Archbishop Sentamu warns Anglican conservatives

Sorta like the recent fuss over the Pope’s being a Catholic.

Just what the ABp needs. Another attack dog.

My fears about Sentamu have been confirmed. He is not in the same class as the Africans who stand firm. Lord, help him.

If a full break occur’s it will be Canterbury that is less “world wide” and the breakaway majority that is actually more representative of the world.  But we knew that….

Interesting that not attending a Lambeth tea-party will separate one from the Communion, but that jettisoning thousands of years of Judeo-Christian belief and the Gospel itself has no such consequence.  One can’t help but wonder if this is a signal that the ABC in fact intends, come hell or high water, to give ECUSA a pass, perhaps in the way that Matt suggests.  Plainly the ABC doesn’t like to be pushed around—but that’s what happens when you are utterly incapable of making a decision.  It’s hard to fathom worse leadership than than which the Communion has right now (irrespective of theology).

If the conservatives boycotted Lambeth “they would be the ones voting with their feet and saying, as far as we are concerned, we are the true Anglicans”.

Yeah.  And we’d also be responsible for the Common-Cold. 

It sounds like the only ones who will be “dismayed” are those who buy into Setamu’s ‘logic.’

This is pretty constant with his ecclesiology.

I posted this note previously on another blog, but I see it fits here, too.  Since we are considering attitudes of the ABC, it is not amiss to consider those of people close to him.  I suppose you folks have been receiving letters back from corresponding with some of the primates.  I have a personalized reply from the Archbishop of York that runs as follows: “Having attended the recent General Convention and currently corresponding with people on both sides of the divide, I am aware of the frustration and pain experienced by you—and those members who disagree with you—and the temptation to feel that the time has come to separate. . . .  I could not myself subscribe to any form of secession.” I had asked him to try to influence the Lambeth invitations and to help support a new province or unit of APO in America, but he said “I do not feel able to take the action for which you ask.” (He did explain that only the ABC could decide invitations, so he could have meant that.  But I wonder if this negative did not apply to both requests.) Have others received similar statements from some of the powerful figures in COE?

While this may not be surprising, it is still disappointing. I’m still praying that when the Anglican Communion splits, the Church of England will side with the global south, and the breakaway faction would join TEC. However if both Semantu (who is probably representative of the open evangelicals) and Williams feel like this, it is more likely that the C of E hierarchy will side with TEC, and I will be forced to leave the church that raised me.

However, I must take issue with the good archbishop here

While liberal north Americans disagreed with conservatives over sexual ethics, these were not core issues, he said.

We have, of course, heard this many times before. It largely depends on how you define “core.” I would personally say that what affects our salvation is “core,” (and what does not affect our salvation either good practice or a matter indifferent) in which case our views on sexual morality are certainly part of the core Christian faith (1 Corinthians 6 is the first passage that springs to mind). I also note that the apostles at the council of Jerusalem certainly considered teachings and practice on sexual immorality to be “core.” However, even if we define core as creedal, the weakest definition possible it is clear is that the reasoning that led to the reappraiser position affects the doctrines of Christiology, the Trinity, the atonement, the incarnation, the fall, and the new creation (I’m sure that the more learned commentators here can, and have, do far better than me with this list).  The archbishop of York has met enough reappraisers, and spent more than enough time listening and reading what they say for themselves, to understand this. Then how can he say that our differences are not core doctrine?

Ecclesiology that is not Christ-centered is dead.  The proper function of ecclesiastical structures is to facilitate the spread of the Gospel to the unreached.  We should focus our effort solely on renewing the focus of the church on the Gospel.  Issues of communion and ecclesiology will then sort themselves out.

...they will effectively expel themselves from the worldwide Church if they boycott next year’s Lambeth Conference.

Why is that?  There is an underlying assumption that missing one Lambeth Conference is equivalent to breaking communion altogether. 

First, the ABC has unilaterally turned the conference into a tea party - why would non-attendance carry such an onerous implication?  Second, this clearly does not seem to be Akinola’s perspective, as I understood it from the Gledhill interview.

Sentamu’s assertion implies that the ABC will declare communion broken with those who boycott the conference, which is a different thing altogether from a province declaring communion broken.  Needless to say, if that is the sort of “polity” and “discipline” of the AC, then I can’t say that there is much to be lost…

Ecclesiology that is not Christ-centered is dead.

I do urge caution before leveling such a charge if applied to a man. What I understand of ++Sentamu’s theology, he is orthodox and hearing him speak in an orthodox parish, however ecclesiologically has been at odd with ++Orombi for years now, which is just ironically odd.

The math major in me screams…..........

If a numerical majority of the Anglicans in the world refuse to take part in Lambeth and only a minority attends, exactly WHO is representative of the Anglican Community at large?

I understand the first among peers concept, but if TEC [et al]continue to scream “democratic process” how are they to rationalize a minority claiming the “win”?

The progressives continue to practice self-delusion. Will someone please get them to take their meds. This is getting unbelievable on several levels.

While the ABY probably does reflect what is the Canterbury line, I just wonder if Jonathan Petre, as the source of what appears quite an important statement, merits caution.

2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.

I’ve seen Lambeth attendance figures before - one remembers that it’s only in recent decades that anything like “most” bishops have attended anyway.

After the last couple years, I am disinclined to take the British press too seriously.  Particularly in an article that is 5% quotation of what ++Sentamu actually said and 95% reporter’s interpretation of what he meant.  Note also this little tidbit from the article:

But he also warned the American bishops that Dr Williams reserved the right to withdraw their invitations if they were not prepared to engage in the decision-making processes of the Communion in the future.

I, for one, will not be at all surprised if another article appears next week headlined: “Sentamu says ABC will withdraw TEC invitations.”  Hopefully, the Archbishop’s office, or the paper, will release the complete interview so we can judge for ourselves what he actually meant.  Reading a bit of context into the remark about “decision making processes” I am inclined to think he was warning liberals to submit to Communion discipline, and warning conservatives to show up to Lambeth.  Which seems on the face of it to equate to what Ephriam Radner+ was saying a couple weeks ago.
TJ

Boring Bloke: “the reasoning that led to the reappraiser position affects the doctrines of Christiology, the Trinity, the atonement, the incarnation, the fall, and the new creation…”

Huh?

Yes - looking back at Jonathan Petre’s last scoop it was this:
‘Gay clergy to be banned in Synod deal’
A total mischaracterisation of the Synod vote to move forward with the draft covenant if ever there was one.

It’s important to bear in mind the type of people who staff Sentamu’s office. There’s a similar problem with the ACO. Until I hear of the departure of Kenneth Kearon for a small parish in Ireland, I will not feel safe. One should never forget his ex parte communication with Louie Crew, the grief he expressed over developments in Dar es Salaam, and the fatal fact that he wasn’t fired forthwith!

