Total visitors right now: 97

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Breaking: Anglican Bishops Take First Steps to New Structure (Statement from Common Cause Partners)

Friday, September 28, 2007 • 11:34 am

This thread has amassed a large number of comments. If you’re having trouble viewing them, please refer to this post.


Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure” in North America.  The meeting of the first ever Common Cause Council of Bishops was held in Pittsburgh September 25-28.

The bishops present lead more than 600 Anglican congregations.  They formally organized themselves as a college of bishops which will meet every six months.  They also laid out a timeline for the path ahead, committed to working together at local and regional levels, agreed to deploy clergy interchangeably and announced their intention to, in consultation “with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted,” call a “founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union,” at the earliest possible date agreeable to all of the partners.

“We met deeply aware that we have arrived at a critical moment in the history of mainstream Anglican witness in North America.  God has led us to repentance for past divisions and opened the way for a united path forward.  To him be the glory,” said Bishop Robert Duncan, convener of the council.

The full text of the bishops’ joint statement follows:

Common Cause College of Bishops Statement

In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.

We, the College of Bishops of the Common Cause Partnership, meeting together in Pittsburgh, September 25-28 in the Year of our Lord 2007, solemnly affirm this agreement.

In the grace, mercy and power of God, and in repentance for past disunity and disharmony, in thanksgiving for our full reconciliation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to give expression to our unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as Anglicans in North America, and for the sake of our mission to extend the Kingdom of God, nurture faithful disciples through Word and Sacraments, seek the lost, and partner globally with other orthodox Anglicans, we hereby commit to do the following:

1. In order to achieve greater unity and strengthen our partnership in the Gospel, we the undersigned commit ourselves to the Common Cause Partnership as set forth in the Articles of the Partnership (see Appendix 1).

2. We declare clearly that we are taking this as a first step in the formation of the “separate ecclesiastical structure” in North America called for at Kigali in September, 2006.

3. In consultation with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted, we intend a founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union (see Appendix 2).

4. Those presently-participating bodies which have not yet joined the Common Cause Partnership will decide at the next meeting of their legislative bodies, either to enter the Partnership or leave full membership in Common Cause, becoming observer bodies. It is expected that all presently-participating bodies will be able to enter the Partnership.

5. We will work together on the regional and local levels and avail ourselves of the various ministries of the Common Cause Partners. We will deploy clergy interchangeably as outlined in the Articles of the Partnership. We are free to invite our fellow bishops in this College to share episcopal acts and our sacramental life.

6. The College of Bishops will meet every six months in order to accomplish our stated objectives. The leading bishop of each Partner will serve on a Lead Bishops Roundtable, which may be expanded as they may determine. The Roundtable will advise us in matters referred to it (see Appendix 3).

7. We are committed to the Great Commission. We will make disciples who make disciples and plant churches that plant churches, not resting until the millions of unreached souls in North America are brought to Christ, until all groups on the earth have indigenous churches firmly begun within them and our Lord returns in glory.

8. We ask our Chairman to inform the Primates of the Anglican Communion of these commitments in the hope that our emerging common life will commend us to them as full partners.


Appendices:

Appendix 1

The Articles of The Common Cause Partnership

Article 1: Name

The Name shall be called the Common Cause Partnership (CCP).

Article 2: Basis

1. The CCP is a federation of Jurisdictions and Ministries in North America, known as Partners, which affirm the Covenant Declaration and the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partners, which are attached to these articles. Each jurisdiction accepts one of the historic Books of Common Prayer as the primary standard for worship. The autonomy of the individual Jurisdictions and Ministries, and their constituent bodies, is in no way restricted or superseded by membership in the CCP.

2. The Jurisdictions and Ministries of the Common Cause Partnership at the time of its inception are the American Anglican Council (AAC); the Anglican Communion Network (ACN); the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA); the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC); the Anglican Province of America (APA); the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA); the Anglican Essentials Federation (AEF); Forward in Faith, North America (FIF/NA); and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).

Article 3: Tasks

The CCP has five tasks:
(1) Furthering mutual understanding of its Partners with a view to eventual union when deemed appropriate;

(2) Propagating the truths of the Gospel as articulated and practiced in the historic Anglican way;

(3) Taking appropriate public and private steps in common causes in order to speak with one voice and act in concert for the welfare and witness of its Partners;

(4) Pursuing a communal, charitable and organic relationship with the world-wide Anglican Communion; and

(5) Support planting congregations by Partners.

Article 4: The Leadership Council

The governing body of the CCP shall be the Leadership Council.

(1) The Leadership Council is empowered to conduct the current business of the CCP. It represents the CCP in its external relationships both nationally and internationally. It is also available to provide spiritual and practical counsel for the Partners. It decides on admission into the Common Cause Partnership.

(2) The Leadership Council consists of the chief officer of each Partner, plus one member of the clergy (in whatever order) and one lay person from each Partner. The Leadership Council shall elect annually the Moderator of the Partnership from among the chief officers of the Partners. The General Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected annually by the Leadership Council from among its clerical and lay members.

(3) The members of the Leadership Council shall be elected by the Partners they represent for a term of five years, subject to re-election. Upon the expiration of the term of office of a member of the Leadership Council whose membership is a consequent upon his holding office in a Partner, the Leadership Council is authorized to seat a replacement chosen by that Partner.

(4) The Leadership Council shall hold at least one meeting annually. The travel expenses for members shall be paid by the Partner which they represent.

(5) The General Secretary shall work in assistance to the Moderator of the CCP. He shall maintain communication between the CCP Jurisdictions and Ministries by appropriate means. He shall receive from the Partners regular reports about their status. He shall prepare the agenda for sessions of the Leadership Council and is responsible for keeping its minutes. With the Moderator, he is responsible for seeing that decisions taken are carried out, as well as for correspondence and the distribution of reports. An Assistant to the General Secretary may also be elected.

(6) The treasurer shall oversee the financial operations of the CCP, and shall submit regular financial reports on its financial standing.

(7) The Leadership Council may designate an Executive Committee to include, but not limited to, the Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer. The Leadership Council shall give the Executive Committee such authority as they deems appropriate.
Article 5: Partnership

(1) Any Jurisdiction or Ministry may apply for membership in the CCP if it supports and practices the principles stated in Articles 2(1) and 3. An application, in the form approved by the Leadership Council, shall be filed with an Admissions Committee appointed by the Moderator. The Admissions Committee shall examine the application and report to the Leadership Council for disposition. The application shall always include the following items:

a. A copy of the constitution (and canons) of the organization concerned.

b. A written report on its origin and historical developments.

c. A report on its present ministry to include:

i. The total number of congregations in North America.
(for the purposes of membership, a parish is defined as a self-supporting congregation with a full-time minister. All other congregations are defined as missions)

ii. Contact information for the listed congregations.

iii. Consecration information for all the bishops of the applying Jurisdiction or Ministry.

iv. Current ecumenical relationships with other jurisdictions.

(2) Each member agrees to pay an annual membership fee to the Partnership treasury in an amount fixed by the Leadership Council.

(3) If a member ceases to follow the principles of Article 2, membership in the CCP can be terminated by a two-thirds vote of the Leadership Council.

Article 6: Communications Office

(1) The CCP may maintain and fund a communications office which would be responsible for the creation and dissemination of informational materials for the CCP, and other communications duties as assigned by the Leadership Council.

Article 7: Mission Work

(1) In order to foster missionary cooperation among the Partners, a Mission Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of two representatives from each Partner appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.

(2) The Mission Committee shall be available to provide coordination and assistance in forming and cultivating mission congregations begun by the CCP members, and shall make itself available to provide help in establishing corporations, administering an Anglican parish, finding supply clergy for holy days and seasons and fostering a greater sense of engagement in the mission of wider Anglicanism worldwide.

(3) The Mission Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the mission of Anglican churches, both in North America and worldwide, for admission as CCP Mission Associates.

(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Mission Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.

Article 8: Education

(1) In order to provide for the education of all its ministers, lay and ordained, an Education Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of no more than two representatives from each Partner member appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.

(2) The Committee shall evaluate theological education standards for the Partners and make recommendations to the Leadership Council concerning guidelines for common theological examinations which may be used by the Partners of the CCP. The Committee shall also be responsible for providing and, if needed, producing materials for use in Christian education.

(3) The Education Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the work of ecclesiastical education in the Anglican churches as CCP Education Associates.

(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Education Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.


Article 9: Regulations

(1) Whenever possible, decisions shall be taken by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a three-quarters majority shall be sufficient for matters of general business. Elections to office shall be held by ballot, with a simple majority of votes cast being sufficient for election.

(2) A simple majority of its members shall constitute a quorum of the Leadership Council of the CCP for the transaction of business at any meeting.

(3) If a Partner makes a recommendation to change any of these articles, such motion shall be treated as general business as provided in the second sentence of Section 1.

(4) A decision to dissolve the CCP may be taken only by a four-fifths majority of the votes cast at a special Leadership Council meeting convened for that purpose.

(5) Partners are free to withdraw from the CCP by action of their own governing bodies at any time.

Article 10: Privileges

(1) As evidence of the union existing among the several Partners, a delegation of clergy and laity from each Partner may be sent to the legislative assembly of another Partner upon the latter’s invitation to take part in its deliberations.

(2) At the Consecration or Ordination of Bishops or other clergy of one Partner, the Bishops and Clergy of the other Partners may be invited to participate.

(3) The Clergy of the several Partners shall be entitled to officiate transiently in the congregations of other Partners, subject to the canonical requirements of these Partners, and shall also be eligible to hold a cure of souls in them, subject to the respective regulations of said entities.

(4) Communicant members of any Partner shall be received by a congregation of another Partner on presentation of a letter of transfer.

(5) Congregations of any Jurisdiction may transfer their membership to any other Jurisdiction on such terms as may mutually be agreed upon by the Jurisdictions.

(6) The Partners, recognizing the fact that they are working together in the same great cause on behalf of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and on the same basis, pledge each to the other their co-operation, compassion, support and prayers.

Article 11: Conciliation of Disputes

In recognition of the pledge set forth in Article 10, section 6, if a dispute arises between two or more Partners and such dispute cannot be resolved according to the biblical mandate of Matthew 18.15-17, the parties to the dispute shall submit circumstances and issues in dispute for conciliation as follows:

a. The Leadership Council shall choose three persons, at least two of whom shall be among its members, to serve as a mediation panel. The persons so appointed may not be in any way related to any party to the dispute by way of family connections, employment, or institutional affiliation.

b. The mediation panel shall assemble within three months of an appeal to afford the parties to the dispute opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions, and the panel shall deliberate as necessary to resolve the circumstances and issues thus presented. In all matters the panel shall seek first the reconciliation of the parties to the dispute; but if reconciliation is not possible it shall propose a non-binding solution to the parties within three months, which they shall be free to accept or reject.

c. No CCP Partner shall take any dispute to a Primate or Primates, nor shall any CCP Partner bring any dispute before any court of law or chancery, without first attempting in good faith to resolve the matter in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Proposed to the Partners
August 18, 2006

Revised 3-28-2007


Appendix 2

Timeline

A. College of Bishops organized: September, 2007

B. Theological Statement and Articles ratified by all Partners

C. CCP Leadership Council 1 (Article 4): week of December 3 or January 6
a. Organizing meeting
b. Leadership elected
c. Communications office created (Article 6)
d. Committees named:
i. Executive (Article 4)
ii. Admissions (Article 5)
iii. Mission (Article 7)
iv. Education (Article 8)
e. Additional task forces created:
v. Prayer Book task force
vi. Episcopate task force
vii. Budget adopted

D. Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the “separate ecclesiastical structure in North America”

E. CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008
a. Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces

F. Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners

Appendix 3

Issues for the Lead Bishops Roundtable:

Within the stated timeline, we intend to address the following items:

How we can best exercise our episcopate in common.

A Rule of Life for bishops.

The ways and means of a mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecration.

Common worship.

Stating and maintaining a common Anglican ethos.

How we will live together with bishops and congregations and dioceses that do ordain women and others that do not ordain women, affirming that we will not violate anyone’s conscience on this matter.

The relation of clergy and congregations to bishops. Will our dioceses be rigidly fixed or flexible, allowing for affinity-based arrangements?

The shape and nature of our common episcopal oversight. Will it be conciliar as it was in the early church and as it is maintained in some parts of the Orthodox churches and as it is reflected in some aspects of the Anglican Communion? Will it follow a more hierarchical model? Or will it be modeled after the Western institutional structures, such as the federation model, with which we have been familiar in The Episcopal Church?

Exploring ways to form a leadership “pipeline” from congregational life onward that will lead candidates to offer themselves for ministry, including ordination, in an expanding, mission-minded Church.

Exploring resources for the bishops’ care for clergy and their families, including burned-out clergy and clergy families in trouble.

Exploring with the seminaries of the Church how they can best serve us and how we can support them in our new mission context.

Exploring a Common Cause electronic newsletter, with the intention of incorporating the various newsletters of the Partnership members.

Exploring the standards, spiritual and moral, of ordained and lay leaders.

Consistent with resolutions of Lambeth Conference, seeking to draw continuing churches, not members of the Common Cause Partnership, into fellowship.


411 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

At last.

[1] Posted by old lady on 09-28-2007 at 11:46 AM • top

I’d be interested to see the appendixes, if anyone’s got them.

[2] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 09-28-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

Wow! where’s the fudge? Praise be to God!

[3] Posted by West Coast Cleric on 09-28-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

2. We declare clearly that we are taking this as a first step in the formation of the “separate ecclesiastical structure” in North America called for at Kigali in September, 2006.

I love the clarity of this statement.  It is nice to see a group of Bishops who say exactly what they are doing, without hiding behind fancy language and nuances.

[4] Posted by Townsend Waddill+ on 09-28-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

Point 5 appears, pending study of the Articles (App 1), to contravene some ECUSA Canon [peace and blessings be upon it] or other.  I look for canonical action shortly against the Episcopal dioceses signing on to this statement; if such action isn’t forthcoming soon, it will suggest a major change in 815’s tactics.  Don’t hold your breath, though; unremitting legal assault is all they seem to know how to do.

[5] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-28-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

Well, obviously music to my ears and to the ears of most of those who regularly blog on this great site. 

I don’t know if there’s really a whole lot here to comment on, however.  It is encouraging that they are simply moving forward, and making a clear statement of their general direction.  And it is done graciously without any condescending or snarky references to those in TEC/usa who will most certainly think only of their own turf as being threatened, and turn this into a war. 

The hard work has yet to begin.  But we all need get on our knees this day and begin the spiritual warfare.  And for many of us, the first battle will need to be against our own prejudices.

[6] Posted by young joe from old oc on 09-28-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

[7] Posted by naab00 on 09-28-2007 at 12:01 PM • top

NB&S;, the full statement with appendices is <a >here</a> at the ACN website.

The html is messed up somehow, a typical case of web-design software outsmarting itself (at least in Firefox).  But the text is all there.

[8] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-28-2007 at 12:03 PM • top

A new day is dawning for American Anglicans!  Thanks be to God!

[9] Posted by David+ on 09-28-2007 at 12:03 PM • top

<a >Drell</a> also has the complete statement up.

[10] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-28-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

Looks good.  “Young Joe,” above, correctly notes that there’s not a lot of content on which to comment, but, so far, looks good.

Sarah, maybe you can hold off on renouncing infant baptism for a little while yet?

[11] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 09-28-2007 at 12:12 PM • top

God’s light at the end of what has been a very dark tunnel for far too long! Thanks be to God

I too would love to see the appendixes…

[12] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 12:14 PM • top

The sound on the “presser” was worse than usual.  Never heard more than one or two phrases of +Ackerman, lots of +Riches tho.

Question, I came a bit late to the ‘party”, who was the rather “unsmiling” bishop who pointed out there were some things his group couldn’t agree to (or some such language)..

Blessings anyway, Great job Kevin.

Grannie Gloria

[13] Posted by Grandmother on 09-28-2007 at 12:14 PM • top

Do we have the official signatures?

bb

[14] Posted by BabyBlue on 09-28-2007 at 12:18 PM • top

The formatting is also messed up in IE, but it runs over the margins rather than truncates, so it is readable.  For this kind of news, I would read it if it was upside down and backwards!!!  (Of course, your normal TEC statement seems to be written that way.)

APB

[15] Posted by APB on 09-28-2007 at 12:19 PM • top

Good.  Based on the statement, I would say the ECUSA bishops in Common Cause are not long for their positions, so it looks like the ugly part of all this is about to begin.  I hope we’ll all pray against all earthly hope that Schori and the rest of the bad guys fail early and often in the coming persecution.

[16] Posted by Phil on 09-28-2007 at 12:22 PM • top

All,
We are working as fast as we can to get the formatting issues fixed and provide more details.  It was a good week in Pittsburgh.

[17] Posted by PeterFrank on 09-28-2007 at 12:25 PM • top

Agree the formatting is askew somehow, but I just quickly did a cut and paste and it is now in my own file as a Word document. That way I can copy it and take it to some friends locally or e-mail it by attachment. What an age we live in!
Here is the part I am so glad to see:
The Jurisdictions and Ministries of the Common Cause Partnership at the time of its inception are the American Anglican Council (AAC); the Anglican Communion Network (ACN); the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA); the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC); the Anglican Province of America (APA); the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA); the Anglican Essentials Federation (AEF); Forward in Faith, North America (FIF/NA);  and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).
All I can say is Praise be to our God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit!!!

[18] Posted by merlenacushing on 09-28-2007 at 12:26 PM • top

After all the rubbish of the last couple of weeks, doesn’t that make your heart skip around a bit. Praise The LORD!!
L’Chaim!  Ifan….

[19] Posted by Ifan Morgan on 09-28-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

Very little substance here – although there is more in the appendices. 

One point of real substance is the interchangeability of clergy, but this is subject to “the respective regulations of the said entities”, which presumably covers, for example, disagreements about the ordination of women. 

Otherwise, an agreement to agree, yes, and provision for meetings, but they have deferred the question about how conclusions will be reached in the absence of consensus - the very issue which is threatening the Anglican Communion.  The question of whether they are to be conciliar, hierarchical or federal is postponed, in the timeline.

Article 2 strongly asserts the autonomy of the constituent bodies – thus repeating the Anglican Communion model which the Anglican Covenant is designed to fix.

The College of Bishops will meet every six months - will it be able to make decisions binding on a dissenting majority? 

There will be a Lead Bishops Roundtable, which sounds like a micro-equivalent of the Primates’ Meeting - but the press release suggests it will be advisory only.

Article 4 establishes a Leadership Council, to meet annually, with representatives of each member’s laity and clergy and its chief officer (presumably bishop).  The Leadership Council is given authority only over the Common Cause Partnership itself, not over any constitutent member.

Article 11 establishes a conciliation mechanism, but it is non-binding.

Otherwise, this is really a statement of good intent.

Amongst the questions posed by Bishop Duncan at the beginning of the conference, we have not yet had answers to the following very specific challenges:

- Can we agree to mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecrations?  [And I would add - will there be a power of veto or a requirement of wider approval before consecration?]  The Articles are silent on this.  The timeline pushes it off to a later discussion.

- Can we agree about appropriate ratios of bishops to congregations, attendance and membership?  [I would add:  if so, how would this be decided?]  The Articles are silent on this – it will require consensus at some point in the future, therefore.

- Would each one of us be willing to give up episcopal function for the good of the whole, were that in the best interests of all?  [And, again, if so, how would this be decided?]

Funding seems largely to fall upon each member church for its own delegates.

[20] Posted by badman on 09-28-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

PeterFrank,
Indeed it was and much better than that in New Orleans. But….it was good to have New Orleans if for nothing else but to solidify the dublicity, double-tongued, bald face lies out in the world wide open! God will always shed light on the darkness that those would like to keep hdden.

[21] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 12:29 PM • top

Yes, I just called the ACN office, and they are scrambling to get that fixed.  I said I’d pray for them, because most of us are very interested in the “jots and tittles” lol

Great rejoicing,
GOD IS GOOD!!!

Grannie Gloria

[22] Posted by Grandmother on 09-28-2007 at 12:29 PM • top

For all the celebrating going on right now, and I am certainly among those doing so, it is best to remember Churchill’s quotation after an early victory in WW2:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

No doubt the canon and secular lawyers of TEC, and their minions, are even now dusting off shells of lawsuits for any and all concerned.  It is going to be a very messy battle, especially with +Cantuar seemingly AWOL.  So enjoy the day, for tomorrow the next stage in the battle begins.

[23] Posted by APB on 09-28-2007 at 12:34 PM • top

Africanised Anglican
Just a thought,  this press statement contains more solid   content from a group of bishops than we have seen in a while.  However it does not call for anguished speculation as has recently been the case because in plain English they are saying what they mean and meaning what they say.  We shan’t see that very often anywhere in this world.  Remarkable moment.
L’Chaim!  Ifan….

[24] Posted by Ifan Morgan on 09-28-2007 at 12:37 PM • top

It will be interesting how quickly and substantially local congregations start to act on this encouraging beginning of the Common Cause Partnership.

[25] Posted by tdunbar on 09-28-2007 at 12:38 PM • top

So long as we’re quoting Churchill, I’ll offer up:

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that…for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour.”

With Christ as our anchor, there can only be one outcome!

[26] Posted by Allan Bourdius on 09-28-2007 at 12:39 PM • top

APB,
I fear you are correct in regards to the heavy legal hand of KJS, Beers, & 815. But, we walk with God and I have faith enough to beleive that He will guide, protect, and intercede on our behalf becuase we have many that are walking forward in the light of Christ Jesus in keeping and defending the one true faith once delivered.

[27] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 12:40 PM • top

Well I guess there is no question now as to who is pushing the issues and who is walking away. The ABC nor the Primates have given a formal response to TEC statement and voila….first step “separate ecclesiatical structure”. Time will tell if scism is worse than heresy.
blessings
seraph

[28] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 12:41 PM • top

Grannie—Drell’s blog has the appendices in readable form—http://descant.wordpress.com/ —as of course any decent lawyer would.

[29] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-28-2007 at 12:41 PM • top

we have many that are walking forward in the light of Christ Jesus in keeping and defending the one true faith once delivered.

Is this little part of the faith included…in that ???

John 17: 20- 23
am not praying just for these followers. I am also praying for everyone else who will have faith because of what my followers will say about me. I want all of them to be one with each other, just as I am one with you and you are one with me. I also want them to be one with us. Then the people of this world will believe that you sent me….I am one with them, and you are one with me, so that they may become completely one. Then this world’s people will know that you sent me….”

Just curious
seraph

[30] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

This is a good effort: (i) a showing of corporate commitment; (ii) initial steps of organization and cooperation; (iii) framework for formal action at the constitutional congress; (iv) no foreclosing of adaptation to primatial/communion response between now and the congress; and (v) strong commitment to evangelism.

[31] Posted by tired on 09-28-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

No, Seraph, there is no question. TEC.

[32] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

Let’s note that the 600 parishes listed as being under the jurisdiction of Common Cause bishops would NOT include parishes that are committed to ACN but are not yet separated from TEC.  That number would bring the total up to about 1500.  Neither does it include the remnant of communicants in other parishes that are committed to depart TEC when an Anglican jurisdiction presents itself as a reasonable alternative in a personalized decision matrix.  If you view the reassertion process as coming to a tipping point, and it clearly is doing so, then the present tally could be a fraction of the final tally that won’t be known for at least year or so.

[33] Posted by Aaytch on 09-28-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

Badman:  Most of the issues you raise are for a Constitutional convention to determine, and thus are not surprisingly not included in this document.  That is yet to come, and will be one of the most significant steps CCP will need to accomplish before truly coming into fruition.  From the list of issues you were able to raise on first reading, it is obvious much work remains to be done.  But for now let’s rejoice in a document of rare clarity and direction of purpose from a group of Bishops!?!

[34] Posted by Horseman on 09-28-2007 at 12:47 PM • top

Well, I came up with a rather simple solution (leave it to an “old fashioned Grannie huh?).
At the ACN site

I also, did select all, copy, and pasted it in an email.  It went in perfectly.

The I put my cursor at the beginning of the “offending” Article, and went to EDIT, and hit “REWRAP..  And it did.

Not only that, I now have it ALL, including the URL in e-mailable form.
Hope this helps some.

Grannie G

[35] Posted by Grandmother on 09-28-2007 at 12:49 PM • top

seraph,
None of this would hve happened if TEC hadn’t already walked away from Biblical Scriptures and God’s teaching. You should be rejoicing in the fact that now you and the liberal social activists have your church within TEC and won’t have to worry about us bothersome conservative Bible believing tradinonalists getting in the way of your progressive move forward to be all inclusive of all behavior and walks of faith including muslims.

[36] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 12:54 PM • top

There may be liite substance, however there is HUGE significance.  The details are lacking and yes this is only a first step but this is just as significant as when Abram obeyed God’s call, left Haran and set out for Canaan.  A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.  The most important step is that first step.  This is the step that says, I turn my back and leave behind the former things and set my face toward a new destination.  From thenceforward efforts are not wasted on maintaining the former things, but instead in journeying toward the new destination. 

Let us start packing our bags and begin the journey.

[37] Posted by Spencer on 09-28-2007 at 12:56 PM • top

What a wonderful beginning to unscrambling the mess we currently find ourselves in.  Well done good and faithful Bishops!  The Church, as we know, has NEVER been the faithful but the unfaithful bride of Christ.

I don’t expect those things that beset us to go away anytime soon, however, what I read is a willingness to work it out together, i.e. WO and BCP considerations.

I believe it is up to us now to go to our Diocesan Conventions and begin the process through legislation.  Great disappointment earlier in the week with the HOB response to great hope on Friday in this release from the faithful.

[38] Posted by Dallas Priest on 09-28-2007 at 12:57 PM • top

This meeting and the results of it may in time prove to be the most important and defining moment in the revitalization of the true Anglican Way in America. May God guide these spiritual giants along their way as they (and their supporters) rebuild orthodox and evangelical Anglican witness and ministry out of the ashes left by the apostate TEC.

[39] Posted by irishanglican on 09-28-2007 at 12:59 PM • top

This is wonderful news. There is more work to do. And there are more partners to bring in, as recollected and documented on this new post here at the briar patch.

[40] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 09-28-2007 at 01:02 PM • top
[41] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 09-28-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

It is with sorrow and deep disappointment that I tender my resignation from the Anglican Communion Network. Since the time I assisted in its founding, its leaders, members, and mission have been dear to me, even when I have disagreed with some of its corporate actions. The recent statements by the Moderator of the Network, Robert Duncan, however, so contradict my sense of calling within this part of Christ’s Body, the Anglican Communion, that I have no choice but to disassociate myself from this group, whom I had once hoped might prove an instrument of renewal, not of destruction, of building up, not of tearing down.

