are good, strong loving people…and we all fall short.  In that way we are all the same and I will not stand in judgement for you and don’t expect you to stand in judgement of me.  God will judge, and since we cannot ever know the mind of God, I will choose to embrase and love my neighbor as a fellow sinner, and leave the judgement to God.

[59] Posted by jessie on 11-16-2008 at 11:37 PM • top

Mad Potter, as far as I’m concerend, my definition of the Anglican Communion is a group of churches that were in mutual communion based on bonds of affection and common beliefs that was torn apart by the actions of TEC.  It is something that was, and no longer is.

I also think, in time, it will be reborn with a group of churches in mutual communion based on bonds of affection and common beliefs.  Although with a different structure than the old one had.

As for you last question you know the Anglican Churches that will accept (be in communion with) the new province. To start with:  Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southern Cone, Uganda and West Africa.  I’m sure there will be more, we will have to wait and see.

[60] Posted by JustOneVoice on 11-16-2008 at 11:37 PM • top

I’ve never been impressed by the ‘judgement’ diversion.  Nobody has cast judgement on you.  In light of your expressed opinion can you explain to me how it jibes with “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it”.  Do you find this to say all souls are equal?  How so?

[61] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 11:41 PM • top

I have already on another thread expressed my joy and thanksgiving to God for this wonderful miracle which is unfolding.  But I have to say it again—Glory Glory Halleluhia!  The Lord’s Holy Name be praised!  I’ll be in Wheaton, good Lord willing. God bless the new North American Anglican Province!

[62] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 11-16-2008 at 11:42 PM • top

just wondering…the way is narrow for successful discipleship and judgement is left to God, but like in the case of the samaritan we should not be the judge of who is going in the narrow way.  Those who show love are on the narrow path.

[63] Posted by jessie on 11-16-2008 at 11:47 PM • top

Lots of people love lots of things Jesse if you love Jesus you will love his precepts including those against homosexuality.  This is what you are talking about isn’t it Jessie?

[64] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-16-2008 at 11:50 PM • top

I just loved the “Praise the Lord” cry from somewhere in the pews when Bp Duncan announced it.

The revisionists wanted the talk to continue till all the orthodox just skulked away.

The new orthodox Anglican will indeed be exclusive…exclusively Christian. No unitaropalians.  Let the Jerusalem Declaration speak for itself:

We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

[65] Posted by robroy on 11-16-2008 at 11:51 PM • top

OK, all you kibitzers need to lay off.  In 1776 a group made a decision to hive off and what they did was not perfect and the cost of not making it was much worse—death.  This group may or may not ammount to much but if it doesn’t, at least they can go off and become presbyterians, baptist plymouth brethren or anything else and at least not be in a non-christian heretic oppressive group.  I am thankful for anyone who walks away from apostacy ahd heresy.  Good for them.  I pray for them, but if not…
    “I have decided to follow Jesus
    I have decided to follow Jesus
    I have decided to follow Jesus,
      No turning back, no turning back…”

[66] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 11-16-2008 at 11:53 PM • top

Considering Jesus had no precepts about homosexuality…so yes, people are people, are people, all made in the image of God.

[67] Posted by jessie on 11-16-2008 at 11:56 PM • top

Through out this thread I’ve read speculation that this new province will only be recognized by GAFCON Primates.  I think what is missing is the recognition that new provinces undergo a process of acceptance that involves the Primates Meeting, The ACC and of course the ABC

The Primates Meet in early Feb.  The ACC meets in May.  The ABC met with Bp. Duncan following his deposition.  What do you think the odds are he knows more than you do about what will happen on Dec 3?

I wonder…what would you think if a few more Primates recognized the new province before the Primates meeting?  How many would it take to achieve a tipping point?  Seriously this is a question.  Less than 38 and more than 6: what number would cause you to stand up and salute?

[68] Posted by Ed McNeill on 11-17-2008 at 12:00 AM • top

God has precepts against homosexuality and Jesus is God and his Apostles speak against it do you speak for it?

[69] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 12:01 AM • top

The ABC’s last opportunity to impact the makup of the AC was the Lambeth Invitations. He blew it. In nine years a new ABC will send invitations, his only decision. It may or may not be as meaningless as it is now.

The public announcement was this weekend at “The Awakerning.” Bp Harvey came close last week in Hamilton. The Anglican Clergy & Spouse Conf., held at Ridgecrest the last week of Oct, was informed of the date, general location and time and asked not to post it anywhere in public. This request was honored by all, a mark of the character of the clergy, spouses, bishops and laity with whom I’m privileged to serve our Lord Jesus Christ in the CCP.

I bought my airline ticket several weeks ago to ORD, Wheaton College is not the venue. I look forward to seeing many of you there.

Bob Maxwell †
All Saint’s Diocese
Church of Kenya
      . . . still riding for the brand.

[70] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 11-17-2008 at 12:11 AM • top

#59- Jessie… We’re going, and or gone, and you (TEC) have the buildings.  We aren’t (mostly) going/gone bitterly (or not for long because Jesus doesn’t like bitterness or attachment to “things”).  We are going praying for YOU!  St. Andrews Anglican Church, Lewis Center, OH (formerly 420 of the 500 members of St. Matthews Episcopal Church, Westerville, OH) notes that where there was ONE church, there are now TWO!  Many of our brothers and sisters painfully left behind feel no differently about Jesus than we do!  Even Bishop Breidenthal told the press St. Matthews is “mostly conservative”.  Where we split was our ability to tolerate supporting causes we don’t believe in and that Jesus didn’t support… acceptance of gay lifestyle as acceptable, financial support to Planned Parenthood to kill unborn babies, teaching thet someone can find salvation in a religion without Jesus, saying the Bible is untrue.  But our brothers and sisters left behind are no less dear to us, and if THEY remain faithful to what was always taught at St. Matthews, we have TWO communities serving Christ and bringing others to salvation!  We love them NO LESS than we did when we left.  Most of the separation bitterness has been healed by the Great Physician.  Do we miss the facilties?  You bet your bottom dollar!!!  Would we change where we are?  Not on your tintype!  If St. Matthews remnant remembers Whose they are, next year, we may have a dinner together or something.  Love is not gone!  Only WHO WE FOLLOW!  AND HOW!

[71] Posted by Goughdonna on 11-17-2008 at 12:11 AM • top

BTW were not the Phoenicians made in the image of God?  They loved Baal.

[72] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 12:13 AM • top

I am not gay but I have seen more Christian people who are that have done far more in their lives and ministry than most people in my parish who are not.  I look at who they are, and how they live their lives, and how they follow God in their work and in their lives.  They are not and should not be cut off from God in anyway, certainly not in the life and the sacraments of our church.  I live in an area where there are more gay people than in most, and I would stand by them on their day of judgement without any reservation.  On the other hand when I read this blog, and I don’t very often, I am appalled at the judgements that are made and the things that are said about other Christians…not just gays, but of those who think or believe differently than the norm on this blog.  How do you know that you are right?  That you have the only way to God and the one correct interpretation of the Bible?  I would appreciate an answer on what makes you feel so confident that you could not be wrong, and that you could indeed be the one being judged on the last day for treating those who are different sexually in the way that this blogs judges?

[73] Posted by jessie on 11-17-2008 at 12:17 AM • top

Did Jesse really bring up the people are made in the image of God, and God doesn’t make mistakes, so homosexuality is A-OK. (As would be every sin by this “logic”.) 

Jesse won’t be joining the new orthodox Anglican province. I am not sure why he cares about its establishment. Or perhaps he just wants to submit random off-topic specious comments?

[74] Posted by robroy on 11-17-2008 at 12:19 AM • top

jessie, Christ admonished us to protect the innocent, especially children, from sin, and Christ considered homosexuality, like all adultery, sin.

[75] Posted by mari on 11-17-2008 at 12:21 AM • top

Isn’t your argument really that you want everyone to believe as you do and those you say you sympathize with?  You really resent that people are not living under your and the homosexual agenda’s narrow definition of inclusion and toleration?  Isn’t your argument that you and the homosexuals are god and you want total and absolute obedience from these people here- something you deny the True God?

[76] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 12:27 AM • top

Ah, I note again with some sadness how impossible it is for the committed left to understand what is going on here.  Are your feelings just so badly hurt that you refuse to accept this reality, or are you so mistrustful of those of us who call ourselves “orthodox” that you refuse to believe the truth?

Because I am an eternal optimist (or so my wife of over 20 years tells me) I’m going to try this one more time.  I think even the Jessie’s, Bruce Garners, BeerKat, and even the PHIPS deserve an honest explanation of why we cannot go down your path.  So listen closely:

1.  We have read Scripture, we believe it (especially the New Testament) is the Word of God, and we seek to take its admonitions, prohibitions, AND suggestions seriously. 

2.  We are not interested in judging anyone.  We do however, believe it is the responsibility of a Christian to judge his brother’s BEHAVIOR through the lens of Scripture and then speak the truth in love.  Notice that critical distinction: Don’t judge the SOUL, DO judge the behavior.  If you do not trust us to do this, that is your right, but do not malign our intentions by imposing your fears and weaknesses upon us.  It will avail you nothing but more pain than you already have.

3.  We believe that tolerance is not love.  Tolerance in itself means allowing someone to do whatever they want, be whoever they want, and sit on our hands and say “well, that’s their right.” and wave to them as they catch the fast train to perdition.  We love you all, and our families and fellow Christians too much to see them promulgate error and treat it as fact.  These may be very valuable things in a free society, or democracy, but as far as we can tell HEAVEN is NEITHER OF THESE.  Neither is the “Kingdom of Heaven” that Jesus spoke of.  Else he would have rescued those seeds (hearers of the Word) which were cast upon the rocky soil, right?  Or upon the path, right?  But yet, they baked, they were eaten, and Jesus reported that faithfully.

4.  We believe (for you Jessie) that Scripture really is the revealed “mind of God” and therefore at least in that way we can know it.  The revelations about Jesus there, for example, are wonderful and we rejoice in that he ate with sinners, because that gives us hope.  We notice also, however, that he left very strict rules about what to do, and what not to do, and encouraging and embracing sinful behavior (for that time sinful) carried some gigantic punishments (millstones around the neck, tossed into the sea, sheep and goats, being cast into the outer darkness, that sort of thing) which lead us to believe that avoiding those things might be the way to go.

5.  I am deeply sorry that I have witnessed on many occaions that my friends on the left often have not the courage in their personal convictions of Scripture or of the deposit of faith, now over 2,000 years old that has been passed on to us as a treasured possession.  I will pray for you constantly, that you will one day learn to take these things seriously and lose the apparent fear you carry of making a decision, of making a commitment to Christ, other than “Well, I just need to be nice to everybody, after all, who am I to judge?”  You are certainly qualified to judge behavior, informed by Scripture and the Traditions of the Church, and decide if you think it matches up.  Or you can just say “Well, I’m not God, after all.” and ignore all the warnings, set aside all the teaching, let slide all the clear teachings Jesus has set before us on what is good and honored before God, and what is unacceptable.  I will continue to believe that in the main, your intentions are honorable, even if your actions are often not. 

6.  For many of us, we’ve simply run out of steam in the TEC train. We’re done.  We have examined the behavior of the leadership of TEC over and over again through the Lens of the Gospel and found it sadly lacking.  WE have studied the communications of the HoD listserv and the folks that publish there, and found (with a few notable exceptions) that the attitudes there reflect little of historic Christianity at all.  We have prayed, and cried, and lamented as we have watched Godly men and women persecuted and trashed both publicly and privately by what appears to be a limosine liberal elite who is simply irritated that they cannot get their own way.  An elite who insist that their Church represent every single ridiculous and poorly thought out idea that they’ve come up with in the last fifteen minutes to remain “culturally relevant” when it is clear that no such requirement exists for salvation, in fact, it seems quite the inhibitor.