VaAnglican has it right, you know. Which is more important, the ABC’s tea party, or traditional Anglican (and Christian) belief and practice?

I seem to recall another tea party, the last time some British elites got above themselves. Shortly thereafter, my ancestors were wintering over at Valley Forge. Of course, the British thought the rebels were just ‘a tiny group,’ who also risked losing their property. At least TEC does not plan to hang anybody. They don’t, do they? Someone reassure me, for who could have predicted TEC actions to date? Is there a Hanging Canon, or merely a Dennis Canon?

I am not inclined to accept that this article reflects the considered position of the CofE.  I take Pageantmaster’s point as to Petre, but I have also read that Abp Sentamu has a reputation for speaking off the top of his head (and sometimes unwisely at that).  What this does show beyond question is that the GS statement on Friday has rattled the bureaucracy in the CofE.

So, if sexual ethics is not a “core” issue in the field of religion, what would be an example of a “core” issue?

Dr Sentamu, a close ally of Dr Williams, said that as long as Anglican bishops did not deny the basic Christian doctrines they should all be able to remain within the same Church.

Why did Bruno, who claims that Jesus is a way, not the way, get invited?  Why did Charleston, who sponsored a meditation by a Buddhist monk leading faculty and students through the mind of a Buddha, get invited?  Why didn’t Warner, who was excited about one of his priests being both Christian and Muslim, get uninvited?

I am certainly not dismayed.  Pretty much expected.

Statements like this just add more credibility to the prediction that there will be two separate communions next year.  The difference in ecclesiology is clearly seen here.  Sentamu defines the AC as being in communion with Canterbury.  Yet Santamu should know quite well that the orthodox see no value in being in communion with Canterbury if that communion is not based on the apostolic faith centered on Christ.  Such threats or scare tactics by Sentamu will not alter the GS primates.  I doubt that any GS primates will declare themselves out of communion with Canterbury, but if they are kicked out (which actually I find doubtful) then I suspect that will be disappointing to them yet it will not alter their course because their course is based on the gospel, not a heretical tea party.  It really is sad to hear Sentamu make such statements, yet unfortunately it is not surprising.

But he told them that if they “voted with their feet” they risked severing their links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with historic Anglicanism, a breach that could take centuries to heal.

“Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury,” he said. “If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it.”

The Telegraph goes on to assert that conservatives are planning an alternative, but offer no evidence to assertion.  Frankly, I doubt it’s even true, but is meant to turn up the heat against the conservatives as being the schismatic ones - the real deal is that Lambeth will be cancelled all together if the Global South and others don’t show and this “interview” seems to be trying to avoid that from happening by placing the blame on the conservatives.  Unbelievable!

This is the Anglican Communion Office talking - they do seem to be worried that Lambeth will be cancelled if the Global South doesn’t show.  If the Episcopal Bishops are suspended, there will be no money to hold Lambeth anyway since the source of funding for Lambeth comes from the rich Episcopalians.

It is interesting that the Archbishop of York is appealing to the infamous “Canterbury Charm” to hold the Communion together - as though he thinks that this charm is more powerful to the Global South then doctrine.  He seems to be implying that the carrot of colonialism is still very strong - that being part of the Canterbury Club is what keeps these less affluent nations inside the inner circle.  I am very surprise that he - of all people - would engage in that type of rhetoric.  I can’t believe he’s appealing to the Canterbury Charm - it’s as if he thinks that the photo-op is more important than the faith.  Perhaps he’s been in England too long.

Frankly, it is colonialism at its worse - knowing that these bishops represent the pooer of the poor, the Archbishop of York knows the charm of “status” and “position” by being in the same photo-op as Her Majesty the Queen’s Archbishop.  It has worked for centuries to keep the colonials in line (with one major exception, and even then the ties to the Mother Country remain strong).  The Archbishop is basically saying that it is this “royal” connection that keeps the Communion together and if the Global South stands on principles of the faith, that they will be expelled!!! 

The more I think of it the more I want to shout “Traitor!”  I can’t believe that he would do this - the situation must be very serious for him to do such a desperate thing.

If this is what keeps the communion together - the photo-op, the Canterbury Charm, the wink and the nod that the Global South are too poor to stand on principle, and Setamu’s use of the “Shame Card”  - a very old tactic of shaming is just appalling.  He is blaming those who are standing in principle for breaking up the Communion and threatening them with expulsion, though done as the English like to do.

The English bishops could never say such things without being recognized as being snobs.  Setamu is the only one who could say this - and the fact that he’s gone along with it must mean the institution is in great danger of cracking apart. 

His inability - or his unwillingness to recognize that he is attacking the symptom and not the cause is devastating.  This is an appeal for a cover-up, rather than to actually face the problem.  It’s as though we have fallen into the pages of Brideshead Revisited - and are sitting in the drawing room with the Marchmain Family, a family that could never face the deep issues that plagued their family, just covered them up and passed the tea or their vintage bottles of wine until all that was left was the Nanny.

Does Setamu now believe that the Global South can be bought with a photo-op?  Perhaps that was true in the past and now they’ve all gone “uppidity.”  That tea with the Queen means more to them then the faith?  It’s a very “English-centric” style of thinking - a very colonial one.  He dismisses the doctrinal split with a wave of the hand - is this the same person who pleaded unexpectedly at the Open Hearing at General Convention 2006 in Columbus?  Or has he been snatched in the night and polyjuiced into an institutional bureaucrat?

I must say, things must be very serious, very serious indeed, that he would consent to threaten the Global South as he does in this interview.  And that a false statement that a rival Lambeth is being set up comes across as propaganda since there is no evidence that such a thing is happening. 

Setamu seems to be behaving as though he’s been backed into a corner - dismissing the profound issues that are causing the breakdown in the Communion and and now issuing threats instead. 

Why is he afraid?

bb

Sentamu shoots himself in the foot again, once more proving that he is the Church of England’s loose “canon”.  He is, indeed, a company man and a closet liberal who opens his mouth only to change feet.  The only thing he has in common with the faithful and courageous Global South Primates is that he is from Africa, too.  Otherwise,  there is no similarity.

GB: “So, if sexual ethics is not a “core” issue in the field of religion, what would be an example of a “core” issue?”

How about…

Incarnation
Trinity
Salvation
Resurrection

...for starters?

Let me get this right . . . . By not attending Lambeth and supporting and accepting the policies of apostacy, the conservatives are going to pushed out of the communion?
Gee, the lines are becoming more defined aren’t they.
If that is the end game, just let the rest of us know how it shakes out so we can begin the search for a Christian church.

