Communique from Episcopal Church of Rwanda H.O.B.

Now, why is clarity such a difficult thing in these times? Here is a perfect expression of clarity. It is ordered, the word choice is appropriate, it is easy to understand. Now, as I understand it, English is not the first language of the majority of the people in Rwanda, feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that point.

How is it that a college of bishops, whose native tongue is other than English, is capable of writing a letter in English that is structurally/grammatically/linguistically superior than a college of bishops who (for a large part) speak no languages other than English?

Yours in Christ,
jacob

Tom Woodward :

Hey even MORE good news for liberals!  Yes!

Re:  Rwanda

The Prophet of Anglican Cats on the Internet proclaims this a great thing for the Communion.

Thanks be to God it is just not more of the ‘same ol’ same ol’.

WOW! I’d written it 3,2,1 but maybe this is the politeness of slowly escalating the point. Love section “c,” calling out the hypocrisies of the Lambeth 2008 invites in relationship to the past three years worth of labor.

GOOD SHOW bishops! May all stand this strong.

Oh yeah as for MDG ... guess what country is hosting the HIV/AIDS conference last week ...

http://www.pepfar.gov/press/86754.htm

It can now be safely said that +++Rowan’s maddening evenhandedness in the matter of non-celibate gay clergy is akin to jailing the thief along with his victim for being equal participants in a crime.  The lukewarm shall be spit from His mouth, Your Excellency.

Does anyone know when other GS Bishops meetings are being held, such as Kenya, Central Africa, Soutern Cone?  Already it is clear that over one half of global Anglicans will not be represented at Lambeth unless the ABC reconsiders the invitation list.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!!  True Bishops=True Leadership.  Speaking as one of the flock- LEAD ON!

Timothy, the Bishops of the Southern Cone met a few weeks ago in Argentina and my understanding is that they essentially decided not to make a decision about Lambeth attendance for the time being.  They wanted to keep their options open and not “lock themselves in” at this stage.  They will be meeting again soon, and may be ready to make a decision at that point.

People tend to forget that in 1998 there was a massive effort to make sure all the Bishops of the communion could come. There was a lot of fundraising and sponsorship of Bishops from diocese and provinces lacking monetary means. I am aware of no effort this go around (it might be to early for that). I am also aware that the heads in cantaur are not encourage that same thing.

COuld it be that some of the provinces, while making grandious “we-are-not-coming-because-of-this-and-that-statements”, are not coming because of the monetary burden to send thier bishops? I’m just wondering.

Be assured that if our beloved Bishops of Rwanda wished to attend Lambeth, they would attend.

plainsparson:

I’m sure some would like to believe so - however, reality is this entire thing - from bishops being raised for the African provinces to their deciding to NOT go to Lambeth is a coordinated effort to bring home the salient point that - God’s Word DOES Matter and is not negotiable to the whims of the Episcopal church.

plainsparson—Your hypothesis would have to mean they feared for travel expense in last year when CAPA met. I know this is odd for us living in the USA, but when they said something, by current indications they meant it (shocking! especially compared to TEC’s standard operating procedures).

The manner in which the invitations to the bishops of Rwanda were issued is divisive as some of our bishops were not invited.

Direct clarity melts Anglican Fudge.

I shall have to revise my cheer to include the Province of Rwanda along with the Diocese of Sydney.  (They know how to Stand Firm in Faith.)

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
oy! oy! oy!
Rwanda! Rwanda! Rwanda!
oy! oy! oy!
Aussie!
oy!
Rwanda!
oy!
Aussie!
oy!
Rwanda!
oy!
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
oy! oy! oy!
Rwanda! Rwanda! Rwanda!
oy! oy! oy!

Plainparson,
I believe the Church of Nigeria was quite clear that the expense of sending bishops to Lambeth was indeed a burden on their Church, and that they had no intention of attending if it was only to be a “jamboree.”  Indeed, the expense would be a major portion of their Church’s budget, and they don’t want to waste the money if they are attending a council to make decisions that no one need adhere to.  So it is before Rowan to either put some teeth into Lambeth 1.10 and “disinvite” those who have so flagrantly violated it, or the bishops of the Anglican Communion who have some real integrity will not waste their precious resources on attending.  In essence, if things continue on as they are currently, Rowan, the CoE and the bishops representing 3 million other rich people will meet at Lambeth, and the bishops who represent 2/3 of the Communion won’t be there.
    Should Rowan listen to God instead of the executive council of TEC, I am sure a way can be found to bring the GS bishops to Lambeth.  What is really standing in the way monetarily are the lawsuits instituted by TEC against so many of the Churches that would be raising money to aid the GS bishops (and I bet had alot to do with raising money for Lambeth 98)- now the money is going to lawyers to defend against the TEC lawsuits, no doubt part of why TEC is pursuing the suits so vigorously.

Hindustaaniwalla (boy that is hard to spell),

Thanks for the intellegence.  If things don’t change, it looks like there will be some good hotel deals on the Lambeth weekend.

I can see the good ABC standing in some town square.

“RIGHT, Sargent Major, marching up and down the square!”

A (very) deep Monty Python reference.  Please laugh if you get it.

My wife is friends with one of the Rwandan bishops - I’ve met him and he is truly a man of God. The Episcopal Church of Rwanda has done a lot of hard work helping to pull their nation back together after the genocide. It appears now this province is working hard to help pull Anglicanism back to its theological roots.

Thanks be to God! for the witness of this province over the past decade and their bold decision today.