And finally, to be clear, never forget that we will pray unceasingly, as we have been commanded to do (Matthew 5:43-45 will ring a bell with this group) for all those who think we are wrong, both for their salvation, and for our own, that the Lord may continue to reveal His Truth to us (although He did a marvelous job the first time, you think that would be enough for us)>and that the leadership of TEC awaken from their long sleep and the poison that has taken hold (I’m reminded of when Tolkien writes of Saruman’s possession of Theoden of Rohan, and how he needed to be awoken from his long evil dream) will be removed and Christ’s Words will again be Lord and Master of TEC.  I will personally continue to pray, for I have seen that fashion has replaced truth, and this is surely the way of madness.  And because we know that no matter how abhorrant we find the behavior of the leadership of TEC, and on the Left, that is their behavior that demonstrates their disorder, not their person, or their soul.  Those alone belong to Christ and His judgement.  It is their “acting out” that has driven us away.

So please, my friends on the left, refrain from insulting us all by continuing to impose your interpretation of our motives on what is happening here.  I assume at all times, that even if you are in error as I believe, that you are in sincere belief of what you promulgate and seek to promote your agenda’s because you think it is the right thing to do. 

Reserve at least that much justice in your hearts for us.

I pray God’s blessing for you all, and for all that remain in TEC, and for the Godspeed of the New Anglican Effort in North America (may they start a Church close to me soon!)

Keep the Faith!...mrb

[77] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 11-17-2008 at 12:30 AM • top

robroy??? random off topic specious comments??? follow the boxes and the things that are said…start at the top and move to the bottom of the page…can you follow it now.  And no robroy…not joining the new orthodox anglican’s but I was under the impression this was a blog or both sides of the coin…not just one where you all gather and form this exclusive club that excludes opinions others than the ones you hold.  But perhaps I was wrong…after all you are the ones who left TEC because you couldn’t have it all your way.  When we said we would not cast people out because they were different the Orth. said can’t stay and out you all went.  I will galdly sign off as I am sure it is much more productive for you all to have your fun and not have to really think about the issues from another perspective.  TTFN

[78] Posted by jessie on 11-17-2008 at 12:30 AM • top

He was concerned about interpretations and now perspectives.  A slave of a truly subjective relativism.

[79] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 12:37 AM • top

Mari:  (sorry robroy done after this)...what Bible do you read that says homosexuality is the same as infidelity?  In those words not open to your interpretation?  If we are going to take the Bilbe literally then I need to go kill my children for talking back to me over the past 19 years…and I would hate to do that becasue they are pretty amazing adults now!  OK ROBROY now I am done writing on this blog…

[80] Posted by jessie on 11-17-2008 at 12:37 AM • top

jessie, it makes no difference if you or anyone else is homosexual, transexual, or heterosexual. What makes a difference is how you act and whether or not you repent of your actions. The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 1, verse 14, says: “... Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.’” Of course we are all created equal, but we don’t all act in equal manner; our choices and repentance make the diffence. Of course if you discount the scripture, you can ignore our Lord’s plain teaching; but that’s the only way you can do it.
I’m one of the priests who has been inhibited, on the way to being deposed, by TEO. It must be frustrating to go through all that stuff, and then be ignored by the rest of the Anglican Communion as is the deposition of the supposed victims. And I’m proudly serving a congregation of people who can no longer stomach the false teaching of TEO.
You would be most welcome at our Altar Rail, at any time. Whether you are worthy or not is between you and God; remember that Paul admonished us that to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ unworthily is bring damnation upon ourselves? Each of us makes the decision, but we don’t make it for someone else.

[81] Posted by desertpadre on 11-17-2008 at 12:38 AM • top

jessie, I can only speak for myself, but I left TEC, because it turned it’s back on God, and the teachings of Christ. Without Him, the Episcopal church is nothing.

[82] Posted by mari on 11-17-2008 at 12:41 AM • top

Jessie….you need to just give it up and admit that you cannot answer Just Wondering questions honestly lest you get convicted of your own misconceptions!

[83] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 12:46 AM • top

Mari:  I am sorry that u left and for the pain you must feel, and I hope you will find what you are looking for.  I have found God in my parish and in my life in TEC.  I love the people you would call sinners.  I embrace my friends who are priests and living with AIDS, and I continue to grow and learn each day what God is calling me to as I minister to all of His people.  I am at peace with the choices I have made and am clear that God has called me to minister to this parish.  I pray that you and your brothers and sisiters will find that same peace.  And I will close by saying that I miss worshiping with my brothers and sisters who have made the choice to leave.  I believe that God is likely watching us and saying that as long as we are doing what we do in love, and in His name, we are being blesssed.

[84] Posted by jessie on 11-17-2008 at 12:50 AM • top

One day closer…there are not answers that you will hear the way that I hear them…questions have been answered but you need to look a bit deeper as they are not always easy to see at first…you need to think about them…give it a try.

[85] Posted by jessie on 11-17-2008 at 12:54 AM • top

jessie, it’s clear that you have sipped the TEC kool-aid, and I don’t hold that against you.  You so fundamentally mis-state the position and character of those who have left TEC, that it’s clear you’re only reacting out of what you’ve been taught.

However, what I will hold against you is that you keep preaching at us about refraining from judging others, when that is precisely what you are doing in most of your posts in this thread.  Even in the one where you defend your gay acquaintances, because a favorable judgment is still a judgment.  Get off the judgment seat, Jesus will be needing it when he returns.  wink

[86] Posted by Connecticutian on 11-17-2008 at 12:57 AM • top

One Day Closer,
What I hope we can all learn from Jessie is that private interpretation leads to error.  There is plenty of this going around.  I hope jessie will consider that he or she is missing quite a lot in his/her conclusions.

2 Pet. 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 

I certainly hope the new province honors the Scripture:
Titus 1 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

We all have misconceptions, may God grant us clarity so that the word ‘orthodoxy’ does not meet the same fate as the word ‘gay’.

[87] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 01:01 AM • top

jessie, you strike me as someone whose understanding of the Bible is based on talking points, rather than reading and seeking to understand the texts. Where in the Scripture does it say that people should sacrifice their children? Genesis 22 describes the test that was put to Abraham, but there is not one instance where sacrificing or harming a child is ever advocated.

It’s plain to even a child reading that portion of scripture what it said. To misrepresent it, is disrespectful, and very wrong.

Read Matthew 19, in which Christ condemns adultery, and defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Christ laid out what God’s specific intent for what human sexuality was intended to be… and that matches the law in Leviticus. Nor can you attempt to play games with what was and wasn’t meant in Leviticus, because as others have said, your rationale also would allow murderers, theives, etc.. to justify their sin. You find that fact inconvenient and never address that, do you?

Matthew 19:5-9

[88] Posted by mari on 11-17-2008 at 01:01 AM • top

Hey, commenatrix, could we lose the specious off-topic comments about why gay is OK?

Back on topic.

One thing that I hope will continue is that the bonds of friendship that have been formed between American churches and those overseas will continue. We still desperately need their guidance.

[89] Posted by robroy on 11-17-2008 at 01:03 AM • top

just wondering (81) No…I think we should stop judging eachother and work for the good of God.  As I said b4 TEC was always a place where many of us held different beliefs and still worshiped at the same table…that was part of the beauty of the church.  Now everyone is acting as God and telling everyone what God meant at this verse and that verse in the Bible.  I don’t know if homosexuality is right or wrong, it depends on what way you want to look what is written in the Bible…we all know that.  There is a certain security in being told what is right and worng by a priest or bishop etc. and not having to think about it for yourself.  Having to admit there are no 100% givens in the Bible scares a lot of people.  I say right or wrong we are all God’s people and we need to see eachother as people first…people that God has made in His image…and that our sexuality or skin color or gender should not define who we are in the eyes of God.  It is who we are in God and what we do because we love God and because we know that he loves us just the way that He made us.

[90] Posted by jessie on 11-17-2008 at 01:04 AM • top

I was under the impression this was a blog or both sides of the coin…not just one where you all gather and form this exclusive club

Nope! That would be the HOB/D Listserv ran by Louie Crew homosexual, Integrity ran by Susan Russell lesbian, Telling Secrets ran by Elizabeth Kaeton lesbian, and all site where my comments and others of the conservative voices that post never get to see the light of day unlike here on Stand Firm where even a Louie Crew, Susan Russell, and Elizabeth Kaeton get to post and engage in the comments. So I’m sorry to say jessie that you have us mixed up!

[91] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 01:05 AM • top

jessie, if you truly do minister, and claim to do so based on the grace of God, then shouldn’t you be taking a principled stand against the racism, the hatred and violence that exists in the gay community? Taking a principled stand, against those who have threatened, and acted violently against the innocent? Why are you so silent on that?

[92] Posted by mari on 11-17-2008 at 01:05 AM • top

Mad Potter, it seems that you’re trying to put God into an awfully small ecclesiological box!  Things are in flux, and we do not yet know who will be recognized by whom in the long run.  But for now, some ecclesiastical bodies are banding together to form a new and coherent ecclesiastical body.  Can it just be that simple?

As an analog, it is not always the case that a diocese plants a church and nutures it to fruition.  Sometimes faithful people simply gather, they grow, they call a pastor, then they apply for admission to the diocese.

If you are reluctant to recognize the new province, that’s OK; they might get over that.

[93] Posted by Connecticutian on 11-17-2008 at 01:07 AM • top

No 100% givens?

Sorry, jessie, but you are in denial. You’ve put yourself up on that pedastel, as Christ warned us some priests will do, because they like any human are tempted by sin, and give in to it. That is why Christ told us not to emulate priests, but to follow the word of God. There are very clearly defined givens in the Bible, Christ doesn’t mince words, he laid things out most plainly.

[94] Posted by mari on 11-17-2008 at 01:10 AM • top


Glad to see you did not sign off.  I knew you could not because you live in a parish that thrives on compulsion.  I do not mean that to be insulting just endemic to the lifestyle you defend.
You keep running to the judgement argument and it has not served you at all.  Reproving is not ‘final’ judgement.
Sorry I cannot worship with someone holding different beliefs if those beliefs do not comply with Holy Writ.  I think that is the point of all these peoples effort to shake off falsehood.  I also cannot condone the culture of death and that is your religion.  You say you have clergy with aids and you think that is normative?  Do you wonder why God’s Word includes an admonition against misusing the body?  You think love is manifested by disease and death?
Do you believe God is pleased with a bonding between people that prevents the gift of a child being born?  Why does the Bible say “abomination”  it is precisely because the act robs God of the love of those who might have been born.

[95] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 01:18 AM • top

Will post again tomorrow if this is still going…to many to respond to at one time…it’s been fun smile

[96] Posted by jessie on 11-17-2008 at 01:19 AM • top

I thought KJS said there were only a tiny, teeny, insignificant number of disgruntled malcontents (well, maybe not an exact quote;)), so surely it must be so.  No need for Mad Potter to try to funnel Anglicanism through Rowan Williams and Kenneth Kearon (more like a couple of cork stoppers than funnels).  No need for Jessie to attempt to guilt a few dozen pathetic, bigoted, paranoid, fearful haters cowering in the dark with their tinfoil hats on.  And especially no need for Bruce Garner to condescend to leave the Olympian heights of the HOBD listserv to attempt his more rarefied guilting of us (sight unseen) unshaven, undershirt-wearin’, beer-drinkin’, gay-hatin’, prejudiced, wife-beating white males, to express his sadness at not feeling included by us, as though he doesn’t have a fit of the vapors at the very thought of being in the same room with all few dozen of us.