First of all, I got ahead of myself in my earlier comment. Just because it’s reported in the Telegraph doesn’t make it true, as others have said. If this article does misrepresent ++York’s position, I apologise to him.

PadreWayne, in response to my

However, even if we define core as creedal, the weakest definition possible, it is clear is that the reasoning that led to the reappraiser position affects the doctrines of Christiology, the Trinity, the atonement, the incarnation, the fall, and the new creation

You said

Huh?

I shall try to explain myself, in the hope that my more learned friends here can correct my undoubtedly frequent mistakes and put what I am trying to say clearer than I am able to. These are, to my mind, some of the crucial differences between the reasserter and reappraiser position in general. Here, we are talking about the context of sexual immorality, so I shall discuss that. In brief:

<ul>
<li> The fall: One of the arguments for the current presenting issue runs something like “These people are created this way by God; God created everything Good; therefore what they do is good and natural, and should be encouraged.” The main flaw with this argument is that it leaves out the fall of man and our depravity. If we are born that way, it does not mean that it is good.
<li> The incarnation, Trinity, etc. “higher” criticism (as far as I understand it) has as one of its core assumptions that scripture are human documents, collected after a period of oral transmission, and that some of its accounts were invented or embellished during the period of transmission; it’s goal is to seperate those parts of the scripture that originated with Christ, and those parts which were developed later, and to try to discover a picture of how and when the various stories in scripture developed. To do this, it denies the miraculous, and places all miraculous stories in the categories of myths to be discarded. I, of course, do not accept these assumptions. The incarnation (as traditionally seen, and as viewed by reasserters) is a miracle, therefore higher criticism denies the incarnation. The inspiration of the scriptures by the spirit is miraculous, so it denies this, and regards the scriptures as (primarily) a human document. I have seen accounts which treat Jesus as no more than a good man. It supports either deism or pantheism, but not Christianity. It treats the spirit as something that loosely guides general convention, not as a person that reforms our hearts to re-make them as God intends them to be; desiring no sin, transformed so that it obeys scripture. Many of the attempts to deny the scriptural readings of the passages against same sex intercourse are based on these approaches. The chief argument for the infallibility of scripture, upon which our dependence of Leviticus 18, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 etc. rests, is that it comes from God (2 Tim 3:16, John 15:26 etc.), as well as the line in the creed “He spoke by the prophets.”

Furthermore, there are the comparisons between the relationship between Christ and the church with marriage. Change the definition of marriage, and you change your view of Christ.

Furthermore, an argument for same sex intercourse is that discernment of spiritual gifts within those relationships leads us to believe that they are acceptable to God. Yet Paul writes that sexual immorality comes from the flesh, and those who practice the ways of the flesh opposed to the spirit (Galatians 5:15-26). Thus this argument changes the view of spiritual gifts, and thus the spirit, and hence the Trinity.

Furthermore, you claim that scripture was misunderstood for 2000 years, and we only recently understand the true meaning; and it is such a great injustice that we must tear the church in two to correct it. This implies that either the spirit did not inspire scripture and taht Jesus is not divine (since a divine Jesus, in the face of such a great injustice, could easily have said at the end of the sermon on the mount, “Oh, by the way, those unpleasant bits in Leviticus 18, you needn’t bother about that,” and chosen the 1st century equivalent of Louie Crew as one of the 12 to pass on the message; just as his comments about the Sabbath and food are recorded), or that God does not know what would happen and is not omniscient, or that God was incapable of making himself clear and is thus not omnipotent, or that God would change his mind and is thus not eternal; or merely that He is unjust and sadistic and didn’t care about all the people unfairly repressed over the course of church history, and is thus not God. I can’t think of any other alternatives (except, of course, to accept that sexual immorality is a sin). Whichever solution you choose, it affects our understanding of God and thus the doctrine of the Trinity etc. If Paul meant temple prostitutes, then he would have said temple prostitutes, and made it clear, and not left it to us to figure out 2000 years later.
<li>  The atonement Christian doctrine fits together like a glove; make one small change somewhere, and you are forced by logic to make large changes elsewhere to keep everything consistent. Changing the view of same sex blessings changes our view of sin (I have seen arguments trying to dissect Leviticus 18 on the basis of what the authors being good for society; rather than being on God’s design and purpose for mankind); and since the idea of sin is central to the doctrine of the atonement, thus you change the view of the atonement. The fall, original sin etc. are also central to the complete doctrine the atonement. The idea of free or cheap grace, at the centre of the new Episcopal religion, and the basis of some “arguments” for same sex blessings (the “We are not living under law but grace, therefore we can do whatever feels good to us which doesn’t harm others” type of argument), diminishes the need to repent, and thus affects the doctrine of the atonement.
<li> New creation.  I should have said Kingdom of God here, which is what I meant. One argument for same sex blessings is that it is a social injustice, and that we should strive to correct injustice. The doctrine of social justice as key is not biblical, but it is closely related to a belief that we should aim to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth; and leads to KJS preaching the MDGs instead of “Repent ye, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” In orthodox Christianity, the Kingdom of God is established by the works of God rather than man. He will tear down this broken world, and create a new one. There is nothing we can do to bring that about; except preach the good news of Christ crucified to allow as many as possible to be part of the new creation. That is not to say that we should not go about alleviating poverty, visiting prisoners etc.; but that should be as part of preaching the gospel of salvation though Christ crucified and raised, not as a replacement for it.
</ul>

BB,
I think you answered you own question.  Why is he afraid? Because as you said, “things must be very serious, very serious indeed”.

You are correct that the GS is not setting up a rival Lambeth, however it is quite possible that the attendees of the fourth GS encounter will represent a larger portion of the AC than will be represented at Lambeth.  In that sense, it is possible for one to view this conference as a rival Lambeth.  I seriously doubt that it will be a gathering on the scale of Lambeth in terms of number of bishops, but in terms of the population of provinces represented it could be far greater than will be represented by a boycotted Lambeth.  Although I do not know for sure, it is my suspicion that this is what is being referred to.

GB: “So, if sexual ethics is not a “core” issue in the field of religion, what would be an example of a “core” issue?”

How about…

Incarnation

Trinity

Salvation

Resurrection

...for starters?

  9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
  10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

This is a matter of salvation. If you do not recognise it as sin, you will not repent. And if you do not repent, you will not be saved. And that is why it is a core issue.

</b>Sorry, it should be “matter of salvation,” not “batter of salvation,” (whatever that is). And I messed up my bold font.

Note from Jackie:  It was a pleasure to make those minor corrections.  Consider it my Amen!