Hosea 6:6,
Exactly! Good point where indeedd is ECUSA’s MDG? I went to the site and saw nothing that looked even remotely like “ECUSA - MDG!” incleded in the list of ministers, co-sponors, international partner, etc…
All I saw was this:

We are joined by Ministers of Health from countries that are making great progress in confronting their own epidemics—thank you for being here. And we are privileged that this year, for the first time, key international partners are co-sponsoring the meeting: the Global Fund, UNAIDS, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the World Health Organization. I am privileged to share the podium with Dr. Michael Kazatchkine of the Global Fund and Michel Sidibe from UNAIDS, speaking on behalf of Dr. Peter Piot. To all the co-sponsors, we are grateful for your partnership in this meeting, and for your partnership in the field.

Regarding the Southern Cone:
Does anyone know why the Southern Cone is “holding out” besides their satement of “not wanting to lock themselves in”? I thought ++AB Venables to be very much in the same thinking as the GS!

plainsparson,
This is not a monetary issue at all! If bishops that were invited wanted to go they would not be making statements such as the above and making them publicly! If it was only that easy, how glorious it would be!

I am over joyed at this missive from Rwanda & their H.O.B. March on Christian Soldiers, march on! Brave men indeed and men of God truly!

Jacobsladder,

For the past couple of decades English has been the primary language taught in schools and most educated Rwandans will be able to speak it.
Most the bishops will have studied at an English university or seminary. The native language, Kinyarwanda, is still spoken by most people but like many LDCs, English will be the norm in 2 or 3 generations.

Maybe they can have their own conference and while they are at it start their own denomination…without fruits, nuts, fudge or fairies… ! What fun is that?
blesings
Seraph

Seraph,

They have their denomination of which they were baptized, confirmed, & ordained in that has been hijacked, re-defined to fit worldly views in order to be socially correct instead of biblically correct for the purpose of accepting and blessing sinful behavior and allowed by the ABof C to spin so ruthlessly out of control.

Being thankful for the Godly witness of our African brothers is not enough.  Financial support for their work in their own communities should be the response of gratefu hearts.

Very nicely done.  To those Episcopalians, like plainsparson, confused by a province taking such an action, even at the cost of ECUSA’s filthy lucre and the praise of Manhattan sophisticates, it’s called “principle.”  You could look it up.

DaveG,
Great point. Look up the Mustard Seed Project for a group of people doing just this.

One Day Closer, ++Venables, along with all of the bishops of the Southern Cone, are very much in accord with the rest of the global south.  My understanding is that they just didn’t feel like it was necessary to make a decision at this point.  A lot of things could happen in the near future, so perhaps they feel that it would be wiser to see how things go before making any binding decisions.  As it gets closer to time, I expect we’ll hear more from them.

Texex
I know of their work.  I am involved with an orphanage in Kakamega, Kenya.  The children are victims of AIDS which killed or otherwise destroyed their parents.  The bishop of the Diocese, Simon Oketch is a Godly man.  The important thing is to find ways to support their labors even as they work to bring the Gospel to Episcopaganland.

Phil,

I’m not confused. Really. I’m asking an honest question. The cost of flights to england from anywhere but Europe are high. To fly 50 diocesan bishops at even a modest cost of $1000 US would be a terrible burden on some of the provinces who lack monetary resources. This doesn’t include other cost, like hotels. Could it be that the simple Pride of not having the means would provoke a response like we are seeing? 

They cast the net so wide “Therefore, in view of the above, in good conscience, the bishops of the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda have resolved not to attend the Lambeth Conference 2008 unless the previously stipulated requirement of repentance on the part of the TEC and other like-minded Provinces is met, and invitations are extended to our entire House of Bishops.”
They have several outs- TEC not repenting, the “other-like minded provinces” (which ones?) and their entire house (impossible because only bishops with jurisdiction are invited).

I think we should ask these hard questions. Beleive it or not, there may be some TEC bishops who can’t afford to make the trip!

Has anyone got a global count of Anglicans and how many are in provinces now not to attend?  There is some point at which the sum total of provinces which have dropped out will make it clear that the communion has split and the final precipitating act was the ABC’s decisions as to who to invite and not invite.  Of course, I am assuming the ABC does not change his decision not to invite the missionary bishops, which, notwithstanding the former ABC’s pointed statement putting the lie to any claim that that is because of his precedent, I do not see any reason to expect.  It will be ironic indeed, if after all his efforts to hold things together and kick things down the road, the ABC is the one to close the door to the global south through withholding invitations to a meeting.

Another indication that a separate GS led Communion may be on its way.
Two communions, two approaches, no arguing. What could be better?

I’m sorry Plainsparson, but they did exactly what you have accused the bishops of Rwanda of not doing. They made one reference to “The Road to Lambeth” which includes their expectations.

So your “They have several outs- TEC not repenting” is in error. Worse is an accusation that it’s all about money. Does probably review a lot about your worldview more than it does theirs, since they are referencing a actions and inactions taken.

Oh well, pity, it’s your loss in the end.

What could be better?  An amicable separation.

pendennis88, I tried to do the math once, and had to work though the numbers
1. The Church of England claims a membership of 27 million, but this counts every person who has been baptized as an infant. According to statistics I have seen, less than 1.7 million attend services at peak Christmas or Easter service.”

2.the Anglican Communion is now mainly an African church: 17.5 million members in Nigeria and 8 million in Uganda dwarf the Church of England’s 2 million active members - roughly the size of Anglican churches in Kenya, South Africa and southern India.

Donations of thanks to, mustardseedproject.org
FYI.

continuation from above…

2….In fairness, I don’t know Uganda and Nigeria’s ASA, so we may not be comparing apples and oranges.  It is also hard to get accurate numbers on the new Anglican refugees in the US.  But when you add Rwanda and (presumably) Kenya and Central Africa to those boycotting Lambeth it is clear that the majority of worldwide Anglicans will not be represented regardless of the ultimate decision of Southern Cone and others.

What could be better? A reconciliation based on principles of historic Christianity.