The reality of the situation is seeping through their seemingly impervious shield of denial.  They cannot change reality simply by thinking and speaking it so, we convinced against our will are of the same opinion still, and the Lord Jesus Christ didn’t stay dead, and not all Israel is Israel, and those who can’t seem to grasp the Anglicanism of Hooker and all the faithful before him and after him to this day, who still contend earnestly for the faith once for all given to the disciples.

No, the Grinches could not steal Anglicanism.  It came without Rowan, it came without Kenneth, it came without Katherine, it came without Frank, it came without TEC, it came without CoE, it came without ACoC, it came without lambeth, it came anyhow!

Mad Potter, wondering whether APNA is a real Anglican province reminds me of womething I heard Leonard Ravenhill say - “The best evidence of Apostolic Succession is apostolic success!”

P. S. Jessie, Bruce, et al, for not using any AV equipment, you, like most revisionists and political liberals, are certainly masters of projection!

[97] Posted by Milton on 11-17-2008 at 01:37 AM • top

Just Wondering, it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that jessie, like others like him/her has no real interest in honest debate (that requires listening), but in trying to wear people down, by ad hominem attacks, and endless rationales to excuse sin, and abomination.

Those sort of people do not truly believe, but seek to exploit the trappings of faith, to lead others to sin.

[98] Posted by mari on 11-17-2008 at 01:41 AM • top

Beneath the rhetoric of stopping judging I think that #96 you are making some rather strong claims to have judged truth correctly. For you claim to know, with some confidence it seems, the truth of quite a few things.

1. The truth that the Bible contains no 100% truth. (I digress, but I wonder if that claim is itself a 100% truth?)
2. The truth about the motivation of those you disagree with - namely, their desire for security.
3. The truth about who forms God’s people (I take this to be a truth claim about God).
4. The truth that sexuality or skin color or gender does not define us in God’s eyes. (Again I take this as a claim on your part to knowledge about God).

Rather than debate with you the truth of reach of these assertions of knowledge, my point is simply that you actually claim to know quite a few things - including what you assert are truths about the mind of God - and it doesn’t help to suggest that it is merely those you disagree with who are making claims to knowledge. You are too and rather emphatically.

[99] Posted by driver8 on 11-17-2008 at 02:06 AM • top

For time and location of the event see
<a href=“”>Link

[100] Posted by Marie Blocher on 11-17-2008 at 02:11 AM • top

“Conform or be cast out”
Besides not agreeing with your theology, I fault you for taking over my head. Now I won’t be able to get that song out of my head for a week (“Subdivisions” by Rush: “Signals” is the album; first cut, I believe).

Hopefully, by December 3, The Gospel Acoording to Geddy Lee will be replaced by the processional hymn in Wheaton.

[101] Posted by KevinBabb on 11-17-2008 at 02:36 AM • top

Thank you Marie,

I wasn’t expecting the honor. But I must correct a mistake, I believe Bishop Duncan in the video said 7:30. Have a good night everybody!

Yours in Christ,

[102] Posted by Jacobsladder on 11-17-2008 at 02:44 AM • top


There is a certain security in being told what is right and wrong by a priest or bishop etc. and not having to think about it for yourself.

Assuming that such a security exists:

- Why would the Apostle Peter place the responsibility for Christ’s crucifixion on the crowd in Acts 2, rather than their religious leaders?, and;

- Why would the Apostle Paul take the Galatian Church to task for following the Apostle Peter in his (sinful) support of the Judiazers?

Do you still believe that you have this kind of security?

[103] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-17-2008 at 05:28 AM • top

From the Eastern Orthodox Church, I wish all faithful Anglicans a smooth transition under the new Anglican Province! You are not “free at last”. You are taking on a new burden, but it will be a light one fitted to your tired shoulders. There is no freedom until Christ returns. Maranatha!

Pray for the Christians of Mosul and the Martyrs of Somalia.

[104] Posted by Alice Linsley on 11-17-2008 at 05:57 AM • top

Marie Blocher (#106),

Thanks for clarifying the venue.  I was obviously just venturing a guess earlier, when I assumed that the Wheaton College chapel would be used.  The Evangelical Free Church is significantly smaller.  There are larger and smaller churches, so I’m sure they chose one that was roughly the right size for the limited crowd that can be expected for an event like this, held with relatively little advance notice, and on a Wednesday night.  At least, the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church is easy to find, right on Roosevelt Road (=Rt. 38), one of the main roads (east-west) in the area, and there’s ample parking.  It’s less than a mile south of the college.

The location may not be quite as richly symbolic as actually having it at the college itself, but I still find it heartening.  And I think it’s probably a tribute to the hard work of my friend William Beaseley+, a regional AMiA leader, whose office is in Wheaton.  The DuPage County Anglicans are a model of working together across jurisdictional lines, something that has been a passion of his for a number of years now.  And in response to those Just Curious, his wife Anne has been a deacon for years too.

David Handy+

[105] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 11-17-2008 at 07:00 AM • top

Sorry, I was responding to Just Wondering in #18.  Anne Beaseley is a permanent deacon.  Women deacons are allowed in AMiA, but not women priests.

David Handy+

[106] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 11-17-2008 at 07:14 AM • top

Am I correct in understanding that the measure of acceptance of the new church North American Province by the Primates Council of FoCA/GAFCON is agreement to the Jerusalem Declaration?  The Living Church article seemed to indicate that was the case.  If so, that includes the 39 Articles.  How will Anglo-Catholics live with this?  I’m trying to remember Newman’s Tract 90.  It’s a little too early and what I’m remembering is his Idea of a University but I think 90 had something to say to this?  Am I right or wrong that this is going to be a problem?  Any anglo-catholics out there, maybe Sarah Hey to jump in?

[107] Posted by EmilyH on 11-17-2008 at 07:27 AM • top

I think the dividing line between reasserters and reappraisers in TEC and indeed throughout mainline Protestantism is whether we view the incarnation and the Scriptures as God revealing himself to us or whether we view Jesus as a wonderful teacher and exemplar who was specially blessed by God, and the Scriptures as guidelines that may have been inspired in some fashion by God. 

It has been made amply clear that our Presiding Bishop in TEC and many of our leaders hold to the latter view.  It is equally clear that Bishop Duncan, Bishop Iker, the leaders within the REC, the GS Primates, and many others, hold to the former view.  The sharp disagreements within TEC all flow from these differing points of view.  They really are not compatible with one another in a church.  It is this that has led to the formation of a new Anglican Province in North America. 

Either God made himself into a man at a certain point in history, and lived and worked and preached and ate and drank and sweated and wept and slept like all the rest of us, or he did not.  If he did, and if the Gospels are a reasonably accurate record of the event, then we are really not free to edit the story to conform it to our modern preferences.  We are instead confronted with the need to edit our preferences to conform them to the story.

Likewise, an important question for each of us is this: How do I approach the Scriptures?  Is it to gather evidence to support what I already believe, ignoring those things that do not fit into my belief system, or is it to learn from God what he has decreed is healthy for my eternal soul?

I suggest that the incarnation is not some fuzzy doctrinal issue over which reasonable, faithful Christians differ.  It is foundational to Christian belief.  Everything, literally everything, in Christian theology flows from the fact that God humbled himself, made himself into a man, and walked on the earth with us.  This is good news.  In fact, it is not just good news.  It is the best news there ever could be.  It is life-changing.  The news is so shattering that most of us are well-defended against it.  Something inside us knows that if we come to believe that news it will change us in radical and scary ways. 

The kingdom of God is inclusive, oh yes indeed.  It includes everyone who wants to walk in the light.  It includes everyone who accepts the invitation to the wedding feast and puts on a wedding garment.  It includes everyone who wants to come in.  It includes everyone who wants to be holy.  It includes anyone who realizes he is walking in the dark and who wants to instead walk in the light. 

The kingdom of God is not a democracy, however.  To be a citizen of heaven, one must accept that the kingdom has a king, who is the Lord Jesus Christ.  We don’t elect him.  He elects us.  The reason that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation is that accepting the incarnation and the other elements of the Gospel message changes us into people who want, at all costs, to walk in the light.  It makes us willing to accept God’s invitation.  We exchange our own ideas of justice and right and wrong for God’s eternal, changeless purposes.

Jesus made it very clear that fornication is a sin.  But to be clear, it is not fornication itself that keeps people out of the kingdom.  It is the unwillingness to give up fornication.  It is saying that fornication makes me feel good so it must be a gift from God.  It is saying, I don’t want to change, I don’t have to change, and if you tell me the Scriptures say otherwise they must be wrong or you must be reading them wrong or you must grant me that the Scriptures are open to differing interpretations or you must be intolerant.  It is putting one’s personal preferences above what God has revealed through the Scriptures.  As is true for any sin, this is being given the choice between walking in the light and walking in the dark and choosing the dark.

Of course, if God did not really humble himself and make himself into a man and walk the earth with us, then none of this applies.

[108] Posted by Rick H. on 11-17-2008 at 07:37 AM • top

A further reflection on the symbolism of the venue chosen.  While I’m sure the main consideration,  here was the size of the site, and how easy it is to find, its probably low cost (renting Wheaton’s Edman Chapel is expensive) and such purely pragmatic factors, I do see a very appropriate symbolism in the selection of an Evangelical Free church as the location.  First, because it’s so…Evangelical.  But also because it’s a FREE church, i.e., part of the Scandanavian “free church” tradition, or essentially in the Swedish Baptist heritage.

The point is that it seems HIGHLY APT to hold this historic event in a church that is part of a denomination formed in protest against the whole Constantinian, state church model (i.e., formed in opposition to the Swedish Lutherna state church).

While +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted has spoken eloquently of the need for a Global, Post-Colonial Settlement to replace the obsolete Elizabethan or “Reformation” Settllement (in his splendid, visionary address in Jordan before GAFCON began this summer), I firmly and fervently beleve with all my heart that it’s just as important that the New Reformation Anglicanism be POST-CHRISTENDOM as well as Post-Colonial in character.  It’s high time to kiss the old Erastian, state church model of Anglicanism goodbye, and retire that star athlete’s jersey number with honor.  So I really LIKE having this signing ceremony in a building of the free church tradition.  That may turn out to be more aptly symbolic than the organizers realized.

David Handy+
Passionate advocate of high commitment, post=Constantinian, Christ-against-culture style Anglicanism for the 21st century.

[109] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 11-17-2008 at 07:38 AM • top

Dearest eaten_by_chipmunks #47

  Any chance of making yourself inaudible as well?

  (I’ll be better once I’ve finished my coffee, I promise)

[110] Posted by anglicanlutenist on 11-17-2008 at 07:55 AM • top

If this new innovation - this non-geographical Province - is truly of God, it will have out; meaning that it will be invited to be recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury as being truly part of the World Wide Anglican Communion - not just because it calls itself Anglican.

There are many, many miles to go before the invitations are in the mail for the 2018 Lambeth Conference. I am certainly willing to be proven wrong, but I seem to remember somewhere in GAFCON or the Jerusalem Declaration something about Canterbury not being the organizational focal point of this new creation.  Or, perhaps that was simply a statement by Bishop Akinola or an action taken by canon in his Province.

It will be an interesting journey - given the two major tensions which pull at the fabric of the Province:  (1) the relevancy of Canterbury, given the insistence on the name/brand “Anglican” and (2) the two major Evangelical/Anglo-Catholic theological polarizations in terms of the ordination of women to the priesthood and lay presidency at Holy Eucharist.