Padre Wayne—My bishop regards the Nicene description of the Trinity as a political compromise.  He completely rejects the doctrine of original sin.  He personally distributes Holy Communion to the unbaptized.  He has described the Holy Spirit as being about diversity, “nothing more and nothing less”, thereby rejecting His role as Advocate, Comforter, and “the Lord, the giver of life..who has spoken through the prophets.”  Aren’t these areas of “core doctrine”?

Okay, so we’ve heard from York (via the Telegraph). Anybody know how long it’s been since we’ve heard from Durham? I’m ready for a word from ‘ol Tom.

Core issues?  The most basic message of the Bible, God’s Self-revelation to Mankind, is His holy-love.  Yet to endorse a lifestyle of self-gratification which defies any sense of positive* holiness at all, in harmony with an organisation which rose up some thirty years ago to declare its independence from that Book, is not “core” to the Faith?  No, one must have already denied the core of the Faith to even go there!

Ecclesiology:  from ecclesia, a called-out assembly.  1.  Called out by whom?  A Church employee, or Christ?  2. What kind of body?  A worldly “corps” of like-minded sinners, or the sanctified Body of Christ?

I love Canterbury.  I spent two weeks, years ago, at the Cathedral drawing on the tradition of prayer and holiness saints have invested in that site since 597, and I cherish the historical connection with all it represents; but Anglican Christianity is over 400 years older than that, and a young Englishman or Welshman (using modern terms) was actually evangelising Ireland before Augustine went to England.  Our Faith is not drawn from Canterbury, Rowan, or Augustine, but from Christ**, and Canterbury, though a beloved cousin, never was our father.

Romans 12
1 Corinthians 12
Hebrews 12

Be greatly encouraged- God is at work!
*The term for holy, or sanctified, in the Old Testament, also was used for being marked for destruction.  In that sense, all who persist in their rebellion against the Almighty are holy- putting themselves completely in God’s hands to their own eternal loss.

**What evangelist said, “God has no grandchildren?”

Peter, see comment #5 on this T19 thread (there is also an audio link in the article, I think you can listen in to ++Gomez as well)- from the recent CoE synod:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4257/

Boring Bloke is right on target. Must read comment above.
(I think we can all agree that the typo on “matters” is not core.)

Thank you, tjmcmahon!

No, I don’t run the blog.  Sorry, I can spell my own correctly though -

Eklips

Does the Archbishop of York know that ++Rowan said this about Lambeth, when he issued the invitations to the conference?

In his letter of invitation, Archbishop Williams spelled out what the Conference “is and is not,” adding that he has also decided to exercise his privilege “of calling his colleagues not to legislate but to discover and define something more about common identity through prayer, listening to God’s word and shared reflection.”

He emphasized that the Lambeth Conference “has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants.”

Or is this it - is it finally the case that membership in the Anglican Communion is not dependent on the See of Canterbury, but by attendance at Lambeth? And if so, did I miss the part where +York gets to make that decision?

DISCLAIMER: This might violate the ban on whining and freaking out.  If so, I apologize in advance.

I’ve asked this before, and it has never been answered that I am aware of.  Maybe this merits being a topic of it’s own:

Folks, this is only the most recent indicator that Anglicanism is as it’s highest levels corrupt.  The 3rd pillar of “reason” has been elevated to a truly perverse level, at the explicit expense of scripture and tradition.

Given that
A) ++Cantaur is a company man, and especially in the light of his underlying personal theological liberalism,
B) ++York is squarely on his “side”
C) ++Akinola and the rest of the SC, and the “orthodox” will not accept +VGR as legitimate, nor TEC as legitimate as of October 1
D) That NO discipline will happen to TEC
E) That boycotting Lambeth by the GS WILL result in secession / expulsion of the GS and with that the orthodox’ “patron”

Folks, WHY are we sitting on a BBS like this gritching about the comings and goings, the meetings, the positing, and so on?

The orthodox position is weak.  Canterbury is preparing for life with no southern hemisphere organization.  TEC is being braced up by Caterbury.

WHY are we all sticking with this Church and denomination???  It’s corrupt, cancerous, and doomed.  The orthodox have NO FUTURE in a large Anglican organization.  Come October 1, TEC will have had nothing done to it, the GS will have expelled itself, or have set that in the works.  We will have been sold out. 

Can someone please tell me why we have and should continue to maintain membership in TEC and / or any Anglican-styled Church?

Boring Bloke: “This is a batter of salvation. If you do not recognise it as sin, you will not repent. And if you do not repent, you will not be saved. And that is why it is a core issue. “
Thanks for the warning. I still believe I’ll see ya at the Banquet.

Robert Easter: “Yet to endorse a lifestyle of self-gratification which defies any sense of positive* holiness at all…”
A lifestyle of self-gratification, huh? That’s what I have. Hmmmm…interesting. I’ll remember that when I’m paying the bills, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn.

Robert Easter, thank you for some thoughtful observations. I hope I am not digressing from the commentary on the thread too much, but it seems to fit. Robert, I certainly concur with you on most of what you shared, but will have to prayerfully study your take on sanctification. I’ve not understood it in that sense, exactly. To my mind, however, the whole sanctity issue includes even Paul’s admonition about receiving Holy Communion unworthily and at what point we must declare ourselves to be out of communion with someone(s).  I Corinthians 11:27-32 gives me pause… the concept of worthy reception; e.g. participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner thus being “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation.”  I am inclined to embrace a Reformed position on this. Therefore the great need of a Covenant and one which insists on accountability in the area of “core” beliefs. And, yes, I know what the Articles say about not being concerned so much about who administers the sacrament and that the elements themselves remain pure as it were and impute great power.
“Modern evangelicalism minimizes Scripture’s clear and precious teaching regarding the Lord’s Supper and, therefore, does not even consider questions regarding worthy participation. According to Scripture, we ignore such teaching to our own peril.” James Bordwine , a former Instructor of Old Testament Studies and Historical Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, SC.

**What evangelist said, “God has no grandchildren?” 

That is attributed to the late and beloved David DuPlessis, who was known as Mr. Pentecost by many of us.
Merlena

Clay,

Word to the wise - chill out a bit.  Your post could be construed as going against the SF comment policy. 

Some of us are called into leaving.  Some are (for whatever reasons) called into staying.  Personally, right now I’d like to leave, but I am in a position right now where I can help more people than simply me and mine;  “Rear-gaurd” kind of stuff.  So that would be one reason. 

I’m sure there’s more. 

... Chill. 

And ... take off your coat, and stay a while. 

moot - I’ve been here quite awhile - years in fact.  I’ve just had it.  And I have no clue where to go.  The only tradition we have in our family, PECUSA, is ruined.  We have nothing now besides genes to tie our generations together.