Bishop Duncan has now declared the See of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference—two of the four Instruments of Communion within our tradition – to be “lost”. He has said that God is “doing a new thing” in allowing these elements to founder and be let go. I find this judgment to be dangerously precipitous and unfair under circumstances when current, faithful, and hard work is being done by many to bolster these Instruments as servants of our common life in Christ. The judgment is also astonishingly self-confident and autonomously prophetic in a mode not unlike the baleful claims to visionary authority of those who have long misled the Episcopal Church. Finally, the declaration in effect cancels out the other two Instruments of Communion that also uphold our common Anglican life – the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. It is the entire Anglican Communion, therefore, that Bp. Duncan is declaring to be “lost”. The judgment is far too sweeping.

Bp. Duncan has, in the end, decided to start a new church. He may call it “Anglican” if he wishes, though I do not recognize the name in these kinds of actions that break communion rather than build it up – for such building is what I have long perceived to be the “thing” God was “doing” with the earthen vessel of our tradition. In founding his new church, furthermore, he is, I fear, not working for the healing of our broken Body, but repeating the mistakes of Christians in the past, whose zeal has not only brought suffering to themselves, but has wounded the Church of Christ. It is not only his own diocese that his statements and actions will affect; it is many others, including parishes within them, many of which have worked for faithfulness and peace, truth in love, for some time, and for whom new troubles and divisions are now promised. Enough of this. I cannot follow him in this way. There is great work to be done, with hope and with joy, if also with suffering endurance for the faith once delivered, in the vineyards of the Anglican Communion where the Lord has called us and still maintains His calling; just as there has been in the past, and all for the glory of the larger Church Catholic.

—The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner

From:  http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4770/#88543

[42] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 09-28-2007 at 01:06 PM • top

Welcome to the GS and African leadership.  Please be careful about those you might invite to speak at your congregations.  If the president of the sponsoring country (say Rwanda) is having a problem with him or her, your might be asked (ordered?) by your primate not to permit them to speak without his permission.  Now if you pursue female clergy, please remember that the articles were unanimously agreed to.  Of course +Pittsburgh did request that the partnership respect WO, but that was only a request and need not be respected.  The decision was unanimous.

On Churchill, I would expect that he would soon be referring to +Akinola as Uncle Pete and meaning the same thing as he meant by Uncle Joe.

[43] Posted by EmilyH on 09-28-2007 at 01:06 PM • top

EmilyH, and this is different from TEC how?

[44] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 09-28-2007 at 01:08 PM • top

EmilyH,

This is a big step in the right direction.  The fear of this success spilleth over into your post.

[45] Posted by Jerry C. on 09-28-2007 at 01:11 PM • top

On Churchill, I would expect that he would soon be referring to +Akinola as Uncle Pete and meaning the same thing as he meant by Uncle Joe.

LOL! This from Tokyo Rose!!

[46] Posted by Eren on 09-28-2007 at 01:14 PM • top

EmilyH, would you have tried to convince the prodigal son to stay in the pig-trough, since he might get into an accident on the way home?

[47] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-28-2007 at 01:14 PM • top

Praise God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

[48] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-28-2007 at 01:17 PM • top

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

[49] Posted by aghsteel on 09-28-2007 at 01:27 PM • top

seraph - that part absolutely is included.  Please use whatever good offices you have to stop ECUSA from proceeding on its unity-destroying, schismatic path.

[50] Posted by Phil on 09-28-2007 at 01:32 PM • top

… a typical case of web-design software outsmarting itself (at least in Firefox).

Isn’t open source software just the most wonderful thing imaginable wink ?????

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[51] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 09-28-2007 at 01:33 PM • top

Emily, they speak often at our church. So far, no executions. But thanks for the warning. I will sit near an exit in case violence breaks out.

[52] Posted by Going Home on 09-28-2007 at 01:33 PM • top

TUUD, why the reposting of the Radner resignation? Just curious.

[53] Posted by Going Home on 09-28-2007 at 01:35 PM • top

OK Sarah…  I know you had your heart set on that congregational church, but I sure hope we can convince you to hang with these guys.  Come on, how ‘bout it?

[54] Posted by Spencer on 09-28-2007 at 01:41 PM • top

EmilyH wrote:

Now if you pursue female clergy . . . .

I had to give that up . . . they all could run faster than I could.  wink

[55] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 09-28-2007 at 01:44 PM • top

Going Home, TU&D;,
I’m wondering too.  Now that TEC is done for,  I think we need to extend a hand to those in ACI an invite them to sign on with CCP.  Let’s let bygones be bygones.

[56] Posted by Spencer on 09-28-2007 at 01:45 PM • top

(Just to set the record straight:  no actual historical basis for my most-recent post—but the setup for the joke was way too good to resist on a Friday!)

[57] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 09-28-2007 at 01:45 PM • top

This isn’t fudge, it’s Divinity, without nuts.!

[58] Posted by Marie Blocher on 09-28-2007 at 01:49 PM • top

God is good

[59] Posted by justme on 09-28-2007 at 01:50 PM • top

Help me out here, I couldnt quite understand point #8-could someone break that down for me please? Thanks.

[60] Posted by Bob K. on 09-28-2007 at 01:51 PM • top

This is a fine statement and a great start. I especially appreciate the clarity of points 1-3. There is no obfuscation here. They are not hiding their intent. They mean to be an Anglican province and they are going, by God’s grace, to set themselves up as such and they will not be detered by Canterbury or anyone else.

This is not alphabet soup. This is the Church.

[61] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-28-2007 at 01:54 PM • top

Bob K, they are asking for official recognition from the primates of the Communion

[62] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-28-2007 at 01:55 PM • top

My hope is that the ACI will cease its public criticism of the Common Cause effort, and those supportive of Common Cause will terminate its ACI criticism. 

I respect the position expressed by Father Radner and others that he feels called to remain regardless of any setbacks.  My disagreement focused on what I believed were unrealistic predictions of the outcome of the CA process and an unjustified belief that the ABC would, in the end, support the intent of the Dar Communique.  The NO HOB meeting largely resolved those questions.  sd

[63] Posted by Going Home on 09-28-2007 at 01:56 PM • top

Going Home,
Agreed.  I think Kendall’s call (in Al Mohler’s interview) for us to treat each other with respect and grace whether we go to Rome, Antioch, CCP, non-denom or wherever needs to be the mindset of us all.  Of course, I also think we should extend a welcoming hand and beg all current and former Anglicans to get on board this ship.  As Matt+ said, this ship is not alphabet soup, but “the church”.

Love, exciting and new. Come Aboard. We’re expecting you. Love, life’s sweetest reward. Let it flow, it floats back to you.  The Looove Boat!  wink

[64] Posted by Spencer on 09-28-2007 at 02:09 PM • top

What will we do being under bishops like this?

1.  No language to try to spend three months to figure out

2.  No lies to have to catch them at (e.g. Bruno)

3.  No wasting time and money suing innocent people

4.  Actually shepherding people and wanting to further God’s Kingdom

What WILL we talk about?

[65] Posted by Eclipse on 09-28-2007 at 02:09 PM • top

Seraph:
<blockquote> “Well I guess there is no question now as to who is pushing the issues and who is walking away.” </b>

Let’s see . . . . Over one and a half billion Roman Catholics, Almost half a billion Eastern Orthodox, millions and millions of Baptists, Lutherans, orthodox Anglicans and evangelicals worldwide: all holding fast to the faith once delivered by the Apostles, and on the other side: a million or less Episcopalians who can’t even get 800,000 into the pews on a good Sunday morning.  I guess we do know who is walking away. 

(Hint: it isn’t the Christians.)

[66] Posted by The Pilgrim on 09-28-2007 at 02:11 PM • top

first notic how the declaration starts:

In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.

Ho different that the HoB’s rant.

Then:

In the grace, mercy and power of God, and in repentance for past disunity and disharmony, in thanksgiving for our full reconciliation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to give expression to our unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as Anglicans in North America, and for the sake of our mission to extend the Kingdom of God, nurture faithful disciples through Word and Sacraments, seek the lost, and partner globally with other orthodox Anglicans, we hereby commit to do the following:

Gee, way better than blah, blah, blah POLITY.  Blah, blah, Blah, +VGR.  Blah, blah, blah, We are right.  Oh, lets stick in some bible verse.

Let us offer our praise and our prayers to God for His work and for His Church.

RSB

[67] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-28-2007 at 02:12 PM • top

Sorry about that.  I could swear I got those end tags right.

[68] Posted by The Pilgrim on 09-28-2007 at 02:14 PM • top

Catholics, Almost half a billion Eastern Orthodox, millions and millions of Baptists, Lutherans, orthodox Anglicans and evangelicals worldwide: all holding fast to the faith once delivered by the Apostles…..(Hint: it isn’t the Christians.) ...

If you truly believe this there is no sence adding another flake to the bowl….another little scism….just follow the courageous bishop who just went home to Rome..the only “real” church or the many Anglican clergy that have headed to the Orthodox “the right church”.
What is the sense of another non-Anglican , Anglican church to add to the myriad already in existence…..the TAC or the CEEC or the CEC of the ACA or the EMC org the ACC or my personal favorite the CEC….what is wrong with those????
blessings
seraph

[69] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 02:19 PM • top

Emily,interesting scenarios you tried to posit there.Haven’t we already seen a good example of that type of ecclesiastical blockades to folks speaking by diocesional TEC bishops,Bishop Jellinek’s(apologies for spelling)hindering of a Primate no less,for instance?

[70] Posted by paddy c on 09-28-2007 at 02:22 PM • top

RE: “OK Sarah… I know you had your heart set on that congregational church, but I sure hope we can convince you to hang with these guys.  Come on, how ‘bout it?”

Hi Spencer,

I am truly glad for those who are leaving ECUSA and remaining within Anglicanism.  But I won’t be in my congregational church for quite some time—too much to accomplish in ECUSA right now. 
; > )

[71] Posted by Sarah on 09-28-2007 at 02:28 PM • top

Appendices are long, but I’ve updated the main post with all of them. No fancy formatting - just raw text.

[72] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 02:33 PM • top

Sounds like Sarah doesnt is not yet ready for a cruise on the Love Boat.  Party Pooper.

[73] Posted by Going Home on 09-28-2007 at 02:34 PM • top

I like snoop dog’s translation of this:

n tha Nizzy of God tha Pimp God tha Son, God tha Hizzle Spirit, ta wizzy belong all might, majesty, dominion n glory.

We, tha College of Bishops of tha Common Cause Partnership, meet’n togetha in Pittsburgh, Brotha 25-28 in tha Year of our Lord 2007, solemnly affirm this agreement.

In tha grace, mercy n powa of Gizzy n in repentance fo` past disunity n disharmizzles in gang bangin’ fo` our fiznull reconcilizzle in tha Lord Jesus Christ, ta give expression ta our unity in tha one, holy, catholic n apostolic Church as Anglicans in Nizzay America, n fo` tha sakes of our mission ta extend tha Kingdom of God, nurture faithful disciples through Word n Sacraments, seek tha lost, n cracka globally wit wanna be gangsta orthodox Anglicans, we hereby commit ta do tha follow’n:

1. In hustla ta achieve greata unity n strengthen our partnership in tha Gospel, we tha undersigned commit ourselves ta tha Common Cause Partnership as set fizzorth in tha Articles of tha Partnership (see Appendix 1).

2. We declare clearly tizzy we is doggy stylin’ this as a fizzirst step in tha formation of tha “separate ecclesizzles structure” in North America called fo` at Kigali in Brotha 2006.

3. In consultizzle wit those Primates n Provinces of tha Anglican Communion offer’n recognizzles unda tha timeline adopted, we intend a found’n constitutizzle convention fo` an Anglican union (see Appendix 2).

4. Those presently-participat’n bodies W-H-to-tha-izzich hizzy not yet joined tha Common Cause Partnership wizzle decide at tha next meet’n of they legislative bodies, eitha ta enta tha Partnership or leave full membership in Common Cause, ballin’ observa bodies thats off tha hook yo. It is expected thizzay all presently-participat’n bodies wizzy be able ta poser tha Partnership.

5 . Hollaz to the East Side. We will W-to-tha-izzork pimp on tha regional n local levels n avail ourselves of tha various ministries of tha Common Cause Rappa aww nah. We wizzy deploy clergy interchangeably as outlined in tha Articles of tha Partnership. We is free ta invite our fellow bishops in this College ta share episcopal acts n our sacramizzles life.

6. The College of Bishops wiznill meet every six months in brotha ta accomplish our stated objectives n we out. The clockin’ bishop of each Partna will serve on a Lead Bishops Roundtable, which may be expanded as they may determine fo’ sheezy. The Roundtable wizzay advise us in matta referred ta it (see Appendix 3).

7. We is committed ta tha Great Commission n sh. We wiznill makes disciples who makes disciples n pliznant churches that plant churches, not rest’n until tha millions of unreached souls in Nizzorth America is brought ta Christ, until all groups on tha earth have indigenous churches firmly begun witin them n our Lord returns in glory.

8. We ask our Chairman ta inform tha Primates of tha Anglican Communion of these commitments in tha hizzle that our emerg’n common life wizzle commend us ta T-H-to-tha-izzem as full gangsta cuz I’m fresh out the pen.

[74] Posted by plainsheretic on 09-28-2007 at 02:52 PM • top

Gosh, plainsparson.  It’s only 3:00 where I am.  Aren’t you hitting the joy-juice a little early?

[75] Posted by CarolynP on 09-28-2007 at 02:55 PM • top

I hope we’ll all pray against all earthly hope that Schori and the rest of the bad guys fail early and often in the coming persecution.

Persecution?  You, any of you, have the gall, the shamelessness to speak of persecution?

You, who have built your very lives around the persecution of gays and lesbians? 

You, who group-feed for days on hapless bloggers whose posts you happen not to like? 

You, who launched a concerted effort to destroy an Episcopal priest, just a few months ago? 

You, who howl about “heretics” and revel in talk of “discipline” and “punishment?” 

You now fear persecution at the hands of your victims? Is this not the epitome of the bully behavior?

You flip truth on its head.  You destroy logic.  You choose blindness, willfully.  Your shameless arrogance is simply. simply. breathtaking. 

May God have mercy on you.

[76] Posted by essef on 09-28-2007 at 02:56 PM • top

Heh.

essef’s not happy . . . ; > )

[77] Posted by Sarah on 09-28-2007 at 03:01 PM • top

essif - take a chill pill. 

Phil - did you mean +KJS and the Episcopal Church’s “persecution” of remaining orthodox?  Persecution of the unfaithful during the End Times?  Their own “persecution” of their own agenda?  What?

[78] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-28-2007 at 03:01 PM • top

But my question is . . . why is essef not happy?

I mean . . . essef should be gloriously thrilled at the stuff going on in ECUSA.  Why so bitter?  Things are going great!  Cheer up!!!! 

Don’t worry about the tiny minority, Essef . . . go have a nice scotch and chill.  ; > )

[79] Posted by Sarah on 09-28-2007 at 03:03 PM • top

Sarah - essef is not happy perhaps because he/she wished to destroy the orthodox in a black widow spider like kiss of death…and we will escape the death grip?

[80] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-28-2007 at 03:05 PM • top

essef’s not happy . . . ; > )

Yep! And seems to be pulling certain memories and thoughts that suit his/her unhappiness from his/her own pensive that are fragmented and not in whole order.

[81] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 03:06 PM • top

Can you say “barking mad?”

[82] Posted by frwalkeratsaintalbans on 09-28-2007 at 03:07 PM • top

Thanks, plainsparson.  That was my Friday afternoon palate cleanser!

[83] Posted by Greg Sample on 09-28-2007 at 03:07 PM • top

I don’t get it. The liberal revisionists are in the same position they were in before the HoB meeting, probably even better except thatthey wanted to really put it to the GS priamates and that really didn’t happen to their liking so they are all mad ove that and crying “mediocracy”, and then let a little thing like CCP come along right behind and they are spittin mad. What’s up with that?
There’s no making them happy! :}

[84] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

Seraph quotes John 17:20-23, a favoured passage among ecumenists and also among people who are seeking to embarrass those of us who, as far as faith in God is concerned, are willing to hold together (unify) around the word of truth ONLY.

Seraph and these other folk keep getting away with their tactic because those they challenge by this means do not answer on the basis of the text quoted.  How is it that Seraph receives no response that is Biblically, theologically, philosophically and strategically effective?  Can anyone give such an answer?  Might Dr Radner review his position if such an answer were given?

L’Chaim!  Ifan

[85] Posted by Ifan Morgan on 09-28-2007 at 03:13 PM • top

How very refreshing not to hear any language about “living into the tension of” something-or-other from the CC bishops.
Somebody, please get a cold cloth for Essef’s forehead.

[86] Posted by HumbleAccess on 09-28-2007 at 03:15 PM • top

Questions for Matt, Kendall, & Sarah:
It seems to me that some places (Dioceses) will easily act together.  In other spots, individual parishes will easily act together.  I live in Central Florida and South Carolina.  BOTH of these will be problems - at least initially.  SC is still trying to get a Bishop and Central Fla. (Howe) wil probably split up between and within parishes.  This could be quite problematic!!!!!  I’d appreciate any comments you folks have about these (and equally messy places).  For those in these dioceses, this may just be the beginning at a big fight.

[87] Posted by Fla Oblate on 09-28-2007 at 03:18 PM • top

A comparison of TEC’s bishops and those of Common Cause, told through Billy Shakespeare’s prose, with apologies:

New Orleans:
    First Witch (bishop)
1   When shall we TEC meet again?
2   In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

    Second Witch (bishop)
3   When the hurlyburly’s done,
4   When the battle’s lost and won.

    Third Witch (bishop)
5   That will be ere the set of the Anglican Communion.

    First Witch (bishop)
6   Where the place?

    Second Witch (bishop)
  7 General Convention ‘09.
  8 We should put a Scripture verse in here somewhere.

Compare to Common Cause:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our Anglican dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and Anglican ambiguity:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O’erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill’d with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest Anglicans.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanderians,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of blogging:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war (in love of course).
And you, good Anglican Communion,
Whose limbs (Provinces) were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean(spirited) and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Amerryca, England, and Saint Pittsburgh!’

[88] Posted by Christoferos on 09-28-2007 at 03:20 PM • top

7. We are committed to the Great Commission. We will make disciples who make disciples and plant churches that plant churches, not resting until the millions of unreached souls in North America are brought to Christ, until all groups on the earth have indigenous churches firmly begun within them and our Lord returns in glory.

Hmmmm, doesn’t sound much like the M[unitedway]DGs, now, does it?

 


HALLELUIA!!!!

Gonna go read some more fine print and rejoice.

[89] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-28-2007 at 03:26 PM • top

The following is a statement from +Duncan on the Anglican Communion Network newsletter:

“We have a way forward”
Bishop Duncan

Fifty-one bishops from the United States and Canada, representing the ten partner jurisdictions of Common Cause, together with 21 bishops wives and a dozen key mission leaders from across the continent, met, prayed and labored together over four days.

Significant steps were taken toward an emerging Anglican union. A timetable stretching over the next fifteen months, outlining key organizational steps, will lead to a process of recognition by Anglican Primates and Provinces around the world. The recognition sought is of the Common Cause Partnership, or developing Anglican union, as the “separate ecclesiastical structure” in North America called for by the Primates of the Global South at Kigali in September 2006. A constitutional convention is called for at the earliest possible time.

Additionally, the Common Cause bishops present constituted themselves as a College of Bishops. Steps were taken toward regional, national and global ministry together, to interchangeability of clergy, to significant consultation prior to naming bishops, to regular meeting, and to developing an agreed protocol on standards of faithfulness, holiness, and fruitfulness for both diocesan and missionary bishops. Further, consistent with resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, the bishops pledged to work to bring Anglican Continuing Churches, not presently Common Cause Partners, into fellowship, as well as to work to deepen ecumenical efforts locally, nationally and globally.

Thank you for your prayers and support as we have met here in Pittsburgh. God has worked among us. We have a way forward.

+Bob Pittsburgh

[90] Posted by hanks on 09-28-2007 at 03:27 PM • top

Ifan Morgan: I don’t know that it’s THAT hard to answer.  The quote is “that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee,” and it’s phrased again a little later even more simply: “that they may be one, even as We are one.”  The point is, just HOW are the Father and the Son “one”?  That’s how we have to be.  Not just thrown together any old way - that’s not the way Jesus is one with the Father.  When you look at the Father and the Son, you don’t see Jesus saying, “Oh, God does things one way, and I do them another - that’s OK, though, because even though we’re complete opposites, we’re still “one” and nothing can change that.  We contradict each other all the time - we just like the creative tension that comes from cancelling each other out.”

[91] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 09-28-2007 at 03:29 PM • top

essef’s not happy . . . ; > )

 

There is your soul all laid out for you, sweetie.

Study it.

 

I mean . . . essef should be gloriously thrilled at the stuff going on in ECUSA.  Why so bitter?

Dear Sarah, moral outrage and unhappiness are two different things.  They aren’t in the same ontological category.  Surely you could could figure out that I wasn’t unhappy about ECUSA.  I was, and have long been, outraged at the horrible cruelty and mean spirit of the posters at SF

I do not wish you unhappiness, Sarah.  Do you think you can possibly stand it that I, and others on our side, are happy about the news? 

I hope so.

Yes, this news makes me happy for TEC and also happy for the Network.  You need to go and worship as you please, and we need to worship as we feel called. I shall be glad that our GLBT brothers and sisters will finally be safe from your abuse.  And you, of course, will be glad that they won’t be among you.  So this is very good for all of us.

  Let us rejoice together.

[92] Posted by essef on 09-28-2007 at 03:31 PM • top

“Do you think you can possibly stand it that I, and others on our side, are happy about the news?”  I think everyone here takes that for granted, essef.  What they didn’t expect was that your happiness isn’t complete without a leafy green background of malice for your opponents.

[93] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 09-28-2007 at 03:34 PM • top

I disagree with those who say that there is little content here. If anyone doubts (I do not) that events in Pittsburgh have both great significance and significant content, just look at the reactions of our Worthy Opponents, a few of whom can be discerned in this blog. God be praised, for we are at the tipping point, and clearly there are genuine men of God who are determined to push this forward, and to support the many, but now scattered, orthodox Anglicans.

Those who want to bring up instantly every possibly-controversial issue, if they are even doing that in good faith, should wait until the structure and critical mass are obtained, and the train (bound for glory, one assumes) begins to leave the station. I suspect that at that point even the current pessimists will hop on board, though the vehicle be not perfect. And it never can be, this side of paradise. Infinitely better than lawsuits, fudge and double-dealing, though.

[94] Posted by rkreed on 09-28-2007 at 03:37 PM • top

“...Catholics, Almost half a billion Eastern Orthodox…all holding fast to the faith once delivered by the Apostles…..(Hint: it isn’t the Christians.) ...

If as someone said here Rome and Orthodoxy have kept the faith intact….and ECUSA and by default the Canterbury led AC are lost…..shouldn’t you be heading “home” to those ancient, centers of the “faith once give to the apostles et al…”  places!

The gist of this CC initiative is that the real Anglican experiment has failed ...this whole via media thing, diversity, tolerance went too far…  its no good and you have to re-imagine it….!!!

That, imho is no better than you claim the liberals have done to TEC. You can reinvent a church in your image and call it Anglicanism but just like that of the multiple continuing churches ...it will not be that at all….it will be evangeluicals and charismatics and fundamentalists in vestments and disguise ....but Anglicans…. hardly!
blessings
seraph

[95] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 03:39 PM • top

Meanwhile Orthodoxy fiddles (no missiology to speak of) while Rome pays out $250 million per diocese in “oops” fees.

Not much has changed since the Reformation, sadly.  I might return in, say, 500 more years, but the snapshot now leads me to stay with the charismatics, evangelicals, and anglo-catholic outfits in common mission to seek and to save the lost….

[96] Posted by Christoferos on 09-28-2007 at 03:43 PM • top

THE GLBT….And you, of course, will be glad that they won’t be among you.  ....

How are they going to manage that….??? stop reproducing???? They may keep them in the closet or opressed but they can not “ethnic cleanse” gayness nor immunize against lesbianism… no pills or shots for that!!!!!! It can happen in the nicest families…:>)
blessings
seraph

[97] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 03:46 PM • top

Is there a list anywhere of the bishops who signed this document?

[98] Posted by FrVan on 09-28-2007 at 03:48 PM • top

You may be right, Seraph. I’ve felt a bit squeamish about telling people I’m Anglican for a few years now. A name change might be just the ticket for whatever’s emerging from Pittsburgh. Speaking of names, isn’t “Seraph” some kind of angel or something?

[99] Posted by HumbleAccess on 09-28-2007 at 03:49 PM • top

Well, what good news, from my liberal point of view. You run along and see what fun it will be to labour under the corrupt and megalomaniacal bishops of Nigeria, Kenya, etc. (and contribute to their unaccountable episcopal coffers). Meanwhile, can the Church of England please be given alternative liberal episcopal oversight so as to be able to begin to connect with a nice tolerant gay-accepting wider society?

[100] Posted by culeitreach on 09-28-2007 at 03:51 PM • top

I wonder what the REC will do with its Declaration of Principles. I wonder how FiFNA will handle women priests and those who ordain them and those who were ordained by those who ordain them.

[101] Posted by Third Mill Catholic on 09-28-2007 at 03:53 PM • top

PS What’s this in the document about saving the millions of unchurched in America? It’s hardly too little religion that’s the problem with the USA, is it?

[102] Posted by culeitreach on 09-28-2007 at 03:54 PM • top

Culeitreach

Right, too much religion, to little true religion and right faith.

[103] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-28-2007 at 03:57 PM • top

Indeed, Humbleaccess and Seraph, a name change would be quite appropriate.  We wouldn’t want to confuse the CCP with Anglicanism.

[104] Posted by Third Mill Catholic on 09-28-2007 at 03:57 PM • top

So, does this mean I don’t have to become a CathoLutherterian after all?

[105] Posted by Miss Sippi on 09-28-2007 at 03:58 PM • top

I’m in the Common Cause Partnership, through my and my parish’s affiliations with ACN, AAC, and FiFNA. I am out of TEC.  Free at last!  As of today, I intend to spend my time looking forward to the inestimable joy of being in a Bible-believing, Christ-centered federation of fellow Christians.

Although I will continue to pray for those who follow the new religion of The Church of the General Convention, I see no need to argue with them - or to feed trolls. They have been bullying us for the last 40 years.  Let them go on their way with our wishes and prayers for their soul’s health.  They are free to do as they must.  But, so am I and so are we all.

I feel liberated and thank God for faithful laity, deacon, priests, and bishops!  There are still technicalities, paperwork, and processes to observe, and the Jordan to cross, but I see the Promised Land of unity with those who unashamedly affirm the Good News of Jesus Christ!