In reply to the several posts about what Souther Cone or other GS bishops should or should not do: Please remember that this is not about the GS trying to pull the Communion apart, this is about the GS trying to keep the Communion together and make it serve God.  I don’t think any bishop or Primate will see a “victory” in the formation of some “non-Canterbury” Anglican Communion.  It may indeed come to that, but I find it difficult to believe that is what anyone wants.  What we are seeing now is what we regret not seeing in TEC 40 years ago.  Orthodox elements of the Church are reacting to rising apostacy and heresy in a small part (unfortunately our part) of the worldwide Communion.  They are making their stance clear to Canterbury.  One thing to be said of ++Rowan is that unlike so many bishops here (the US), he is not a proud man.  He dresses in the black of a parish priest rather than the purple of a bishop.  He will put the good of the Church before his personal pride.  Let us see what happens before casting stones at the bishops of the Southern Cone.  I haven’t heard any of our own Windsor bishops decline their invitations, perhaps we should not hold GS bishops to a higher standard than we hold our own.  Meanwhile, let us pray for the Church of Rwanda and all members of the Communion.  Remember, all these good people are on our side in this, and are doing everything they can, even risking their own place in the Communion, to bring us aid. 
    TJ

What could be better?  Big guns.

So let me get this clear…..
Receiving congregations at times with assets that belong to TEC, consecrating bishops in a sister’s church jurisdiction…despite the Windsor report which they cite from, declining to take communion with fellow Christians, declining invitations to Lambeth because TEC was invited….that is , is trying to preserve the communion????? Or is it the same TEC is doing…forcing it to fit into a particular image…or else? 
Does not look like communion saving to me!
All of this because of a gay guy in New Hampshire…?
seraph

The languages of Rwanda and Burundi are the native languages of the Hutu and Tutsi and the school language of French. The Prayer Books used there were originally the French translations made in Canada. English is a third or fourth language for most Rwandans. Rwanda was evangelized by the Anglicans and Burundi by the Roman Catholics.

plainsparson :

I think, somehow, they could probably afford to send at least one or two if that were the problem.  I mean, seriously… come on now, you are just trying to either hide behind airline tickets OR really trying not to read what they said.  Whichever, no one is ‘buying’ it… I’m sure, however, if this really your concern, you could start a ‘FundtheRwandanstoLambeth campaign.  I’m sure they could use the funding - but I bet it won’t be wasted on tickets to Lambeth.

As the Spokesperson for Anglican typing Cats of the Internet I would submit you are being rather silly.

Seraph,
Anglican Churches in Anglican Provinces DO NOT belong to TEC nor does their PROPERTY!

TEC does not own anything God does!

Declining to take communion with a heretic is a biblical stance and a personal choice between God and that person that you and anyone else has no right to force!

As for the rest….I simply cannot and will not go on becuaue I know that you have been told and instructed on all of your comments above many times here on SF ....we know your stance!

seraph:

As the Spokesperson for Anglican typing Cats of the Internet I would submit you are being rather silly - as well.

Yes, you got it.  People in Rwanda REALLY care about one guy in New Hampshire… actually, it was his best friend’s dog in Vermont digging in the backyard that tore the fabric of the Communion.

OK - gig’s up - we’ve been caught…. darn…

Why is it that all the liberals who post seem so focused on money/property?  I thought the left prided itself on idealism. 
That being said I think it is a bad idea that the GS boycott Lambeth - to not show up will put the left in a position to win by default. I think after 9/30 the GS needs to petition Canterbury for an emergency primates meeting or convene one themselves and call for TEC’s expulsion pursuant to Tanzania.  If that does not work at Lambeth they need to make a motion that TEC to be expelled.  The numbers (Bishops not people) either favor the GS already or soon will.  The GS needs to get a second American province recognized with representation and a covenant in place. The Churches of England, Canada, and Australia are divided and may be fearful of a real divide.  With a traditionalist American or North American province at their side it will no longer be North vs. South but Traditional vs. post modern.  It is time for the orthodox to quit TEC, I think it premature for the GS to quit the AC.  IF Lambeth is a disaster then it may be time to start a second Communion.

Another one (of +++RW’s hopes) bites the dust.

Seraph,
‘All this because of a gay guy in Connecticut’,not.
It’s always been about fidelity to the authoritative teaching of Scripture and the Church(the whole church,not just the Episcopal)regarding not only sexual morality and the subsequent holiness and witness of the church.
A lot of Anglican believers here and abroad haven’t lost touch with that,the TEC has flat out walked away from it.

Anglican Churches in Anglican Provinces DO NOT belong to TEC nor does their PROPERTY! TEC does not own anything God does!

The only Anglican province in the US is TEC… at least that is how it seems to have been defined ...this is not Africa.  I am sure they own buildings there, but unless they buy some here or are allowed to use them…they belong to God of course but also to TEC.  That is logical and in FLorida and other places it has been confirmed by law! 

I found this quote and like it…rings true to me….
I think what would be ‘church-breaking,’ in a sense, would be if parts of the church stopped talking to each other,” said Moulton. “That, in a sense, puts the church at more risk than any one issue”
blessings
seraph

Well said, TJ.

As the Spokesperson for Anglican typing Cats of the Internet I would submit you are being rather silly - as well. Yes, you got it.  People in Rwanda REALLY care about one guy in New Hampshire… actually, it was his best friend’s dog in Vermont digging in the backyard that tore the fabric of the Communion. OK - gig’s up - we’ve been caught…. darn…

You obviously are a cat lover with dogo-phobic issues. That poor puppy was just doing what dogs do…dig…... Patch the fabric..say I….lovely rainbow colors maybe!

Of course I am being silly…..still seems like a lot of fuss about gays and their relationships.  Forget, One Lord, one faith, the baptism we share, all partaking of the same cup, the bond of peace, one body different members…nothimg seems to matter; You okay with those gays you leave or we wont stay.

The power of one issue ....this one, to divide is astounding ...all for the sake of the Name of course.

blessings
seraph

All of this because of a gay guy in New Hampshire…?