I’ve chilled out enough.  Chilling out is what let Spong start all this nonsense.  It’s walking time.

Very little to worry about.  Even if York thinks this way and even if he is the mouthpiece for Canterbury, so what?  It would take Rowan Williams a minimum of 20 years to decide that GS bishops who had boycotted Lambeth were no longer in communion with his most excellent personage.  I doubt this AB could decide on his own what color socks to wear without a minimum of three days to ponder the implications of brown v. black.

...and didn’t the fathers and doctors say something like “where Christ is, there is the Church”?

Well, someone said it, but I don’t think that you can lay it at the doorstep of the Fathers. I believe that the more orthodox (and Orthodox) statement would be St. Ignatius of Antioch’s: “Where the Bishop is, there is the Church.”

Clay From Dallas :

Clay, you do not have to walk.  Find other Anglicans who believe in Christ and begin an orthodox congregation in your area.  It is a difficult road - not fun - and I’ve walked it - but once you are free, you are free indeed.  My suggestion is to get in touch with the ACN in your area - they can help you a great deal.

There’s an article about our church’s journey on Montana Anglican:    link

I know it’s discouraging - but there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.  I trust the Global South bishops - they are men of God and they will help us to maintain our Faith and witness in America.

<blockquotes>“Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury,” he said.</blockquotes>

This may be true and added to those roots are the multiple marriages, divorces and beheadings of Henry VIII that led to the initial split with Rome and the continued symbiotic relationship between the CofE, Canterbury, and the government and monarch.  I know that this doesn’t represent the heart of anglicanism as it has been refined over the centuries beginning with people like Cramner, Ridley and Latimer, but I don’t believe that Canterbury (despite my emotional and intellectual attachments for the See of Canterbury and what it stands for, having gone to school in Canterbury) holds the copyright of anglicanism any longer.  Anglicanism has become a global entity that represents a wonderfully rich expression of Christ’s Church on earth.  So what are we leaving behind -if it comes to a split in the Communion?

<blockquotes>“If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it.”... says the ABY</blockquotes>

If we ‘sever’ ourselves from Canterbury we do NOT sever ourselves from the Communion of Anglicanism (whatever the name it might take), that will continue as long as those who cleave to the heart, doctrine, and spirit given to us by the Scriptures, to those who have preserved the traditions of the Church of Christ over the centuries.  As long as we remain true to this and remain true to the ‘bonds of affection’ and in communion with our fellow believers in traditional anglicanism,  our Anglican Communion will continue. 
And perhaps we will sadly say ‘a pox on Canterbury and what it has become’.  And perhaps we won’t…..................

“Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury,” he said. “If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it.”

Wait a minute. Wait a minute.  Wait a minute!  Wait a cotton-pickin’ minute!!  This is all wrong!

Is this fellow saying that if the GS primates and others refrain from attending Lambeth, then they have effectively ex-communicated themselves from the Anglican Communion when he writes:  “...you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it.”?

Bollocks and balderdash, I say!  Why wouldn’t it be the other way around???  That it’s the liberal revisionists who’ve gained political control of TEC, and who have refused compliance with WR and the DES Communique… THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE SEVERED THEMSELVES FROM THE COMMUNION.  THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.  THE LIBERAL REVISIONISTS HAVE EFFECTIVELY EX-COMMUNICATED THEMSELVES FROM THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION! 

NOT THE GS PRIMATES AND THE ORTHODOX!!!  LET’S BE CLEAR HERE.

This Archbishop of York has it completely backwards.

TU… AD:  You make a very important point and observation, YET, posession is 90% of the law (so to speak) and “they” posess the asset (the Church).

My rhetorical question is: why stick around where you aren’t wanted?  All I am to TEC is a checkbook.

TU… AD:  You make a very important point and observation…

Thanks Clay from Dallas.  What gets me going is that for the longest time I was under the impression that the ABC and the primates were jointly creating documents and communiques showing that if there was non-compliance, then the liberal revisionists were the ones revealing that they are ones choosing to walk apart.  This strategy’s purpose was to greatly alleviate the psychic pain of ABC and the primates of having to actually put the boot to TEC or to downgrade them to associate membership.  They could simply point out that non-compliance by TEC automatically resulted in self-expulsion.  In effect, TEC booted itself out.

But now this ArchBishop of York fellow wants to overturn the tables completely and say that if there’s non-attendance by anyone to Lambeth 2008, then they’ve ex-communicated themselves.  That is an utterly ridiculous notion.

There is some major gameplaying, maneuvering, politicking, alliance-making, and back-handed trickery and treachery afoot at 815, and possibly at Canterbury, with Canon Kearon and Archbishop of York handling ABC Rowan.  There is an Enron-like stench emanating at 815 and it can’t be ignored or trusted.

Father Matt talked about the ABC trying to forge an alliance between the the communion conservatives (like the ACI and now Sentanamu) and the liberals. Talk about being unequally yoked. If the comm cons go for this, I truly pity them. That is a path of certain lonely death with the fed cons having excused themselves. The only hope for life is to break away. Will the ABC follow? He may if enough people actually diminish his importance.

Whenever I think about taking a view on what Dr. Sentamu may have said in this interview my reluctance to accept that I am seeing it clearly through the lens of Jonathan Petre overcomes me.

Will the ABC follow?

That question says it all right there.  Instead of being a leader of God’s people, the ABC is now a follower.  How very sad. 

When Israel was in Egypt land.
Let my people go.
Oppressed so hard they could not stand.
Let my People go.
Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt land.
Tell ol’ - Pharaoh - Let my people go.
What have you to lose but chains?

I have to ask again if the Archbishop of Canterbury could possibly be bound and gagged somewhere and held incommunicado while others stage a coup in the Church of England and AC!  I first mentioned this scenario as a joke, but has anybody actually seen ++Rowan Williams in Georgetown and around and about?!  I know he is on “sabbatical,” but that doesn’t usually mean that one is suddenly invisible.  Not trying to seem a total “conspiracy theorist,” I’m just asking if there are really such powerful counter forces in the CoE that he could be pressured into this seclusion at this crucial time.  (I think Kearon and company would rather work with York.)  We are definitely hearing a different line and tone than ++Rowan was taking just months ago—and spokesmen like Kearon and Sentamu are implying that he agrees with them.  I do wonder what all is going on behind the scenes these days.

Like the Count of Monte Christo, Paula?  Gosh, poor Dr. Williams.  An iron mask do you think?

Greg already pointed out the discrepancy between Sentamu’s hint that not being marked “present” at Lambeth means expulsion, and Williams’s comments in his letter of invitation in May:

But the Lambeth Conference has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants. An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.