Joyfully,
Connie

[106] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-28-2007 at 04:00 PM • top

thank you essef, for reminding me of what I am leaving behind.

[107] Posted by Clay From Dallas on 09-28-2007 at 04:01 PM • top

Matt beat me to it, Culeitreach.  I was going to say, “too much religion and too little Jesus.”

[108] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-28-2007 at 04:01 PM • top

RE: “There is your soul all laid out for you, sweetie. Study it.”

Oh my . . . and even worse, not only is essef not happy, but she’s not happy that reasserters are happy.  Goodness!

RE: “I was, and have long been, outraged at the horrible cruelty and mean spirit of the posters at SF.”

Yeh . . . but unfortunately, since essef has a different gospel from reasserters, an entirely different foundational worldview, and doesn’t even define words in the same way, words like “cruelty” and “mean spirit” basically are meaningless . . . the equivalent of Baghdad Bob saying “we shall destroy you . . . at any moment the forces of the Great Hussein will crush you like a bug . . . the enemy is NOT at our gates . . . we have driven it out.”  ; > )

RE: “Do you think you can possibly stand it that I, and others on our side, are happy about the news?”

Doesn’t trouble me even a wee little bit.  Not really a concern of mine as to what reappraisers are thinking.  I merely note that the wigging out indicates a deep not-happiness.

RE: “And you, of course, will be glad that they won’t be among you.”

Not certain what this means here.  For one thing, I’m not a member of Common Cause—I and many others will be right here in the good old ECUSA.  And for another, while of course I can’t speak for them, I can’t imagine Common Cause churches not having any celibate homosexuals. 

RE: ” . . . and then let a little thing like CCP come along right behind and they are spittin mad.”

I dunno, ODC . . . tis passing strange that so much bile occurs over this action by reasserting Anglicans. 

Can’t think why, to be honest.  But there it is, for all to see.  Seems to have something to do with reasserting Anglicans being happy, but can’t be sure.

[109] Posted by Sarah on 09-28-2007 at 04:02 PM • top

Is it correct to assume that ‘Network bishops’ that are not involved in this (SC, CFL, Dallas, RG, TN, others?) are no longer part of the Network? Or, does it mean that they are not part of Common Cause College? Can someone better in the know explain this? I have had inquiries from several sources outside the US and I genuinely do not know how to respond.

[110] Posted by zebra on 09-28-2007 at 04:03 PM • top

well ......a catholibaptiortholutherocostal no WO no GLBT convergence fundamentalist Christian in the new and improved Africanized-GS Common Cause non Canterbury Anglican communion….that sounds fun!
blessings.
seraph

[111] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 04:03 PM • top

Dr. Mabuse, this has been characterized by meanness throughout—ergo the jackbooted tactics in Connecticut, the personal naming of vestry members in lawsuits, the massive expenditure of offerings to God going to lawsuits, the racist PhotoShop pictures of black bishops, the relentless characterization of opponents as hatemongers and bigots and fundamentalists and Nazis . . . and the list goes on.  And that will continue, because they cannot exist without the orthodox, because in their wee little 60s-confined worldviews, this is all about “struggle.”  Once they’ve “won,” there is no reason to exist, especially if there’s no one you can use as a foil to claim victim status, which is totally essential to their well-being.  One has to question whether they can in fact EVER be truly happy.  Certainly the meanness toward their fellow human beings doesn’t suggest any sense of peace or satisfaction in life, does it?

[112] Posted by VaAnglican on 09-28-2007 at 04:03 PM • top

Let me see…. liberals statistically propagate the species at a negative number; in addition, their gospel is one that does not need to be converted to because there are many vehicles to heaven; their preaching (screeching) can be heard on NPR without the hassle of going to a church building and having to pass elitists the peace; even the CofE has only 4 % of its own state-church nation attending; their latest civil rights movement is for self-actualization of the natural sexual state in which one finds oneself, which for the most part, is among the group of people least likely to propagate the species (after slavery, women, equal and civil rights movements, is this really the best you can do to pat yourselves on the back at night?); and the percentage of your latest favorite victimized group that actually goes to church is miniscule.

All I’m saying is, good luck with that…. and have fun worshiping in the churches my evangelical Episcopal forebears built.  Make sure to turn the lights out…  wouldn’t want to waste energy (if you can still afford it).

[113] Posted by Christoferos on 09-28-2007 at 04:04 PM • top

But seriously, I’ll concisely say what the problem is, since no one bothered to ask me before acting….

Liberals under-focus on essentials, and conservatives over-focus on non-essentials.

That’s about the shortest thing I’ve ever written here…

[114] Posted by Christoferos on 09-28-2007 at 04:08 PM • top

This remains a day the Lord hath made, rejoice and be glad in it.

I for one refuse to be led off-topic by our Worthy Opponents’ false claims that our African leaders are corrupt or that we oppress gays, blah, blah. Nor should we feel obliged to address ‘red-herring’ worries about every possible future disagreement.

[115] Posted by rkreed on 09-28-2007 at 04:09 PM • top

“too much religion and too little Jesus.”

I agree…...lets see Jesus talked about tradition, holiness, catholic order, the right BCP, womens ordination, gay marriage, he actually led his followers to split from Judaism because those people were too liberal and…helped people on the sabbath, did not stone adulteressess properly, consorted with public sinners and samaritans…yeah too much religion! Do we act more like the Pharisees or more like the Lord…I wonder?
seraph

[116] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 04:15 PM • top

Goodness, but aren’t the trolls stomping their little troll feet over this!

[117] Posted by James Manley on 09-28-2007 at 04:15 PM • top

Come to think of it, I still don’t know why essef isn’t happy.  Yeah, the only “logical” reason (logical by process of elimination) would seem that reasserters are happy.  But then again, perhaps it’s best if we give her the chance to answer for herself. 

So essef, why are you unhappy and/or morally outraged?  Especially if you guys won? 

And why am I happy and / or not morally outraged, if my guys lost?

[118] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-28-2007 at 04:17 PM • top

Sarah,
You have chosen an incredibly hard path.  Please explain why.  I am truly not understanding why you choose to stay and fight.  Do you really beleive you can change something?

[119] Posted by Elizabeth on 09-28-2007 at 04:19 PM • top

troll ...troll….lets go for a stroll….with Duncan to the mall….Akinola is down the hall….with his Old testament scroll….no to Rowan and tea ..no to GLBT….troll… troll…
seraph

[120] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 04:21 PM • top

seraph writes: “well ......a catholibaptiortholutherocostal no WO no GLBT convergence fundamentalist Christian in the new and improved Africanized-GS Common Cause non Canterbury Anglican communion….that sounds fun! blessings. seraph.”  UUuuuuahhhhh…..yeah. And you have a nice day too.

[121] Posted by Bob K. on 09-28-2007 at 04:23 PM • top

midwestnorwegian – what I had in mind is the persecution both of the remaining orthodox and the orthodox who had the temerity to walk away from ECUSA.  (If you’re questioning whether it’s reasonable to compare this persecution to the types of persecution Christians have faced in the past, it isn’t and I’m not.  But being run through the American legal system isn’t any picnic, either.)

essef – LOL.  Talk to Jon Bruno about flipping truth on its head and get back to us.

seraph – no, the gist of this CC initiative is that the ECUSA experiment has failed.

[122] Posted by Phil on 09-28-2007 at 04:24 PM • top

Do we act more like the Pharisees or more like the Lord…I wonder?

A question TEC should answer, I suppose, though I’m surprised at your asking it.

[123] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 04:24 PM • top

Jake on Common Cause:

I can’t imagine that they will gain such approvals from the Primates, let alone the ACC. This collage of organizations include some that have been declared “not in Communion” for some time. To simply graft them in without serious study of the theological difference that divide them from the larger Communion would seem to be foolhardy.

I gather the liberals are of the view that Anglican comprehensiveness does not permit “theological difference.”

[124] Posted by wildfire on 09-28-2007 at 04:26 PM • top

okay guys ...agreed this is a momentous ocassion….you all are hopeful and elated….!!! I am actually happy for you and really wish all of you the best in whatever community you end up in…really! We all take ourselves way too seriously…its kind of silly.

seraph

[125] Posted by seraph on 09-28-2007 at 04:28 PM • top

Dr. Seitz, I would assume that all ACN bishops are going to have to make a decision relatively soon whether they will remain part of the Network.  My guess is that those who opt out in favor of TEC will see many of their parishes leave.  The remaining orthodox in TEC, now seriously weakened, will be obliterated at GenCom 2009…

[126] Posted by Nevin on 09-28-2007 at 04:37 PM • top

Dear Dr Mabuse
Thank you for your initial response.  You make some points that are interesting to me from the point of view of one answering.  However, I have to say it is more difficult than you think.  A glance at the spat going on between Essef and others, not to mention the language in which it is being conducted, should give pause for thought.

If the quote you isolate was as clear as you claim then Seraph could not have it for his purposes; but he does.  I suspect he’s used it more than once.  He didn’t just think of it this afternoon, did he?

First of all, the Presiding Bishop of TEC has gone on record making clear that she does not believe that Jesus is the only mediator between God and Mankind (humanity).  So who is Jesus, what is meant by the text when calling him Son.  Her theology is plainly the Theology of Inclusion.  The PB has made this clear more than once on various occasions and she does not shy away from the issue when confronted.  Similarly, other Bishops have to some extent or other made clear their positions in this regard; GLBT included.

Now within the Theology of Inclusion (or the Religion of Pluralism) all the faiths on Earth take us up the same mountain and the separate searches lead to the same God; we simply enjoy different scenery along the way.

From within the Theology of Inclusion the Bible is read in an entirely different way from the way it is read from within the Judeo-Christian framework familiar to so-called conservatives.

Dr Mabuse, that is part of why I think “Seraph” ’s might not see your answer the way you do and it is part of why the debate between re-appraisers and revisionists tends to proceed ‘as ships passing in the night’.  Both parties are using the same language but each using it to mean entirely different things.

I hope this thread that is beginning to develop won’t get ruled “off topic” because this problem of answering Seraph’s in a way that could make sense to them is a big part of why the division has been able to progress so long within ECUSA.  It may well be why some who seem to support the Windsor approach don’t appear to get what is happening in the group dynamic of the TEC/HoB.  It may be part of why Dr Radner is antagonised by +Duncan Pittsburgh.

So, given my comments here and a great deal more beside, how do you say to people who have been told they are engaged in the same faith as you, why you do not want to party with them?  Why d’yall want to start a ‘new’ party called CCP

L’Chaim!  Ifan….

[127] Posted by Ifan Morgan on 09-28-2007 at 04:39 PM • top

Dr. Seitz (and all),
I am completely unqualified to speak for anybody involved, but from the “layman in the middle of nowhere” point of view, it certainly appears that there are no longer any Windsor Bishops and no longer any Network Bishops.  There are TEC bishops and Common Cause Bishops.  There are a few who are temporarily both, but clearly it will be interesting to see if they can get out of TEC before the presentments and the unleashing of the firestorm of lawsuits.  I imagine DBB will be in court tomorrow, and the presentments are already drawn up.

What will be more interesting will be to see if the ABoC pulls Lambeth invites from Common Cause when KJS calls ++Rowan to demand it.  I know that a question about Lambeth was directed to Bp. Ackerman at the press conference, but I could not hear his answer.

Well, whatever the future holds, these good bishops, and indeed all in Common Cause, will be in my prayers, and I hope yours as well.

Pax,
TJ

[128] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-28-2007 at 04:41 PM • top

> You, who have built your very lives around the persecution of gays and lesbians?

Not all of us are here because of that issue, essef.  What persecution? Angry posts on a blog are simple to avoid - don’t visit the offending blog.

>You, who group-feed for days on hapless bloggers whose posts you happen not to like?

Like so much of the anglican blogosphere. Here, you have really pointed to some bad behavior. Be sure and complain on Fr. Jake’s and Elizabeth Kaeton’s blogs, too. You might get some credibility that way.

>You, who launched a concerted effort to destroy an Episcopal priest, just a few months ago?

Eh??? Let’s see, it was Kaeton+ who planned to sic social services on the Kennedys. Is that what you mean?

>You, who howl about “heretics” and revel in talk of “discipline” and “punishment?”

I don’t think I’ve ever howled “discipline” or “punishment” - I admit to having been tempted to utter “heretic,” but am not sure that I actually have. There are a lot of people posting here, maybe you haven’t paid enough attention to see that everyone doesn’t say the same thing. Or maybe you only look for posts that will make you mad?

>You now fear persecution at the hands of your victims? Is this not the epitome of the bully behavior?

I never heard “fearing persecution” was the “epitome of bully behavior,” but I’m sure you’ll enlighten us. Glad you could come to tell us how happy you are, essef.
You flip truth on its head.  You destroy logic.  You choose blindness, willfully.  Your shameless arrogance is simply. simply. breathtaking.

[129] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 04:47 PM • top

Christoferos, you forgot two items in your excellent list of reasons why the Episcopal Church Must Die: liberals, although wealthier in the main than conservatives, give MUCH less to charity, and this is especially the case with respect to religious charities.  Moreover, those with children are more charitable during their lifetimes than those without children.  Add these facts to the demographic disaster looming, and it’s hardly a recipe for a growing and vibrant church.

The Episcopal Church’s condition is captured nicely by a famous Gary Larson Far Side cartoon.  A dinosaur is speaking to a convention of dinosaurs, and he says, “The picture is pretty bleak, gentlemen.  The world’s climates are changing, the mammals are taking over, and we all have a brain about the size of a walnut.”  Of course in that case the dinosaur recognized the problem, and the dinosaurs didn’t bring about the state of affairs they were facing.  The Episcopal Church can’t say the same.

[130] Posted by VaAnglican on 09-28-2007 at 04:48 PM • top

This has so far been a fascinating and useful thread.  Not only have we seen the first concrete specification of the “new ecclesial entity” foreseen at Kigali, we’ve had fascinating demonstrations that many activists in the GLBT community have no interest at all in combatting the unfair stereotype of homosexuals as emotional, spiteful, irrational, and self-absorbed, and to top it all off <a >plainsparson</a> has given us a sneak preview of the style guide for TEC’s next Book of Common Prayer!

Marvelous.

[131] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-28-2007 at 04:55 PM • top

Craig, thank you for explaining plainsparson’s post. I admit I was at a loss on that one.

[132] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

TJ—my instinct would be to respond to the question as you have. I have assumed that for some time ‘former Network’ bishops like SC, CFL, Dallas, etc had events overtake them with the formation of Common Cause, etc (after all, AMiA has been at legal loggerheads with SC for over five years, e.g.). So I guess I would not agree that ‘all ACN bishops will have to decide’ x or y, but pretty much already have done. My sense is that Network—at the level of episcopal involvement—has been in abeyance for some time. But I want to be able to give an accurate response to the question as posed to me. It sounds like people are not very clear.

As for there only being Common Cause and TEC—that is right after a fashion. But we need to see how the adjudication process proceeds. Nothing prevents the Primates from sticking by their DES guns and continuing to press for full compliance. But we genuinely cannot know until that process unfolds. Stated differently, if there is no recourse to DES, it is difficult to see how a Lambeth Conference can take place (I am told the RSVP are only running at 50%), and one can only guess what a Primates Meeting would look like now.

Several primates said that arrangements in the US were emergency, temporary, and the like. So there are many things still to play out. If one judges TEC to have ‘won’ that is questionable, but even if the logic is right, it will not join up straightforwardly with the Communion instruments and the tough decisions that must now be made, outside of the US problems (which have not gone away).

[133] Posted by zebra on 09-28-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

As Nike says; Just do it!

[134] Posted by BillS on 09-28-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

Dr. Seitz, I appreciate your posts here. Today’s news has left me even more uncertain of what’s ahead, as I live in a revisionist diocese. There is a network church not far away and I wonder what will become of it - I don’t see how it can “escape” to this new structure, isolated as it seems to be. Will churches that have been hanging on in hope now flock to this new structure? Will it even be possible for them to do so? Is this what schism looks like?

[135] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 05:07 PM • top

At this point no Network bishops have officially removed themselves or their dicoeses from ACN.  So “officially” they are all still Network.  At some point I think they will have to make it official- perhaps at the point the lawyers demand an answer so they know who to go after…

[136] Posted by Nevin on 09-28-2007 at 05:09 PM • top

Seitz+ - we don’t always agree with you, but do appreciate your posts here.  We’re all waiting to hear.  We especially in Central Florida as to +Howe’s stand - which appears to be to stay in TEC.

[137] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 09-28-2007 at 05:14 PM • top

Great. Another little denomination to add to the great American religious soup. How many does that make now? When will you guys ever learn? The quest for purity is a mirage you’ll never reach.

[138] Posted by Mick on 09-28-2007 at 05:17 PM • top

Lakeland: “appears” is somewhat of an understatement!

[139] Posted by Going Home on 09-28-2007 at 05:17 PM • top

I wish I could be more help. But my experience is too limited. I know SC reasonably well, e.g. Many churches there call themselves/identify themselves as ‘network’ and by that meant something pre-Common Cause. Of course, it can be assumed that some ‘network’ churches are following things and are interested in being part of whatever is being formed at present, called ‘Common Cause.’ Does this mean that decisions will be made congregationally? That seems somewhat at odds with the original idea of Network *Dioceses* (cf parishes). What happens when an individual parish in a ‘network’ dioceses wants to be in Common Cause, but the bishop’s involvement turned on being in Network, but not Common Cause? CFL is facing some of this, I suspect. But the terminology is confusing in a great many cases. This could be because ACN is not really run by a cadre of bishops, but by a central office, and by a moderator—however one assesses the value/constraint of conference calls and the like. In the meantime, moreover, that office and moderator have been confronted by lots of initiatives which do not conform smoothly to a former Network logic—this is probably most obvious in Northern Virginia (which also has a lot of seed money and influence in affairs of the present CANA and also Common Cause). How does a moderator chosen in the context of an original network in 2003, function in the present climate of serially consecrated bishops, and also of a movement that predated Network (AMiA) but did not find the support of original Network bishops? In my experience of CAPA meetings, it was never obvious that +Nigeria and +Uganda and others were willing to support +Rwanda. Then SE Asia stood aloof of AMiA.

Now these problems are presumably what the new Common Cause is facing into with diligence and enthusiasm.

My question was one of responding intelligently to those outside of a developing and changing scenario, whose internal dynamics and present structures I do not know, except as I have experienced them piecemeal and in previous incarnations (Rev Minns in Nigeria in 2003; Rev Akinola in various settings prior to that, at Nassau in 2000, or in Lambeth 2003, or wherever; former Deans of convocations at St Louis 2004, and so forth). I am not in a good position to answer queries, but I assumed some people here would know better. 

My general sense is that Network Bishops are not a clear category anymore, and that the Network is a former reality that has devloved into a congregationally discrete thing, as it becomes Common Cause.

[140] Posted by zebra on 09-28-2007 at 05:22 PM • top

Meanwhile, up in Maine, an interim priest at an Episcopal church insists on processing in with her dog on a leash and parks the dog near the altar during the Sunday service.  Last Sunday the dog barked while its ordained owner led the service, and then during or after Holy Communion the dog relieved itself (#2) near the altar. 

The clown eucharist people in New York City just thought they were doing the latest thing.

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
September 28, 2007

[141] Posted by MarkBrown on 09-28-2007 at 05:25 PM • top

Going Home - Yeah, we know.  But we are still praying for a solution.  HOPE!!!!

[142] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 09-28-2007 at 05:28 PM • top

Craig,

I’m sorry that there should have been any spiteful comments about this. For my part, I wish these people and you—the bishops and those who wish to follow them—well. Truly. May you make a church in which you can be secure. And I think the statement is a good, clear one under the circumstances, and pleasantly free of rancour and recrimination. It is a measured and gracious and hopeful document. Obviously leaving many details to be worked out, but that can’t be helped, and with a structure for working them out and some imaginative thinking. How far it works will depend on the will (and goodwill) of the many involved.

I have some questions though about how those who will be or may be part of this new organization envisage its relationship with the wider Anglican Communion. As things stand this new grouping is an affiliation of bishops/organizations not all of whom have any status in the AC at all (as a result of earlier splits, as I understand it), and many or most of the rest of whom are in some sort of irregular position: the American-African bishops as in some sense irregularly consecrated (I mean that not in theological terms, but simply in institutional terms) and thus not invited to Lambeth, the still-nominally-TEC bishops as, it seems, no longer regarding themselves as part of TEC and effectively in the rather odd position as things stand of being diocesan bishops without any primate.

Could such an grouping be fitted into the AC? If TEC leaves the Communion? If the GS (or part of it) leaves the AC (or, if you prefer it, since on this occasion I am really not trying to be difficult, if the GS becomes the AC, and “ejects” from it TEC, CofE etc)?

I have in mind both short-term questions (Do +Duncan and +Iker get to go to Lambeth? What part does this new body play in the covenant-drafting process?) and longer-term questions: Does this new body end up being recognized as a separate constituent church within AC? Or only through its current GS “mother-churches”? What then happens to those who were latterly TEC dioceses, and are now it seems dioceses whose bishops no longer recognize any institutional affiliation as such? If it is to become part of AC, when and how is that decision to be taken?

[143] Posted by Paul Stanley on 09-28-2007 at 05:28 PM • top

I think the Bishop of Harare will provide excellent leadership for American neo-cons in future. Do any of you know quite whom you’ve just leapt into bed with? It’s not going to be a long and happy marriage between the USA and the African homophobic churches: you’re going to be paying for their appalling leaders to swan around in limousines, send their kids to expensive colleges, etc. Don’t you understand just how corrupt many African leaders, including church leaders, are? The one point of agreement between you is homophobia: there isn’t anything else you’ll have in common. Certainly not Jesus’ example of inclusive reaching out to the oppressed and marginalised. The Church of Nigeria does nothing to help the poor on the streets of Lagos (I’ve worked with a lot of poor Nigerians): it’s not what their leadership cares about - too busy drafting laws to prohibit free association between gay people. Wow, there’s a great message for the unchurched world. Hate gays and be saved.

[144] Posted by culeitreach on 09-28-2007 at 05:34 PM • top

“Great. Another little denomination to add to the great American religious soup. How many does that make now? When will you guys ever learn? The quest for purity is a mirage you’ll never reach.”

Mick, you are so right to point this out.  We now do have another little inconsequential denomination in the American religious landscape.  It barely registers in any list of influence or importance, it is decreasing by the hour in numbers as its average member ages by the hour and its attendance evaporates.  It insists on “purity” by forcing others to support behavior that is outside Christian norms across time and the globe.  But you’re right, the Episcopal Church has indeed consigned itself to irrelvance and decline, and you are right to point that out.

[145] Posted by VaAnglican on 09-28-2007 at 05:39 PM • top

My prayers for the orthodox in the TEC has always been that a separate Anglican structure be formed in the U.S.  I rejoice with all of you.

[146] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-28-2007 at 05:49 PM • top

Prof. Seitz, I agree with your analysis of ACN (which may cause us both to worry!).

There appears to have been a fundamental division developing for a while among the ACN members.  With perhaps one or two exceptions, the ACN TEC Bishops who attended the CC meeting are the only ones that are willing to take the next step.  The rest have determined that they will remain within TEC, as currently constituted, for the duration. 

I fully expect TEC to go full bore after the departing Bishops.  Very sad. Ultimately, this legal viciousness will be self-destructive for the denomination.  But no turning back now.

Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Southern Cone. Central Africa will, as well, although it obviously has some internal issues and will be a target for the revisionists seeking to break up the block.  Southeast Asia will be there in the end, I believe.  I expect the Diocese of Egypt and North Africa to be supportive, but the situation within the Province of Jerusalem is complicated and, frankly, I don’t know how it works.  I also expect Bolivia to support the Common Cause effort in light of recent statements and the support of its Primate of the Kenya consecration.  However, you obviously have more insight with the Archbishop of Bolivia and may have greater insight to where he is headed.

I take the ABC at his word and don’t expect Lambeth to be cancelled or continued. The organizers will need TEC money to satisfy financial commitments associated with the event, and they will get it. 

Maybe we should all take an oath not to blame the other for this accelerating mess.

[147] Posted by Going Home on 09-28-2007 at 05:51 PM • top

Hah! Excuse me while I wipe my monitor. I’ll be generous and give it a year before the first split. Anglo-Catholic v Evangelical. Pro- vs Anti- ordination of women. Democratic vs Authoritarian. America vs Africa. Ego vs Ego. Just another St Louis all over again.

[148] Posted by Mick on 09-28-2007 at 05:52 PM • top

I’m neither a neo-con nor do I hate gay people.  Just for the record.

[149] Posted by AnnieV on 09-28-2007 at 05:53 PM • top

So the (ANiC) Anglican Network in Canada is now “All In’, in the words of a recent Chris Johnson headline. The maximum time for Niagara dioceses to be in ACC is now 2 months.

So many things on which mental energy need no longer be wasted, over which spiritual strength will no longer be drained. When is the time when one should have left, when one must leave. After 2007 GS? Or 2010 GS? 10 years from now, or 10 years ago? When the BCP was trashed? After the Keele Conference of 1967? I’ll never have to ruminate over that question again.

Time to plan a few last weekday communions in ACC churches fondly remembered, in places where even 4 years ago I couldn’t ever imagine being able to attend worship services only as an observer. Suddenly that time seems to have been so long long ago.

[150] Posted by Toral1 on 09-28-2007 at 05:53 PM • top

The comments with respect to the Network are extremely interesting.
I would say that the Network was originally formed based on the situation at that time, but now the situation has changed.  All Network Bishops now have to choose one way or the other, with no more opportunity for a “middle ground”.  This has been especially demonstrated by the less-than-stellar performance of certain still-Network and Windsor Bishops at New Orleans, so, whether they like it or not, those Network (and Windsor) Bishops who went along with the HOB Crowd, in the final analysis uttering not a peep for external consumption, are now consigned to the generic TEC “Bishop Herd.”  I have great love and respect for many of these Bishops, but they have brought this upon themselves by, in the final analysis, “blinking” at the most critical time.  There is still time for some of these Godly men to buck up their courage and step out in faith, like these beloved handful of Common Cause Bishops are doing.  To those beloved handful of Common Cause Bishops:  know that we love and respect you a hundred-fold .... nay .. a thousand-fold .... now ..... for the stand you now make for the Ancient Faith.  And to the Bishops of AMiA and CANA and the APA and REC and the Bishops of the various Primates, and to the other Bishops and Anglican Jurisdictions out there who now contemplate joining this amazing movement, may the Lord bless you and your respective flocks as you make difficult decisions, to come together in Common Cause, to form something of lasting Worth ...... Together we link arms and stand upon the Mountain with the Great Lion leading us ....  God bless you all ..... May God keep you all in the Loving Palm of His Hand ..... May Jesus Christ our Savior give you the Strength you will need ... and may the Holy Spirit blow a mighty Wind and Fire to sweep across this Land of ours with a renewed Anglicanism ...... that we may take our place among our other Christian Brothers and Sisters ....... to Proclaim and Preach the Ancient Faith of our Fathers ......