That’s .. just naive.  TEC’s shenanigans are not as anamolous as you suggest;  nor have conservative Anglicans been hasty in lowering the boom.

Jacobsladder, re the first question on this thread, am sure that there are plenty of Rwandan bishops able to write clear, excellent English - to think otherwise might be misconstrued as patronizing.  In addition, I’m sure that the Rwandans have no shortage of “English as a first language” folks, able and eager to advise them.

Interpretations of Windsor, Dar es Salaam, etc., aside, this breaks new ground in directly confronting Williams and , in effect, accusing him of collusion with TEC.  Few people, regardless of their opinions in this matter, should be happy with this development.

Seraph,

‘All this because of a gay guy in Connecticut’,not. ....It’s always been about fidelity to the authoritative teaching of scripture and the Church(the whole church,not just the Episcopal)regarding not only sexual morality and the subsequent holiness and witness of the church

Oh really, where were the primates when Spong was bishop of NJ???Or when Barbara Harris was consecrated a bishop??? not a peep…!

Lets see..Scripture, authoritative teaching…Rome???

Apply that to issues Anglicans have evolved through..

such as women’s ordination ....? defined to be part of the deposit of faith…authoritatively touted ...men only by many Chirstians.

Or maybe like the remarriage of divorcees….. they are not to be admitted to communion…authoritatively defined…adulterers says Scripture. There is even divorced and remarried clergy…even Bishops in the Anglican Communion.

Or maybe contraception….allowed in Anglicanism….the open door to all immorality and a mortal sin say others…

Words like authoritative in a communion as diverse as Anglicanism has been and the diversity and development that has been tolerated within it…sound a bit out of place. 

It does seem to be about gays…no communion breaking noted in these other serious issues…

seraph

Is someone tracking the responses to the Lambeth invites?  (particularly those who say they’ll not attend?)

Normally we’d volunteer to help, but it’s a very busy season for us.

Am I correct in thinking that we’ve seen clear “NOs” from the following:
Nigeria
Uganda
Kenya
Sydney
Rwanda

(I’m assuming, of course, that the current invitations stand, obviously if ++Rowan changes the invite list, I’m assuming some of these bishops could change their mind)

Did we miss anyone?

Forget, One Lord, one faith, the baptism we share, all partaking of the same cup, the bond of peace, one body different members…nothimg seems to matter; You okay with those gays you leave or we wont stay.

Ok, we get it, you’ve bought the line from the liberal, progressive, whatever folks you listen to.  It is all about those gay people, we just can’t stand them - sure, you go with that and close your eyes to everything else. 
“One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism”?  Where have you been?  Pike, Spong, pagans, Islam-Episcopalians, doesn’t sound like any of those things. 
“Inclusive church”?  Again, where are you looking?  Depositions, inhibitions, WO as an “option” and now as a requirement - are you for real?
This might be a pivotal issue, but it is certainly not THE issue.  Or, just keep your blinders on and rant about how we hate/fear/whatever gay folks.

Seraph: ever hear of the final straw that broke the camel’s back?

It’s not just “one gay guy.”  It’s a guy who left his family to pursue a lifestyle that does not have scriptural blessing, a bishop who’s currently having sex outside of marriage.  NONE of which would be tolerated in a heterosexual bishop.  We are simply sick of the double standards, the hypocrisy, the rebelliousness and disobedience of an institution that once professed to serve God, and now only serves a secular political agenda.

TEc doesn’t “own” any “property.”  Those buildings are the property of God and those who serve Him faithfully.  Time to give them back to their rightful owners.

seraph -
Possibly we could get Greg to etch this across each and every comment screen - like a watermark.  But until then, we will just have to keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over.
<b>Homosexuality is only the presenting symptom.  This division is about the Authority of scripture.</b>

One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism”?  Where have you been?  Pike, Spong, pagans, Islam-Episcopalians, doesn’t sound like any of those things.  “Inclusive church”?  Again, where are you looking?  Depositions, inhibitions, WO as an “option” and now as a requirement - are you for real?

Why did you not leave then….when WO, and Pike and Barbara and Spong?

Where was Nigeria and Rwanda when Pike and Spong were “hereticking” around???? Where is the reference to any of these things in the statements by the primates????

What I read seem to reference sexuality, morals, violations to Lambeth resolutions…about Robinson’s consecration, about ECUSA not repenting for this act..not promising to not elect gay bishops nor bless gay relationships.

A bishop denies Christ divinity….one consults the dead, and not a peep…..one is openly gay and suddenly ALARMS awaken us ....!!! Wow they are heretics and have chosen to walk apart….!!!

Where have I been…??? Watching from a distance, and it seems hard to believe.

seraph

seraph -
One cannot effect change from the outside.  Nobody said we liked being here.  We feel called to stay and defend the faith once delivered. 
What has brought all this to a head?  ECUSA is now is seeking to call their apostacy blessed.

Seraph: ever hear of the final straw that broke the camel’s back? It’s not just “one gay guy,

I do accept this as sensible!!! Of course the lack apparent action in other cases…imho .....just as serious, frame this whole thing as a “row about gays”.
seraph

Seraph writes:

It does seem to be about gays…no communion breaking noted in these other serious issues…

A somewhat understandable statement given that there weren’t any consequences for the issues he cited previously such as:  Undisciplined Spong, Barbara Harris’s bishop-consecration, WO, remarriage for divorcees, adulterers, divorced-and-remarried priests and bishops, etc….

Seraph, you allude to a Slippery Slope.  In which all the other items on the Slippery Slope suffered no visibly punitive consequences in themselves.  You would be correct in thinking so.  You also could not be faulted entirely for thinking that GLBT’ers are being selectively singled out for corporate biblical consequences.  I understand you.