So, on the one hand, we have Williams telling us that you can’t draw any conclusions about anybody’s status from the mere fact that they have or haven’t been invited.  And on the other hand, Sentamu is saying that if you’re invited, attendance is mandatory or else you’re out of the church.  Reminds me of Caesar’s decree that everyone had to return to their place of birth in order to be officially enumerated.  (And as Mark Steyn said, only a bureaucrat could come up with a regulation as stupid as that.)

Dear Clay in Dallas,

Howdy from a fellow Texan.  We came to the same conclusion in December and left the ECUSA parish we had been attending for a local continuing church that uses the 1928 prayerbook and the 1940 hymnal.  While it is not a member of Common Cause, it is a signatory of the St. Louis document, which name escapes me at the moment.

(I have a post on the “Threat” thread that goes into some of the rationale behind our departure.  The parish we were attending was conservative and biblically orthodox, and while not a member of ACN, it was sympathetic to it.  But I realized that any monies that I gave to that church was going to filter its way to the national church and 815.  The thought that I was giving even a peso’s worth to help with the lawsuits against the Virginia churches was more than I could bear.  If my priest was in communion with his bishop, albeit a “Windsor bishop”, and he was in communion with KJS, then I was in communion with her also.  And that fact greatly troubled my spirit.)

As a woman, I was thoroughly prepared to give up any type of leadership or LEM-type service in order to be faithful to a biblical, apostolic faith.  I have since learned that women do serve on the vestry, but the closest I will get to the altar is if I join the altar guild.  As far as I can tell even be a lector is not permitted, that was part of my Isaac.  The biggest part of my Isaac was that I was also prepared to go to a church without my adult children because at that time they were planning on staying at the ECUSA parish; I was prepared to worship Easter Sunday without my daughter by my side.  But the Lord provided a ram in the thicket in this matter and I am overjoyed to tell you that they attend our little parish, too.

Living in Dallas, have you thought about Christ Church, Plano?  For some the Isaac may be having to drive a greater distance to go to church.  You might contact Fr. Roseberry and see if the might be some continuing churches he knows of nearer by.  Check out Grannie’s website that lists various shelters in the storm.  That’s how we found our little EMC parish, but be warned what we first thought of to be a temporary shelter, has become our home. 

I’d be happy to find out how my church got started some 30 years ago with two dozen people, as there are still founding members there.  It’s not easy, but I am so thankful that those people made the difficult choice to break away.  Now, it is my heart’s desire to help it grow as we seem to be bursting at the seams.  And to prepare to welcome and receive other wounded refugees.

It’s not all happy news, our other children our looking at leaving Anglican-based worship for a much more evangelical non-denominational church where they live.  I have told them they have my blessings and just be open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.  There are so many OT parallels to this situation: the faithful remmant, the diaspora, the witness of the faithful few.  The lost tribes of Israel became lost because they became absorbed into the culures they lived in.  The Jews that remained (and those who will remain today) lived their lives in separation to the reigning culture.  And it was out of that faithful remmant that our Lord was born.

Another warning and this will happen if you are blessed with good clergy leadership:  you will find yourself saying mea culpa a lot more.  The laxness of my own discipline has, at times, been glaring.  It’s like the sensation of being throw into a cold mountain stream, refreshing, shocking and a bit scary, to hear the word of God clearly preached, without the equivocation that is so common in ECUSA clergy, even the ones that are considered “conservative”.  And frankly, after two decades of Rite II, there are parts of the 1928 prayerbook that are a slap in the face.

If you would like, I’d be happy to take this discussion off-line.  But, and this is a wave to Greg and company, I’d like to see just a bit of easing of the guidelines, of course not to the point of name calling or prejorative remarks.  And here’s my stab at it.

To my fellow fedcons who are remaining in ECUSA and to the comcons on SF, with all due respect, I urge you in the bowels of Christ to prayerfully re-examine your decision to stay in whatever ECUSA parish or mission you attend on Sunday.  Please be aware that, even if your church does not give any money to the national church, your donations at some level go to pay KJS and DeBeers and Louie Crew and the lawsuits, if it is paying its diocesan asking.  To the best of my knowledge, ALL ECUSA dioceses are paying into the national church…and if I am incorrect, somebody out there please correct me.  And then, there’s the business about being in ecclesial communion with KJS and being yoked with unbelievers, etc.

If, after a very deliberate and prayerful re-examination, you believe that the Lord is calling you to remain within ECUSA, then may He bless you and strenghten you for the battle you must be called to wage.  For there can be no other reason to stay, for whether one stays or goes, I believe in my heart we are all called to sacrifice something: ease, security, popularity, comfort, an easy drive, friends, money, position, familiarity, a comfortable pew….but something. 

One more thing, and then I better stop.  EVERYONE, needs to be reading their Bibles regularly.  There are several reading programs out there from Rick Warren to the RC lectionary.  Let us not be the people who perish for lack of knowledge.

Archbishop John Sentamu says: “Anglicanism has its roots through CANTERBURY. If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about that.”

With all due respect Dr. Sentamu, I must disagree with both your stated premise and the conclusion that you draw from it. I have been a member of the Anglican Communion for many years, and I was always under the impression that Anglicanism had its “roots” through the HOLY WORD OF GOD. If you sever THAT link, then yes most certainly you are severing yourself from the (Anglican) Communion as well as the rest of historic orthodox Christianity. See TEC for details. This is typical institutional and bureaucratic nonsense. Your threats…....intentional or not, will have little or no impact on the ultimate actions of the Global South primates whose unquestioned defense of the faith once delivered is truly remarkable and inspirational to all of us (very weary) USA faithful believers in the TRUE Anglican Way. May God continue to bless their efforts in the weeks and months ahead. As for the Church of England Dr. Sentamu, I strongly suggest that you and Archbishop Rowan Williams cease being apologists for an heretical institution like the TEC which is barely recognizable as a Christian Church anymore. If not, the COE will follow TEC down a path to total irrelevancy within the Communion in my humble opinion.

Padre Wayne,
I’ve re-read my post, and I have to confess I’m at a loss how my poor words could be misconstrued so thoroughly by a trained theologian.  If you have a question, I would love to hear it, but if it was your purpose to paint a caricature it may not have put the spotlight where you wanted it.

We are definitely hearing a different line and tone than ++Rowan was taking just months ago—and spokesmen like Kearon and Sentamu are implying that he agrees with them.  I do wonder what all is going on behind the scenes these days.

Perhaps the ABC is sending up trial balloons via proxy-handlers?