[151] Posted by Anglican Observer on 09-28-2007 at 05:55 PM • top

My count of orthodox, non-Common-Cause bishops that haven’t drunk the kool-aid is three: MacPherson
, Salmon, and Stanton (call them vestige orthodox Episcopal bishops or VOEB). They are honorable men. There are a few more that could join this crew, but it wouldn’t much matter. I and others have been saying all along that time was critical, that appealing to wait for Lambeth 08 or the passage of the covenant is folly. The VOEB certainly have no power to save the orthodox Anglicans in America. There is one structure that can do that. That, my friends, is reality.

[152] Posted by robroy on 09-28-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

Mere Christian’s words—

I would say that the Network was originally formed based on the situation at that time, but now the situation has changed.  All Network Bishops now have to choose one way or the other, with no more opportunity for a “middle ground”.

Remind me of an interesting passage from That Hideous Strength, in which one of the characters theorizes that the world’s history is coming to a point, and that formerly-tenable “middle-ground” positions are being eroded, resulting in an increasing need for all to choose sides definitively.  Anyone got a copy of the book handy?

[153] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 09-28-2007 at 06:10 PM • top

Seitz and others:  I think that the ACN has definitely faded into the background, and been replaced by the CC/separatist faction and the “traditional” Network/“wait for Communion discipline” faction.

I think that right now everyone is in the middle of a huge pause, waiting for the other shoe to drop.  The CC is ongoing, because this was basically planned out some time ago.

I think everyone else is waiting to hear from the ABC and the primates.  I think that it will be only after that verdict is in, that we will see which way the Network/Communion bishops will go.

[154] Posted by jamesw on 09-28-2007 at 06:23 PM • top
[155] Posted by albion on 09-28-2007 at 06:26 PM • top

The incredible part of this is that is greeted as something new or as a response to TEC’s actions over the last year.  It isn’t.  This is simply the coming to fruition of the strategy laid out in the Geoffrey Chapman Memo, the Allison Barfoot memo (seeking offshore temporary help), the November 2006 request to tge GS Steering Com. for APO and “cover” from overseas while the Network set this up and the Westfield’s Response document in which the signers promised loyalty to the GS and approved +Duncan as their leader.  All of this was conducted in secret and only revealed because of a lawsuit brought by Calvary church Pittsburgh alleging +Duncan was attemping to take the diocese out of TEC. (which, of course, +Duncan denied.  )  From +Duncan’s meetings and correspondence with his people circa March, ‘07, it would seem that he was involving them in a decision making process, but the decisions had been reached by him, and ACTED upon by him, months, even years earlier.  What TEC did or did not do in September was irrelevant to a man who had secretly declared his loyalty to the GS in Nov 2006.

[156] Posted by EmilyH on 09-28-2007 at 06:27 PM • top

Emily, what happened in 2006????

[157] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 06:30 PM • top

anthony, if they’re recognizing the clergy of other groups at interchangeable, then they’d be recognizing folks who have parted ways with TEC.  right?  that’s how i read it.  and that could be problematic for those who are still officially part of tec.

[158] Posted by AnnieV on 09-28-2007 at 06:30 PM • top

robroy, you are right on the list. But I don’t see Dallas leaving give the amendments last year (making it more difficult to get a vote to leave) and the resulting attrition of it orthodox membership.  It is also very hard to see McPherson lead his Diocese elsewhere, although like you I admire and respect him.

Retirements are going to play into all this.  Take the ACN Bishops, and look at their ages, and then consider what a roster will look like in 5 years.  The process and trends within the church virtually ensure that they will be replaced by people of greater institutionalist bent. That is why time was of the essence.

[159] Posted by Going Home on 09-28-2007 at 06:35 PM • top

EmilyH - all the significant “secrets” from the Calvary litigation was well known beforehand to anyone who followed the blogs.  Conspiracy theories might make you feel good, but tend to make you look foolish.  And I think that the events which set this in motion occured in 2003, not in September 2007.

[160] Posted by jamesw on 09-28-2007 at 06:39 PM • top

Biblically speaking, the only sticking point that I can see which may cause some friction in “Common Cause” is WO; this is plainly forbidden by scripture [although the office of deaconess is not]. And I’m sorry to have to say this, but if this body wants to truly be the Biblically based structure that it claims it WANTS to be, then WO will at least have to be phased out. Once CC starts looking the other way and allows one gross error in, more may follow. One of my favorite quotes comes from George Washington: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Now free from the bondage of Egypt, CC will not be able to ignore a glaring departure from Scripture in such a key area and continue to point to its theological integrity. Song of Solomon 2:15 reminds us that the little foxes spoil the vines. I hate to seem as if I’m raining on anyones parade because that is not my intention. The liberation of the children of Israel was spectacular and a reason for great rejoicing; so here. Just be reminded that afterwards, none of the men of that generation save Joshua and Caleb entered the promised land. Let our much deserved time of celebration be tempered with the fact that “...if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.” (Romans 11:21).

[161] Posted by Bob K. on 09-28-2007 at 06:41 PM • top

Well, you can bet on the IRD money drying up. They’re goal was to transform TEC, not create another little sect with no voice and no influence.

[162] Posted by Mick on 09-28-2007 at 06:42 PM • top

Thanks albion. People should take a gander. Albion is concerned that the CCP is too disparate to maintain cohesion. Possibly true, but they are all orthodox. They have much more in common then say Bp Stanton and Sisk. As I said, there is no other structure that holds hope for orthodox Anglicans in America.

Jamesw writes, “I think everyone else is waiting to hear from the ABC and the primates.  I think that it will be only after that verdict is in, that we will see which way the Network/Communion bishops will go.” I would ask how long are you willing to wait.

Over at the Lambeth Conference homepage, they have a countdown timer till lambeth. (I would say that is somewhat wishful thinking.) But right now, we have 292 days 18 hours 22 minutes and 8 seconds till Lambeth assuming it occurs. Are you willing to wait for discipline 292 days 18 hours 22 minutes and 7 seconds? Would you be surprised if the ABC dragged his feet?

As I said there are currently 3 bishops that are orthodox institutional Episcopal bishops that have rejected the koolaid. I don’t mean to be callous but the small numbers cry out irrelevancy?

[163] Posted by robroy on 09-28-2007 at 06:44 PM • top

For oscewiee..What happened in 2006?  +Duncan and as yet another group of bishops met secretly with +Akinola and others in Virginia.  Unfortunately, other than Duncan, we are uncertain of the signatories to a document called “Westfield’s Response” in which tge signers pledged to take directionnfrom the GS and accepted +Duncan as their leader.  Also in November, +Duncan wrote another secret letter requesting APO to the GS Steering Com.  This letter, very different from the one he wrote ++Williams requesting APO spelled out the needs of the Network dioceses asking for APO.  They were: “cover” and protection frm TEC discipline while they completed the set up of a new anglican structure in the US, and, and considering their cries now about lawsuits, while they continued to engage in legal actions to hold onto “their” property.  These documents only came to light in March when revealed in the “discovery” process of the Calvary lawsuit…about 2 weeks AFTER the primates meeting.  What happened in March?  These documents were assuedly handed out at the HofB meeting.  Didn’t you wonder why they were so mad.  For the first time many of them were learning exactly what the Network’s moderator and core were up to.  Had thenprimates known in Feb. what was revealed in March, I can expect that +Duncan would not have been greeted in such a friendly manner nor +Akinola/Minns been so influential.  Thanks for asking.

[164] Posted by EmilyH on 09-28-2007 at 07:02 PM • top

It’s finally underway. Thanks be to God!

[165] Posted by Chazzy on 09-28-2007 at 07:02 PM • top

“For oscewiee..What happened in 2006?...”

Which makes all the allegations of duplicity, double-speak, untruthworthiness, etc. aimed at the TEC bishops all the more ironic!

[166] Posted by Mick on 09-28-2007 at 07:08 PM • top

Um, Mick, that was a really opaque statement. Thanks for sharing.

[167] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 07:11 PM • top

“Um, Mick, that was a really opaque statement. Thanks for sharing.”

You’re welcome. I didn’t think I had to quote the whole of EmilyH’s post, but I was obviously wrong.

[168] Posted by Mick on 09-28-2007 at 07:20 PM • top

i don’t see may caveats here.

5. We will work together on the regional and local levels and avail ourselves of the various ministries of the Common Cause Partners. We will deploy clergy interchangeably as outlined in the Articles of the Partnership. We are free to invite our fellow bishops in this College to share episcopal acts and our sacramental life.

[169] Posted by AnnieV on 09-28-2007 at 07:33 PM • top

Matt Kennedy says supra:
“This is a fine statement and a great start. I especially appreciate the clarity of points 1-3. There is no obfuscation here. They are not hiding their intent. They mean to be an Anglican province and they are going, by God’s grace, to set themselves up as such and they will not be detered by Canterbury or anyone else.
This is not alphabet soup. This is the Church.”
and:
“Bob K, they are asking for official recognition from the primates of the Communion.”
(Matt Kennedy)

I agree with you a 100% Matt.

Responding to Kendall Harmon’s article and invitation for suggestion for a “radical solution”, I wrote/suggested (on Sept. 22) in T19 and Standfirm the following (inter alia):
Here is my suggestion for a “radical solution”:

Now that it is abundantly clear and more solidly obvious that TEC has never approached, and is NOT approaching, this matter from even the minutest of any known Christian fundamental principles;

Now that TEC totally disagrees with the Catholic and Apostolic Christianity on this matter of Human Sexuality, Marital Relationships, the Authority of the Bible, and OTHER fundamentally important Christian Truths and Teachings;

Therefore, let the faithful, Bible-believing Episcopalians and Anglicans in Canada, working with CLEARLY Orthodox bishops and clergy in the Church of Canada and in TEC, and in collaboration with Orthodox Primates from outside of North America, form a New North American Anglican Province (Church); and

Since the ABC is actually a “primus inter pares” rather than a Pope, this proposal and the prospects for this proposed New North American Province shall NOT be dependent on the ABC’s approval; and

Finally, as the probable consequences likely to result from this “radical solution” may include a split (along THEOLOGICAL, rather than geographical lines) in the Anglican Communion, the Faithful Orthodox in NA and the rest of the world shall be prepared to accept this likely aftermath, as well as the probability of losing some significant material assets, as our sacrifice and part of God’s plan for the preservation of His Truth and His Saving Grace to/for those who so believe and accept His Word.

Respectfully submitted by:
The Rev. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Vicar
St. Philip-the-Apostle
Arlington, TX
(Diocese of Fort Worth)

I am so glad what the Lord is moving and guiding the CCP Bishops to what I (and many others) have been praying for.

Thank you Lord.
Thank you Bishops Iker (my bishop), Duncan, Ackerman et al. Our prayers are with you now and always!!

Fr. Kingsley

[170] Posted by Spiro on 09-28-2007 at 07:40 PM • top

I didn’t think I had to quote the whole of EmilyH’s post, but I was obviously wrong.

No, you didn’t need to quote Emily’s post. Just make your own clear. wink

[171] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 07:46 PM • top

Well, I respect Dr. Radner’s right to dissent from +Duncan’s actions, but in my opinion, Dr. Radner has dropped a few notches in respectability, and credibility, because of how he has done so. He was not charitable to +Duncan (and perhaps I am not being so to Radner+), and chose to frame the decision to follow the Primates’ advice as “tearing down” Christ’s Body and “destructive”. My understanding may be poor and limited, but I think the wording of his ACN resignation letter was shameful.

[172] Posted by alfonso on 09-28-2007 at 07:48 PM • top

I would ask how long are you willing to wait.

Pray that the Primates act quickly, or they themselves will be superseded by events.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

[173] Posted by dpeirce on 09-28-2007 at 07:56 PM • top

culeitreach said

You run along and see what fun it will be to labour under the corrupt and megalomaniacal bishops of Nigeria, Kenya, etc.

If you have facts to support these allegations, let’s see it.  Otherwise, rumor and inneundo are not welcome here.  Another attempt to post such unsubstantiated libel will get you banned.

[174] Posted by JackieB on 09-28-2007 at 07:58 PM • top

Mmm-HMM. Yes, Fr. Kingsley, I rather like it. I rather like it indeed. This puts ABC Rowan in a new, and rather unique position. Does he-once the dust clears a bit-accept this new Province as a parallel NA province [despite the screeching coming from 815], now that he sees that they are not waiting for his approval anymore, and SO hope to keep the Communion together (and then the new province can decide for itself as to what degree of communion they might have with TEC, if any). Or, will +++Rowan simply gather up the marbles he has left and go home-forever being remembered as being on the wrong side of ecclesiastical history?

[175] Posted by Bob K. on 09-28-2007 at 07:59 PM • top

I think maybe some introductions are beginning to be in order! My name is Fr. Glenn Spencer. I have been the rector of All Saints Anglican Church in Charlottesville, VA for 15 years. We are a parish in the Anglican Province of America and ++Walter Grundorf is our bishop. I graduated from Duke Divinity School in 1989. When I graduated from Duke I made the decision to enter into a continuing Anglican church. We have a lot of priests who made that same decision. You can take a look at our website here: http://www.allsaintscville.org/

Our jurisdiction is now traveling the Gospel road with other Anglican jurisdictions as never before in our history. By the hard work and prayers of our bishops we have made common cause with some of our traveling companions, while with others, by the grace of the blessed Trinity, we have discovered that we share common prayer, that is communio in sacris. Transparency in speech and deed is important to us at this time, and I’m sure it is for you all as well. All our faithful parishioners “who have borne the burden and the heat of the day” and have hoped for such a day as this deserve to live without suspicion. I hope that our common cause will one day lead to common prayer for us all. I pray that God will give us all the discernment to recognize the mystery of righteousness as it bears fruit in our jurisdictions. Let’s pray for one another and look for every opportunity to labor with one another for His glory.
gms+

[176] Posted by gmspencer on 09-28-2007 at 08:25 PM • top

Interestingly, when I hear of “corrupt, megalomaniacal” church leadership, the first thing that comes to my mind is 815.  I personally believe that the Windsor bishops are divided into two groups:  those who have been terrorized into temporary submission by the Bruno/Beers New Years 07 offensive and those who have not.  Both individual diocesan situations and episcopal personalities vary widely, which is why I hesitate to join in the enthusiastic round of condemnation of their relative quiescence at the HoB meeting.

It’s clear—and extremely gratifying to know—that the Common Cause Partnership will proceed with its ecclesial re-creation regardless of other developments in the Communion.  But for the sake of the many Windsor bishops and dioceses not currently associated with Common Cause, the first requirement is action by the Primates to de-legitimize the General Convention Church, which would substantially reduce the legal and canonical risk to these dioceses in declaring their independence from 815.  This is something that only the ABC and the Primates can do, which is why 815 and its lackeys in the Anglican Communion Office have been putting the Full Court Press on ++Cantuar all year.

Instead of wasting time condemning and second-guessing these bishops, perhaps we should be praying (and working) for their manumission, as we pray (and work) for freedom from false teaching for our GLBT friends.

[177] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-28-2007 at 08:40 PM • top

If someone would be good enough to explain how this action will help mend the rift in the worldwide communion, I’d probably be more inclined to join in the near-general rejoicing. Whatever the intentions may be, IMO this is likelier to result in a complete split of the Communion than in the excision of TEC (and any other bits that have gone bad) resulting in a healthy and unified body. If I understand this statement we are seeing the first step in the creation of “facts on the ground” which the communion will then be asked to accept. How does this process differ from the “Trojan horse” method by which WO was slipped in?

[178] Posted by kyounge1956 on 09-28-2007 at 08:58 PM • top

Fr. Glenn, prayers for you and the people of All Saints Anglican. I tried to send you a private message, but seem to have failed! Twice!

[179] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 09:02 PM • top

Hi oscewicee. I did not get a private message, but you can go to our website and click on my name to send an email. Thanks for your prayers!
gms+

[180] Posted by gmspencer on 09-28-2007 at 09:08 PM • top

Father Spencer,

God’s blessings to you and your flock as we minister together in Common Cause.

[181] Posted by Anglican Observer on 09-28-2007 at 09:10 PM • top

I’m intrigued by the plan to address the question,

How we will live together with bishops and congregations and dioceses that do ordain women and others that do not ordain women, affirming that we will not violate anyone’s conscience on this matter.

I assume this question to be unanswerable by those whose consciences were so violated by differences within their previous body that they could no longer live with members of that body.

[182] Posted by Klaxon on 09-28-2007 at 09:11 PM • top

There are two obstacles which, to my incomplete knowledge, represent game-busters for CCP: WO and prayer book. Some believe WO to be sinful and others accept it; that might be no easier to solve than homosexuality in TEC. And some accept the 1979 BCP while others think it’s demonic; some even want to go back to the 1662 Book as the last example of “pure” worship. Their work is certainly cut out for them!

Personally, I pray that the Primates act quickly and in such a way as to make CCP unnecessary; that would be a preferable ending IMHO than a new Province.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

[183] Posted by dpeirce on 09-28-2007 at 09:21 PM • top

Welcome Fr. Spencer.  I’ve learned some about APA through Fr. Anderson’s late blog and was favorably impressed.  I believe APA can provide some sound influence in this new structure.

[184] Posted by Nevin on 09-28-2007 at 09:25 PM • top

Dear Nevin:
Thanks so much. So you are familiar with Fr. Anderson’s late blog, but have you visited his new blog? It is excellent. Lots of talk about art, theology, liturgy, plus his own superior art! Not only is he a first rate theologian, he is also a first rate artist. Thanks for your warm welcome. We all have a lot to learn from one another!
gms+

[185] Posted by gmspencer on 09-28-2007 at 09:33 PM • top

Where is Fr. Anderson’s *new* blog? Let the learning begin!

[186] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 09:36 PM • top

I have suggested to my rector today that we invite some of the local AMiA, REC, and CANA parishes to our parish (ACN, AAC, & FiFNA) to a special Mass.  That would be a good first step, woundn’t it?

[187] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-28-2007 at 09:44 PM • top

Fr. Anderson’s new website A Day in the Life of an Artist-Priest is found here:
http://jgordonanderson.blogspot.com/
On the right hand side if you click on his name you go to his art. I’ll have to let him know he owes me something for this! smile
gms+

[188] Posted by gmspencer on 09-28-2007 at 09:45 PM • top

I think inviting one another to actually get together face to face is wonderful! Wow this is exciting; like the first day of class! By the way Fr. Anderson has been a curate for a year or so at St. Mark’s in Vero Beach, a church recently built by my good friend Fr. Mike Ward. Here’s a link to his beautiful parish church:
http://www.stmarksvero.org/
gms+

[189] Posted by gmspencer on 09-28-2007 at 09:51 PM • top

Wish I could afford one of Fr. Anderson’s paintings - but am glad the words are free. I like to see art and religion brought together, as they once regularly were. Thank you for the link, Fr. Glenn!

Connie, what a wonderful idea. Where can we look to find out who our neighbors are? I suspect there will be few in my area, but I would like to know.

[190] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 09:55 PM • top

When I left ECUSA I lived in an area that had every flavor of alternative Anglicanism; I checked out most of them and stopped after I got to APA because I found there what we see reflected by Fr. Spencer: a joyful and simple kind of orthodoxy. I urge any here who are within driving distance of an APA parish to go visit - you’ll love it.

[191] Posted by Angels Heard On High on 09-28-2007 at 10:16 PM • top

Y’all, do check out the link to St. Mark’s Vero - it’s so beautiful!

[192] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 10:19 PM • top

Sarah Hey:

“For one thing, I’m not a member of Common Cause—I and many others will be right here in the good old ECUSA.  And for another, while of course I can’t speak for them, I can’t imagine Common Cause churches not having any celibate homosexuals.”

Amen!

I don’t know how many celibate homosexuals the Common Cause churches are going to have, but “good old ECUSA” will still have a few, including this one.

Essef . . . Seraph . . . move over and make room.

The “listening process” is going to continue for a while.

And that’s a good thing, right guys?  wink

[193] Posted by episcopalienated on 09-28-2007 at 10:49 PM • top

A repeated error that I see above (e.g., David Pierce) is the call for the primates to quickly bring judgment of the HoB statement. The ABC has said that he will consult the primates but has made no intonations of a primates meeting. If the primates want to collectively pass judgment they must circumvent the ABC to do this. You are deluded if you think the ABC won’t dither till the day before Lambeth 08 at which time he will decide that, “Why yes indeed, the HoB statement does actually pass muster.”

[194] Posted by rob-roy on 09-28-2007 at 10:53 PM • top

Rob-roy, I would disagree that’s an error. IMV, the Primates, IF THEY WANT TO, can bypass the ABC at any time. If they decide to meet next week, can he stop them? If they make a decision by majority vote, can he overrule it? But they will need a strong stomach for the fight with TEC which will immediately ensue, using the same argument you are making. What we don’t yet know is whether they have that stomach (or the votes to go with it).

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

[195] Posted by dpeirce on 09-28-2007 at 11:00 PM • top

Right on Rob Roy! AB Williams will drag this whole business out until Lambeth 08 and when the GS Primates don’t show up then all who did attend (the New Thing Bishops), will in concert with +++Williams declare that ECUSA has met all the necessary responses to the DES Communique and all is well in the See of Canterbuy.

[196] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 11:04 PM • top

Thanks for dropping by and introducing yourself and your parish, Fr. Glenn.  It looks like a happy busy place.  You have a lot of clergy.  Looking forward to getting to know more of the continuing parishes. 

Connie, you are in the FW area, aren’t you?  We should try to have something to get all the CCP people together so we can meet each other.  I will be glad to help you get something going.

[197] Posted by terrafirma on 09-28-2007 at 11:43 PM • top

<blockquote>And for another, while of course I can’t speak for them, I can’t imagine Common Cause churches not having any celibate homosexuals</bockquote>

I am not quite understanding this comment at all.
Sarah,
How can you justify this statement when CCP hasn’t even begun in true form yet and you are passing a judgement here that cannot be substantiated. You have me scratching my head on this. Can you please enlighten me on your proof of the statement?

[198] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 12:17 AM • top

terrafirma,
Yeah, let’s work on that.  Send me an email by clicking on my name at the bottom of the page and then click “email” on the page that comes up.

God’s blessings,
Connie

[199] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-29-2007 at 12:51 AM • top

oscewicee,
I found the local parishes by looking in two places:
http://www.shelterinthestorm.org/

And by looking at the websites for the CCP and their parish directories (although I didn’t find a directory for CANA at their website).  To take a shortcut going to the links for the Partners, go here at the ACN website:  http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/

Hope that helps. 

Love in Christ,
Connie

[200] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-29-2007 at 12:58 AM • top

ODC:

“And for another, while of course I can’t speak for them, I can’t imagine Common Cause churches not having any celibate homosexuals”

I am not quite understanding this comment at all.

Sarah,
How can you justify this statement when CCP hasn’t even begun in true form yet and you are passing a judgement here that cannot be substantiated. You have me scratching my head on this. Can you please enlighten me on your proof of the statement?

I certainly can’t speak for Sarah Hey, but she’s simply saying that she expects the Common Cause churches will have some members who are celibate homosexuals—those who practice celibacy because they (we) believe that a sexually active gay lifestyle is incompatible with Christian faith and practice, but who haven’t experienced a change in their sexual orientation, at least not enough to undertake heterosexual marriage.  That’s all.  I expect they will too.

However, I continue to believe that orthodox parishes in conservative dioceses within TEC represent the most conducive environment for those seeking to practice sexual chastity for this reason, especially for Christians newly converted from a gay lifestyle who are still in the formative stages of spiritual development.  But that’s my own view, and I don’t know that Ms. Hey would agree with it.  Perhaps you won’t either, and that’s OK.

I have two major concerns in this area.  One is that gay people who are evangelized by the Church do not face an atmosphere of unreasoning homophobia when they get there.  The other is that they do not simply encounter false teaching which tells them that ongoing homosexual activity, partnered or otherwise, is consistent with Christian faith and practice.  The Church has to be a hospital for sinners, and a boot camp for new recruits.  We may be in bad shape (indeed we are), but in many areas that’s still possible in TEC.  And I intend to remain in place as long as it is.

Some of the folks (some, not all!) who are going to end up in these Common Cause churches still think it’s OK to refer to gay people as “fruits” and “fairies.”  They are homophobic, in spite of their pious pretensions to the contrary, and some of their co-religionists (as attested by another “conservative” Anglican blog I won’t mention by name) are even worse.  Nobody’s being fooled—unless their own acts of self-delusion count.  That won’t do.

My own fears where these various non-TEC groups are concerned have not been relieved.  If you think I’m off base, or too touchy, and you’re convinced that the Common Cause Church can truly be all that God wants it to be, then by all means go and prove me wrong.  When the time comes, I’ll be happy to sit up and take notice, and maybe I’ll join you.  But not so far! 

Hey, if you’re in California and I’m in Florida, which one of us is up too late? smile

Good night and God bless!

[201] Posted by episcopalienated on 09-29-2007 at 01:15 AM • top

episcopalienated,
Thank you for your kind and heart felt response regards to Sarah’s comment. I understand now a bit better. But, I suspect that alot of churches have right now celibate homosexuals that have come to know Christ and that is exactly were I love to see them, in church hearing the Word of God and to get the pastoral care they so deserve and need just like any other sinner. But, I do not see other demoninations ordaining them as priests or pastors…well except the Lutheran and Methodists. There is the rub. I do not believe that they should be lifted up in positions of authority within the chuch, but they certainly should be in the church and helping to minister to others who have come to know Christ in much the same way as themselves. They like most all laity in the church have their place somewhere in the parish life , but certainly not as the ordained. Would we ordain a refomed rapist, child molester, murderer? I don’t think so! But, then who am I but just a lowly lay person with only 14 years education and a huge love for her Lord and Savior with fear of Him as well.
I think when we get to the point of the fear of not pleasing God instead of man and humanness, then and only then can one truly change and see the error of their ways and then understand better the true meaning of the love and the tough love of God that one can deeply experience.

[202] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 01:58 AM • top

Oops! Forgot….you are up way to late and I am too for what is usually my bed time. Blessings and have a gereat Saturday.

[203] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 01:59 AM • top

Episcopalienated, I hope that Bps Iker, Duncan, Minns, etc., read your posting and address your concerns. You are a light of reason and your contributions here are much appreciated.

David Pierce, agreed. But I think that it is important to realize and state up front and not take for granted that the ABC will be impeding discipline as he has done all along, and that mountain sized impediment won’t be easy to get around.