Thus I share with you what I’ve written on another thread:

I really want to acknowledge Betty Lee Payne’s contribution where she wrote:  “The discipline of loving fellow believers is well laid out for us in the scriptures by Jesus and by Paul.  This is where TEC’s bishops have failed utterly and why the fabric of the Anglican Communion as a Christian body has been “torn at its deepest level.”

The doctrine of Apostolic Succession fails miserably when bishops (both individually and collectively) lack the moral, spiritual courage to exercise loving, biblical discipline upon wayward colleagues and also upon those in their diocesan flock.

It is not simply enough to recognize that you have “rogue” bishops.  An ecclesiastical body must also have bishops willing to “self-police” against these rogue bishops.  Therefore, TEC erred on BOTH counts.  They had and have “rogue” bishops.  And they did not have bishops (in sufficient numbers) with the Athanasius-courage to step up and hold their wayward brethren accountable (to the point of actual defrocking and excommunication).  Eg., Pike, Righter, Spong, etc….

The Perverter can work both ends of the extreme.  He can capitalize on the legalistic harshness as in the days of the Grand Inquisition.  And the Deceiver can capitalize when there’s ZERO biblical discipline administered when it’s Scripturally mandated.  TEC has not found its Via Media when it comes to fruitful pruning.

There’s an old ditty that goes like this:

“A little neglect may breed mischief.
For lack of a nail, the shoe was lost;
for lack of a shoe, the horse was lost;
for lack of a horse, the rider was lost;
for lack of a rider, the message was lost;
for lack of a message, the battle was lost;
for lack of a battle, the war was lost;
for lack of a war, the kingdom was lost;
and all because of one horseshoe nail.”

I would make a slight change to this ditty and it would go like this:

A little neglect may breed mischief.
For lack of biblical discipline, the ______ was lost;
...
for lack of Godly Bishops, The Episcopal Church was lost;
for lack of TEC, the Anglican Communion was lost;
and all because of a lack of biblical discipline.

Pax in Christ alone.

Oh Seraph, there were plenty of Primates who spoke out about +Spong, etc..  As for Barbara Harris, probably not as much (or at least not because she is female… the Primates are honoring the period of reception.  I assume they spoke out if/when she said anything heretical.)  There are plenty of links to Primates’ statements raising DOCTRINAL concerns Pre-GC03.  I’ll see what I can dig up in the half-hour I have left before I sign off for the night.  But they exist, I assure you.  After all, AMiA was created in 2000-2001.  Long before Gene Robinson was elected.  Ekklesia was active for many years…

(Remember it’s a vast conservative Anglican conspiracy.  Many years of scheming.  Lots of “chicken dinners.”  You don’t think we’ve only been doing this for 3-4 years do you?!?  Bwahahahaha )

“....This division is about the Authority of scripture..”

In that case Anglicanism has always been divided…this is nothing new! A Communion that has been home to Catholics, protestants, liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists, traditionalists, charismatics and Spong…! When pray tell has there been a uniform opinion about what the “authority of Scripture” means or how it is to be interpreted?. 

blessings
seraph

Dear Seraph,

Why do you desire to attack someone at their strong point? Each of the APO Common Cause partners have the area they excel under, this happens to Rwanda and AMiA’s for they formed long before August 5, 2003. So NH had little to do with it except seeing the theological decline that would allow such an event—fact brought out by how much flack both Rwanda & AMiA received at that time. The only thing that these events you point to do is confirmed that they were correct and maybe some others held to a vain hope. At to a TEC bishop in NH ... wrong thread, should have used that line on another, you hit where Rwanda is strong.

For Seraph wondering why things have gotten to this point now after the gay issue has come to the fore, I think some of it has to do with communication and the internet. Before I was Anglican, I was Methodist. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference - we had one pastor who was an atheist and every pastor we had was liberal on the gay issue. Then I moved to Kentucky and the United Methodists I met there were shocked by what I had to tell them. I’ll admit that my experience in Anglicanism has not been as long as my experience in Methodism but I think it takes time, relationships and communication for Christians in areas where apostasy is not prevalent to realize just how bad it is in places where people have forgotten what it means to be Christian. We all like to believe the best about people. Until it is proved that a group is really a bunch of raving heretics, we want to think that the bad things we hear about are really just exceptions - that’s my take on the issue.

Seraph,
Your blood pressure seems to be rising! I pray that you take a breath and a moment and debate calmly!

The Elves asked:

Am I correct in thinking that we’ve seen clear “NOs” from the following:
Nigeria
Uganda
Kenya
Sydney
Rwanda

On reading Sydney’s response—if we’re talking about the same response—I did not see it as a ‘no’.  Wasn’t Sydney’s take ‘We urge you not to go until you protest’?

Ack.  I just lost a long comment (I swear I’d hit control-C to save it, but I’m tired….)  It had lots of links going back to 1997 Jerusalem Primates meeting; 1997 South-South encounter in Kuala Lumpur, 2000 Primates’ meeting in Oporto Portugal., 2003 Primates’ meeting in Gramado Brazil.  Those are all pretty easy to find via Google.
The 2005 3rd Trumpet communique from egypt is also a great read.  Most of it is about doctrine and the authority of Scripture, not specifically GLBT issues.

Here are a few of the links.  I’m too tired to try to reformat them or to retype all my commentary.  Sorry.

Report of dec99 visit of Global South leaders to ECUSA
http://www.episcopalian.org/cclec/report-griswold-dec99.htm

Note this section:

We were disturbed to encounter expressions of convictions that appeared to mute or even dispute the Church’s message concerning the absolute need for all people everywhere to respond to the gospel of God in repentance and faith. Of like concern, was our impression that some were not persuaded of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one and only Name given by God to lost human beings for their salvation.