Sentamu makes the point for the Global South.  Attendance at Lambeth is meaningful, very meaningful, under a Canterbury-led Communion.  This is precisely why the preemptory invitations to US Bishops, following their outright rejection of the Communique, were such a big deal. 

The ABC can prevent this train wreck by simply withdrawing the invitations if TEC doesnt meet the strict requirements of the Communique.  We know, of course, that TEC will not meet these requirements, and if Sentamu’s statement reflects the ABC’s thinking, it is unlikely that the ABC will withdraw the invitations based simply on a breach of the Dar agreement (dealing in large part with what he discribes the ‘non-core” sexuality issue).

The Global South Steering Committee statement was a huge development, and we can expect more expressions like this as leaders come to the realization that the time of reckoning—of real choices—is here.  Sentamu’s statement is also perhaps the first salvo from the ABC regarding the use of the “Anglican” tradename.  All of this is painful. I think every reasserter would prefer to remain connnected with Canterbury if it was at all possible.  But its not worth the apparent price—remaining yoked in a Communion with an increasingly apostate denomination.  Not even close.

Round and round and round they go…when will they stop…nobody knows!!!!  Just trying to figure out the marching tune for this Primates’ game of musical chairs!  Perhaps “Onward, Christian Soldiers”?  Maybe that’s not loving and compassionate enough for our revisionist buds…but it’s perfect for the GS!

Sodbuster:  I’m not a moderator.  Just a concerned citizen who doesn’t want to see another head rollin’ down the oaken steps. 

Clay:  Yeah - The mainline Presbyterian Church probably isn’t an option, though pound for pound, they’re probably better than TEC.  I’m formerly Presbyterian myself (OPC), and have a good friend who used to be an Elder in the PCA (like me, he’s Anglican now).  I think between him and me, we could find you a decent Presbyterian church in the Dallas area. 

Ed Clowney’s church (i.e., where he assistant pastored, before he passed away, a couple of years ago) was PCA.  I’ll check to see if they’re in or around Dallas. 

If you like, I could look into it for you.  FWIW, I can navigate those waters better than most conservative Presbys. 

Ever miss the good ole days when the King (or Queen) would have sent a few knights out to ensure the ABC (and or any other Bishop) was in compliance?  It worked to our disavantage sometimes, but sometimes….

“Ever miss the good ole days when the King (or Queen) would have sent a few knights out to ensure the ABC (and or any other Bishop) was in compliance?”
Midwestnorwegian, why are we so sure it couldn’t happen now?!

Sentamu must not like the way the Fat Lady sings.

Thank you Gayle for your beautiful testimony straight from your heart of faith.  I hope it will be instructive about what is being asked of us at this time.  I am so very glad you told your story and reminded all of us of the importance of obedience and of staying in the Word.

Clay, it seems as though the Holy Spirit is dealing with you mightily.  It is not going to be easy, but if you want to continue with liturgical Anglican worship and carry on the traditions of your heritage, you will have to make sacrifices, just as Gayle has said.  What will your Isaacs be?  What is God asking you to sacrifice to Him?  Just listen to Him and do not be afraid to take up your cross and follow Jesus.  It seems to me there are several good choices in Dallas outside of TEC, or perhaps you are being called to start a new Anglican church in your area if there is not one.
Our new Anglican church began by six months of weekly coporate prayer, asking God to help us find a faithful way forward as orthodox Anglicans.  There were an average of 5-8 people involved in those gatherings, but we were faithful in continuing them.  One year ago yesterday our Anglican church was born. (We had a joyful first anniversay celebration yesterday!)  We have 60 members, people from infants to late 80’s, and we have become a wonderful small family of faith, hoping to grow of course.  We know the blessings that God has given to us.  If you begin and continue with obedience in prayer, God will be with you all the way, and will keep His hand upon you.

One of the late Ruth Bell Graham’s (the person Billy Graham says he has always gone to for spiritual counsel) favorite life verses was
Psalm 25:4-5:  Show me your ways, O Lord
      teach me your paths;
      guide me in your truth and teach me
      for You are God my Savior
      and my hope is in You all day long.  Good verses to pray as you seek God’s will for your life.

FWIW, David Virtue reports that the CofE’s conservative Church Society, concerned about this story, tried to verify it:

We have attempted to clarify whether the statement shown at the beginning of this article [MM: regarding core doctrine]accurately reported the words of the Archbishop.  The press officer was unable to confirm this stating that everything in quotes in the article was accurate, but this paragraph does not appear in quotes.

The Church Society statement is here:

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=698

If he said it, the Church Society statement answers him perfectly here:
“The context of the interview was apparently about those faithful Bishops in Africa and elsewhere who feel they can no longer in conscience attend the Lambeth Conference.  They have come to the conclusion that the teaching of Scripture about the need to break fellowship with those who are in gross error is important.

There are many exhortations in the New Testament to break fellowship in this way, for example in 2 Thessalonians 3 verse 6:
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

Indeed Anglicanism has insisted on discipline as being a mark of the Church and its Bishops and Archbishops have sworn to drive out strange and erroneous doctrines. Yet the Archbishop seems to be arguing that anyone who takes that promise seriously is no longer Anglican.”

Apart from the odd phrase in quotes only about 5 paragraphs have any quotes of substance, and those are pretty anodyne.

What are they saying?

Wonder if this interview was set up at the behest of Canon Kearon, the official mouthpiece for everybody in sight?

Hey BB - Was in the Admin site fixing a very, very rare (almost nonexistent and not worth mentioning) typo of my own and I thought I’d do the same for you.  Now Eclipse - she’s on her own.  You know how cats tend to be so persnickerty anyway. 

Clay from Dallas -
I am beginning to wonder if possibly your eyes, ears and memory are failing you since we have been down this road so many times before.  As gently and as lovingly as I can say it, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO ATTEMPT TO COERCE YOUR FELLOW BLOGGERS INTO LEAVING ECUSA.  We all understand your frustration.  These are trying times.  They try not just our nerves but also our faith.  Paul knew of what he spoke when he said we need to be refined like silver.  Think of this as the refining process.  If God is calling you to go, He will lead you to a new place.  If He is calling you to stand at the ready, there is no other place for you.  We all feel your pain.  Believe me.  Daily.  My best advice is to re-read Sarah’s book.  Make small, yet, telling dents in the revisionist armor by starting Bible studies that build strong Christians.  Until then, my brother in Christ, PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE THE COMMENTING POLICY AGAIN. 
And remember, I’m the nice one.  There is another who carries a sword.

While liberal north Americans disagreed with conservatives over sexual ethics, these were not core issues, he said.

Yes, they are.  The Canadian Sidestep isn’t now and will never become a popular dance in Africa—or anywhere else in Christendom, for that matter.  ++Sentamu has clearly been living in Europe for longer than is spiritually healthy.