[204] Posted by rob-roy on 09-29-2007 at 02:07 AM • top

Episcopalienated, I share your concern with how celibate gays and lesbians may be and undoubtedly sometimes are treated in self-styled orthodox anglican churches.  I made 2 comments in response to one commenter who thought all gays and lesbians were in church only to do what the reappraisers have done to TEC.  May God grace me to live them out and may we all remember that Jesus came not for the (self) righteous (as He said to the Pharisees) but for sinners (me and everyone else inside and outside of church, whether we admit it or not).
—————————————————————————————————

16. Milton wrote:

No, XXXXX, we cannot, we dare not bar any sinners from our congregations, just as we dare not ask for God’s justice for ourselves, or He would have to destroy us in perfect justice.  Of course, St. Paul set out good guidelines for who should have leadership positions in church, including vestry, Sunday school teachers, clergy of all levels.  They do not include unrepentant sinners or those who would twist and distort the faith once for all passed on to the apostles.  For those who would dispute that there ever was one faith passed on once for all, read the last chapter of Luke.  You can’t miss who passed it on and that He used Scripture that He said could not be broken.

September 27, 5:05 am | [comment link]

25. Milton wrote:

XXXXX, certainly we should never stand silently aloof when the word of God is attacked, dismissed, twisted and used selectively to say Satan’s lies with God’s word.  The eternal fate of immortal souls is at stake.  We should always be ready, as St. Peter said, “to give a reason for the hope that dwells within us”.  If we live in Scripture for some significant time each day and ask for true interpretation from the Holy Spirit and listening to faithful teachers who have no agenda but the glory of God, then and only then will we be equipped to discern truth from error, license from grace and mercy, true personal pain from narcisisstic anger, repentant struggling sinner from unbelieving activist.  My main point was that we should never deny the opportunity for Jesus to heal and save through His body the Church and we should deny leadership roles of any kind to those whose words or lives deny the Gospel message of salvation from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.  We are always under attack, but “we war not against flesh and blood”.  Our only real defense against our true enemy is the breastplate of righteousness (Christ’s, not ours), the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God, “by which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one.” We must remember that “He who is in us is stronger than he who is in the world.”

September 27, 8:51 am | [comment link]

[205] Posted by Milton on 09-29-2007 at 05:08 AM • top

Forgot to mention, my comments were cross-posted from the thread on this same subject on T19.

[206] Posted by Milton on 09-29-2007 at 05:09 AM • top

I would certainly think the new structure would have celibate homosexual laity and clergy as well.  Celibacy makes all the difference in any case where there may be sexual temptation.  By the way, I think there is a sense in which the Windsor Report itself was a sort of red herring, a distraction that focused this crisis almost exclusively on sexuality.  It should have been much broader-based.  TEC could make all kinds of promises about sexual ethics and still not satisfy my main concerns, like its policies on abortion, like its vindictiveness, like a general instinct to bear false witness and to bow down before the culture in painfully numerous ways.  To episcopalianated: I certainly hope your concerns will be met; I recognize the problems you mention, and I would not want to be in a church that fostered them.  I say this as a deeply orthodox Christian.

[207] Posted by Paula on 09-29-2007 at 06:04 AM • top

There is room for hope in the Common Cause movement, but let’s be honest, there are massive problems with the ‘conservatives.’ They all deplore TEC, sure. But why is it that it took a gay bishop to set this crisis off? Where were all of these orthodox folks when gay priests were ordained for the past three decades? How about the serial divorce that ran rampant in ECUSA priests and bishops? Let’s see, how about the pen-ultimate innovation of ordaining women? That didn’t bother this bunch in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s and apparently still doesn’t bother many of them now. Do they agree on worship? No. One would think that we could walk into any ‘Anglican’ church in the USA and find the same liturgy, but no, it is a cacophony of everyone doing what they please. Some use the 79 BCP, some the 1928, some the 1662, some use almost none of it. Some are reformed, some pray to saints, some use rosaries, some try to be community churches. It is a complete and total mess.

So will this new group reject women’s ordination? Not in the short term. Will they agree on a Reformed theology that rejects bowing to man-made objects and the like? No.  Perhaps they will unite in one common liturgy? It doesn’t look like it. For now, they seem to be people who have responded to rot in the church after decades of ignoring it, and rightfully want some semblance of basic orthodoxy. Beyond that, it’s all fair game.
Joel
http://livingtext.wordpress.com/

[208] Posted by Joel on 09-29-2007 at 07:29 AM • top

I have two major concerns in this area.  One is that gay people who are evangelized by the Church do not face an atmosphere of unreasoning homophobia when they get there.  The other is that they do not simply encounter false teaching which tells them that ongoing homosexual activity, partnered or otherwise, is consistent with Christian faith and practice.  The Church has to be a hospital for sinners, and a boot camp for new recruits….

My experience has been that, partnered or not, many gay people experience a certain level of homophobia , rejection and an overall unhealthy enviroment in some churches…
* The prevalent societal rejection of homosexual practice, making fun of gay people and demeaning them in other ways… but now legitimized and reinforced by religion can be part of the millieu at church. 
* There is a sense among some Christians, that somehow the “sin” of homosexuals is particularly repugnant to God…“destroyed a whole city over it”.  That carries over in their interaction with ex-gays.
* The whole politization of sexuality…“gay agenda”, “gay rights” makes for a tense enviroment for gay people in churches where there is a vocal opposition to it…people can say such uncharitable things .
* Even for celibate gays and ex-gays there comes a point after years in church that the “Christ heals”, “pray away the gay” attitude of their coreligionists becomes very hollow….its really not that way at all….they are clueless and do not want to hear, not really.
* Ever tried to be friends with another celibate gay or ex-gay at your conservative parish???? After a couple of dates….talks about prudence, avoiding near sin etc…wagging tongues galore..!
* Support groups for ex gays- ever been to one for more than a year??? After a while they are sooooooo depressing. Always the same deal…and never real solutions…

You are gay and so you stay and your church just looks away as long as you do not say that Jesus loves you anyway! 

The CC and all the other alphabets of Anglicanism have no SOLUTIONS at all to the problems of people with same sex attraction in their churches, their priests, teenagers, sons and daughters and others who may be so “blessed”. That at the genesis of their community is their opposition of the “godless gay agenda” does not imho look well for the myriad of same sex attracted…gays partnered or not, ex-gays, ex-ex gays, post gays et al in their congregations…
Lord have mercy
seraph

[209] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 07:54 AM • top

Some are reformed, some pray to saints, some use rosaries, some try to be community churches. It is a complete and total mess.

I’m not sure what your point is.  Anglicans have always been like this.  This actually describes TEC right now.  In the Diocese of Pittsburgh there exists exactly this sort of variety right now.  It appears Common Cause will attempt to include everyone from evangelicals to Anglo-Catholics.  They are going to spend the next year working out many of the these details regarding WO, PB etc.  I’m not going to blast them for not having it all resolved on day one.

[210] Posted by Nevin on 09-29-2007 at 07:56 AM • top

Some are reformed, some pray to saints, some use rosaries, some try to be community churches. It is a complete and total mess

mess…???? How about richness, diversity , comprehensiveness, tolerance, variety…..how wonderful that sounds!!!!!
I thought that was the whole point of Anglicanism? For uniformity become Orthodox! I wonder if the alphabets…this new one included the CC..are going to be able to avoid the trap of uniformity…so far not a good track record…

seraph

seraph

[211] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 08:01 AM • top

Episcopaliated,

The Church has to be a hospital for sinners, and a boot camp for new recruits.

Such a simple statement that is profoundly true, and yet far too easy to shrug off as self-evident.  I’m convinced that where the Church hasn’t ‘realized’ it both intellectually and practically, it withers;  conservative, progressive, regardless. 

I’m .. hopeful that Common-Cause will get it right.

[212] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-29-2007 at 08:08 AM • top

Maybe I’m missing something here, but I must admit that I’m a little baffled by this concern about celibate homosexuals. We all have some propensity for sin. The propensity for sin is not sinful itself. While it isn’t sinful to be an alcoholic, it is sinful and deadly to act out of one’s alcoholism. The same is true of homosexuality. Two of the best and brightest priests I’ve ever known (and the ones I would chose as my priests) are celibate homosexuals. We’ve always had homosexuals that practice celibacy in our parishes just as we’ve always had alcoholics that practice abstinence. The only issue from my side of this important question is to know that it is my duty as a Catholic priest to be welcoming to “all sorts and conditions of men.” If we don’t provide intelligent and loving ministries to gays, then we’re sinning.

[213] Posted by gmspencer on 09-29-2007 at 08:11 AM • top

I thought that was the whole point of Anglicanism?

That’s funny.  I thought the point was to be both Reformed and Catholic, which as we know TEC is neither, nor.  I suppose though, that one can say it is diverse in areas that are not Reformed or not Catholic.

[214] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-29-2007 at 08:14 AM • top

ODC:

I do not believe that they should be lifted up in positions of authority within the chuch, but they certainly should be in the church and helping to minister to others who have come to know Christ in much the same way as themselves.

What about celibate, unmarried heterosexuals?  I guess the only people “worthy” of carrying authority in the church are married folk?  Maybe you don’t realize what you’ve said, but it is preposterous.  Do you have a litmus test for same-sex attraction?  A mind-probe to determine if someone’s thoughts are not on the right track?  I don’t mean to over-react, but this is precisely the kind of statement that puts conservatives into the mold of “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals”.  A person’s attractions are NOT what disqualifies them from leadership in the church - we’ve been saying all along that it is about behavior, not “orientation”.

[215] Posted by GillianC on 09-29-2007 at 08:21 AM • top

ODC—re: celibate gays—I would second Gillian C’s post, and add this—someone who struggles daily, hourly, against temptation in this way and WINS consistently, is someone well on the road to sainthood.
Not to make him blush, but think how much we admire and are nourished by the posts from our brother episcopalienated. Why?  Because his enormous struggle has shaped his Christian journey, and given him a spiritual maturity that I only wish I could come close to.
Episcopalienated himself may not feel called to the priesthood, but someone else who did, and who had traveled that same road, might well be an outstanding priest.

[216] Posted by In Newark on 09-29-2007 at 08:35 AM • top

If you understand the 39 Articles, then you understand that Reformed practice and Catholic practice are antithetical. For example:
Article 22 - Purgatory
The Roman [Catholic] doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshiping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.

Most Anglo-Catholics would not agree with this at all. In the long run, these varying opinions cannot get along.

[217] Posted by Joel on 09-29-2007 at 08:35 AM • top

I think something of the exciting collaborative dynamism of Common Cause is seen in our parochial situation.  St. Andrew’s is a low church, Evangelical parish in a predominantly Anglo-Catholic Diocese (Fort Worth).  We love our bishop (+Jack Leo Iker).  He loves us. 

Recently we called an REC priest, the Rev. Charles Erlandson, to come on staff with us.  I have always had extremely wonderful relations with the good people in the REC.  IMO, this is the type of full clergy sharing and commonality of ministry which is envisioned in the statement.  Common Cause is not a fantasy; it is happening before our eyes both globally and locally.

RWD+ (rector)
http://st-andrew.com/

[218] Posted by Bill+ on 09-29-2007 at 08:36 AM • top

so far not a good track record…

The Common Cause Partnership has no track record yet.  But I would predict that it will not be requiring the kind of uniformity Joel was looking for.  It will be Anglo-Catholic, otherwise I don’t see Fort Worth, Quincy, San Joaquin, APA participating.  It will also be evangelical, obvious from the participation of AMiA, CANA and others.  I am quite hopeful for this new orthodox Anglican entity and hope to eventually be able to leave TEC and join it…

[219] Posted by Nevin on 09-29-2007 at 08:36 AM • top

Let’s see, how about the pen-ultimate innovation of ordaining women? That didn’t bother this bunch in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s and apparently still doesn’t bother many of them now.

there is some disagreement now, yes, but in point of fact, the ordination of women did bother a great many people, many of whom are included in this group.  and some folks did pack it in with women’s ordination.  but it’s complicated. much more complicated than “it didn’t bother this bunch.”  the fact that TEC had to push further has to do with reaching critical mass, coming to a breaking point, and not least, awaiting the reaction of the gs primates.

Do they agree on worship? No. One would think that we could walk into any ‘Anglican’ church in the USA and find the same liturgy, but no, it is a cacophony of everyone doing what they please. Some use the 79 BCP, some the 1928, some the 1662, some use almost none of it. Some are reformed, some pray to saints, some use rosaries, some try to be community churches. It is a complete and total mess.

first of all, I’m okay with this.  I pray to saints and use a rosary and I’m perfectly happy with rite I of the 1979 but I don’t dislike people who use the 28 or who are more protestant in outlook.  theologically, I think we ultimately have a common ground.  I don’t buy the liberal line that worship can be our common ground when our theologies diverge.  I do think that divergence in worship works if it is funded by a common theological framework.

do we have that framework?  I think it remains to be seen.  It also remains to be seen what will become of the standards of worship for this group.  they’ve already said (haven’t they?) that they plan to use the 1662 as standard.  So I presume they’re looking for unity.  They repent of their disunity in this statement and agree to treat one another’s clergy as equals.  there is some hope that a unified vision will emerge.

[220] Posted by AnnieV on 09-29-2007 at 08:51 AM • top

do not believe that they should be lifted up in positions of authority within the chuch, but they certainly should be in the church and helping to minister to others who have come to know Christ in much the same way as themselves.

case in point…..

A person’s attractions are NOT what disqualifies them from leadership in the church - we’ve been saying all along that it is about behavior, not “orientation”.

homosexual “orientation” ,which you aknwoledge, then is not a disease like alcoholism… so the comparison in an earlier point ilustrates the problem as well.

Face it friend…I have…there is a double standart and gay or ex gay or ssa is never okay ! Celibate or not the orientation itself is to heterosexuals incomprehensible and “disordered”....despite platitudes of all are sinners….and forgiven ! At the end of the day, no matter your secret struggles and defeat of temptation and path to holiness…  for many you are still an oddball and unlike celibate heterosexuals there is NEVER a way you can have a romance that is acceptable…either to your nature or to your coreligionists. There are exceptions but few and far between. 

This kind of attitude permeates churches and make them for homosexually oriented people sometimes difficult to bear. The same is likely to be the case in CC churches…its the same people running them!

 

blessings

seraph

[221] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 08:58 AM • top

...for many you are still an oddball and unlike celibate heterosexuals there is NEVER a way you can have a romance that is acceptable…

Yeah, yeah.  And if you were homosexual and celibate, but God granted you different-sex desires at some point, then according to TEC homosexual-ISTs, you were never really gay, just bisexual.  Or, if you never are granted different-sex desires, then according to the same bunch, you are self-loathing.  Yada yada. 

The fact of the matter is, homosexualists reject homosexuals who struggle with the sin aspect of homosexuality.  Talk about conservatives rejecting homosexuals til you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve failed to be inclusive to all homosexuals, in your own little twisted worldview. 

Episcopalianated is my brother, as much as the poor soul (in the words of a former SF commentator) “guiltily skulking around gay bars.” 

(Giggle)(Yawn)

[222] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-29-2007 at 09:14 AM • top

Yeah ...right…

seraph

[223] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 09:19 AM • top

Episcopalianated is my brother, as much as the poor soul (in the words of a former SF commentator) “guiltily skulking around gay bars.”

Nice words .... until the day you know for sure he has skulked in one, you know, lonely night, great temptation, no different sex desires ...a minor slip or so. Your “brother” tune would probably change tempo

imho.
seraph

[224] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 09:23 AM • top

Seraph remarks, perceptively:

The whole politization of sexuality…“gay agenda”, “gay rights” makes for a tense enviroment for gay people in churches where there is a vocal opposition to it…people can say such uncharitable things .

This is quite true; I (and many others) have been saying for a long time that gay political activism within the church(es—but most advanced in ECUSA) will in the long run prove a pastoral disaster for gays, both eschatologically—redefining sin around a particular syndrome of temptation hardly contributes to anyone’s salvation—and socially within the congregation—since quite unfairly but very naturally many fellow parishioners will see the disintegration of the church as gays’ “fault”. 

This is particularly tragic because sincere pastoral engagement with gays —as opposed to simple “enabling” concessions— can provide valuable insights and experience for the Church—as discussed in the <a > excellent series of Web sermons </a> by the theologian and ethicist Oliver O’Donovan.

Sigh…

[225] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-29-2007 at 09:36 AM • top

Seraph, you’re wrong. There’s no reason for you to believe this of strangers, and I can only speak for myself, but—we all slip and fail and struggle on. The hypothetical case above seems no worse to me, no more guilty, than my own failings. There would be forgiveness for us both, if we repent and seek it.

[226] Posted by oscewicee on 09-29-2007 at 09:44 AM • top

It appears to me that those who do not wish the Common Cause effort to succeed are posting a lot of reasons why Common Cause might fail, and have encouraged us refight the ‘gay battle’ on a thread that is not really about homosexuality; just as the split in the Anglican Communion is not really just about homosexuality. I instead choose to emphasize the positive, for groups are already beginning to come together that might never have come together, emphsizing our (pardon the pun) common cause and NOT our differences.

[227] Posted by rkreed on 09-29-2007 at 09:50 AM • top

If you understand the 39 Articles, then you understand that Reformed practice and Catholic practice are antithetical. 

To the contrary, those who have read (really read) John Jewel, Richard Hooker, George Herbert, or John Donne know that, far from Reformed practice and Catholic practice being antithetical, classical Anglicanism just is Reformed Catholicism.

I think we have learned a lot since the catfights of the nineteenth century, and I expect that, while there will be inevitable disagreements and tensions, members of Common Cause will get along.  For example, I am teaching at TESM this year, where we recently had a visit from Nashotah House faculty, who will, in turn, be hosting TESM faculty in a month or so.  Many of us are convinced that the current mess that is TEC is itself a judgment on the uncharitable refusal to listen between those who called themselves Evangelicals or Catholics in the past, and hurled mutual anathemas while doing so.

[228] Posted by William Witt on 09-29-2007 at 09:57 AM • top

You, who launched a concerted effort to destroy an Episcopal priest, just a few months ago?

Would this be the Muslim Episcopal “priest”?  The Wiccan-Episcopal druid?  Or the Episcopal priest who was, ahem, hanging out in a secret pied-a-terre in Bangkok? To which of these reverends do you refer?

[229] Posted by st. anonymous on 09-29-2007 at 09:59 AM • top

P.S. Sarah is certainly perceptive about one thing.  The trolls really are not happy about this.  That, in itself, speaks volumes.

[230] Posted by William Witt on 09-29-2007 at 10:00 AM • top

plainsparson :

Doing drugs in hopes that this will “all go away” isn’t going to work.  I’m assuming this is your problem because otherwise one might suspect you of making bigoted and ethnic slurs against our African brothers and sisters -  which, would be so out-of-line I will not believe it of you.

DON’T DO DRUGS… it’s bad for you.

Joel and others:

You know, perhaps it is the fact that we are in such a disjointed part of Anglicanism up here, but from the START of my church, we have had to partner with the ACN, a church from Brazil, AMIA churches AND then our diocese in Uganda.

We’ve done this now for over a year and there has been one pervading response to our ‘community’ - an overwhelming thankfulness to God for one another AND our union in Anglicanism.

I’m getting REALLY tired of ‘Oh, they won’t get along’ - face it THEY ARE GETTING ALONG. 

First it was “Well, they’ll never ban together - never, never, never, never!”

Second it was, “Well, they DID get together but they are just alphabet soup!”

Now it’s “Well, they are together - but boy it’s not going to last long!”

First, this is negative and last time I checked, that ain’t a fruit of the Spirit.

Secondly, it’s shooting the race horse in the foot before it’s started the race.

It can work, it does work, it IS WORKING.  We know it personally up here in the wilds of Montana - The Common Cause Partnership knows it from their meeting.  So, instead of playing the muppets up in the gallery making disparaging comments, why not go down in the chorus line and enjoy yourself.  This is wonderful news and I am THRILLED that what we have hoped for has come to pass.

All we have ever asked for is the ability to worship as Anglicans in the reality of the Anglican Faith and do the work God calls us to do.  These bishops have come together - despite their differences - to reach that goal.

THANKS BE TO GOD.

seraph :

Meanwhile - hate to break into you ‘anti - Anglican’ tirade up there, but somehow, all sinners are welcome in any church and we deal with it just fine.  We have celibate homosexuals in our church and I, frankly, could care one JOT about their orientation.

The point is NOT who we were before we knew Christ, the point is WHO WE ARE BECOMING in Him.

The saddest part of liberalism is that you are so busy trying to defend all your sins and failings in the old man that you never look to becoming who GOD CREATED YOU TO BE in Christ Jesus.

It’s like playing in the mud and trying to screaming you’re clean when Jesus is standing there begging you to take a towel and come into His House.  I am sorry for you - truly.

[231] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 10:01 AM • top

“Homosexual ‘orientation” . . . is not a disease like alcoholism”

Agreed. Nor is my desire for women to whom I am not married.

[232] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-29-2007 at 10:02 AM • top

William Witt :

Re:  Trolls

Yes, I think that does speak volumes… interesting, interesting…

[233] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 10:07 AM • top

<>Nice words .... until the day you know for sure he has skulked in one, you know, lonely night, great temptation, no different sex desires ...a minor slip or so. Your “brother” tune would probably change tempo<>

Priests will look at this differently - and it will depend greatly upon the degree of trust between the priest and his parishioner. That relationship should be marked by confidentiality, trust and patience. (And frankly the priest himself had better have a priest since he is hardly free from sin himself.) One’s specific spiritual struggles to conform one’s life to the love of Christ shouldn’t be a matter of public discourse. And it is also true that the goal of that struggle is conformity to Christ - not heterosexual marriage or becoming heterosexually oriented. Not everyone should be married, but everyone should be conformed to Christ. The sacrament of penance is a wonderful sacrament that can benefit all of us in this regard. On the other hand you have put your finger on a major issue and that is loneliness – it is a killer. We should ask ourselves how we could minister to lonely people in our parishes? We might begin by asking them.
gms+

[234] Posted by gmspencer on 09-29-2007 at 10:07 AM • top

William wrote:

To the contrary, those who have read (really read) John Jewel, Richard Hooker, George Herbert, or John Donne know that, far from Reformed practice and Catholic practice being antithetical, classical Anglicanism just is Reformed Catholicism.

Really? What do you make of these quotes then?
Jewel:
That it does not appear by any authority either of the old doctors, or of the ancient councils, that there was any private mass in the whole church of Christ at that time.
Or, that there was then any communion ministered in the church to the people under one kind only.
Or, that the common prayers were then pronounced in a strange tongue that the people did not understand.
Or that the bishop of Rome was then called Universalis episcopus, or eaput universalis ecclesiae, a universal bishop of the whole world, or else the head of the universal church.
Or that the people was then taught to believe, that in the sacrament after the consecration the substance of bread and wine departs away, and that there remains nothing else but the accidents of bread and wine.
Or, that then it was thought lawful to say ten, twenty, or thirty masses in one church in one day.
Or, that the people were then forbidden to pray, or to read the scriptures in their mother tongue.
George Herbert writes in To All Angels and Saints:

I would address
My vows to thee most gladly, blessed Maid,
And Mother of my God, in my distress
(...)
But now (alas!) I dare not; for our King
Whom we do all jointly adore and praise,
Bids no such thing:
And where his pleasure no injunction lays,
(‘Tis your own case) ye never move a wing.

Bishop Latimer:
3.  The third conclusion, as I understand it, seems subtly to sow sedition against the offering which Christ himself offered for us in his own person, for all, never again to occur, according to the scriptures written in God’s book. In that book read the forceful and brief words of St. Paul in Hebrews 9 and 10, where he says that Christ himself made a perfect sacrifice for our sins, never again to be performed; and then ascended into heaven, and there sits a merciful intercessor between God’s justice and our sins; and there shall wait until these transubstantiators and all his other foes are made his footstool. This offering he freely made of himself, as it is written in John 10, he did not need any man to do it for him. I say nothing of the amazing presumptions of men, that dare attempt this thing without any manifest calling, especially that which intrudes to the overthrow and make fruitless (if not wholly, then partially) the cross of Christ. Therefore, a man can worthily say to my lords and master offerers, ‘By what authority do you do this? And who gave you this authority? When and where?’ St. John says, ‘A man cannot take any thing except it be given him from above,’ much less then may any man presume to usurp any honor before he is called to do it.
St. John also says, “If any man sin, we have,’ not a masser, nor an offerer upon earth who can sacrifice for us at mass; but ‘we have an Advocate with God the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one, who once offered himself for us long ago.” The efficacy and effect of that offering endures forever, so that it is needless to have such offerers. But if they had a nail driven though one of their ears every time they offer, as Christ had four driven through his hands and feet, they would soon stop offering

[235] Posted by Joel on 09-29-2007 at 10:07 AM • top

but they certainly should be in the church and helping to minister to others who have come to know Christ in much the same way as themselves.

ODC, I hope you don’t mean just other gays? Because those who are not gay sure would be the losers if that kind of segregation were applied, and I know that, here, Episcopalienated has ministered to me often, and I thank him for it.

[236] Posted by oscewicee on 09-29-2007 at 10:09 AM • top

Episcopalinated,

However, I continue to believe that orthodox parishes in conservative dioceses within TEC represent the most conducive environment for those seeking to practice sexual chastity

There will always be some (hopefully only a few) who look down on their brethren for a great many sins.  It is human nature to point out the faults in others while ignoring one’s own.  Just the other day I heard one jealous female quipping about another shapely female because of her skin-tight clothing which she thought to be unchristian.  I almost had to laugh because essentially she was just jealous because one of her sins is gluttony and furthermore she wears clothing with extremely low necklines so she was being rather hypocritical as well.  Sigh…  Such is human nature and we all need to allow ourselves to be transformed out of this mindset by the grace of God.  Please do not let the sins of such people keep you from worshiping in an orthodox CCP church.  With any sin, I think it is important for the health of our souls that we not hide it from others, yet due to the human nature of others, we should also use a great deal of discretion and not bare our souls to those who may still be weak in the faith and unable to forgive others for their weaknesses because they perhaps do not yet know how much they themselves have been forgiven for their own sin.

I know that there are a great many issues to be resolved within the CCP, however I sense a spirit of both love and truth among these bishops that I believe can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.  If the Holy Spirit is working in this group as I certainly believe he is, then I will certainly choose to follow where I see the Holy Spirit moving.  “If God is for us, who can be against us?”  I was especially moved by the REC bishop’s comments at the very end of the press conference.

[237] Posted by Spencer on 09-29-2007 at 10:12 AM • top

rkreed - thank you, that needed to be said….I look forward to and wish to work for the furtherment of Common Cause.  This is what we have been requesting - a new day - now that it appears that new day may come to us, we seem to want to pull it apart with a lot of what “I wants”.  I know that CC might not end up as “I” want it to in every aspect, but first I will shut my mouth and give them a chance….I used to have a friend who would say; “they would b——if you hung them with a new rope…..