This is interesting because the ‘religious DNA’ of the leadership as well as the constituent membership of this embryonic province has not been known for its tolerance of diversity of thought - except, of course, with matters pertaining to homosexuality.

Bottom line:  The mood here is much like the mood on the Left aisle of the church - relief, blessed relief.  We’re all going to be much happier doing the work of the mission and ministry of Christ Jesus as we understand the Holy Scriptures. That has to be an indication of a good thing.

God’s abundant blessings on you all. 

(the Rev’d Dr.) Elizabeth Kaeton

[111] Posted by THATKindofChristian on 11-17-2008 at 08:02 AM • top

Am I correct in understanding that the measure of acceptance of the new church North American Province by the Primates Council of FoCA/GAFCON is agreement to the Jerusalem Declaration?  The Living Church article seemed to indicate that was the case.  If so, that includes the 39 Articles.  How will Anglo-Catholics live with this?

Emily, just FYI, the 39 Articles were written in the 16th Century.  We have “live with this” ever since.  We’ll manage.  Anglo Catholicism was made a canonical violation by TEC in 1997.  The majority of the HoB are on record that they will NEVER consent to an Anglo Catholic bishop in the future.  It seems to me that we are better off in a Province that respects us as opposed to one which is canonically committed to the destruction of our doctrine, liturgy and tradition.

[112] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-17-2008 at 08:03 AM • top

Will the new province be recognized by ++Rowan?.....
Would that be “Rowan the Irrelevant”?

[113] Posted by RalphM on 11-17-2008 at 08:03 AM • top

of course that should have been “lived with this” in 120, above.  Still one cup of coffee short this morning.

[114] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-17-2008 at 08:06 AM • top

This thread is an exercise in Trolldom. As is their want, and custom, Jessie and MP have come out from under the bridge and captured the thread by raising faux issues, using them to distract the faithfull. Their purpose is to cloud and bring disorder into the conversation and thus subvert the message of reform.

Congratulations boys. It has been a while since I have seen so excellent an application of Trollcraft. The joyous message of renewal and reform has been lost in the blizzard of off topic comments in support of the quaint custom of men lying with men as with women. You Go Jessie! Alternatively, our other champion of revisionist theology again raises the issue of who gets the real estate. For the hundredth time.

I took a few courses at Wheaton in the 50’s. Might be cool to run on up there to watch the show. I hear there might be one of those primitive wife abusing Africans there. You know the one. The guy with more Anglicans in one diocese than Miz Schori has in her entire organization. That one.

[115] Posted by teddy mak on 11-17-2008 at 08:08 AM • top

Hello Julia!
Hello Julia!
Hello Julia, Hello Julia!
Hello Juuuuuuu uul ia!

[116] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 11-17-2008 at 08:17 AM • top

#120 Tjmcmahon said:

The majority of the HoB are on record that they will NEVER consent to an Anglo Catholic bishop in the future

  By “Anglo-Catholic” can you tell me what you mean?  Are you referring to WO or to liturgical praxis or both?  And, on that definition, can you tell me your reference which substantiates the above statement?  I admit to being spiritually at home, so to speak, in a liturgy that might be seen as “anglo-catholic” (practice) vs., say Sydney which would be entirely alien to me.  that praxis springs from a sacramental theology that is of consequence to me.  By contrast, if your definition of “anglo-catholic” relates to WO, and the validity of women’s orders, that might spring from a definition of the “Anglo-Catholic” label coming from an ecclesiology that does accept women as priests.

[117] Posted by EmilyH on 11-17-2008 at 08:22 AM • top

teddy mak :

Agreed and Agreed.

The fact that trolls are angry and unhappy should be only another reason we should know this is a great thing and something which to be thanking Christ for and be a spirit of great thankfulness.

A friend of mine would call them ‘dementors’ - trying to suck the happiness from all the world.

Don’t let them - this is terrific news… smile

Duncan ROCKS!

[118] Posted by Eclipse on 11-17-2008 at 08:27 AM • top

1. There is NO constituency for lay presidency in the CCP…none…not even the most evangelicals among us wish to push that…sorry for those who wish us harm…that is simply not in the cards.

2. The WO issue, I think you will see, will be handled adeptly and to everyone’s satisfaction.

[119] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-17-2008 at 08:30 AM • top

The WO issue, I think you will see, will be handled adeptly and to everyone’s satisfaction.

Most of the opponents of WO in CCP have been able to put up with being a part of a church that ordains women for 30 years now.  This will not be a make or break issue.  For those individuals that it is a make or break issue, they can always join the St Louis Affirmation churches.

[120] Posted by AndrewA on 11-17-2008 at 08:35 AM • top

Praise God!
We’ve been waiting over five years for this kind of news.
Praise God!

[121] Posted by Fr. K on 11-17-2008 at 08:35 AM • top

Elizabeth K—Thank you for the generally irenic tone of your comment.

I am still trying to get the grammar of the following: “this embryonic province has not been known for its tolerance of diversity of thought - except, of course, with matters pertaining to homosexuality.” Did you mean to write “especially,” or “specifically”? It’s early and you or I may need a little more coffee.

On the first part: “this embryonic province has not been known for its tolerance of diversity of thought,” I must allow that this is a pastoral and evangelistic challenge. We must hold the ideal of starting with every sincere seeker exactly where they are and engaging in genuine listening and conversation as we seek to bring them and ourselves more into the Way of Christ.

This movement will, of course, hold the conviction of the church universal that biblical ethics sees God offering the divine blessing on the public committed union of a man and a woman in marriage.

[122] Posted by Gator on 11-17-2008 at 08:37 AM • top

#8, even from the earliest days of the church, penitence and reconciliation always preceded restoration to Christ and to His Church and sacraments.
We cannot follow the devices of our own hearts and desires without consequences.  God’s laws are entirely voluntary, but we break ourselves when we break them.  We can lie and deny our sin or come to Jesus who gives us power over sin. 

To deny the fact of sin and the need for the cross, blood, crucifixion/circumcision, ongoing sanctification of soul and body is to deny reality. 

We are restored and reconciled only through repentance with the love and support of Christ’s body.  When the body affirms sin, it is apostasy and a lie, an evil lie.  God-created human souls are damaged and lost.

[123] Posted by Theodora on 11-17-2008 at 08:38 AM • top

123 and 126, Y’all are right. I hope it all works out. It would be lovely to go to a church that has liturgy and sound theology and is actually run by Christians. I pray that such a thing may come to even the remotest, most backward areas of the United States, like San Francisco, or Chicago or even Chatham, New Jersey.

The Episcopal Church: Choosing our beneficiaries carefully in case those slobs actually join us.

[124] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 11-17-2008 at 08:38 AM • top

One more and then off to work: How can the Primates’ Meeting (and the Archbishop of C.) avoid addressing this development!

[125] Posted by Gator on 11-17-2008 at 08:47 AM • top

How can the Primates’ Meeting (and the Archbishop of C.) avoid addressing this development!

+++Rowan: “While this creates some difficulties, it is still possible that the Anglican Consultative Council and a newly composed Panel of Difficult Investigative Possibility for Synchronicity might well explore how this can contribute to the voices speaking into the shaping of an Anglican Covenant.”
Or there’s always Indaba.

[126] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 11-17-2008 at 08:54 AM • top

Thanks to Rev. Dr. Kaeton for a reasoned comment. She raises the geographical issue (border crossing, not contiguous etc. )and it must be addressed. We know of many examples of where this is approved, i.e. TEC Taiwan, TEC Native American Diocese, European Diocese, so it can be held that the new province is not really an innovation, but rather an application of an accepted practice on a much grander scale.

The issue of “brand name” Anglican could end up in the courts of course. I certainly hope not. It could be posed that it is the exclusive property of ABC, or the Primates, or the ACC, or none of the above. Many local jurisdictions have recorded Anglican names such as xxx Anglican Church and thus they may have prior claim if the Anglican powers that be may not have claimed it.

[127] Posted by teddy mak on 11-17-2008 at 08:59 AM • top

Mad Potter,

RE: “I just don’t see where being recognized by several provinces of the Anglican Church gets the new “province” much.”

Again, I don’t know what you mean.  What do you mean by “much”?  It seems to satisfy the people who are going to the new Anglican entity a whole lot.  They are thrilled that the Provinces with whom they agree will be recognizing them.

So for them, yes it is “much.”  For you, obviously not.  But for them, yes.

[128] Posted by Sarah on 11-17-2008 at 09:02 AM • top

I wonder when we started thinking of Christianity as “inclusive.”  I guess that is a new thing.

I believe the new province will mirror my personal experience with my new Anglican parish.  It is a relief to just finally decide that TEC changed the rules of the game (if you will, tho it is far from a game) and I don’t fit there anymore.  Therefore I left. I want a church that lives the lessons I was taught as a child.  I found one.  End of story.

I wish all those who do fit (into the new things) blessings (this includes my own sister) and hope they wish us the same. 

Finally, I would challenge anyone who feels the new church will be bigoted, “exclusive” and all those other nasty adjectives, to visit my parish where the joy of Christ shines out and I have yet to hear a word of criticism about those who believe differently.  You will find many colors and all manner of folk, every one of us a sinner.


[129] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 11-17-2008 at 09:02 AM • top

Fr. Tim,  You speak fluent Rowanese…where did you study, Oxford?

[130] Posted by Floridian on 11-17-2008 at 09:02 AM • top

The issue of “brand name” Anglican could end up in the courts of course.

Only if TEC is truly vindictive, and the case will get tossed out right away.  No one has the exclusive right to call themselves Anglican, Baptist, Reformed or whatever.  There are plenty of American churches using the words Episcopal and Anglican in their names other than TEC.

[131] Posted by AndrewA on 11-17-2008 at 09:04 AM • top

“Only if TEC is truly vindictive”

Why the “if”?

[132] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-17-2008 at 09:07 AM • top

#105 If there be no truth and truth cannot be attained how do you know what you say is not a lie as well as Jessie’s remarks?

Jesus say’s ” In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” 
Are you saying this is not true?  You argument sounds a bit like the Dan Brown’s.

Rev. David: As to the deaconess.  My BCP has only one ordination just as there is only one baptism and I cannot find any reference in any BCP from the 1559 forward including the 1662 that authorizes WO.  So I ask what is the difference in her ordination and that of those that will become priests (ess) or bishops (ess) in your eyes.  How will the new province deal with the argument that has progressed in England concerning women who were ordained as deaconesses and now will be Bishops, how if she decides she has been ‘called’ to this later will you prevent it? 

I have offered Scripture to demonstrate good faith here while making claims. Where can you point to Scripture to support this doctrine of women being ordained? Will Scripture be the last rule or will women’s ordination be a tradition that needs no scripture?
My use of “ess” is not meant to be an insult as I know it has caused friction and I do not wish to offend or to use a male pronoun to describe a women any more than I would address you as Mrs. Handy or Mother Handy.  In my view it is like surrendering the word ‘gay’ to those who are not gay at all but miserable.

Mary, I agree with you regarding Jessie’s pitiable estate but I have one question did you mean “Pharisees” when you mentioned priests?  Paul says “Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess” and “11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law” .  Jesus did not abolish the priesthood (he even sent the lepers to them for ritual cleansing).  He established a new order very clearly and like the homosexual issue that new order was never an issue until the 60’s and 70’s. That new order was and always has been male.

If we are to question Jessie and deny her desire to have pet mischaracterizations and innovations how is it we can have a pass on an innovation with no link to history or Scripture ( ordination of women) in the new province?