The other links:
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/second_trumpet_from_2nd_anglican_encounter_in_the_south_kuala_lumpur_10_15/
http://web.archive.org/web/19970513030204/http://www.dfms.org/ens/ens1722.html
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2075/acns2094.html
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/34/50/acns3450.html

Hmmm….obviously someone here (the someone who seems to think that no one noticed Pike and WO and the 79 prayer book and women bishops and Spong and whatever else was on his/her list) did not do his/her homework. Obviously not an idiot, and well trained in taking threads off topic, but knows nothing of TEC history.  And apparently next to nothing of Church traditions either, but if he/she gets too deep into fanasyland on that, there are others here better able than I to provide correction.  On the topic of the various events that supposedly went by unchallenged: Indeed people did notice.  A whole lot of people.  The 1.5 MILLION people who left TEC between the mid 1960s and 2003.  WO caused the Continuing Churches to break away entirely, and lost many to the RCC.  Granted, since 2003, as a percentage, things have sped up a bit, and the decline is now a bit faster than before.  And there is the looming possibility that TEC will lose as much as 20% of its base in one fell swoop in the coming year or so.  That poster and many of his/her allies must be worried about that.  Unfortunately for TEC, the HoB and Executive Council refused the only way forward that would have kept those people in.  As the lawsuits mount, thousand more will leave TEC because suing Christians is outright immoral, even if you don’t hold fast to scripture (you don’t believe me, ask some of your “moderate” and “progressive” friends what bothers them most about TEC.  OK, answer #1 is bad bishops, but #2 is the fact that their own church will sue them if they don’t like their votes on the vestry.)
TJ

Hate to be a fly in the ointment, but absent from this letter was any recognition of the controversy surrounding border crossings that were also mentioned in some of those statements.  Thus it comes across to me as being hypocritical.  “We’re going to do something that we’re not supposed to do because you’re doing something that we feel that you are not supposed to do and now we’re mad because you’re invited and our guys who haven’t been recognized in over ten years weren’t.”

I said it about Nigeria, I said it about Uganda, I said it about New Hampshire, I’ve said it about ANY bishops who won’t come if Robinson isn’t invited, and now I get to say it again about Rwanda: Good.  Don’t come.  Extremists stay home and gritch in your beers.  And let the moderates take back the church from the both of you.

seraph,

”....This division is about the Authority of scripture..”

In that case Anglicanism has always been divided…this is nothing new!
...
When pray tell has there been a uniform opinion about what the “authority of Scripture” means or how it is to be interpreted?

Just because there are numerous issues not explicitly defined in the bible that people have had arguments over in the past (high vs. low church, place of charismata, eschatology, exclusive psalmody) you shouldn’t conclude that scripture isn’t clear on a great many things. Sometimes I feel reappraisers just want to use the fact (that there hasn’t been agreement over every minute detail) in order to avoid confronting the issue of when an individual or institution as crossed the line into heresy.
Will you admit that we at least have biblical precedent to disagree on some religious issues and remain in communion, and yet retain the responsibility to recognize heresy, since the bible itself
show us this (ie. Rom 14 vs Gal 1). How would you reconcile your view with these passages?

Where was Nigeria and Rwanda when Pike and Spong were “hereticking” around????

If you right that TEC conservatives were lax about heresy and divorce and remarriage, etc. it would only be to their shame that they didn’t act sooner. It doesn’t necessarily mean they shouldn’t be acting as they are now. I ask you again - do you really think we should avoid confronting aberrant teachings just because there are some disagreements over things?

Africanised, yes, you’re probably right that Sydney is not a flat-out “NO” now that I re-read it.  I’d focused too much on the first sentence of this section (“not to accept the invitation to Lambeth”):

respectfully requests the Archbishop and bishops of this diocese not to accept the invitation to Lambeth without making public in protest, speech and liturgical action, both prior to and at Lambeth, our diocese’s principled objection…

That clearly leaves the door open for participation AT Lambeth.

However, followed immediately by this, it also seems to leave the door open for an “alternate” evangelical gathering at the same time as Lambeth (in competition with? as an alternative to? ???)

respectfully requests the Archbishop and bishops of this diocese to approach other orthodox bishops of the communion with the purpose of meeting in England at the time of the Lambeth Conference for Christian fellowship and the planning of joint action within the Anglican Communion

[emphasis mine]

Hey David O.  Any chance you can scoop an interview with Sydney leaders?  What does this mean?  Just a one-off meeting with +Minns, and other non-invited “irregular” bishops (+Cavalcanti, +Atwood, +Guernsey, and the AMia bishops… etc.)?  Or something bigger?

Probably too early to really say, but it would be interesting to hear anything more about what may be on the table.

“Why did you not leave then….when WO, and Pike and Barbara and Spong?”
Personally, I don’t have a problem with WO, but I do have a problem with the duplicity of GC and the liberal takeover of this increasingly democratic church.  The “faith of my fathers” was enough to keep me, while it was being practiced and taught in the Episcopal church.  I am an Episcopalian, not an RC or Orthodox.  Why should I leave?  Why shouldn’t I fight to keep the [bad word alert] integrity of the Episcopal church? I haven’t changed, nor has my faith or beliefs. My question is really “why do those who want to change the church do so?”  If a suit does not fit, you don’t hack it to pieces and try to re-arrange the scraps, you go get another suit!  If the Episcopal church didn’t fit the “lifestyle” or “inclusiveness paradigm” or whatever - YOU leave, and make your own church.  Knock yourself out - over there. 

Wow, sounds like whining - sorry guys, it’s out of my system now.

...absent from this letter was any recognition of the controversy surrounding border crossings that were also mentioned in some of those statements.

Smuggs, this is a rather old topic that has been addressed previously.  Perhaps you missed it:

(1)  http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/?p=270#comments

(2)  http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-03-036-f

...now I get to say it again about Rwanda: Good.  Don’t come.  Extremists stay home and gritch in your beers.

Thanks for the good laugh.  It’ll be interesting to see *who* will be “gritching” in their beers.