[238] Posted by Dee in Iowa on 09-29-2007 at 10:14 AM • top

Really? What do you make of these quotes then?

What should I make of them?  I wrote that Classical Anglicanism is Reformed Catholicism, not Unreformed Tridentine Catholicism.

[239] Posted by William Witt on 09-29-2007 at 10:16 AM • top

At the dawning of a new day, when the sun shines again across God’s green earth, trolls turn to stone.

I think the Common Cause initial success is but one sign of the dawning of a new day for orthodox Anglicans. Wait til we hear from the GS primates. They won’t let us down, either.

[240] Posted by rkreed on 09-29-2007 at 10:22 AM • top

Gillian C & In Newark,
Especially In Newark….I agree with your statement in part. But where the rubber hits the road for me is right here:

1 Tim. 3:1-13
  The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. [2] Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. [4] He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, [5] for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? [6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
  [8] Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. [9] They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [10] And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. [11] Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. [12] Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. [13] For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

I do not beleive that man has the capability of making distinctions through scientific research to trump the Word Of God.

[241] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 10:28 AM • top

Eclipse,
BRAVO! ENCORE! BRAVISMO! SPOT ON!

Thank you very much. Simple to the point and very much right on target! Toda is going to be a good day indeed.
Thank you
ODC

[242] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 10:49 AM • top

Re:  Trolls

Yes, I think that does speak volumes… interesting, interesting…

The mental picture I have is that of a bunch people wearing out their arms because they constantly have to switch from typing furiously to putting their hands over their ears and muttering, “It’s not happening . . . not happening!”

[243] Posted by William Witt on 09-29-2007 at 10:57 AM • top

ODC:

Good to hang around with you some again.  I have been knee-deep in classes and haven’t had time to be part of the StandFirm bloggers.

So, thanks, and thanks for continuing to fight the good fight yourself!

Took like an entire HOUR to read this thread, however, and somehow, all the ‘mean and cruel’ comments that essef somehow imagines (perhaps, because they are defined by disagreeing with her opinion???) I found curiously non-present - AS USUAL, I might add.

So interesting to perceive the many filters in which we view life.

[244] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 10:59 AM • top

William Witt :

LOL!  I think you have it perfectly.

[245] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 11:01 AM • top

grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin

[246] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-29-2007 at 11:03 AM • top

No oscewicee I do not mean gays only. There are alot of hetrosexual people who are struggling with some kind of sexual brokenness. There are many forms of it that it boggles one mind to think of them all. I’m pretty much a simpleton and I like me that way and pray that God does too. However, I see homosexuality as a type of sexual brokenness. It is not to me a disease or sickness that one can all of a sudden get or catch. We are told over and over again in the Bible to learn to control our selves in all aspects. Our doings, our thinking, our speaking, our desires, and the list goes on… Self control is a likeness to Christ as His example in the desert being tempted by satan. Yes, I admit it is hard. But, it is a process that requires self diligence and help from those around us who can understand the struggle and lend a hand of loving help but, not in an enabling way. If we are going to allow people who have a desire for unbiblical sexual desires (homosexual relations) then we should not be adverse to someone who has had a prison record but has been reformed and living out their redeemtion daily in their Christian walk, or those who have had multiple marriages and have susposedly found the right spouse this time around. In any of these cases we as humans are the ones making the distinctions of whom is and whom is not allowed a collar and if you put your foot out in one direction you muslt be prepared to put it out in another as not to be seen as hypocrital as in “well homosexuals are a different matter than those others you have mentioned.” My question is how are they different? Cannot God change anyone He deems fit to? Cannot God use anyone He sees fit to? We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We either allow any and all or we follow God’s explicit instructions given to us in the Scriptures. Allowances is just the reason we humans get oursselves in the messes we get into.

[247] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 11:10 AM • top

ODC—I don’t see the contradiction.  Nowhere does it say that someone who once led a sinful life, but has been redeemed by Christ, and is now leading an exemplary life, is still to be burdened with sins that he left behind long ago.  Certainly, it doesn’t speak to someone who has struggled with temptation and NEVER given in.  Given the inborn desires of most heterosexual men, I am sure that there are good and godly priests and bishops who have been attracted to women other than their wives—and then spit in the face of Satan.  I don’t see why there should be different treatment for homosexuals who are attracted to other men—and then also spit in the face of Satan.

[248] Posted by In Newark on 09-29-2007 at 11:13 AM • top

In Newark,
What is the “it’ you are talking about? It seems to me that if there is no problem then of allowing men & it appears now women too,  who have led a sinful life and have been incarserated but has been transformed where are they as clergy? And where are those who have struggled mightily with drug addiction? And while we are at it how many stabs have you heard about a priest who has been married more than once before the marriage he is in now? No one sin is greater than another, so if we are to be true to that then I see no problem in allowing a re-mairried man into the priest hood even though the bible says different, or the one who struggles with alcoholism, even though the bible says differently, or even those who have sexual brokenness, because to what you are saying they can minister to the broken because of their walk they have walked and may still be walking, despite what the bible says.

[249] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 11:29 AM • top

Moot, Seraph, aren’t the two of you simply proving that the Church has a problem dealing in a Godly way with homosexual sin?

Moot, Seraph seems to be trying to deal with the issue but you basically blew him/her off. There really IS a double standard, even if it’s unintentional, but there shouldn’t be. (him/her isn’t a slam… I don’t know if he/she is male or female).

Seraph, it’s true that some homosexuals reject other homosexuals who are trying to repent, and it’s also true that sinners are forgiven *IF* and only if they repent. There’s a strong element of denial in what you said as well as a strong element of rejection in what Moot said.

So how do you help each other to loose the denial and rejection and to forgive each other? None of us are meeting our responsibilities to Christ if we simply deny or reject.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

[250] Posted by dpeirce on 09-29-2007 at 11:33 AM • top

On to more practical matters …. I am hoping that the Common Cause Partners will lead to something wonderful but I wish they had picked a slightly longer name such as

Communion of Common Cause Partners

Common Cause Christian Partners

Common Cause Conclave Partners.

In other words get it to spell CCCP. That way they could get a deal on uniforms, badges, hats, and other paraphernalia recycled from the old Soviets.

[251] Posted by Stefano on 09-29-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

I would assume that at the constitutional convention in a year or so that a new name would be chosen in place of Common Cause Partnership.  Anyone have suggestions for what the orthodox Anglican province in North America should be called?

[252] Posted by Nevin on 09-29-2007 at 12:16 PM • top

Stefano :

SILLY BEAR - you’ve gotten it all mixed up!

Who has the ‘Only use Pravada (me or my official newspaper) for information policy? The Episcopal Church link - check ‘bishop’s byline’

Who has the ‘you will follow our official policies or suffer via the secret police - or lawyers policy’?  The Episcopal Church link

Who has the ‘you CANNOT leave us or we shall take your property, hold your parishoners hostage and sue you anyway policy’?  The Episcopal Church - pick one of the MANY suing threads

Who has the ‘Who believes they can lie to the ‘unwashed masses and get away with it?  The Episcopal Church! link

Which sounds like Iron Curtain Communism?  THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

“THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH WELCOMES YOU… BUT IF YOU LEAVE WE SHOOT”

Silly little Pooh, you need to re-read your history of Communism… it’s not Taoism - but Totalitarianism works well for THIS denomination.

[253] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 12:38 PM • top

Oh eclipse…I am so glad you are back!

[254] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 12:51 PM • top

This is quite a thread - everything but the kitchen sink!
Back to Seitz et al with questions about what will happen in the ACN dioceses given this development.  It seems to me that we are in what easily could be considered the mean (in between) time. So, what’s to keep folks from being able to slow down a bit and not default to racheting up the polarization yet another notch?  There’s a fine book by a RC pastoral theologian, George Kilcourse, entitled Double Belonging.  He examines the challenge of holy matrimony between faithfully practicing Christians of different denominations (partic. RC’s and others)  and offers the metaphor of “double belonging” as one possible way forward.  In this, both spouses remian faithful to their own churches and raise their children in a truly “interchurch” family. While it’s not an exact fit, I wonder if it might be possible for people to move forward for a time in this manner.

[255] Posted by Village vicar on 09-29-2007 at 12:58 PM • top

Jackie, you say I should not slur the African bishops. I’ve lived in Africa, and I’ve worked with Africans in Europe, and I can tell you that you should examine very carefully who you are getting into bed with. Is Bishop Kunonga of Harare a wise man to have as your ally? He is a scandalous supporter of Mugabe, yet currently also your biggest supporter in Central Africa. As I understand it, the disenchanted Episcopalians are nearly all Anglo-Catholics: the Nigerian, Kenyan and Ugandan churches are virulently Evangelical. The most Anglo-Catholic African church is the South African, which, bizarrely enough is run by nice inclusive liberals for a society which accepts gay marriage etc. You American conservatives will not have a long or happy relationship with your new ecclesiastical bosses, one can safely predict. I was interested to hear that the previous similar Episcopalian secession was in 1861, when 9 of your (Southern) dioceses would not remain in communion with the North. I wonder what issue that was all about. Not a good precedent, is it?

[256] Posted by culeitreach on 09-29-2007 at 12:58 PM • top

The most Anglo-Catholic African church is the South African, which, bizarrely enough is run by nice inclusive liberals for a society which accepts gay marriage etc.

Really?

[257] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-29-2007 at 01:07 PM • top

culeitreach :

You are almost as silly as Stephano but I think you’d more qualify as ‘Eeyore’.

“It’s not going to be a good day afterall, I’ve lost my tail (or in TEC’s case, it’s income). OR “I don’t know if you really will be happy because your bishops MIGHT someday do something bad, maybe if it rains sometime.”

Sorry, but I’m already under Archbishop Orombi - and just clarity of his voice (NEWS:  Bishops CAN MEAN what they say! Novel in TEC - standard for us) is worth 40 years in the Episcopal Church.

So, I’m sorry you lost your tail but the rest of the 100 acre wood is pretty happy today.

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

[258] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 01:12 PM • top

Indeed, Eclipse! You are spot on with your comparison. To add to your analysis (or paranoia) I was at a meeting with a highly placed TEC apparatchik and his praise of KJS sounded like something out Soviet era official press release. I think he may have actually used the phrase “…our brilliant and glorious leader”!!!

There is no pravda in ‘Ivestia’ and no ivestia in ‘Pravda’ –old Russian saying

There is no life in Episcopal News and no news in Episcopal Life -new Anglican saying

[259] Posted by Stefano on 09-29-2007 at 01:14 PM • top

Well, Stalin spoke clearly too, but that didn’t make following him a good idea. Loud confidence is not the same as wise leadership.

[260] Posted by culeitreach on 09-29-2007 at 01:17 PM • top

Yeap, Eclipse, I’d have to agree with William Witt, the more crying from some the better I feel about this meeting, these bishop do ROCK! cool smile

[261] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-29-2007 at 01:26 PM • top

culie:

We just covered this with Stephano - looking for Communism in denominations, you ought to look for the “Episcopal Church Welcomes you” sign nearest you.

However, when you are doing things that are RIGHT then you don’t have to hide (read the original thread and the bishops upon it) you don’t have to use double-speak, you don’t HAVE to tell your parishoners they can only listen to you, you don’t HAVE to threaten people into not leaving…

That was Stalin - no my dear friend he never DID speak clearly - you need to re-read your Communist history -

AB Orombi is clear because he doesn’t have to do otherwise - He is honest because he doesn’t have to be ashamed of what he is doing… unlike KJS or the HoB…

THANKS BE TO GOD

[262] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 01:33 PM • top

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH WELCOMES YOU… BUT IF YOU LEAVE WE SHOOT” ...Silly little Pooh, you need to re-read your history of Communism… it’s not Taoism - but Totalitarianism works well for THIS denomination

No silly ...you are welcome to leave too, leave the remainder of your pledge please!!!...Shots only if you try to take what does not belong to you…like lets see..buildings, endowments, altar stuff….thatkind of pidly stuff!
As far as Totalitarianism…just spend a few years under the GS and Africans…we’ will chat more then!
seraph

[263] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 01:37 PM • top

Hosea6:6 :

I agree - It’s just amazing.  It’s like they have been beating up on the orthodox for ages - and maligning, tearing us down.  But the minute we finally leave the bully circle…

they are crying we aren’t there to beat up anymore…

Amazing!  And HOW are you getting those smiley s to work!!  (jealous) I can only do this one:  smile

[264] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 01:44 PM • top

I’m reluctant to say much more for fear of going further off-topic, but I do want to cover a few points, largely perhaps for Seraph’s benefit, but some of the rest of you may find this interesting.

Seraph, I’m not the least bit angry with you, even when you snipe.  I’m more interested in trying to understand why you feel the need to do so, but enough about that.

Celibacy undertaken for the sake of the gospel really is possible.  And it’s not a dreary, painful ordeal through which one struggles and suffers like undergoing the agonies of the damned.  For me, celibacy “works.”  It has worked for more than 15 years (more like 17 almost) with no lapses.  That’s how long I’ve been able to go without having sex with other men.  Not once!

No furtive trips by night to gay bars or adult bookstores, no secret assignations in public toilets, no stack of porno magazines in the closet.  None of that.

Do I still experience sinful thoughts and desires?  Yes, I do.  Am I still capable of ever giving into them?  Yes, I am.  But those desires are far less intense than they ever were before, and all I can say is that if I did give in and have sex with another man, at this point in my life it would feel . . . very, very strange!  And, while not impossible, it remains highly unlikely.

I have made the delightful discovery that celibacy fits me like a glove.  It may be that this is the state of life to which God would have called me regardless of my sexual orientation.  And perhaps the most important insight I’ve gained while practicing it is that it is the means through which He has freed me up to concentrate on the sins in my own life which may be far deadlier than mere disordered lust.  Thanks be to God!

And, wonder of wonders, as the Holy Spirit has helped me to overcome the male narcissism in my own life, I have acquired a burden of the heart for young women who’ve suffered from trauma and abuse which has led them into sexually destructive lifestyles.  I am not disgusted by them, and they do not feel threatened by me.  A most unusual and unexpected development, and a tremendous blessing.  Another example of God’s wonderful ability to take the castoff, broken, disfigured pieces of this sinful, miserable world and make out of them a delightful whole. 

Seraph, I hear what you’re saying about the plight of gay people in the Church.  I never pull my punches in that area.  But you are leaving out the other side.  Perhaps that is because you have never experienced it yourself.  I was brought to Christ by heterosexual Christians—not one of them was gay, “ex” or otherwise—who didn’t know anymore about homosexuality than I know about rocket science.  I continue to be affirmed and supported as a member of the Body of Christ by Christians just like that, and by Christians who’ve walked the same path that I have who offer friendships that are anything but superficial.  But I understand again that my experience may not have been your experience, and I am not beyond the point of respectful listening to those for whom things are different.

As for you Common Cause folks: never, never imagine that I do not wish you well, or take a sympathetic interest in what you are about.  Your concerns are well founded and, yes, staying in TEC can sometimes feel like clinging to the rear guard rail (I don’t know stem from stern) while the ship slides into the water.  I hear you!  But as I’ve said before, as long as TEC does offer me “a place to stand,” I will stay.  I have no idea as to where else I should go.

God bless all here!

[265] Posted by episcopalienated on 09-29-2007 at 01:45 PM • top

just spend a few years under the GS and
Africans

This almost sounds like discrimination! Seraph….you wouldn’t discriminate now would you? I mean…. after all you have been through in regards to discrimination you of all people wouldn’t be doing the same against a culture of men in another country of another race would you?

[266] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 01:54 PM • top

Hmmmm….Totalitarianism….
Is that like when the Bishop of Minnesota barred the Primate of Kenya (if memory serves) from speaking in any church in his diocese?
Or when the Chancellor of TEC threatens to sue TEC diocese that are unwilling to acquiesce to theological and liturgical changes demanded by 815?
Or is it when my bishop declares that it is un-Christian to refuse to accept a lesbian rector?
Or is when my vestry is told that, under the new “parish in distress canon,” if we do not accept the new diocesan assessment (3 TIMES what we used to pay) and pay up, that we may be deposed?
Is it stuff like that seraph?  I’ve had communication with some GS bishops, none of them has imposed any of the above so far as I am aware.

TJ

[267] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-29-2007 at 02:03 PM • top

This almost sounds like discrimination! Seraph….you wouldn’t discriminate now would you? all you have been through in regards to discrimination

You are completely barking up the wrong tree… friend/dude….!I have never felt discriminated a day in my life! That does not mean I do not have eyes to see nor ears to hear…
Discrimination aside I am just pointing out that some GS churches do not have the same level of lay participation in decision making processes and you may in the long run find that more authoritarian than you would like. Wait a few years and then we will compare impressions.
blessings
seraph

[268] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 02:18 PM • top

Maybe seraph regards scripture as totalitarian (a la Psalm 2) and is confusing this with human totalitarianism?
Eclipse, in order to get smileys, bring up the smiley box (right above comment box), mouse over your smiley to get the name, then right click in the smiley box to view source, search for your smiley name and then type the text in add_smiley() to get the one you want. Example:
I can’t believe this problem hasn’t been fixed yet! shock = “:ahhh:”
I can’t believe how desperate the trolls are! cool smirk = “:coolsmirk:”

[269] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-29-2007 at 02:20 PM • top

Dear Episcopalianated:
Thanls for your heartfelt post…you say…

But I understand again that my experience may not have been your experience, and I am not beyond the point of respectful listening to those for whom things are different.

We have similar experiences of Christ…he is wonderful saviour, counselor, mighty God. The church is his body and full of all kinds of people….some very much reflecting the love of God. Your walk and mine are very different…I am in a conservative church, a Christian for 30 years now, married , children…(no boyfriend…sorry guys)! There are real problems with how many in the church view and treat the homosexually oriented…and the news coverage and framing of the issues surrounding the TEC, the conversations about it spell out several words for GLBT….one is REJECTION! I see no way the CC will be any improvement.
blessings
seraph

[270] Posted by seraph on 09-29-2007 at 02:28 PM • top

SpongJohn SquarePantheist,
Would you please explain in more detail what specifically this means: “mouse over your smiley to get the name,”? When I think I am “mousing over my smiley,” I don’t see the name.

[271] Posted by Deja Vu on 09-29-2007 at 02:52 PM • top

P.S. Thank you for the great book recommendations: Abolition of Man and Charismatic Chaos.

[272] Posted by Deja Vu on 09-29-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

When you move the mouse pointer over the smiley a little yellow box should pop up giving the text of the smiley name. In any case, if you view source (right click over a blank spot) it’s layed out in tabular order - you should be able to find it by noting the row/column.

[273] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-29-2007 at 02:59 PM • top

To get back on some track here, I would like to say that I just viewed Kevin Kallsen’s interview with Bishop Duncan after the Common Cause Partners meeting and it is a very good interview and he answers some very good questions about some of the concerns that we have been batting back and forth here and there in this thread and a few others. If you have not yet viewed it I highly recommend that you do. It is over on Anglican TV. I would post the link but I am not knowledgable in that arena.

[274] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 03:10 PM • top

seraph :

I had to be such a heart-breaker, but I quit supporting the General Convention Church in 2003 - I PLEDGED a long time a go that my tithe goes to Christian causes - and… well… that’s all I have to say about that…

However, your suggestion that those who have been pushed out of TEC should leave everything behind smacks of the opinion of those Totalitarians in the 1940’s who thought all Jews could leave - providing they leave all their belongings to their oppressors… Of course, Einstein still did OK, so I suppose regardless we will be fine.

Re: Totalitarianism IS TEC :

Discrimination aside I am just pointing out that some GS churches do not have the same level of lay participation in decision making processes and you may in the long run find that more authoritarian than you would like. Wait a few years and then we will compare impressions.

I know EXACTLY what you mean.  Under Her B Brookhart my church was NOT allowed to sing choruses, we could not choose our own priest, we told we could only use two approved hymnals, people were threatened if they dared to see us - I can go on and on and on…

Under AB Orombi - we have…......................................... no restrictions - except to follow God, participate in liturgy and believe Jesus and His Word.

Yeppers, real oppression under them Global South Bishops… shock - thanks Hosea!

[275] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 03:58 PM • top

If you think Abp Orombi is a herald of freedom and appropriate leadership for the USA, you are naive indeed about how leadership works in much of Africa. Think more Southern Baptist than Episcopalian if you want to know which Americans your new bosses most equate to. You are very silly to go running into their arms, but I’m happy that you’re all leaving, as it will mean TEC can forge ahead with the real Gospel of inclusion for all. I just wish your bishops had done the decent thing and departed before all the other Episcopalian bishops accommodated them by signing that unnecessarily ambiguous New Orleans document.

[276] Posted by culeitreach on 09-29-2007 at 04:50 PM • top

Culetreach
As I understand it, the GS would say that they are a stop-gap measure, a shelter in the storm, so to speak.  They wish us to solve
our own problems but will shelter us until we have done this.  No desire on their part to be a a US church.  So get real, my man, and quit playing the racist.

[277] Posted by Old Soldier on 09-29-2007 at 05:08 PM • top

You don’t think that there’s been a lot of liberal-bashing going on here, then?

[278] Posted by culeitreach on 09-29-2007 at 05:10 PM • top

I just wish your bishops had done the decent thing and departed before all the other Episcopalian bishops accommodated them by signing that unnecessarily ambiguous New Orleans document.

Actually, the Common Cause bishops did the decent thing by waiting until after the TEC bishops refused to accommodate to the requests of the DES Primates, and instead signed the unnecessarily ambiguous New Orleans document.  But you’ve got that last part right.  They were asked for clarity.  They responded with ambiguity.  They now have clarity.

[279] Posted by William Witt on 09-29-2007 at 05:10 PM • top

It’s not racist to point out that much of Africa is a by-word for poor leadership.

[280] Posted by culeitreach on 09-29-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

You don’t think that there’s been a lot of liberal-bashing going on here, then?

C’mon now, culeitreach, you wouldn’t begrudge us a little good clean fun, now, would you?  Everybody needs a hobby…

It’s not racist to point out that much of Africa is a by-word for poor leadership.

No, it’s not, any more than it is to point out the same thing for Chicago, Miami, New York City, and of course Washington, Mexico City, and Ottawa.  This is why if you track public statements in Africa from African bishops (Anglican, RC, Lutheran, whatever), you’ll find denunciations of official government corruption,  usurpation, and violence vastly outnumber statements on sexual morality.  Your point is?

[281] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-29-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

“I’m happy that you’re all leaving, as it will mean TEC can forge ahead with the real Gospel of inclusion for all.”

What?!?!?

[282] Posted by Kevin Babb on 09-29-2007 at 05:45 PM • top

Culie
Africa is a by-word for poor leadership?  And that is not a racist statement? Well, you have to live with what you believe.  But I for one, thank the Living God for our brothers from Africa.  They have the courage to step out and come here to give us their love and concerns as we go through this dark night.  Thanks be to God.

[283] Posted by Old Soldier on 09-29-2007 at 06:18 PM • top

culeitreach:

Old Solider has it perfectly right - those of us refugees from the self-destruction of TEC have been graciously taken under wing by our brothers in the Faith in Africa. 

I can only speak for us Ugandan Anglicans but every time my Archbishop says ANYTHING I thank God again for the blessing of this man in our lives. 

So, you might try it before you knock it…

Personally, if you want to go to ‘poor leadership’ I suggest you re-read the HoB statement… talk about much to do about nothing…

[284] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 08:16 PM • top

Pardon me for coming in late, but this is excellent news.  The orthodox need to lock arms and act with one voice in replacing TEC as the legitimate presence of the AC in North America.  This is a fine vehicle for accomplishing that goal.

[285] Posted by Jeffersonian on 09-29-2007 at 08:37 PM • top

“I’m happy that you’re all leaving, as it will mean TEC can forge ahead with the real Gospel of inclusion for all.”

Yep! Everyone except those pesky orthodox, traditional, conservative, bible beleiving, knowing Jesus is the only way to God people.

[286] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2007 at 09:10 PM • top

Well, Stalin spoke clearly too

Gosh, Culeitreach, have you actually read any history of the Stalinist era? I’d be happy to recommend a slew of books to you.

[287] Posted by oscewicee on 09-29-2007 at 10:11 PM • top

I was interested to hear that the previous similar Episcopalian secession was in 1861, when 9 of your (Southern) dioceses would not remain in communion with the North

This isn’t a “southern” thing, you know. Diocese of Atlanta, Diocese of Georgia, firmly TEC, alas. Dio. Alabama, Mississippi, apparently the same. Ditto NC. Tenn, too, I think? Get a new stereotype.

[288] Posted by oscewicee on 09-29-2007 at 10:16 PM • top

Contributions from such as culetreach and esseff tend to point up the obvious in a lizard’s heartbeat.  Anybody of a “conservative” mindset, whether theologically or politically, is immediately smacked with the same rubber stamp from the so-called “liberal” quarters.  98% of the time I’ve read this website the vitriol has come from the likes of the kinder and gentler pair in discussion, with the World Anglicans patiently explaining to them where their argument had veered.  The truth is still true, and the same dictionaries apply to the same language, no matter who’s using it.  To hold to racially or politically motivated opinion, ignoring any facts not convenient to the present argument does not compliment the speaker’s intelligence.  If they don’t always feel passionately embraced for their contributions,  maybe it’s just that a poop-slinging bigot is not a pleasant spectacle,

Peace,

r.e.

[289] Posted by Robert Easter on 09-30-2007 at 12:08 AM • top

If you think Abp Orombi is a herald of freedom and appropriate leadership for the USA, you are naive indeed about how leadership works in much of Africa.

Culeitreach, why do you even think in these terms? What is Christianity to you? You seem to frame it in terms of a political movement.
Seraph, in the end you’ll either obey Scripture or you won’t. If people are hypocrites or bigots, it doesn’t make sense for you to use that as any kind of excuse.

[290] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-30-2007 at 12:41 AM • top

In response to this :

i)  I guess I’m wondering how falling into sin while still experiencing extreme guilt is an experience unique to homosexual sin, but not to other besetting sins? 

ii)  In my book, guilt is (or can be) evidence that the Holy Spirit is at work.  It doesn’t constitute repentance, and indeed if the Parable of the Prodigal Son is apt, it may not even initiate repentance, but it can be a good start. 

iii)  My life has been forever changed by a loved one who ruined his own life, in a place very similar to a gay bar.  I speak from the perspective of one who has occassionally had to pick up the pieces.  I also speak as one who has joyfully witnessed God’s merciful and gracious intervention in this person’s life. 

Believe me, my words are not as tempered with “niceness” as you’d believe.  That said, if you’d still like to project faults onto my words, my suggestion would be for you to fault me for tempering my words with disappointment and joy. 