I think these questions must be answered or they will haunt us all for ever.  Orthodoxy can not be based on inconsistency, only on Holy Scripture and the Councils.

[133] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 09:11 AM • top

Sorry meant 1549.

[134] Posted by Just Wondering on 11-17-2008 at 09:12 AM • top

My mother in law taught me that by incessantly trying to explain yourself to those who are against you, at some point, you start to lose credibility. 
For the orthodox, this is joyous, good news.  For those against this, they will start and continue to ask questions, not to get answers, but to provide the seeds of doubt, fear, and anxiety.  “What about this, what about that?”, they ask continously. 
Don’t play the game with them.  Go forward, forward, forward!!

[135] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 11-17-2008 at 09:19 AM • top

Mad Potter,

RE: “I am asking a question, what church is the new province a province of.”

Right—the question that was answered way up in comment #57, but which answer you apparently didn’t like.

[136] Posted by Sarah on 11-17-2008 at 09:21 AM • top

Mad Potter is looking for someone to say this:
The New Province will either be recognized by Canterbury or not. The CCP’s who are forming this New Province will more than likely request through the proper channels the recognition. Give it time Mad Potter and when it does or doesn’t happen you can come back and either gloat that it didn’t or pose yet another well disguised question to the panel of SFIF!

[137] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 10:13 AM • top

Well, this answers my teasing question to Greg on the other thread, I’d say both men are pretty impeccable grin

[138] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-17-2008 at 10:19 AM • top

Interesting how my bias’ work against me on this thread with regard to the gender of the posters (when it is not clear).  I immediately upon reading Jessie’s comments assumed female.  Likewise with Mad Potter. 

Guess that means I’m a hopeless old bigot, but I find it kinda funny!


[139] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 11-17-2008 at 10:32 AM • top

Here we go, Bob Duncan leading other lemmings over the cliff after numerous attempts to besmirch the church he had vowed to respect and obey. Let’s be honest about this: this is a new denomination he is attempting to found and its prospects are dim.
St. Clement’s in El Paso, a very large church with two and a half blocks in downtown El Paso, which believed itself to be the herald of a new future, just as Bob Duncan believes himself to be, is down to 125 members attending on Sundays. I think people are getting tired of trying to sustain a Christian Church on vitriol.

[140] Posted by TBWSantaFe on 11-17-2008 at 10:33 AM • top

Here we go, Bob Duncan leading other lemmings over the cliff after numerous attempts to besmirch the church he had vowed to respect and obey.

I’m glad you used lower case “c” in church, that’s probably the problem, they believe their vows are capital case “C” Church and Rome spoke a few weeks before 8/5/03, ++Moscow cut fellowship with you but contact +Duncan about remaining in contact, many Evangelical Protestants have also expressed the same, thus it seems your the lemmings ignoring the invisible magisterium who is all in one voice saying one thing and what it means to be faithful to the faith once received meanwhile you’al are off doing your “new thing” which was not known to the Church throughout the ages.

I’m glad you we honest with the lower case. Have fun on your free fall down, that last bit can be a real _____.

[141] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-17-2008 at 10:41 AM • top

I can confirm that the December 3 worship service is scheduled to take place in Edman Chapel on the Wheaton College campus.  The campus scheduling system shows that Edman is reserved that evening for “Gafcon launch.”

[142] Posted by DuPage Anglican on 11-17-2008 at 10:48 AM • top

Tom Woodward—Your troll-side got the best of you. Please consult E. Kaeton’s comment for a more constructive tone.

I make a motion that we leave TBWSantaFe to stew in his own juice.

[143] Posted by Gator on 11-17-2008 at 10:49 AM • top

Of course for some of us Mad Potter this is just the hope of a beginning of something a Whole lot bigger prayerfully! That would be a new See as many of us see Canterbury and the ABofC totally irrelevant and being even yoked to him and his apostate See is just as bad as being yoked to TEC or ACofC! But that maybe a pipe dream for many of us! Only God knows and time will tell the tale!

[144] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 10:53 AM • top

Mike Bertaut (83), thank you for expressing this so well.

[145] Posted by oscewicee on 11-17-2008 at 10:54 AM • top

No, we are ashamed of having been part of a so-called “Church” whose Presiding Bishop is (1) a pretend bishop (2) has openly stated on more than one occasion that “there is more than one way to God than through Jesus Christ,” when He so clearly said “I am THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life.  No man cometh unto the Father except through Me.  He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father.”  What part of that does she not understand?  (3) She has not hesitated to persecuted EVERYONE who openly disagrees with her (4) She has assumed powers not specifically granted to her by General General Convention, and (5) She has sought to undermind every attempt to reform The Episcopal Church by permitting open and honest criticism and debate by faithful orthodox Anglican laypersons and clergy.  She has openly acted….via her friends in the House of Bishops….to depose some of the most highly internationally respected, gifted and honored bishops of Christ’s Church, and has shown absolutely NO compassion for those whose careers she has destroyed.  Now, you will say that it is they who have destroyed their own careers, I’m sure.  Not true, and you know it!

And she did all of this for no other reason than that of a woman who is bent on assuming dictatorial power over her underlings.  She has clearly demonstrated that she will stop at nothing in manipulating those with whom she comes into contact, and she has proven that by maneuvering the Anglican Consultative Council in such a way as to control them via the dollars which TEC sends them to allow them to function.

[146] Posted by Cennydd on 11-17-2008 at 10:54 AM • top

My last post was aimed at TBWSanta Fe

[147] Posted by Cennydd on 11-17-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

I think people are getting tired of trying to sustain a Christian Church on vitriol.

Speaking from personal experience?

[148] Posted by oscewicee on 11-17-2008 at 10:56 AM • top

I have just come into this thread at around 150 comments and therefore have only read a portion of them.  The creation of a new Province has certainly touched a raw nerve of the reappraisers.  The vitriol from the reappaisers has been quite intense.  They know they cannot survive without a captive audience that has their perverse ideas forced upon it.  Be forwarned that every nasty trick will be brought out by the reappaisers (and the Father of Lies) to prevent the creation of the new Province.  I thank God that this new Province is being formed and pray for all that my prognostication is not fulfilled.

[149] Posted by BillB on 11-17-2008 at 11:22 AM • top

Bill, our new province is being created right now, and there isn’t a thing anyone can do to stop us.  Not Canterbury, not TEC, not anyone.  They might as well get used to the idea.  We are not going to go away, and we ARE going to continue to do Christ’s work!

[150] Posted by Cennydd on 11-17-2008 at 11:27 AM • top

Let me ask a question. Lets say there were a group of people that formed a “new province” in the AC.  For the first few years, it struggled from a size standpoint. 

The orthodox attended, and became better Christians, and carried the torch forward for Christs body.  In fact, some parishes even had the wherewithal to build some church buildings in the traditional architecture of the Anglican church.

The services looked, felt, sounded, like traditional orthodox Anglican services.  People were christened there, married there, buried there. Same hymns, liturgy, etc… 

Over time it grew, in spite of the fact that in the beginning the official AC did not recognize it.  Finally, after some time, Canterbury recognized it, due to the fact that it was growing, and was deemed to be a worthy member of the Communion.

The question:  Would this new province that looked, felt, sounded like traditional Anglicanism be ok with most folks on this site, given that for awhile it was not recognized by Canterbury? 

Forgive this question if it seems too dumb.  I am not that knowledgeable about the formalities of church law and rules. Just would like to know.

[151] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 11-17-2008 at 11:44 AM • top

To Poster #8,
Greetings in Jesus. 
Your accusatory remarks against the new north american anglican province are unfounded. This inflamatory attitude that you have against the new province in embellishing in exclusion and discrimination is spurious indeed.
[Points finger at him.] God is a ruler filled with love and mercy.  But He is also a just father of us all.  If you are a human father then you know you have to keep your children in line with tough love and discipline.  Like any human father you give the children a set of rules to follow which helps them to grow into mature adults on all aspects of their life.  When a human child misbehaves then that father must correct and punish out of TOUGH love. If a human father does not correct the child out of tough love to keep them in line with discipline then the child grows up to be selfish, narrow minded bigot and spoiled.
God is a father of tough love.  He does still love the child.  But He does not love the sinful actions that man does.  God must have His church brought back in line with tough love.  It has to be exclusion on the point that you can not have UNREPENTANT sinners running any aspect of it. 
An unrepentant sinner is of the devil. As long as that sinner does not repent then his human body is a temple of Mephistohpeles.  Only when that sinner repents of his actions in their heart does The Holy Ghost come in to dwell their.  The Holy Ghost can not dwell in a stinky soul.
If you have a stinky sock that has not been washed in a week it gets very ripe.  You do not want to go anywhere near it.  If you wash it to make it clean then it becomes acceptable to the human nose once again.
That above is how God operates concerning sin.  You can not have children who refuse to repent of their sin within the confines of the church.  God would NOT be god at all if He were to leave the unrepentant sinners in their church handling any issue.
In the parable of the wedding feast the king throws out the unrepentant sinner who had snuck in in sheeps clothing into the night where there is grumbling and gnashing of teeth. Until a sinner repents so they can follow Jesus for eternity, then there is no place for that person at the Lord’s table, period.  There is no ifs, ands or butts.  The infallible Sacred Scriptures explicity sets down the ground rules for this.
You and the rest of the “soft” church want to have an all inclusive sweet Jesus based upon the theology of the New Age paganism. You want a god who is spineless.  You want a god who is a genie in a bottle that will rubber stamp every wish.  You want a god who is one sided on all issues so not to offend.
God is NOT this way at all.  GOD loves us all.  You can not have a loving father without having the tough love.  You can not have God as your saviour for eternity without expecting to be under His rules.
You and the rest do not want to be held accountable to God for the sins that you have done.  You want to have the dessert without having to pay for it.

[152] Posted by BishopOfSaintJames on 11-17-2008 at 11:54 AM • top

#163 Nice try, but many of us have given up, years ago, to get any cooncessions from poster # 8 as to the truth of the things of which you have written.

[153] Posted by aacswfl1 on 11-17-2008 at 12:06 PM • top

You want to have the dessert without having to pay for it.

Someone Else paid for it, Stonewall.  All the more reason for us to strive to follow His teachings.

[154] Posted by oscewicee on 11-17-2008 at 12:16 PM • top

#162 - sometimes the simplest questions are the most profound.  Your question is a very good one.  Thank you for asking it. 

There is, however, no way of answering the question with any certainty because doing so requires supposition and prediction. I have some thoughts…but I look forward to hearing others answer it.

Based on experience and observation - knowledge of the players over time - we cannot suppose that the current ABC will act with fairness or integrity or anything but grievous deference to TEC.  At best, we may hope for his soul’s sake that he is trying to give TEC every opportunity to repent…but the fact remains, RW has not come out and asked them to repent.  He has allowed them to recant their agreement at Dar Es Salaam without consequences.  He has lied and said they were Windsor compliant and they are most certainly not.  He has allowed them to sue orthodox congregations without speaking out.  He has ordained homosexuals.  One must conclude that RW is no friend of traditional Scriptural ecclesiology, Christology or sexual purity.

For the Inside strategists, the best hope is probably for a changing of the guard…a different and more orthodox ABC.  If they are hoping RW will change his spots, let’s hope they are fasting and praying diligently, fervently, loudly, persistently, unceasingly.  (Matthew 7:7-8; Luke 11:5-10)

As for repentance by TEC and the other offenders…the same exercise of fasting and importunity is the most likely to bring results since the battle is a spiritual one and the Word has been preached, pleaded, presented thoroughly without result.  Sometimes it is best to turn an account over to the Judge and His Court for collection and release the matter to Him.