Truth, I am not debating the merits of whether border crossings are legal or illegal.  To be quite frank, the liberals will do everything to justify their position and the conservatives will do everything to justify theirs.  My POINT was that in the RWANDAN document there was no mention of the border crossings that WERE mentioned in other documents, reports, and communiques.  They spent a great deal of energy (justified) denouncing TEC’s actions which are contrary to those documents but did not type a single letter concerning their own perceived transgressions by those same documents, reports, and communiques.

You’re welcome for the laugh!  As far as I’m concerned, extremists on both sides can sour their beer with their tears all they want.  As for me and my household, since none of us have been invited to Lambeth and am therefore free to go on a vacation of our own choosing, I choose to go with Charlie Papazian’s famous line: “Relax.  Don’t worry. Have a homebrew.”

The only Anglican province in the US is TEC…

Not for long…you here…..slap, slap, eerrr…not for long.

Seraph,

The difference for me is that in the case of VGR, the episcopal church spoke as a whole though its most powerful body and rejected scripture, the rest of the ACs voice made at Lambeth, and the urging of the Primates themselves and the ABC.  Pike, Spong, various illegal SSBs or ordinations are anomolies that show a trend, but cannot be used to indict the entire church.  In those circumstances, I can say, “the diocese of Newark, etc., may be apostate, but my diocese and parish is orthodox.  However, when the church itself rejects authority through its house of bishops and its house of deputies, then my authority is using my money to teach things that I believe to be heretical.  Now, I am participating directly in a “ministry” that is antithetical to what I understand to be Christianity.  It happened that at the same time, the national church took positions and began teaching several heretical things at once.  Bishop Robinson happens to be the most sensational example.  Maybe he shocked a lot of us out of our denial.

BK

Jesus weeps..with tears of joy.

Intercessor

It’s simple:
GS Rocks
Cantaur Doesn’t
seraph=troll.

Any Questions?

Intercessor

Seraph asks: Why did you not leave then….when WO, and Pike and Barbara and Spong?

GillianC spoke of a lot that applies to us as well.  A key is that the communication available today (i.e., this site, for one) simply did not exist back then AND many of the clergy kept it to themselves for a plethora of reasons:  they liked the changes, were afraid to voice disapproval, thought someone else was supposed to - like the bishops.  I was aware of the worst of this in the 80’s in California in Swing’s diocese.  Our church was threatened with arson because our priest stood up for the faith.  He is now the Bishop of San Joaquin - John-David Schofield.  +Schofield encouraged us to stay in the fight, not to leave although I had many friends across the country do just that…and I am the only one left of our family of 5 which joined in the 1960’s.  Much of what I am saying here now I’ve said before, and many people have recounted their reasons/experiences as well.  I had two priests in the 90’s tell me “we don’t have to worry about that here” when I asked about the state of the church.  Those of us in the pews trusted our clergy and bishops to do the right thing, a trust that was upheld by some, and abused by a “majority”.  My former priest did not share with us about the events going on.  How do you find out if your priest won’t tell you?

I understand wanting to hold on to the buildings, but at this point, I say let TEC have them.  Save the money used for litigation to build new churches - so what if it is in a strip mall or a church.  Because the church is the people (and my priest even said this tonight), not the buildings.

AMEN!

Thank God for people who have the courage, integrity and faith to stand firm on the Word of God!  This is truly something that the western culture has forgotten.  It is not about nuance or perception; it is not about being inclusive or politically correct.  No.  Quite simply it is about Truth!  Praise God!

For those who believe this brings us closer to schism, I disagree.  It seems to me this cohesive coalition of faithful bishops only forces Rowan’s hand to back down from his errant agenda.  God will not be mocked and neither will the primates allow their work at Dromantine and Das Es Salaam be mocked.  Rowan must choose.  Either destroy the Anglican Communion outright or perform an amputation of diseased member.  I do not believe that Rowan is so crass as to destroy the Anglican Communion.  I have stated for some time that the only hope for the Anglican Communion is that the primates force Roawan’s hand.  It appears that this is happening.  Praise God.  This is very good news for the Anglican Communion, our Christian Witness, and as such, for all mankind.

Re the “why don’t you just leave” argument vs reasserters—some already have done so.  But if some also choose to remain, that’s their right.

Those who proclaim they are doing “a New Thing” are the ones who should leave—and find themselves some nice New Buildings to go with their New Religion.

And whilst both sides tell the other ‘you should leave’ little progress is likely to be made.

The Elves:

I missed an announcement from Kenya.  Do you have a link handy?

Timothy, the Bishops of the Southern Cone met a few weeks ago in Argentina and my understanding is that they essentially decided not to make a decision about Lambeth attendance for the time being. They wanted to keep their options open and not “lock themselves in” at this stage. They will be meeting again soon, and may be ready to make a decision at that point.

The Southern Cone is taking the correct approach. Rwanda’s decisive action is way premature - it assumes that the first round of Lambeth invitations is final, contrary to +Rowan’s clear (to anyone accustomed to his English academic/ecclesiastical manner of speech) threat to withdraw invitations from those whose attendance would prove divisive.

Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect AMiA bishops to be invited to Lambeth at this time. They are missionary bishops to North America. To invite them would be implicitly to recognize NA as mission territory, which would, in turn, imply a de-recognition of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. For +Rowan to do anything of the sort before September 30 would be to preempt the timetable established by the Primates.

The TEC HoB demanded and got a meeting with +Rowan after his sabbatical. This suggests that the TEC bishops have not yet made a final decision with respect to the Primates’ demands. As ABC, +Rowan’s job is to go the extra mile to keep all provinces in the communion.

If TEC is the prodigal son, squandering his inheritance on decadent living, Rwanda is the resentful older brother, eager to see him condemned.