Also, I second oscewicee’s post here.

[291] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-30-2007 at 07:37 AM • top

Speaking of sexual brokenness (how far off this thread can we go?), that is really just a common expression of the confusion and pain that face in this world today.  Most of us, it seems, are disconnected from the kind of relationships that allow us to grow in a godly, trinitarian, direction, and whatever variety of sexual pain is one more result from that alienation.  Not merely about thrills, but about personhood!  As we know, the various forms of homosexual behavior fall into the same basket as so many other expressions of that pain, and all can find restoration through right relationship with God, and the Church, through Jesus Christ..  Many of us know that in word, and especially now that we are blessed wtih this opportunity to re-form as His living Body we have the opportunity, and the mandate, to work these truths out in practice.  We can build fellowships that really are “after God’s own heart,” reaching others with the truly universal offer of salvation (reconciliation, healing, and growth), and encouraging one another to continue on in Him!  God is good!

Robert

[292] Posted by Robert Easter on 09-30-2007 at 02:28 PM • top

Alll Anglican Christian mothers love the realignment.  Protect and prepare the children to love the Lord and keep His holy ways.

[293] Posted by Mother on 09-30-2007 at 02:58 PM • top

I went to church today.  A new church.  Well, new to me.  This church broke off from the “mother church” in our diocese, taking the entire vestry, all the staff, and about 3/4 of the congregation.  It is an Anglican parish.  My husband and I tried to stay with our home church, which also split.  About 50 active members are still there, out of about 500 previously.  There is heartbreak there, and a feeling of abandonment.  And yet they try business as usual, running the same programs, but nobody goes.  Nursery is open, but there are no children.  There are good folks there but over the years we have felt more and more out of place, as the emphasis now is very much on the cultural wars and not on the Gospel.  The choir is gone.  There is a drum set permanently in the front now, next to the keyboard.  Bible study this term is called Peace Studies and includes renting busses to go to DC for the antiwar march.  And yes, they did the clown mass.  As a person who has always been terrified of clowns, this was a stretch.  We have been going less and less, and frankly, have not been since last Christmas when the priest preached a very inclusive, loving sermon, but she never mentioned Jesus.

But we held out.  I was born Episcopalian and always active in every church in every town I lived.  One of my close relatives was for years primate of a North American country.

Last week, I lurked here and followed every word of the HOB resolutions and was so disillusioned.  Not so much because they appear to want to keep moving left; I’m pretty used to that.  But the doublespeak and the game playing just did me in.  My “vibe” about KJS was not good, and I believe I saw for the first time the very, very soft underbelly of the church.

So today we tried a new church and I spent the morning wiping tears.  I have come home.  Oddly enough, the sermon, about poverty (Lazarus and the rich man) was more convicting than any I ever heard in my home church, where the order of the day is to leave feeling good about oneself and self-actualized.  This was the church of my childhood, but not in any sort of retrogressive way.  This service was about the things that don’t change, and it was about how I must change to fit that eternal plan.  There were children there!  Lots of them, and lots of young couples.  And lots of the elderly.  They have (in two years) raised the money to buy land and they will be building eventually.  For now they are meeting in a small abandoned church that they purchased.  No matter!  I have not been this joyful in many, many years.  If CCP can make it work on a Communion level, so much the better.  But I will attend this church even if it is the only one of its kind in the state.

I do mourn for the Episcopal church.  I think of my parents, grandparents, and the long list of my family, all emigrated from Lancashire, who were churched by that grand old dame, the ECUSA, for two centuries.  I am sad I am the first to leave it.  But Glory to God, I didn’t know I could feel this joy again.  I thought it was for younger, more idealistic people.  This is God’s work.  God bless us ALL.  And may I be worthy of this new gift.

Thank you for listening to a newbie.  I have benefitted from this site for many months and know the hard work it takes to report and maintain it.

[294] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 09-30-2007 at 03:38 PM • top

Dear GoodMissMurphy, welcome home!  I’m sure your “faithful ancestors” had been waiting for you!

Your letter had me tearing up, Thanks for writing!

Robert

[295] Posted by Robert Easter on 09-30-2007 at 03:49 PM • top

GoodMissMurphy,
WOW! Thank you for your witness and sharing of your experiences both old and new. God is so Good! I rejoice for you and your husband and am encouraged that the Lord has blessed you both indeed. I too am saddened for those who have not found that kind of joy in a true worship service that is Jesus Christ & Gospel centered.

One thing is for sure….If one stays and hopes and prays for ECUSA to turn & repent may find themselves doing one of two things:
1. Becoming much like yourself further more discouraged, down-troddened, devoid of spiritual nourshing, etc…before you found and attended your new chuch.
Or
2. Confrorming to the teachings that one continues to hear Sunday after Sunday. It is true that when one is told something over and over and over again, one becomes atune to begin to believe it. Sad indeed.

Thank you again for sharing such a beautiful testimony.
God’s Blessings
ODC

[296] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2007 at 03:57 PM • top

Yes seraph, as to [url=“http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6454/#119569”]
this comment[/url] it seems as if you’re relishing someone’s downfall, and someone else’s hypocrisy. Have you ever asked yourself why you do this?
More importantly, have you ever asked yourself that if even your speculations about these people were correct, would that invalidate the principles behind their beliefs? Have you ever heard of Romans 7?

C’mon. Any reappraisers. Have you ever given this a second of thought?

[297] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-30-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

I can think of one reason for relishing in, or more accurately, presuming, hypocrisy: It allows one to be more complacent about sin.

I have heard many times from liberals that those who believe in hating the sin but loving the sinner don’t really do the latter much at all. This accusation is never if ever backed up by much evidence but often rests upon a circular definition of love of the sinner being the absence of hatred for his sin. But no matter. Say the charge is true. That hardly establishes that the violated principle is false or impossible. No moral or spiritual principle is dependent upon the perfect application of it by its defenders. We are all imperfect in our pursuit of holiness and love.

We all hate sin imperfectly, because we all sin and love our sins in corners of our heart that compromises our hatred of it. Nevertheless, we all know we must continue to grow in hatred for the sin which lies within us. We must hate ourselves in the sense of mortifying the sin in our flesh which continues to rebel against God.

We all love the sinner imperfectly, because we are imperfect lovers. We love ourselves more than others, more than God. We justify ourselves at the expense of others and at the expense of God’s Word and His holiness.

We are sinners. That is the truth we must not deny. But God loves us and redeems us to be better than what we are in ourselves. This allows us to confront our sin without fear of condemnation and spurs us to love the sinners beside us hoping for and believing in the same.

This is the truth that seraph and TEC denies. It is the truth that we msut proclaim to a broken world. And we can only do this when we have separated from those who deny that truth and seek to extinguish it.

[298] Posted by Christopher Hathaway on 09-30-2007 at 05:50 PM • top

<a >BabyBlueOnline: Inside CoE: Evangelicals warns Canterbury of Split in Church of England</a>

For those counting on a CGC -CofE Anglican communion, check out this link from bb (courtesy of the Daily Telegraph).

[299] Posted by Bill C on 09-30-2007 at 10:04 PM • top

My browser complained of illegal characters in the above url. Try this one: <a >http://www.babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/09/inside-coe-evangelicals-warns.html</a>.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

[300] Posted by dpeirce on 09-30-2007 at 10:12 PM • top

Obviously not reading the long list of posts I have missed during the days I have been away from NH having surgery,  I see that Matt had already posted this .... silly me.
Still there have been a number of comments above that talk about the uselessness and isolation of the Common Cause Structuring a province separated from Anglicanism and Canterbury.  Food for thought.

[301] Posted by Bill C on 09-30-2007 at 10:24 PM • top

I’m a bit late for the party, but I would like to add my congratulations to my American brothers and sisters at the announcement of the Common Cause Partnership.

Regardless of where the CCP is headed, it is a great leap forward for Christian unity among Anglicans in the US.

(They really need to change the USSR-style name, though!)

[302] Posted by Derek Smith on 10-01-2007 at 01:20 AM • top

Maybe seraph regards scripture as totalitarian (a la Psalm 2) and is confusing this with human totalitarianism

No, I find Scripture to be the word of God and containing all things necessary for salvation…HOWEVER , there is no denying that Scripture has been interpreted in very restricting and immoral ways by PEOPLE. The funny thing is those persons always speak of defending the WORD, even as they discriminate, reject and hold the less fortunate to their own standarts.  I am sure the pharisees thought they were being quite faithful to God and to Scripture yet Jesus had choice words to say about them.

blessings
seraph

[303] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 06:34 AM • top

We are sinners. That is the truth we must not deny. But God loves us and redeems us to be better than what we are in ourselves… This is the truth that seraph and TEC denies.

I deny no such truth, the GOOD NEWS of the gospel! What I point out is the DOUBLE standart that exists in our churches in respect to gay and lesbian persons. That has been spoken of ad nauseum here and you can choose to deny it exists… even as you quote “truth”.

And we can only do this when we have separated from those who deny that truth and seek to extinguish it.

This is true? Reallly?  Sometimes I wonder if we are reading the same Bible…you quote it just fine to condemn homosexuality yet easily ignore the words of the Saviour as it relates to our unity as his disciples!

So, agrement about certain propositions you call “truth”...trump :the work of the Spirit in our baptism, the unity of being children of God, the One faith we proclaim in the creeds, that of being members of of the body of Christ, and that brought by our partaking together of Holy Communion??? Wow….

You may find after you separate from the “untruthful” folks that, the truth you proclaim to clearly see, will be less clear than you think and… may well see the need to separate again and again…..that is generally been our track record as Christians!

blessings
seraph

[304] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 06:53 AM • top

If someone else has posted the link below, my apologies.  It is from the “Wilmington News-Journal” in Delaware.  Like so many, I have come to the conclusion that there will never be reconciliation between the forces that have hijacked TEC and those who believe that the Bible, Ten Commandments and centuries of tradition should be followed.  It is my hope that the AOC and the rest of the Anglican Communion proceed to form a body that serves those American Anglicans who remain true to their faith and tradition.

It’s time, with great sadness, to fight any property grab by TEC of those parishes that wish to remain true to their faith.  They have not left TEC, the TEC has left them.  It is also time to return to the 1928 “Book of Common Prayer” as this is the last edition that is the true voice of the Anglican Communion.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/OPINION12/709270320/1189/OPINION

[305] Posted by JWM on 10-01-2007 at 07:12 AM • top

Yes seraph, as to this comment it seems as if you’re relishing someone’s downfall, and someone else’s hypocrisy. Have you ever asked yourself why you do this?

No friend, you misinterpreted that post completely ....why do you do that?

I have been around churches a loooooong time and post from my limited experience there!I have seen that, for many Christians, it is easier to accept “Wendy” the unwed mother, she may even get a baby shower! or “Darla” the divorcee move in with her new boyfriend ...lets invite them to dinner! But heaven forbid that “Bob” kisses a boy or that “Leslie” brings her lesbian friend to the potluck. NOT the same reaction among good Christian folk…face it..its okay.

It is just the way it seems to be! As we assure people of our unconditional love and friendship, like the poster to whom I directed my coments to, we have a real disconfort with homosexual behaviour….even in those that reject it, if they should happen to “fall” ! Never mind the partnered ones.

The CCF will undoubtedly have to deal with perceptions and attitudes of its parishioners about homosexuals…! After all, some will feel that they had to leave TEC AND the Anglican Communion over “those people”, their allies and their “godless” agenda.  What that will mean for the GTLB who choose to join that community or, heaven forbid, those that come out who are members of those parishes…time will tell.

blessings

seraph

[306] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 07:27 AM • top

GoodMissMurphy,
Thank you so much for expressing your heart and your testimony.  There are countless stories like these but mostly they get lost in the fury of the battle.  It is so nice to hear you share your story.  Bless you.  It would be encouraging to hear more such stories of exodus and coming home.

To Radner, Seitz, other ACIers, Sarah,
and to all others who still remain ComCons, please read Miss Murphy’s testimony.  While I respect your position and wish you well if you remain on that path, my prayer is we will no longer cast pearls to the swine but will instead be motivated by stories such as this to now leave the past behind and start building a future together so that we may be the church God has called us to be.

[307] Posted by Spencer on 10-01-2007 at 08:05 AM • top

<i>But heaven forbid that “Bob” kisses a boy or that “Leslie” brings her lesbian friend to the potluck. NOT the same reaction among good Christian folk…face it..its okay.

Seraph, I wonder if you may, at least sometimes, look for what you expect to find. Because I think acceptance is more widespread than you seem to realize. I live in a very rural area in the deep south.  There are gays who attend a number of churches here - I can’t say how happily, except in one case. I have a friend who attends a small Baptist church in the country. A lesbian couple attends, too, and they are cherished members. But - for Christians who believe that homosexual activity is sinful, I don’t suppose it’s realistic to expect that gays kissing would be met with approval? Are you sure the disapproval that would meet that behavior is any worse or any different from the disapproval that would greet other behavior regarded as sinful?

[308] Posted by oscewicee on 10-01-2007 at 08:06 AM • top

seraph, I mean that we must separate those who will not accept the meaning and the mandate to both hate the sin and love the sinner.

I accept your assertion that there is often a double standard, not in the official teaching of the church, but in its application of this rule.

We love imperfectly.

Yhis in now way invalidates the rule. You seem to be arguing that hypocrisy and imperfection at one end invalidates everything, that untill we all love sinners equally and perfectly we can’t uphold the condemnation of sin.

Nonsense. And if that is what you are preaching we must have none of it for for the message of salvation from sin will be hopelessly lost in fog, just as it would be if we were among those who actually defended the hypocrisy you claim they practice.

Ahh, but there’s the difference. We do not defend the double standard. We may deny it exists, and sometimes it doesn’t but sometimes it does. But we do not deny that if it did exist that it would be wrong and would require repentance and change of heart.

We are not perfect, and we do not expect you to be or those afflicted with sinful desires to be perfect before we will call them brothers. But we do expect them to affirm the same call to repentance of that which God calls sin so, that we can all be on the same page regarding repentance of that sin. If some proclaim that some sins aren’t sin and don’t require repentance then their witness is not Christian and we can’t mix ours with theirs. How would the world understand what was the Gospel otherwise? If some live their lives as if they think some sins aren’t really sins then they need to be convicted and corrected by the church.

So by all means, point out the hypocrisy that you see. It will be a call to greater righteousness. But don’t think that that act can be used to silence the truth about what is sin. You should be calling us to greater, not lesser holiness.

[309] Posted by Christopher Hathaway on 10-01-2007 at 08:25 AM • top

Dear “Good Miss Murphy”:

God Bless You!!!  Thank you for writing such a powerful and moving testimony of your thoughts and experiences!

[310] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 10-01-2007 at 08:29 AM • top

I find the revisionist commenting presence on this thread telling.  I sense a fear that CCP will actually be recognized as legitimate Anglicanism and thus TEC will lose their “franchise” as the only official Anglican game in town.  I still think instead we are going to view a worldwide schism in Anglicanism because Rowan will sit on his hands, the GS bishops will not show up at Lambeth, TEC will count noses to make sure they have enough revisionist votes at Lambeth and generate the “newly emerged consensus” about SSBs and non-celibate gay bishops, which will effectively force out the GS bishops.  From there, the CofE itself will be racked with schism, and Rowan will be free to lead his ethnically-cleansed and morally-sullied AC into the sunset, never to be considered Christian again by the vast majority of the world’s Christian communions (whether Rome, Byzantium, or Geneva).  So even in the midst of my con-comm sensibilities, I can see CCP forging a legitimate way forward, especially once the s#!+ hits the fan from Canterbury’s inaction (duplicity?  revisionist complicity?  trepidation?).

[311] Posted by Zoomdaddy on 10-01-2007 at 08:52 AM • top

I find the revisionist commenting presence on this thread telling.  I sense a fear that CCP will actually be recognized as legitimate Anglicanism and thus TEC will lose their “franchise” as the only official Anglican game in town.

Zoomdaddy,

Truer words were never spoken. This is what 815 indeed fears the most, as Bob Maxwell’s notes from the Rio Grande clergy meeting reveal. TEC is coasting on two things, and two things only: Its brand name, and dead men’s money.

It knows that, should there arise an alternative that is at once orthodox, in the communion, and which looks and feels Anglican, then the end is in sight. If it were otherwise, it never would have insisted on what it did in the St. Clemente’s case - that it was free to go, as long as it didn’t join another Anglican group.

This is the challenge Common Cause must be prepared to meet: It must obtain communion recognition and legitimacy, and it must “manage its brand” in a way that will put its marketing folks to the test: It must simultaneously recapture what so many people miss about the Episcopal church, while injecting fresh DNA into its structure that prevents it from becoming TEC redux. If it can do all that, the Episcopal church is well and truly finished, but it will not go down without a fight. If we htink things are interesting now, just wait 3 or 4 years.

[312] Posted by Greg Griffith on 10-01-2007 at 09:07 AM • top

I’m betting 10 years Greg. I think the next 2 will be the fights of the TEC dioceses leaving, 3 or 4 and Common Cause will probably be going through phases that TEC will declare that Common Cause is going to splinter any moment (as heated up to bond things and make alloys which the process will look messy) then after that TEC will be fighting hard (remember it’ll be closer to Lambeth 2018, which IF (& big “if” at that) the Communion hold together will be a show down fight from TEC.

[313] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 10-01-2007 at 09:17 AM • top

Seraph,

I’m curious.  What distinction do you draw between partnered GLs and unwed mothers?

[314] Posted by Ed the Roman on 10-01-2007 at 10:40 AM • top

In my view the Common Cause Partnership was left with little choice when the HOB ignored the Primates request to halt the lawsuits against the orthodox parishes. TEC’s intention to continue the legal actions against their own parishes who want out is crystal clear to all by this no response. CCP bishops could not allow the persecution of their orthodox parishes to continue, and this move was a necessary one to defend those parishes.  Common Cause will now rightfully be seen in the Communion as an organization uniting and building the church, while TEC can only be viewed as dividing.

[315] Posted by bradhutt on 10-01-2007 at 10:45 AM • top

Seraph, I’m curious.  What distinction do you draw between partnered GLs and unwed mothers

commitment for one….

I can not make a general statement for all partnered GL, but some certainly are, in a culture AND religious enviroment generally hostile to their orientation and relationships, attempting to live in a way which is consitent with christian ideals of monogamy, fidelity, chastity….

The same for unwed mothers….circumstances vary and I applaud that they have chosen life for their children! Yet, for the serially unwed parent…hey where is the guy??? We do know what causes pregnancy, there are no laws banning marriage, and contraception is available…

I have come across these situations in parishes I have been a member of throughout the years….! A serially unwed mother loved, welcomed…poor girl, children baptized yet…. a gay couple not ....you know the Sodom and Gomorrah deal….it happens !
blessings
seraph

[316] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 11:08 AM • top

One detail, to avoid a derail, Seraph~

The one string on your fiddle seems to be tuned to the pitch that so-called gay sexuality is somehow blessed by Scripture as falling either within the rubric of “The marriage bed is holy, and undefiled, but adulterers ..God will judge,” or somehow exempt from anything the Lord has ever said about the subject.  Any statement to the contrary is answered by fingering up to a higher note for a stacatto run of “Does-not-not-neither-you’re-just-being-mean!”  You trot out unfounded, and unreasoned, rhetoric, and anyone who does not entirely endorse everything you say is met with a reaction that would have done Archie Bunker proud.

Now, if any of this is not true, I ask you in all humility and sincerity of heart to make a case, based on the full consent of Holy Scripture and supported by the Fathers of the Church in the first five centuries, that the Bible actually does not condemn homosexual behaviour after all and makes provisions for it to be treated as at least as morally acceptable before God as Christian courtship and marriage.  Merely constructing technical or psychological qualifiers can only be seen in this case as avoiding the issue.

If you find yourself unable to do this, then I ask you to consider that your inability has shown that you have been fighting, not against “mere Christians,” but against God, Who will hold you accountable.  This is not a game of rhetorical one-up-man-ship, but a battle for the everlasting souls of men and women for all eternity.

Robert

[317] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-01-2007 at 11:10 AM • top

Sereph,

Wendy is not living in sin; but Darla, Bob, and Leslie are living in sin. 

Put another way:  Wendy may have sinned (past tense) but is not compounding her sin by shacking up in order to solve her financial difficulties (present and future tense). 

Yes, please do trot out the various scenarios for why Wendy may be an unwed mother;  Especially because some of them involve Wendy living in sin.

We can discuss all of ‘em, if you like.  wink

[318] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-01-2007 at 11:13 AM • top

Its not the flaws of the individuals that is an issue…its our hypocrisy at dealing with them….
seraph

[319] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 11:21 AM • top

A little off topic but if you believe that DES was an ultimatum and I do believe it was, when will the shoe I mean sledge hammer fall?

[320] Posted by Lee Parker on 10-01-2007 at 11:33 AM • top

yes it was…shoes have fallen

seraph

[321] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 11:34 AM • top

Seraph, if you can defend your position please do so.  If not, then have the decency to admit as much rather than continuing to harp on a “truth” you cannot support.  You presume to condemn those you label as “conservative” on the grounds of what you perceive as their failure to perfectly adhere to the   teachings of Holy Scripture, yet wiggle and dance to avoid being held accountable to the same standards.  I do not think it unfair at this point to say that unless you can show that the word of God supports your position (see my previous), though you expect the same of others, that any further posts you make on this subject will be no more than your own proclamation of being a deliberate hypocrite.  Please consider.

Robert

[322] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-01-2007 at 11:46 AM • top

to make a case, based on the full consent of Holy Scripture and supported by the Fathers of the Church in the first five centuries, that the Bible actually does not condemn homosexual behaviour after all and makes provisions for it to be treated as at least as morally acceptable before God as Christian courtship and marriage.

I do not believe that the Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality refered to committed monogamous relationships between people with that orientation. That being a relatively modern concept.

I find very few models of what we call Christian courtship and marriage in the whole of Scripture…but there are a host of arrangements in the whole of the BIble that you would be very hard pressed to justify in modern society. 

The dear old Dads of the Church had a host of opinions about many things which we today find ludicrous….they inform us but are nevertheless the opinions of people from an earlier time in history.

seraph

[323] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

If sin is not an issue, then neither can hypocrisy with respect to how we deal with sinners, be an issue. 

You’ve assumed that Wendy is as bad (or as good) as Bob et al, but have not explained why.  Either you are avoiding the issue entirely, or you are inept in understanding the simple moral distinctions.

[324] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-01-2007 at 11:56 AM • top

I do not believe that the Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality refered to committed monogamous relationships between people with that orientation. That being a relatively modern concept.

“Homosexual monogamy” = oxymoron. 
“Heterosexual monogamy” = redundant phrase.

[325] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-01-2007 at 12:01 PM • top

Jesus semmed to take issue more at the hypocrisy of those that would condemn that those who actually sinned…
I have not assumed a thing about Wendy or Bob or Leslie (names changed to protect identity) just made an observation of how I have seen them treated differently by folks in Church.
You have made all the assumptions here….

seraph

[326] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 12:03 PM • top

<blockqote>“Heterosexual monogamy” = redundant phrase</blockquote>

really…? So David and Solomon were ...serially monogamous , right?

blessings
seraph

[327] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 12:05 PM • top

So then what you are saying then is that you choose to define your own reality to suit your own momentary convenience, and so have no ground on which to judge, condemn, or for that matter communicate with any person not dwelling between your own two ears, as that is the boundary within which your standard of reality, and therefore your language, exists.  Beyond that boundary, you are then merely babbling, and within that boundary you still owe it to yourself to validate your assessments because if you are wrong you may find yourself guilty before the living God for your presumption.

Robert

[328] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-01-2007 at 12:08 PM • top

seraph, when Jesus said sexual immorality defiled a man, what do you suppose He was taking issue with?  Hypocrisy again?

[329] Posted by Phil on 10-01-2007 at 12:09 PM • top

Jesus semmed to take issue more at the hypocrisy of those that would condemn that those who actually sinned…

Taking issue with hypocrisy of the condemners does not negate the guilt of those being condemned.  It simply means that the condemners have sin issues themselves that they had better deal with, before presuming to take the mote out of the eye of the prostitute and /or tax collector.  And those that have taken the beam out of their own eye, will be more gracious in taking the mote folks to task, as they struggle with their besetting sins. 

I have not assumed a thing about Wendy or Bob or Leslie (names changed to protect identity) just made an observation of how I have seen them treated differently by folks in Church.
You have made all the assumptions here….

Nor have I.  And as I indicated, Wendy may in fact, be still living in sin.  However, her circumstances are such that we can assume that she might not be living in sin.  Bob et al, are sinning, period.

[330] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-01-2007 at 12:11 PM • top

really…? So David and Solomon were ...serially monogamous , right?

Um, no.

[331] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-01-2007 at 12:12 PM • top

Heh, I guess Seraph doesn’t read Plato

From Aristophanes’ speech in the Symposium, 360bc:

</blockquote>Aristophanes professed to open another vein of discourse; he had a mind to praise Love in another way, unlike that either of Pausanias or Eryximachus. Mankind; he said, judging by their neglect of him, have never, as I think, at all understood the power of Love. For if they had understood him they would surely have built noble temples and altars, and offered solemn sacrifices in his honour; but this is not done, and most certainly ought to be done: since of all the gods he is the best friend of men, the helper and the healer of the ills which are the great impediment to the happiness of the race. I will try to describe his power to you, and you shall teach the rest of the world what I am teaching you. In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word “Androgynous” is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three;-and the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round: like their parents. Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, dared to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods. Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained.

At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: “Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.” He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw in, and he made one mouth at the centre, which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel); he also moulded the breast and took out most of the wrinkles, much as a shoemaker might smooth leather upon a last; he left a few, however, in the region of the belly and navel, as a memorial of the primeval state. After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them, being the sections of entire men or women, and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man.

Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saving. When they reach manhood they are loves of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,-if at all, they do so only in obedience to the law; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded; and such a nature is prone to love and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him. And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and would not be out of the other’s sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover’s intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. </blockquote>

[332] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-01-2007 at 12:14 PM • top

So David and Solomon were ...serially monogamous , right?

And look what happened to those men because of their sin! There are consequiences to sin and continually commiting sin and that is God’s rightful judgement to deem when, how and where His judgement will be handed down. Not mine nor yours nor anyone else’s. But to think that you can justify sinful behavior or actions by just pointing out a portion of biblical text to give your arguments merit, you are sadly mistaken.
God does not bless what He condemns. But, if one admits the sin, turns from it in repentance and seeks to walk a better way in Christ Jesus and His teachings then and only then are they living out a life in Christ.

[333] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 12:16 PM • top

ODC, From what I have gathered from leading OT research professor John Oswalt in a class he teaches, the love cited between David and Jonathan would be an undue burden on the language to apply a homosexual interpretation to it.  Graduate clergy, please correct me on this, but the Hebrew, hesed (lovingkindness) does not support such a relationship as revisionists today might try to propose.