[155] Posted by Floridian on 11-17-2008 at 12:30 PM • top

If this new innovation - this non-geographical Province - is truly of God, it will have out; meaning that it will be invited to be recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury as being truly part of the World Wide Anglican Communion - not just because it calls itself Anglican.

My, my, Ms. Keaton+, you have elevated Rowan Williams to the status of God’s deputy, to decree whether APNA is truly of God or not!  The man avoids making ANY decisions or taking any definite positions on any issue like the plague, preferring to coat them with thick layers of sticky indaba, which has the added effect of gluing irreconcilable parties to the table at meeting after meaningless, ineffectual delaying meeting.

The truth is that APNA will prosper if it is from God regardless of recognition or inclusion from ABC, you, or anyone else in the 2018 English garden party, if it occurs at all, having finally retired the debt racked up by the 2008 edition.  But enjoy the buttered scones!

[156] Posted by Milton on 11-17-2008 at 12:43 PM • top

My answer to the question is based on my 8+ years of being an inside activist.  I have begun to question why being a member of the AC as presently constituted actually matters.  In the past 5 years the AC has proven to be amorphous at best in matters of faith and structure.  This has to be altered. I believe those going forward with the new province want that to be different, but have no confidence it will ever change, at least under the present leadership, and with the growing influence of the Anglican Consultative Council as an instrument of unity.  My guess is, and I think it was mentioned by +Iker, the leadership of the new province aren’t concerned IF the new structure will not be recognized by the ABofC.  They would like it to be, but will press on if not.  There is a large possibility of further AC re-structuring if the proposed Covenant does not address GAFCON principles, which presently it does not, IMO.  If the communion fails blame will likely be laid at the feet of those now moving forward, as I see some of that tone in the comments in the two major threads debating this here.  However, that will be unjust and unfactual. If the communion fails as it might, then it has its own amorphous nature and belief structure to blame.  In the end there can be no real unity in diversity, as that phrase is presently being used.  Diversity of cutural circumstances affecting delivery of the gospel does not mean diversity in the gospel message itself.

[157] Posted by aacswfl1 on 11-17-2008 at 12:55 PM • top

Who had who over to their home recently?


[158] Posted by BabyBlue on 11-17-2008 at 12:59 PM • top

The new Anglican Province of North America will not have to be recognized by ++Rowan Williams in order to be an Anglican province; we will be recognized by the Primates, and that is what will really matter.  His recognition or non-recognition would be immaterial.

[159] Posted by Cennydd on 11-17-2008 at 01:18 PM • top

bb: do tell us please!

#168- aacswfl wrote: “I have begun to question why being a member of the AC as presently constituted actually matters.  In the past 5 years the AC has proven to be amorphous at best in matters of faith and structure.”

A few months ago, Dr. Mabuse quoted Chesterton re: the ancient Anglican art of holding contradictory ‘truths’ (alias lies) in tension.  Perhaps that’s why GK skedaddled over to Rome.

Then a little while later, The Anglican Curmudgeon told us about the very first Lambeth…the same scenario!  Wheeling, dealing, ganging up, lies, lawlessness…nothing new among today’s Anglican institutionalists and officials that wasn’t present in the very beginning of the Lambeth Conference/charade.

Lent and Beyond laid out the history of Anglicanism in a number of chapters - hard to read about these the bloody, vile, conniving men.  At least today, they only lie, cheat and connive…do not do murder on the altar of Cathedrals…just in the wombs of women…or rent and desecrate the altar for a party for a person who has overtly expressed his contempt for God.

That God has managed to work around these skalawags and their scandalous doings, their petty play-acting, pretensiousness, presumption, and their institution to lay a firm foundation of faith in the Global South is nothing short of miraculous. 

And that He is allowing (some) Anglicans to repent and regroup is an occasion for celebration and thanksgiving.

[160] Posted by Floridian on 11-17-2008 at 01:27 PM • top

#169 I must have missed that.

[161] Posted by aacswfl1 on 11-17-2008 at 01:30 PM • top

I attended a lecture by Dr Tim Keller a few weeks ago, where he spoke of his new book, The Prodigal God, which deals with the heart of the Gospel from the parable of the Prodigal Son.

He made a very penetrating point: in his ministry in New York City, he has encountered many “prodigal sons” (and daughters) whose perception of the Christian faith (either from their growing up days, or by observation) has been that a call to be a Christian is a call to become like the elder brother - punctiliously obedient to all the commands of God, and sanctimoniously superior.

The truth of the matter is of course that the elder brother was also a sinner, every bit as bad as the younger brother.  He remained physically close to his father - but his heart was far from him.  He obeyed out of fear and out of the conviction that his father would owe him what he wanted because he had been so obedient.  He was engaged in self-salvation, through a cold-blooded, tit-for-tat observation of his father’s commands.

The younger son had also been engaged in self-salvation, not by obedience, but by self-discovery, self-indulgence, and self-will.  As long as he had money, he was able to maintain his “salvation.”  but then he ran out of resources.  He returned home, hoping to be allowed to re-enter the household simply as a hired hand (as he had been in the foreign land, except with better pay).  He was met, however, with grace, and welcomed home not as a servant but as a son (the robe, the ring, and the shoes were all signs of sonship).

Reappraisers, repelled (understandably so) by the elder son’s self-righteousness, see the welcome as inclusive grace. All are welcomed to the Father’s house; he accepts us just as we are.  Reappraisers, of course, generally regard Scripture as a collection of human reflections upon the divine; we are free to look at the various pictures of God and choose the ones that seem most helpful and elevating.  They too are engaged in self-salvation, through self-discovery and by being true to whatever they believe is their true self.  They do not believe the Bible to be written by the Holy Spirit through a variety of human authors, and so they do not see the need to have a consistent reading of the whole of Scripture, where Scripture interprets Scripture.

Not understanding the biblical idea of grace, they mistake license for liberty.  They seek above all to escape “elder-brotherness.”

We who know Scripture to be God-breathed and authoritative need to be clear that salvation is not from the self, but rather from the Lord.  We must be clear that we who know God’s true grace know it either as mercy to “failed Pharisees” who have repented of legalism and who know they cannot save themselves, or as “returned prodigals,” repentant of their drive for independence and willing to live obediently to the Father because we know the goodness and the wisdom of his instructions.

Grace is not a blanket pardon offered to all without a need to recognize one’s rebellion and defiance of the living God - grace is God’s costly mercy, wherein he gave his Son to represent us and to suffer the death our rebellion against the Father deserves - a rebellion that may be cold-blooded (as in the elder brother) or hot-blooded (as in the younger brother), but is still a distancing of oneself from God and attempt to use him, rather than to know him as he is.

The formation of a new province in North America is aimed at establishing an Anglican presence that will fully present the unchanging Gospel, as represented in the parable of the Prodigal Son.  The current leader of the Episcopal church views Anglicanism simply as a matter of historical descent and of a particular polity.  We of the Network know that to be Anglican requires not only historical connection, but a continuity of the Apostolic Gospel.  We have been presented with a choice - to allow that those who deny the Apostolic Gospel are still somehow members of the same faith and so remain acceptable to TEc, or to uphold the Apostolic Gospel and ask the Reappraisers to reappraise their own stands in the light of Scripture as the words of God.

[162] Posted by AnglicanXn on 11-17-2008 at 01:39 PM • top

The Episcopalian problem is that they are in a similar position to someone who has a Dunkin Donuts franchise in a small town. People are watching their weight, so they are eating less of his donuts. Now one of his donut makers is opening a Krispy Kreme store down the street.

He’s not convinced of his long term viability and he’s worried the new store will steal some of his customers.

Our advantage over that viewpoint is that we don’t see Christianity as a commodity. Nor do we see Jesus as a luxury item. For us, He is a necessity.

Placing your hands over your ears and saying “la la la” is not liturgical chant.

[163] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 11-17-2008 at 01:53 PM • top

For me, a church that did its’ best to worship in the traditional Anglican way, would be sufficient, whether or not the AC, or the ABC recognized the structure.

It seems that it would be for others on the site as well.

If it were ok for most orthodox, we could start focusing on the future and positive developements, and trying our best to do the things Christ would have us do.

I long for that day, as interminable arguments between opposing groups seems a recipe for defeat.  It just devolves into nasty name calling, and everyone being less than their best self.  The world sees that and makes note as to how the Christians all hate each other.  It’s hard enough to be your best self in this world without that going on.

[164] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 11-17-2008 at 02:38 PM • top

RE: “The Anglican Churches of several provinces of the Anglican Communion” is not at this time a church that has provinces.”

I’m not certain I understand, Mad Potter.  Are you saying that provinces of the Anglican Communion are not “churches”?  I see each province as a church.  And it’s clear that certain churches—provinces—will be recognizing an Anglican entity as a fellow province.

Now, clearly, the Anglican Communion is not recognizing that Anglican entity as a fellow province.  But certain provinces of the Anglican Communion *are* recognizing this new Anglican entity as a fellow province—and that’s good enough for this new Anglican entity.

All this does, from an ecclesial standpoint is *add* a new entity with which certain Anglican provinces will be in communion, as they have not been in communion with TEC as a whole.

[165] Posted by Sarah on 11-17-2008 at 02:55 PM • top

Looks like Bill Fleener, Jr. is at it again….

I have written about the articles of incorporation of the Diocese of Fort
Worth at <>

I found maybe the most ironic statement ever to be contained in such a

Believe it or not the diocese of Fort Worth is prohibited in its articles of
incorporation from “carrying on propaganda”  Specifically
“No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be the
carrying on of propaganda. . . “

As far as I can tell they have done little else related to the National
Church and its leaders.

Bill Fleener, Jr.
L1 W. MI

[166] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 04:06 PM • top

I see this thread has brought out all the usual/unusual trolls spouting all the usual slanders.  Caeton glides by like the Lady of the Green Kirtle, poison-toothed and smooth.  Bruce babbles.  “Eaten-by-chipmunks” is self-explanatory.  As a result, most of the thread is highjacked not only by the trolls but by those feeding the trolls.From the communion of Eastern Orthodoxy, let me congratulate those who will be joining/forming the new Anglican Province.  Do not be distracted by those asking rhetorical questions when they mean to offer their opinion only that it is impossible.  You have a great mission territory before you.  I hope you learn by the failure of the General Convention Church and institute significant and prolonged catechuminal training for those seeking the faith and those innoculated against it by false teachers.  “Open Communion” for all baptized means communion with heretics. “Open Communion” signaled the undoing of The Episcopal Church.  Wise up lest the fifth columnists that took over TEC and stole your church buildings, seminaries and convention just keep coming.  They are implacable enemies of Christ though they are nutured by Christ and His Church.  Learn from the destruction of TEC ... study the methods used and set about defining an organizational structure that is defined by faithfulness to the Gospel rather than institutionalism.  The Church, qua Church, serves God first.  It is not merely for and of service to the world…especially on the world’s terms. Never forget we are a pilgrim church: we do not worship life ... we seek Life Eternal.  Although this life is shot through with the eternal, it is not our destination.  Our destination is the Kingdom of Heaven.  Follow Christ.  This is foolishness to unbelievers and so it is foolishness now for the leadership of TEC.  True unity is a gift from God ... it cannot be legislated; therefore, seek faithfulness to the Gospel first of all in every place of worship and human organizational unity will follow.  If the Laos does not receive false rulings by conventions and cacaphonies, they come to nothing.  Be in communion with faithful bishops who bear witness to the apostolic vision but have nothing to do with false teachers who deny that Jesus is Lord of all.