To ANYONE:

I’m confused.  Is Sereph:
- a TEC reappraiser, or;
- a non-TEC reasserter, (and/)or:
- someone who is extremely bored. 

??

I believe this was a weak and highly problematic communique, because it directly impugns Abp Williams and claims he has “chosen sides.”  That is neither true nor terribly wise.  Williams may be indecisive, but he is trying to act the neutral arbiter who keeps everyone cool to preserve the Communion.  It is not true that he has taken sides, especially given that he expressly reserved the right to revoke.

Uganda could say that it needs to make a principled (and economic) decision, but impugning the Archbishop of Canterbury is directly tantamount to threatening imminent schism.  Like it or not, the Communion will ultimately rise and fall with his office.

A Global South-led new church might be a good thing, given the direction of Christianity.  It is, however, very premature to make that move.  That’s what this communique indirectly does.

“Rwanda’s decisive action is way premature - it assumes that the first round of Lambeth invitations is final, contrary to +Rowan’s clear (to anyone accustomed to his English academic/ecclesiastical manner of speech) threat to withdraw invitations from those whose attendance would prove divisive.”

Perhaps you forget the Task Force Report. Fool me once…

The ABC didn’t have to issue the invitations when he did. By doing so he put things in play, and did indeed give a boost to TEC’s revisionists. 

If he backs down, it will be because he sees very clearly he will lose over one have of the Communion—the only part that is growing. And that will be a direct result of the brave and bold action of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and the others. 

However, regardless of the motivation, all the ABC has to do is withdraw the invitations if the HOB doesnt agree to the Communique (as written).

Reason and Revelation writes: 

I believe this was a weak and highly problematic communique, because it directly impugns Abp Williams and claims he has “chosen sides.”

I think the Rwanda HOB is entirely justified in asserting that ABC Williams has “chosen sides.”

“The manner in which the invitations to the bishops of Rwanda were issued is divisive as some of our bishops were not invited.
...
We are a united body and will not participate in a conference which would divide our number.”

I disagree with R&R - past history has confirmed that time and again Rowan Williams tries to excuse TEC’s actions but is then checked by the threat of action from the Global South.  This occured most recently in DES with the preliminary TEC report.

It has happened once again with the Lambeth invitations and the GS primates can understandbly smell the rat in Rowan’s visit to TEC’s HOB.  No, they need to make it crystal clear to Rowan that they mean what they say.  Only then will Rowan stand up to TEC.

Note that Rwanda doesn’t say it categorically will not attend Lambeth.  No, what it says is that it won’t attend Lambeth if Rowan Williams won’t enforce the mind of the Communion.  It says that if Rowan and TEC continue to ignore the Communion, then they are not interested in attending a sham of a meeting.  It is an invitation to Rowan Williams to act and a warning to him of what the consequences will be if he does not.

Smuggs:  Regarding your question about the border-crossings not being mentioned, I think that the DES Communique made it clear that the primates are divided on the appropriateness of border crossings as a response to TEC’s heresy.  Overall, I think that it is clear that the it is TEC’s heresy that is the chief threat to the AC’s constitution - the border crossings are a response to that threat, and are not to be seen in the same league.

Sort of like if your house is on fire and the police come by and enter your house without a search warrant to help you escape, the entry without warrant may not be technically legal but it was done in response to the fire.

“To ANYONE:

I’m confused.  Is Sereph:
- a TEC reappraiser, or;
- a non-TEC reasserter, (and/)or:
- someone who is extremely bored.”

Moot, if I remember right from an earlier post, Seraph is a non-TEC reappraiser. I think he said something implying that he’s in a more conservative denomination with which he disagrees. I could be wrong though.

James, we were probably way overstating things last night.  I never should have posted that attempt to count what different bishops had said.  My brain is fuzzy from too much (non-blogging) related work. 

I was thinking +Kenya had said something about Lambeth in its announcement of Bill Atwood’s upcoming consecration.  But I may have been wrong.

I apologize for a misleading and inaccurate comment.  I should have re-read statements before I posted what I did, especially using the elves login, which implies some small degree of knowledge or authority.

Maybe over the weekend we can do a roundup on T19 with the links to all the OFFICIAL statements of RSVP to Lambeth.  In the meantime, just ignore what we wrote above.  Thanks,

Oops, there are several James among the commenters posting here.  Let me clarify.  My response above was to James Manley and his comment here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3971/#72467

I’d still be ready in case ++Cantuar offers a slight retreat, but then offers to approve a resolution in the form of a pan-Anglican ‘Communion Covenant’ worded so as to permit the ‘words-mean-what-I-say-they-mean’ apostates to do what they will, whilst simultaneously eliminating the ability of the orthodox to boundary-cross or otherwise do anything to actually ENFORCE said Covenant.

I predict that exactly such a scheme will be floated before Lambeth.  If it is, it must be seen for what it is.

To ANYONE: I’m confused.  Is Sereph:
- a TEC reappraiser, or;
- a non-TEC reasserter, (and/)or:
- someone who is extremely bored.”

Hi there….Moot !

Here is the scoop…

* non TEC…
*reappraiser “lite”
*often very bored
*confused at times

blessings

seraph

Africanised Anglican, you have been close to the mark before.  Since you have mentioned it, I too could see that happening, with some arguing that it is a “start”, or can be “improved over time.”

jamesw, the border crossings were also mentioned in Windsor and AMiA was established some time before that process even got started.  The former ABC himself did not recognize these bishops’ ordinations as regular.  I agree with you insofar as I don’t see the border crossings as being as large a threat as what TEC is currently doing, but I by no means view Rwanda as coming off as sweet or as innocent or as righteously indignant as this statement wants to cast them.

The statement by the Rwadan HoB uses the language “tantamount to a threat.” I understand they are saying Rowan is making a threat. But what threat—to whom? for what cause? what would be the punishment?
Can anyone fill me in? Thanks.