Sodbuster - ‘Tis true.  Against commenting policy.  Really.  Like I told Clay - Remember, there is another who carries a sword.

Susan Russell affirms Sentamu: 

You can declare yourself the bastions of traditional Anglicanism until the cows come home but if you’re not in communion with Canterbury you’re not part of the Anglican Communion.

Clay from Dallas, Susan Russell’s comment is precisely why I was so displeased earlier in this thread.  It makes a huge difference in perception as to WHO is walking away from the Anglican Communion.  Is it the theological liberal revisionists?  Or is it the conservative biblical reasserters? 

This is a huge battle.  And I strongly urge and exhort orthodox Anglicans to contest Susan Russell et al on this key point.

(hat tip to Christopher Johnson at MCJ)

Fwiw, I am referring to my post on 07-23-2007 at 12:23 PM and Clay from Dallas’s response immediately following.

David Phillips’ words in his last paragraph as cited by Mrs.Payne makes an excellent point if the initial article can be verified to be true as he cites the words ‘Anglicanism has insisted on discipline as being a mark of the church and its Bishops and Archbishops have sworn to drive out
strange and erroneous doctrines.Yet the Archbishop seems to be arguing that anyone who takes that seriously is no longer Anglican.’
Would lead one to wonder if we were seeing a phenomenon I thought I’d have only seen in the Superman comics of my young years,Bizarro Anglicanism.

It is a shame and a disappointment that Bishop Sentamu has forgotten his roots - his Ugandan Christian roots, that is.
The Church of Uganda was watered by the blood of the Ugandan Martyrs who gave their lives, rather than accept homosexual advances from King Mwanga. (June 3rd is the commemoration day).

The opulent/affluent life, materials goods/pecks, and the pride of the office of the archbishop (of York) have gotten into this guy’s head and the bishop has become another victim of “let’s-just-get-along-and-don’t rock-the-good-life-boat syndrome

I am sure true Christians from/in Uganda and East Africa are more than ashamed and disappointed by this archbishop. 

Archbishop Sentamu ought to know that the Global South Faithfuls care more for The Lord and the Truth of the Gospel than any jamboree in the UK.

Thank God, unlike Sentamu, there are faithful Anglicans from/in African who are not sold to the material and worldly lie that claims victims such as Sentamu.

Here I go double posting again- from the other thread on the Church Times “non-confirmation”-
I don’t know whether this will make anyone feel better, but if you go to the AC’s official website (run by the dreaded ACO, I believe) you will not see the Telegraph story.  You will see, prominently displayed, ++Henry Luke Orombi’s extraordinary essay “What is Anglicanism.”
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/
If you look farther down the page under “what’s new on the website” (although this is a misnomer) and you will find the communique and the panel of reference report on Florida.  On the right hand bar, you will find everything you want to know about the Windsor report.
So, which is the official opinion of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Anglican Communion?  Do you think it is expressed in the Daily Telegraph, or on the Communion’s website?

The axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Sentamu is correct; there is a severing from the rotting root of Canterbury underway.  It is an awesome thing to behold the One wielding the axe.

” . . .It makes a huge difference in perception as to WHO is walking away from the Anglican Communion.  Is it the theological liberal revisionists?  Or is it the conservative biblical reasserters? 

“This is a huge battle.  And I strongly urge and exhort orthodox Anglicans to
contest Susan Russell et al on this key point.”  —Truth Unites . . . and Divides

T.U.D., I agree with you.  I think we should all rise up with a great voice and insist that we do NOT want to leave the Anglican Communion even though the Episcopal Church is certainly putting itself outside it in all the ways that matter (Anglican and Christian doctrine, spirit, history).  I wish more of our leaders would hammer away at the line:  WE DON’T WANT TO LEAVE!  HE—NO, WE WON’T GO!  DON’T TWIST OUR WORDS!  (Even those in Common Cause should make a great outcry of this kind, as they have mostly had no intention at all of leaving the Anglican Communion and have been encouraged to expect the present circumstances to be temporary.)  But we, in our enthusiasm, sometimes sound as though we are saying the opposite.  We must clarify that we simply want to detach from TEC because we don’t want to be complicit in its serious errors (that do clearly involve core doctrine).  As for the Communion—WE REFUSE TO GO!  For what it is worth, I think that the Global South bishops should go and flood Lambeth with their presence and show the strength of the orthodox faith.  This is not because of Sentamu’s threat but because it is our Communion and I think we should show this yet again.

Dear Paula, This is a really tough issue as there is a fine line between going to Lambeth to be a witness to the truth among non believers and on the other hand not associating with false teachers that arise in our midst.  We should keep our dear brothers and sisters in the Global South in prayer as they seek discernment on how to handle this.

Hey Paula,
You are so right.  We are not going anywhere.  We, that is all orthodox Anglicans worldwide, are standing firm as Anglicans and upholding the 39 articles and the prayer book.  It is TEC, Canada and apparently CoE that either have left or are in the process of departing Anglicanism.  The Christian faith has never been rooted in a city, but in the person of Jesus Christ.  Thanks be to God!

unhealthy physician,
It is a great witness to non believers to take a stand for what you believe in.  It was the martyrs who were the seed of the church.  Their witness was not due to their prowess at negotiation, nor due to their willing ness to get along with those they disagree with, but due to their absolute unwavering commitment to the gospel.

Dear Spencer, I agree completely with you and cannot fault those in the Global South who decline to attend Lambeth.

Spiro: “The Church of Uganda was watered by the blood of the Ugandan Martyrs who gave their lives, rather than accept homosexual advances from King Mwanga.”
Well, while the first part of this sentence is true, the second (the cause for their martyrdom) is not exactly right. King Mwanga was suspicious of missionary success and the growth of both Christianity and Islam, and when he became king he became much less tolerant of the imported faiths. When his homosexual advances and his demand to renounce Christianity were refused, the martyrdoms began. Loyalty to Christ above loyalty to the king could not be allowed! Persecution of Christians was revived in the 1970s under the brutal leadership of Idi Amin—there have been thousands of new martyrs, including Janani Luwum, Anglican Archbishop of Uganda.

As I understand it, Dr Sentamu was imprisoned for his Christian witness as a judge, tortured [he described it as being kicked about like a football] and probably very lucky to have survived the Amin regime.

Physician,
Nor will we fault those who choose to attend in an effort to seek peace with those we disagree.

Peace and health to you.

Someone may have asked this before—I’m new…. Isn’t it a possibility that the retreat-style Lambeth could become one during which resolutions are debated and passed by those present?  That gives me some pause regarding the boycotts.  Any thoughts?