[167] Posted by monologistos on 11-17-2008 at 05:47 PM • top

Congratulations!!!  Don’t look back no matter how much mud is being slung at you.  Remember the liberal agenda used you as a major part of the validation of their new Gospels.  As long as you where in their midst they could always say but look we have conservatives and they are beholden to us?  Now you no longer live to validate them but to serve Christ.  So as you can see they attempt to follow you and sling mud but it only serves to further show their need for validation in light of their practices.

Be a city on the hill!!  Don’t look back to Egypt.


[168] Posted by observer on 11-17-2008 at 05:53 PM • top

It seems worth pointing out that the potential difficulty of lay presidency in Australia is not an immediate problem for a Province of North America.  Different continents.  A faithful witness in North America combined with the GAFCON witness and Jerusalem Declaration can only contribute positively to the coherence of the Anglican Communion.  It is TEC’s example most of all which bears witness to faithlessness, disunity, and malfeasance.

[169] Posted by monologistos on 11-17-2008 at 05:56 PM • top

FWIW, you can make leek soup anywhere and I bet it will taste better under the yoke of Christ than the yokes of Marx and utilitarianism.

Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars…”

“I will not forget thy word. Amen.”  -Psalm 119:16

[170] Posted by monologistos on 11-17-2008 at 06:05 PM • top

I agree monologistos, except one thing, Christ bore our burden, and is there with us still, with each new travail, though we might not be aware of it.

Christ is freedom, our world would have been all the bleaker were it not for Him.

[171] Posted by mari on 11-17-2008 at 06:18 PM • top

[159] oscewicee,

I wouldn’t attribute much vitriol to TBWSantaFe. He seems to suffer more from irrationality, inconsistency and the occasional dash of cluelessness. But I really haven’t seen any vitriol. Also, like all good progressives, he does seem to evidence a certain degree of overconfidence in his own opinions, as he believes they relate to objective truth.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[172] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 11-17-2008 at 06:20 PM • top

We love Duncan yes we do!
We love Duncan how about you!

Woo Hoo!  We are so glad this time is finally here!

Yipee!  I am sorry it has made so many revisionists sad - but, their sorrow and anger should display to all concerned how amazing this news is!

Thanks for sharing Trollobites!  smile

[173] Posted by Eclipse on 11-17-2008 at 06:32 PM • top

In the world of Trollobites there wanteth not sin -
but those who refrain from feeding them are wise…

[174] Posted by Eclipse on 11-17-2008 at 06:34 PM • top

There once was a bishop from Canterbury
Who was late for a meeting and had to hurry
  “I can’t miss the talk!”
  But then he did balk,
When they asked him to settle a controversy.

[175] Posted by dbonneville on 11-17-2008 at 06:39 PM • top

The proper response to trolls, as any good Anglican should know without being told is to “send them to Coventry.” This does not even require any effort on the part of the commenatrix or the elves to accomplish. Just “send the malefactors to Coventry,” i.e., ignore their comments.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[176] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 11-17-2008 at 06:43 PM • top

Out of the West come thundering hoof beats….It’s the Seer of Santa FE and his faithfull companion Pronto!!! Ol’ TW is nothing if not predictable.  What he cares about is titles to real estate, trust funds, boxes of crayons in the church school rooms. Money. Stuff. That case of toilet paper in the supply closet. TW is worried that Jefferts Schori might not get her hands on it.

Ok Tom. Just for you. Kate, the key to the supply closet is on under the potted plant by the piano in the common room. Next to the case of ‘28 Prayer Books to be be burned in your mandated Krystalknacht celebration.

[177] Posted by teddy mak on 11-17-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

Martial Artist, sorry to have required reminding. :-(

[178] Posted by oscewicee on 11-17-2008 at 07:07 PM • top

Like any new republic - recognition takes time - the CCP seems to be growing by leaps and bounds - if 100,000 ASA is accurate then it is already 1/10th the size of TEC.  The reality of Episcopal Bishops having left TEC, a cohesive structure in place for Church planting, all point to signs of growth.  TEC only faces continued decline - competition from the new province, the grave, and the fact that it attracts those who reproduce in small numbers or not at all - do not portend a bright and everlasting future.  The next archbishop of Canterbury will probably be appointed by a Conservative Prime Minister if Labour’s abysmal poll numbers are accurate.  It will be interesting to see how people vote with their feet once there is a viable competitor to TEC in most major and many not so major cities - the continuing churches were too small and fragmented.  It will be real interesting to see what happens after GC2009 and its inovations - I think Gay marriage will probably sink TEC - and if they do not authorize gay marriage the left will feel betrayed.

[179] Posted by chips on 11-17-2008 at 07:28 PM • top

It seems worth pointing out that the potential difficulty of lay presidency in Australia is not an immediate problem for a Province of North America.

As much as the progressive wing wants to make this “our” problem, it is really a Communion issue.  It is also something that at least officially, is not condoned even in Sydney- it is a request of the clergy and laity to the Archbishop.
IF Sydney goes ahead with it, as TEC has with communion of the unbaptized (a comparable issue, from the perspective of this particular Anglo Catholic), then I am sure we will hear in 5 or 10 years that a commission has been formed to study the issue, and the commission will listen to the lay presiders and their supporters for a decade or 2.  Which will be followed by a report, and perhaps some non-ordained, non-consecrated bishop will not be invited to Lambeth 2028 or 2038.

[180] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-17-2008 at 07:30 PM • top

We love you Duncan…
oh yes we do…
He holds Scripture True!
Oh, troll dementors,
we pity you!
Bob Duncan’s got a clue.

(From bye bye Birdie - now known as Bye, Bye Shori - playing in thousands of parishes nationwide)

[181] Posted by Eclipse on 11-17-2008 at 09:12 PM • top

Rowan Williams sees the Anglican Communion as a Church, which was yet another comment that upset the TEC reps at the Lambeth 2008 Press Conference. You can see the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments here.


[182] Posted by BabyBlue on 11-17-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

MP, I purposively didn’t include you in my short list of trolls.  I do think that if you have an opinion on definitions, you might have started with #193 rather than playing coy and repeatedly asking the same question as if it was a question.  What you have offered is an opinion on a definition.  I have no investment in the answer personally but I would suggest it could be understood as a province that will hold a variety of churches ... evangelical, anglo-catholic, REC, Canadian, etc… each maintaining it’s unique character.  It does seem to me that a common liturgy would greatly assist with unity at the level of worship ... which is both the base and apex of unity (lex orandi, lex credendi).

[183] Posted by monologistos on 11-17-2008 at 10:14 PM • top

Regarding troll poopoo, MP, we are back to definitions.  Perhaps you could simply share your opinion on the definition of trolls rather than start a new mini-series.  It seems to me that when someone drops by a list where there is both an ongoing theme and ongoing community, without engaging on a regular basis in the life of that community or identifying with its goals, hopes, dreams ... in order to naysay, badger and heckle ... and then disappears into the woodwork ... you have a pretty good description of your liberal buddies who bestowed their opinions in this thread.  I think trolling has less to do with lurking under bridges with a snarky attitude and more to do with a kind of fishing that draws others to the bait.  Your question on provinces comes close.  I think all of us, myself included, are capable of trolling (or just misbehaving a bit) from time to time.  smile

[184] Posted by monologistos on 11-17-2008 at 10:22 PM • top

by monologistos: “ could be understood as a province that will hold a variety of churches ... evangelical, anglo-catholic, REC, Canadian, etc… each maintaining it’s unique character.  It does seem to me that a common liturgy would greatly assist with unity at the level of worship ... which is both the base and apex of unity (lex orandi, lex credendi).”

If that ‘common liturgy’ could be be the BCP 1662 (modified to allow a rite for WO, and with provision made for the US (sadly) lacking a Royal Family), with a ‘modern English & French’ ‘alternative wording’, it would be a rather glorious thing in my eyes.

[185] Posted by Bo on 11-17-2008 at 10:32 PM • top

Mad Potter [198]

It is not an easy thing to define Anglicanism.  This thesis goes a good way toward defining it, but it is a long read, and will cost you $10.

If it were a short (and univocal) answer, it would have been posted here by now.

Yours truly,
Hot Rod Anglican

[186] Posted by Anglican Beach Party on 11-17-2008 at 10:49 PM • top

Mad Potter [200]

I can easily give you a few sentences defining Anglicanism.

But in the same message, I can give you (ahead of time) the refutation, as well as naming the sub-variety of Anglican who will give it.

Can you link to (or reprint here) your suggested working definition(s) of Anglicanism?

Hot Rod Anglican

[187] Posted by Anglican Beach Party on 11-17-2008 at 10:58 PM • top

“There is a ball game to watch…talk tomorrow.”

Even if he drives you up the wall, you have to admit that our Mad Potter has his priorities straight!

[188] Posted by robroy on 11-17-2008 at 11:20 PM • top

If you really want a working definition of Anglicanism, send a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  He probably won’t reply himself (his mailbag is rather full these days), but the good Canon Norman or someone else at Lambeth will get back to you in a couple weeks. Sent me the all the responses to the JSC report back after NO (now that I reflect on it, that was the prototype for Lambeth Indaba reflections), along with a very polite letter. Wonderful thing about the British, they still take correspondence seriously. And very fine stationary, suitable for framing, “Lambeth Palace” in large letters. You might incorporate the logo into some of your altar ware. Don’t always tell you what you want to hear, but terribly good about writing back.  Much better than American bishops.

[189] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-17-2008 at 11:20 PM • top

Oh for pete’s sake, Tom Woodward

Here we go, Bob Duncan leading other lemmings over the cliff

Don’t you know that lemmings do NOT jump over cliffs?

Gullibility Test - Science and Nature Answers

Please scroll down to the sixth answer.

Your intimation about Bishop Duncan is equally fallacious.

Patricia Hammell Kashtock
Take It for What It’s Worth

[190] Posted by Pat Kashtock on 11-17-2008 at 11:26 PM • top

An⋅gli⋅can⋅ism   /ˈæŋglɪkəˌnɪzəm/
Show Spelled Pronunciation [ang-gli-kuh-niz-uhm]

1.  A three-legged stool which is constantly off-plumb.  A plumb condition is achieved by alternately shaving off bits of each leg, and sometimes the floorboards.  (See article on Japanese Dining)

2.  A worldwide Christian communion thought to be superior in ecclesiology, theology, and charity over and against other Christian traditions (e.g., Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other sorts of fundamentalists, including Appalachian Snake Handlers), per many Anglicans. 

3.  A worldwide Christian communion looked down upon by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Appalachian Snake Handlers:  “Mommy, Mommy, I don’t wanna sit through a 10-minute sermon.  Shut up and be thankful that we’re not part of that Anglicanism.”

4.  The muse of Rodney-King-ism.  Can’t we all just get along? 

5.  (Medicine)  A condition of the olfactory organs whereby foul odors cannot be detected.  Often associated with overuse of wax-noses, especially in clown-like liturgies. 

6.  (Psychiatry)  A condition characterized by contradictory vacuous statements; sometimes mis-diagnosed as schizophrenia, Turret’s Syndrome, catatonia, and / or autism. 

7.  (Linguistics)  Initiating a drawn-out conversation for the sole purpose of trying to convince the hearer that both parties are on the same page, when both know that such is not the case.  The conversation is often compared to sexual intimacy (and no, we’re not making this up). 

8.  (Law)  A pernicious legal quandary whereby an imploding corporation sometimes owns property, and sometimes does not, depending on the laws of the state government. 

9.  (Zen Buddhism)  Lamented emissions and emitted lamentations.

[191] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-18-2008 at 12:44 AM • top

Bulletin! Finally a regular at Stand Firm agrees with me, ++Katharine Jefferts Schori and an overwhelming majority of diocesan chancellors on property. Who is it? It is Jack Iker who filed an affidavit with a court (when one of his congregations was leaving the diocese) that the congregation could not take the property because IT WAS HELD IN TRUST FOR THE DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH WHICH HELD IT IN TRUST FOR ITS REAL OWNER, THE NATIONAL CHURCH!  I’m touched.

Patricia—I have probably known Bob Duncan longer than all but one or two who visit Stand Firm on a regular basis.  Mostly now I agree with his wife who said recently that Bob watches too many reruns of “Braveheart.”

[192] Posted by TBWSantaFe on 11-18-2008 at 01:02 AM • top

Is the 207 public domain?

[193] Posted by Bo on 11-18-2008 at 01:54 AM • top

Mad Potter [202] wrote:

Anglican, A church with historical ties to the Church of England with a worship based on a common liturgy based on the BCP of 1662.

I would add a single word:

Anglican, A Christian church with historical ties to the Church of England with a worship based on a common liturgy based on the BCP of 1662.

The thing is, I would define Christian tightly enough to exclude TEc.  I do think a church needs to be Christian before it can be called Anglican.  In other words, possessing merely the form of godliness is not enough.  It must have actual godliness.

[194] Posted by Anglican Beach Party on 11-18-2008 at 06:31 AM • top


Thank you for your fine contribution to my wiktionary page.  I couldn’t have come up with a finer supplement to my entry, if I thought about the matter for a couple hundred years. 


Of course it is, my friend.  However, it goes without saying (though I’ll say it anyway) that credit should go where credit is due, in situations where the elusive Much-Beribboned Bottom-Feeder Award is at stake.

[195] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-18-2008 at 06:36 AM • top

#176 Sarah said: “

All this does, from an ecclesial standpoint is *add* a new entity with which certain Anglican provinces will be in communion, as they have not been in communion with TEC as a whole.”

  I would agree, in part.  Given the assumption that each of the provinces is an independent church and “the new province” is an independent church, it simply adds a new church to the mix.  Many of the GS churches do not recognize TEC.  And many other churches who are members of the communion will not recognize the new church.  The question is what is the “communion”, a loose federation such as the U.N. is of nations, or something greater.  ++Williams would seem to wish it to be, in fact, a “church” but neither the GS right or the TEC left would wish thid so.  The GS subscribers to the Road to Lambeth clearly do not see the “communion” as leading through Lambeth, and, if there is to be one, it is to be based in the GS (and now I would submit), the Jerusalem Declaration.  So, if the “left” will value Canterbury and the “right” not, what instruments of communion will the middle value?  Dromantine and Dar reflected a “Primates” led communion and the effort to pack the ACC with primates was a similar attempt to give weight to this group.  Lambeth indicated how +Cantuar will lead; Dar and Dromantine “primatial” leadership…from the GS and its North American missionaries.  Ultimately, the question of unity itself is important.  Is this a value, and if so, to whom? and, if it it of value what will be its instruments of unity and on what basis will they lead?  Sarah seems to have rightly pointed out that the “much” is in the eye of the beholder and the “much” may be enough.

[196] Posted by EmilyH on 11-18-2008 at 07:20 AM • top


RE: “++Williams would seem to wish it to be, in fact, a “church” but neither the GS right or the TEC left would wish thid so.”

Actually I think the GS right would be happy for the AC to be a church—but TEC is a part of the AC right now, so . . . . ; > )

[197] Posted by Sarah on 11-18-2008 at 08:29 AM • top

I think the GS could be happy either way, as long as they had representation in proportion to the number of people in their pews.  Although, if they used TEC as the standard, it would be something of a burden for Nigeria to send 30 members to every ACC meeting, and 1000+ bishops to Lambeth.

[198] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-18-2008 at 08:35 AM • top

Pat Kashtock - Pretty hysterical!


[199] Posted by Eclipse on 11-18-2008 at 08:35 AM • top

#213.  Sarah,  I believe that you may be correct, but only a church under their leadership and their confessional control.  And, at this point, that is not happening.  The far right of the GS has adopted its own initiatives in terms of polity, as TEC has in terms of theology.  Both are “threats” if you will to tne communion.  One might not wish it to be so, (as theology might best trump polity in an ecclesial circumstance), but, from a primate’s perspective, I suggest, the GS core and its north american allies/missions is far more of a threat than biblical hermeneutics and their results, Gene Robinson in an obscre diocese in US or a blessing of same-sex couples in Britsh Columbia.  Human being, and primates being such, should they not wonder if tney or their churches will be at risk for extra-provincial intervention should ANY province, or group of primates decide for ANY reason that their provinces don’t meet their approval?

[200] Posted by EmilyH on 11-18-2008 at 08:52 AM • top

EmilyH, I’m not sure I understand your point.  I think it’s pretty self-evident that a certain core of the Communion—1/3 are going to set up their own ecclesial body.

And another 1/3 are going to set up their own custom-made scripture in order to support what society deems progressive.

And the other 1/3 are going to decry both.

And the communion will ultimately be a smaller communion.

Ah well.  These things happen.

[201] Posted by Sarah on 11-18-2008 at 10:47 AM • top

re #217: but after decrying both, will that last third rest there or choose sides?

[202] Posted by tdunbar on 11-18-2008 at 10:52 AM • top

but, from a primate’s perspective, I suggest, the GS core and its north american allies/missions is far more of a threat than biblical hermeneutics and their results, Gene Robinson in an obscre diocese in US or a blessing of same-sex couples in Britsh Columbia.

If the content of your faith matters less than your institution, probably so. But it’s disingenuous to word this as if one “obscure” (in the spotlight 24/7 as far as I can see) bishop or “a” marriage blessing (how many so far?) were all that’s happening from “Biblical hermeneutics” as practiced by TEC or as if it could possibly end with “a” bishop and “a” “wedding”. Instead, it is actively, quickly changing the whole teaching of TEC. But that won’t matter if polity is your lone priority.

[203] Posted by oscewicee on 11-18-2008 at 10:57 AM • top

Is there a website (yet) for the new Province?

[204] Posted by Anglican Beach Party on 11-19-2008 at 08:46 AM • top

Although the word Christian is thrown around a lot in this tediously predictable thread, I don’t find much
Christian charity here on any point or side of the triangle, if in fact it isn’t really a more complex polygon.  Developments in American Anglican orthodoxy that have been glaringly foreseeable for years are finally happening.  How can one meeting in Wheaton somehow catalyze a coalescence of all the splinter groups whose major commonality is actually the mutual bickering in this thread? The outside strategists, beginning with the St. Louis splinters, are former TEC members still loudly detesting TEC, the inside strategists haven’t become disgusted enough with TEC yet to leave it, and the radical left, in absolute permanent control of TEC, continually sneers at both orthodox groups, wants to be rid of both, and has money enough to sue them both into oblivion.  Despite TEC’s delusions of former grandeur, it’s just another splinter group now, although it’s the splinter with the most money.

Who would want to join any of the three after reading this thread?  Not me.  You can’t see the road ahead looking in the rearview mirror.  Perhaps God in his mercy might help us navigate these rocky shoals to a “beautiful shore”.  Perhaps.  Maybe.  We’ll see.

[205] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 11-19-2008 at 02:35 PM • top

Mad Potter [202] wrote:

Anglican, A church with historical ties to the Church of England with a worship based on a common liturgy based on the BCP of 1662.

This is a decent definition of Anglicanism, especially since it avoids the many pitfalls associated with the common practice of equating Anglicanism with the Anglican Communion.  The nod to the Prayer Book helps to exclude Methodists (who are clearly not Anglicans).  However, as I discovered in the process of writing my Ph.D. thesis, the majority of provinces use a Prayer Book not based on 1662. 

On another note, I disagree with my brother, Anglican Beach Party, that one must be a Christian to be an Anglican.  You can have Christian heretics who are still Christians, and you can have apostate churches as well.  As much as I may disagree with liberal Anglicans, they should still be considered Anglicans. 

As my brother stated, there are exceptions to almost any definition of Anglicanism because we mean so many different things by it.  It used to be easy to define Anglicanism when it was culturally and theologically fairly homogeneous.  But in a post-colonial, post-modern world, all definitions become more difficult.

[206] Posted by Charles Erlandson on 11-20-2008 at 03:50 PM • top

I would refer Ms. Kaeton, Mr. Garner, TBWSanta Fe, Mad Potter, EmilyH, and all the other blessed reappraisers who honor us with their presence occasionally to my post above #83 re: beliefs and motives.

It can’t hurt….


[207] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 11-20-2008 at 10:15 PM • top

Why has no one commented on Bishop Iker’s affidavit that all FW property is held in trust for the national church? That must have come as a shock to those who have taken such delight in excoriating me and others on the property issues.

Mike (83) I agree with much of what you say in your various points, as would most progressives and moderates. I believe you are way wrong in your belief that it is only the self-styled orthodox who take the Bible seriously. I believe the reverse is true—and have written about that extensively in the long piece I did “The Undermining of the Episcopal Church” and in several pieces I have posted on my blog:

[208] Posted by TBWSantaFe on 11-21-2008 at 06:46 PM • top

Tom, the affadavit was that the property was held in trust for the DIOCESE AND the national church. Why is it that liberals can’t get this right?

Now, the Dennis canon is conflicted. How to decide? Look to the deeds.

[209] Posted by robroy on 11-21-2008 at 07:02 PM • top

#224 is in error.  I have never said that any property in this Diocese is held in trust for the so-called “national church.”  There is no such affidavit. We have never consulted with 815 or General Convention authorities in any property matters.


[210] Posted by Bishop Iker on 11-21-2008 at 07:20 PM • top

#224, so are you ready to structure TEC around Scripture?  Let me know when I will see complaince with any of the following passages:

Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called Great in the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 5:19, ESV)

The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.  But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void. (Luke 16:16, ESV)

And recall the invalid of 38 years, once he was healed, the admonition that Jesus sent him away with

See, you are well!  Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you. (John 5:14, ESV)

and just to square the Circle, from Mark’s Gospel:

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written
    This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.  In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.  You leave the commandments of God and hold to the traditions of men. (Mark 7:6-8, ESV)

I can’t resist one more affirmation of the Law, this one a tad more intuitive than stated in “red letters” like the passages above.

Remember that the gospels tell of John the Baptist’s imprisonment and eventual beheading by King Herod.  We are told Herod was goaded into that action, but prior to that, while still in jail, John sent word to Jesus, trying to determine if he had lived long enough to see the Messiah.  Jesus responded to him affirmatively, to set John’s mind at ease, surely knowing what was in store for John.

But why was John in prison in the first place?  He called out the King on a matter of breaking his MARRIAGE VOWS!  On a matter of the boundaries of marriage, John was imprisoned and eventually beheaded.  Jesus, who had the ability to communicate with John, never once said “John, buddy, none of this stuff matters anymore!  Now that I’m here, that Law crap is out the window!  It’s all about me, so quit ditzing Herod and get back out here and help me.”

But he didn’t.  He knew why John was imprisoned.  Odds are Herod would have turned John loose had he recanted.  But John stuck to his guns and lost his head over it.  Jesus, said nothing.

So, tell me again how progressives and moderates take Scripture seriously?  If you take Scripture seriously, you must take the LAW seriously as well.  Not the temple codes, or even the Sabbath codes, which Jesus set aside, but everything from the 10 Commandments forward including admonitions on adultery, divorce, and the UNIQUENESS of JESUS CHRIST as the only path to GOD.

That’s what I’m looking for, to honor your statement.


[211] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 11-21-2008 at 09:47 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.