Robert

[334] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-01-2007 at 12:54 PM • top

Robert Easter,
I certainly do not need a graduate clergy to tell me that that relationship between David & Jonathon or any other persons in scripture was not homosexual. I know it wasn’t and I believe that it was nothing more than two men who were like brothers and friends towards one another all rolled into one relationship. Much like I had with one friend of mine whom I loved dearly as musch as I love my own kids, mother, father, brothers, etc… She was a true friend and sister in Christ but no sexual thing there. Far from it! Since I am a happliy married woman with kids and so was my friend (whom is now with our Lord and Savior). We just simply loved each other and did whatever was within our means for each other in love. Homosexuals think that love only has one or two levels. Not true. By trying to paint a homosexual relationship between those in scripture they think give merit to their sin. As you have stated up the thread:

Beyond that boundary, you are then merely babbling, and within that boundary you still owe it to yourself to validate your assessments because if you are wrong you may find yourself guilty before the living God for your presumption.

[335] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

Off Topic but….

Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure” in North America….. they formally organized themselves as a college of bishops .... they also laid out a timeline for the path ahead, ...call a “founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union,” at the earliest possible date agreeable to all of the partners.A

How this is helpful before the ABC or the ACC or the Primates actually offer a formal response to the TEC-HOB statement is a mystery to me. It seems like the TEC bishops involved in this have pre-empted the whole process and walked away from the Anglican Communion.

IMHO this action, not the TEC’s statement will be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back…sad to see. Do they really think that the ABC and most of the Communion will be okay with this action?

seraph

[336] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 01:25 PM • top

ODC, sorry to have offended!  I have enjoyed and respected your posts to this site since I found it.  I merely thought there was one “possibility” picked up from a Sunday School discussion at some time.  I do remember how those can go sometimes!  Otherwise, your post just provided the opening to mention for the sake of other readers the difference between hesed and the modern (mis)use of “love.”  My plug for Dr. Oswalt was just that- not to try to hammer anybody by dropping names (Does anybody else here recognise that name?), but rather to lend a plug for an esteemed brother in Christ in case someone might want to look into some of his books. 

Blessings,

Robert

[337] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-01-2007 at 01:25 PM • top

ok, time to move the david & jonathan/homosexuality/hypocrisy comments to another thread

[338] Posted by Zoomdaddy on 10-01-2007 at 01:29 PM • top

“...certainly do not need a graduate clergy to tell me that that relationship between David & Jonathon or any other persons in scripture was not homosexual….”

We are sure of no such thing….we were not there! I do not put anything past a guy with the sexual appetite David seems to have had…it isn’t as if he was a model of morality ... how many concubines was it???? 

They certainly seemed to share a level of physicalness within their friendship we would not be comfortable with. The comparison of the love of Jonathan to that of women also seems odd to us.

I waz not there…so I do not know for sure..!
Be it as it may this would not be the kind of relationship to aspire to….! They were married guys who played the field with more than one woman and, if intimate in their relationship ...not a virtue to imitate!

seraph

[339] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 01:39 PM • top

ok, time to move the david & jonathan/homosexuality/hypocrisy comments to another thread

agreed…..as for me it can be dropped…my original comments were not meant to send this conversation along these same tired old lines.
We do not agree about this….can we still be in communion??? That is the question the bishops at the CC meeting answered with a resounding NO! 
blessings
seraph

[340] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 01:43 PM • top

seraph, why isn’t that the kind of relationship to aspire to?  What’s your basis for saying that?  It seems that, if somebody needs to “play the field” to be “fulfilled” and enjoy the “dignity” of every human being, the church of nothing shouldn’t stand in his way.

[341] Posted by Phil on 10-01-2007 at 01:48 PM • top

Robert Easter,
My apologies for sounding as though I was offended. I was not offended in the least. I was simply trying to establish that I personally need not have a graduate clergy to affirm what I already know and believe. You see I was brought up in a Pentecostal church, family owned and operated. Trust me it was horrific. More “don’ts- will nots, or you are going to hell” than I care to try and remember. But the one thing that I did get, up to and beyond my rebellion of that type of teaching, was the Authority of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and His Word divine handed down through the centuries. I have studied the Bible extensively with priests, pastors, those in seminary awaiting Holy Orders, and lay people just like me. So the love(s) of which you speak to I am fully aware and it is too bad that our worthy opponents do not give them more merit than to misconstrue them to further their own political agendas and to enable sinful behavior.
Thank you or all your postings as I have been reading every one with great interest and admiration of correctness in the Lord that they are.
BTW, enjoyed your website.
ODC

[342] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 01:53 PM • top

I don’t really see any reason to engage Seraph in discussion.  My impression is that this site is not for the dissemination of Integrity propaganda.  Seraph is unable to reason within the Christian tradition.  He’s not here to learn.  He’s here to attempt to justify himself and engage anyone who disagrees in perpetual circular arguments.

[343] Posted by Pernoctate on 10-01-2007 at 01:54 PM • top

Seraph, I really don’t think you’re missing the point, but rather that you are making every effort for the point to miss you.  The Bible is raw facts.  A book of religion sets its key figures above reproach.  God is good.  God is (holy) love, and want to make us partakers of His own Nature.  This requires recognising and repenting from our sins,  not being “of those who justify yourselves before people, but God knows your hearts,” but rather giving Him, and Him, alone, the full rights to transform us into His own likeness from the inside, out.

What I asked you before is still before you.  Stop picking and choosing what “truths” you want to accept, and offer yourself to God to become of person of Truth.  Once you do, you will realise there never really was any other way.

Peace,

Robert

[344] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-01-2007 at 01:57 PM • top

seraph,
I am solidly sure in my biblical knowledge and understanding of God my Father with His son Jesus Christ within the Holy Spirit that David and Jonathon did not have a “Broke Back Mountain” experience. That is where you and the mass majority of Christians will continue to differ. I and many will not join your band wagon of false beleif.
Move on….........

[345] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 02:00 PM • top

seraph, why isn’t that the kind of relationship to aspire to?  What’s your basis for saying that?


I would not one to be a knotch on someone’s bed post, nor to have to share the one I love with 300 + others…would you?

It seems that, if somebody needs to “play the field” to be “fulfilled” and enjoy the “dignity” of every human being, the church of nothing shouldn’t stand in his way

Straw man…...friend…no one is advocating for that… but you certainly would be hard pressed using the Bible to argue for heterosexual monogamy, given the Holy men of Old and their tastes….some seemed to go by these principles and still were called men after God’s own heart…fancy that!

Everyone deserves the chance to find love and be loved, God made us that way ....! .  Apart from this, celibacy should be a chosen, for those called so…not forced down the throat of a whole class of people upon penalty of hell!
seraph

[346] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 02:02 PM • top

CCP is the result of a direct request of the orthodox Primates, specifically noted at the Pittsburgh meeting but also asked for by the ABoC during the introduction of the Eame’s report way back in 2004, I believe.

[347] Posted by Wilkie on 10-01-2007 at 02:04 PM • top

Telling, seraph -

Straw man…...friend…no one is advocating for that

followed by

you certainly would be hard pressed using the Bible to argue for heterosexual monogamy, given the Holy men of Old and their tastes….some seemed to go by these principles and still were called men after God’s own heart…fancy that!

Everyone deserves the chance to find love and be loved, God made us that way ....!

Sounds like somebody (you, and many more, of course) is “advocating for that.”  No strawman here.

[348] Posted by Phil on 10-01-2007 at 02:08 PM • top

The Bible is raw facts.  A book of religion sets its key figures above reproach.  ..... What I asked you before is still before you.  Stop picking and choosing what “truths” you want to accept…

Dearest friend;

I have been in church most of my life and have seen people, as well intentioned as you, use those raw facts to create division, manipulate,  harm and bend the gullible to their will.  Even as we preach the “full Gospel”, the “whole truth” we all pick and choose.

Just look at the 22,000 different competing visions of Christianity we espouse…..even within Anglicanism…CC being the latest improved version….why is this….???? Partially because we “pick ” , “choose” and are certain each of us knows exactly the “truth”...

I do not hold to quaint fundamentalist notion abouts the Bible…facts are in fact interpreted by people and illusion that our truth claims can be absolute is one that I have long woken up from…thanks!

When I see Him face to face and know as I am known, not imperfectly as in a mirror ...then all my suppositions will be unnecessary….we are not there yet and so ...know imperfectly!

blessings
seraph

[349] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 02:18 PM • top

Apologies if someone has already said this, but Mr Seraph seems to have hijacked this thread with his apologetics for homosexual relationships and theology that is not even recognisable as Christian. Could you boss folks bring down the boom on all of this off-topic stuff so we can get back to discussing the subject at hand?

[350] Posted by albion on 10-01-2007 at 02:23 PM • top

RE: “Well, you can bet on the IRD money drying up.”

OH NO!!!!!!

Can the SF blog survive?????

PANIC!!!!!!!

; > )

[351] Posted by Sarah on 10-01-2007 at 02:24 PM • top

Seraph,
In my humble opinion, which to you and many is probably not worth much, but none the less, since I too know of the harms of the Pentecostal upbringing I myeslf had to endure much like yourself growing up, there comes a time when one must face those abuses and see them for what they truly were even in all their good intentions as well. But, God would not want you to go around with misconceptions and baggage of past hurts. Because those past hurts manifest themselves into their own destructive uses and powers.
I say this to you in love and as one who has walked on the same road as you have in past religious denominations that are destructive in their teachings. Seek good sound counseling for this issue. I did and I am free from its bondage praise be to God Almighty. The Lord wants you and all to be right in Him, don’t begrudge yourself of Him that.
Peace - ODC

[352] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 02:27 PM • top

Seraph needs his/her own blog, so he/she can espouse his/her religion based on “I have seen…blah blah blah”.
We cannot fuss about threads being hijacked when we ourselves are allowing it to happen.

[353] Posted by CarolynP on 10-01-2007 at 02:35 PM • top

Mr Seraph seems to have hijacked this thread with his apologetics for homosexual relationships and theology that is not even recognisable as Christian

This is not entirely fair…..I have posted and responded to comments others made…I can’t help being the minority opinion!

Several posts back I attempted to bring the thread back to topic….you will note on some posts I have made reference to the CC bishops .....those comments have been ignored…..the “non christian” parts commented on!

The thread may be hijacked but others surely have some responsibility here ....

Oh well…just blame me….

blessings
seraph

[354] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 02:38 PM • top

Seraph,

My apologies if I missed something, but I had begun to delete anything with your name at the top because of the general “off-topicness.”
Fine. If you would be so kind, just stop pursuing the issue yourself and stop responding to others who continue in that vein, and perhaps we can get back to discussing what we need to get back to discussing.
Pax

[355] Posted by albion on 10-01-2007 at 02:43 PM • top

Long ago and far up the wandering thread Seraph asserted,

... committed monogamous relationships between people with that orientation. That being a relatively modern concept.

If it’s a “relatively modern concept”, why do we have Roman marriage contracts between two men dating from the late second century AD?

Chronological snobbery.  Pfui.

[356] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 10-01-2007 at 02:45 PM • top

thanks I will do just that….you will note there is more than one hijacker here ! My comments about the CC have been passed over even as the same tired topic we will never agree on gets rehashed…

several posts back I issued this invite….

agreed…..as for me it can be dropped…my original comments were not meant to send this conversation along these same tired old lines.  We do not agree about this….can we still be in communion??? That is the question the bishops at the CC meeting answered with a resounding NO!  blessings ...seraph

blessings
seraph

[357] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 02:54 PM • top

ODC, thanks for the nice words!

I know what you mean about “family owned” churches, etc.  Had my bouts with a few of ‘em!  One thing that has always impressed me might best be summed in a line from Narnia“A tame lion? ..He’s not tame, but He’s <u>good!</u>”</i>  Jesus is Truth, from eternity!  We can easier expect to go into a pride of lions for a nice game of “fetch” than to expect Him to conform to our expectations, so it is of His love and mercy that He has revealed Himself to us if only that we know how to behave, much less to actually come to know Him as His own friends, and dear children of His Father!

On the CCP,  I really think this is a different breed of cat than the various splits that have spawned so many of these denominations.  For one thing, the intention is about unity of various already-formed conferences as well as consolidating the newer ones, for another, the focus is on our commonality as Christians in the Word and in the Eucharist rather than whether who follows what thread of Augustine or Athanasius in their ordo.  (Not to say a well-formed understanding of the order of salvation is unimportant, but we can much easier talk those matters out as friends and brothers/sisters than denouncing each other from our respective pulpits!)

And thanks for the blog response!  (Please, folks, pass that link around whatever way you can!)  Well, back at it!  Blessings on y’all!

Robert

[358] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-01-2007 at 02:56 PM • top

Chronological snobbery.  Pfui.

dear snob..I meant sexual orientation as a concept…Pfui!
last words on the matter…
seraph

[359] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

Traveling way up the thread, I see that poor EmilyH is still trying to make worthwhile all that money and time spent by her fellow progressive travelers on discovering all the “secrets” of Duncan in the lawsuits against him by Calvary [aka 815].

Shockingly, the “Westfield” memo tracks beautifully with the original request for APO and the wonderful Dar communique.

Of course, I answered EmilyH many months ago, and we posted the Westfield memo, and have continued answering her repeatedly in nigh every thread, but as with this thread right here—http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6108/
she suddenly drifts away whenever challenged with facts.

It must be frustrating to keep on trying to discover secrets, only to find that when “unveiled to the watching horrified world” nobody cares, and people yawn, and make up funny threads, and the “secret” gets no traction, not only at orthodox blogs, but everywhere else too!  It must be frustrating to progressives to try to come up with something that will stick and reinforce all of their “conspiracy theories” only to discover that if only they had been reading the conservative blogs and the Network web site, they would have discovered all the “secrets” ahead of time.

In the thread of a week ago, EmilyH attempts to claim that the 8 Episcopal Visitors plan was “good enough” for those not asking for APO [bizarre!] and then claims that nothing would have been good enough for the APO bishops, pointing once again to the “Westfield” document as the SECRET which all of that time and money finally discovered.

“RE: “Admitedly, this offer of APO is one that will only be attractive to ComCons and institutional conservatives.”

EmilyH, the ComCons and institutional conservatives did not request APO—the five bishops did.

Furthermore, the thing you quoted from is prior to the Dar es Salaam communique which these same bishops requesting APO have wholeheartedly supported.  So the Dar communique supercedes their former request, and indeed can actually work with that request, since the Pastoral Council which Dar speaks of serves as their “alternative overseer”.  Indeed the Pastoral Council is the Primatial Oversight and the primatial vicar is merely the person who handles things over in ECUSA and reports to the Pastoral Council.

And finally, of course, the Dar communique responds to exactly the needs that you quote above about protection and lawsuits and more:

“We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete.  At that time, other provisions may become necessary”

AND HERE
“It is also clear that a significant number of bishops, clergy and lay people in The Episcopal Church are committed to the proposals of the Windsor Report and the standard of teaching presupposed in it (cf paragraph 11).  These faithful people feel great pain at what they perceive to be the failure of The Episcopal Church to adopt
the Windsor proposals in full.  They desire to find a way to remain in faithful fellowship with the Anglican Communion.  They believe that they should have the liberty to practice and live by that expression of Anglican faith which they believe to be true.  We are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement
between some of the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts”

AND HERE
“The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation.  We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.”

In short, the Dar communique addresses the concerns quoted above in the appeal to the Global South, AND the concerns in their original appeal.

The Episcopal Visitors response does NOT address those concerns.

EmilyH, don’t you think that you should actually read these documents, rather than merely quote from Jim Naughton or the HOB/D listserve?

Simply reading the documents in question will clarify matters easily for you, and you will see the congruence of Dar with the needs of these five bishops, as they have expressed numerous times, and the noncongruence of the Episcopal Visitors with those needs.”

I can’t imagine why EmilyH disappears from threads so often! 
; > )

In sum, . . . sure would have been nice had ECUSA acceded to Dar.  But . . . they did not.  The chaos will be immense.

Finally . . . I’ll just repeat what I said last week:

“EmilyH, don’t you think that you should actually read these documents, rather than merely quote from Jim Naughton or the HOB/D listserve?”

[360] Posted by Sarah on 10-01-2007 at 03:01 PM • top

Seraph,
You have a point. I see many people continuing to steer this thread off topic, and this will probably continue until people are either told to knock it off or get bored trying to bait you. Patience is a virtue.

As for your question about whether we can still be in communion, the short answer is “no.” In fact, if you are a member of the TEC, we are already NOT in communion.

I would venture to say that, as a member of the continuing movement, and specifically of the Anglican Catholic Church, I am not in communion with hardly anyone on this list. That, however, does not prevent us from talking to each other and of seeking ways that we might draw closer to each other.

And this is one of the very points that I was trying to make in my initial response to this thread (http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/09/last-one-out-turn-off-lights.html)
—that there are people who are founding members of the CCP who, theoretically, should not be in communion with each other now. And one of the big questions is when they will recognise that and what they will do about it when they do.

[361] Posted by albion on 10-01-2007 at 03:07 PM • top

Elizabeth, in response to your question above to me . . .

“Sarah, You have chosen an incredibly hard path.  Please explain why.  I am truly not understanding why you choose to stay and fight.  Do you really beleive you can change something?”

That would take this post way off topic [although that does not appear to be much of a concern to some here!] and I’ve written about my decisions extensively over the past two years, seemingly ad infinitum.  ; > )

If you want to investigate, you can read here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4850/

and here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3082/

and here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3096/

and here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3117/

But honestly . . . this is a time of great rejoicing for those departing ECUSA.  I am sincerely happy for them and hope for the best for them!

[362] Posted by Sarah on 10-01-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

On another side of the real topic…..Let us say that the See of Canterbury doesn’t recognise the CCP and the New North American Province within the AC. What then? Will the GS? And if the GS does recognise the New North American Province to be in Communion with Anglicanism what then?

[363] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 03:17 PM • top

There is no point arguing with people like seraph. They are the swine before which Jesus told us not to cast our pearls. He is making up his religion from his own ideas of what is right. He acknowledges no authority over him which he cannot invalidate by pointing to something he declares “ludicrous” or outdated or irrelevant.

We waste our time, which is why we must sever our relationship with such as him and not call fools our brother. We make a mockery of the word and confuse those who might be seeking the truth. And we do seraph no good either.

Cut him off. Leave him to his barren and lifeless “faith”, which cannot give him the power to be any better than he already is. Let him feel the flames of eternal meaninglessness lapping at his soul. Then maybe he will become so disatisfied with his life that he will actually start to open his eyes and read what god has written.

[364] Posted by Christopher Hathaway on 10-01-2007 at 03:30 PM • top

ODC,
I do not think that the General Convention Church will allow ++Rowan to recognize the CCP.  They obviously have him on a tight leash.  The GS, on the other hand, are not chained by GCC’s $$, and are free to make their own decision in the matter.  I believe they will recognize CCP as a legitimate Anglican province in NA, and many of them will consider it the only NA province they are still in unimpaired communion with.  At that point the old AC as we know it will divide into 2 pieces, and God will know His own.

[365] Posted by CarolynP on 10-01-2007 at 03:39 PM • top

case in point…..
I wonder if there will be many like this in CCF?  Hmmmm

I for one do not believe the ABC will recognize the CCF scism and the GS will have to decide Canterbury or Abuja?

oink…
seraph

[366] Posted by seraph on 10-01-2007 at 03:41 PM • top

+Duncan has told the press that he does NOT expect recognition from Canterbury—not “at first,” as he put it.  This is the big problem.  If the Global South recognizes the CC and Canterbury does not, then isn’t that the big “schism” we keep hearing about?  I’m genuinely very worried about all of this.  Wouldn’t it have been better to vote at New Orleans and then wait until the Primates react to the NO statement?  Many of the Primates, perhaps even those who understand our cause, may see the present action as being untimely in that sense.  I know that many of you will not agree, and I understand that side of the situation, too.  (We had already waited so long—and what more could we do?)  But I’m still very concerned at the exact way this was done.

[367] Posted by Paula on 10-01-2007 at 03:51 PM • top

The stars and the moon will never align for the perfect moment. Which is why I have been advocating the old Nike slogan for some time; just do it.

We know TEC is not changing its direction no matter what. I would prefer to be a member of the CCP without the ABC than a member of TEC with the ABC.

[368] Posted by BillS on 10-01-2007 at 03:58 PM • top

BillS:
Exactly.

I don’t know why that is so hard for folks to understand.

[369] Posted by CarolynP on 10-01-2007 at 04:01 PM • top

Straw man…...friend…no one is advocating for that… but you certainly would be hard pressed using the Bible to argue for heterosexual monogamy, given the Holy men of Old and their tastes….some seemed to go by these principles and still were called men after God’s own heart…fancy that!

Hmm, wonder what Christ had to say on the subject of monogamy.  Lessee..  Matt 19:5

And hmm… that sounds kinda familiar.  Where did I hear that before?  Gen 2:24

I’m sure I have no need to point out that Christ was engaging the divorce question on the basis of how things had been set up, before the Fall.  I also have no need to point out that as He points to monogamy as the Created order, He also does not separate the concept of monogamy from its heterosexuality.  This is because mankind’s gift of sexuality is fundamentally monogamously heterosexual;  or if you prefer, heterosexually monogamous.  Separating the concepts is something that man has done as a post-Fall innovation. 

But, from the beginning, it just wasn’t so.  (Matt 19:8)

David and Solomon feel short of this created order.  It’s called sin.

[370] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-01-2007 at 04:12 PM • top

Sarah,
Thanks for the answer.  I believe God is refining His Church and the result, whether it is defined as Anglican or not, will be called to fight a larger battle.  I have lost all I can stand to lose in this battle- I move on.  God bless you and your fight.

[371] Posted by Elizabeth on 10-01-2007 at 04:39 PM • top

Seraph is a troll.  His only purpose is to draw us off topic and keep chanting the PC gospel of inclusion.  I prefer the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[372] Posted by terrafirma on 10-01-2007 at 05:10 PM • top

Today I found by accident a copy (literally buried for almost a year) of The Future of Anglicanism - an end to Western hegemony: Bishop Bob Duncan - which I had printed out last Oct 30th from the ACN website. This is an address given at the convocation upon the occasion of Bp. Duncan’s Honorary Doctorate being conferred on him by Nashotah House on Oct. 25, 2006. I’m posting the hyperlink below as I think it will bless many of you.
For me, it today served to be a “God’s Incidence” in that the address and the ensuing study time I now discern as a “guidepost” and will serve as impetus to join a faithful Anglican body. The whole story of the “co-incidence” and confirmation aspect of this is quite funny really - I see it as a tiny miracle.
Today when I found this same address posted on SF at:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1357
GUESS WHO HAD MADE THE FIRST COMMENT?  And I know that this lady reads much of the material here, but seldom comments!!! I can’t deny that our Lord was again showing me his way for us. And I pray for the courage to act expeditiously on his leading.

[373] Posted by merlenacushing on 10-01-2007 at 05:45 PM • top

Well, It is Oct. 1st and the deadline has come and gone and +++Williams has met with +++Orombi and I know it is still early yet, but not a peep.  The deafening sound of silence is loud.

[374] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 06:50 PM • top

That’s because the ABC is in hot water.  He may be presiding over nothing but the General Convention Church soon.  I heard him lecture at the Yale Div Fall convocation back when he was a dean of some Welsh cathedral and I really liked him.  We’ve all aged since then.  I wish he had followed more Kallistos Ware’s lead for his own sake.  I expect on the last day he will recognize the Lord with love and enter into Paradise. 

Ayesha, now, well that’s a tale to sadden the heart.  In every age “these Northern witches” want the same thing but have different means of getting it.  No telling if She is in tight with the White Witch and her Crew” or just another power mad crazy.  Perhaps She will step into the flame a second time, realizing the difference between Life Eternal and mortal life without end.

[375] Posted by Pernoctate on 10-01-2007 at 08:36 PM • top

BillS wrote:

The stars and the moon will never align for the perfect moment. Which is why I have been advocating the old Nike slogan for some time; just do it.

We know TEC is not changing its direction no matter what. I would prefer to be a member of the CCP without the ABC than a member of TEC with the ABC.

“Just do it” is what got us into this mess in the first place! TEC didn’t think about the consequences of WO, or of consecrating VGR, they “just did it” and then demanded that everyone else accept it. Why imitate their unilateralism—do you think that will solve the problem?

[376] Posted by kyounge1956 on 10-01-2007 at 09:00 PM • top

Not every problem has a solution. TEC is not going to repent, ask forgiveness, and give up all attempts to bless SSR etc. Just do it does not mean do not think about it. We have talked and talked and listened and listened for over 30 years.

It is time to form a new orthodox Anglican province in the US and move on. Just do it.

[377] Posted by BillS on 10-01-2007 at 09:25 PM • top

bradhutt wrote:

In my view the Common Cause Partnership was left with little choice when the HOB ignored the Primates request to halt the lawsuits against the orthodox parishes. TEC’s intention to continue the legal actions against their own parishes who want out is crystal clear to all by this no response. CCP bishops could not allow the persecution of their orthodox parishes to continue, and this move was a necessary one to defend those parishes.

In your view, how does (or doesn’t) 1 Cor 6:7 apply to the situation of those orthodox parishes?

Common Cause will now rightfully be seen in the Communion as an organization uniting and building the church, while TEC can only be viewed as dividing.

Item D in the timeline (Appendix 2) is “Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition”. As CarolynP pointed out, it is not unlikely that some Provinces will recognize CCP and some will not, which would probably result in a split of the communion. How could this be seen as “uniting and building the church”?

IMO, your description would be more accurate if the CCP were appealing to the Communion as a whole for recognition, perhaps via a minority response to DeS from those CCP bishops who are also bishops of TEC, giving an unambiguous “yes” answer to the Primates’ two requests. If the Primates & ABC had their choice between two responses from the US, a clear “yes” from the CCP-TEC bishops, and an evasive, largely negative answer from the HOB as a whole, which do you think they would accept? And do you think such a way of proceeding would be more, or less “uniting and building” to the church than the method the CCP have actually chosen to use?

[378] Posted by kyounge1956 on 10-01-2007 at 09:54 PM • top

seraph wrote:

Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure” in North America(snip) ...IMHO this action, not the TEC’s statement will be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back…sad to see. Do they really think that the ABC and most of the Communion will be okay with this action?

I also fear that the actions of CCP will result in a widening, rather than a healing, of the rift within the Anglican Communion. But to continue your analogy, the straw of CCP’s recent actions would not be sufficient to break the camel’s back, if the beast had not already been grievously overloaded by TEC’s doings over the last four years or more.

[379] Posted by kyounge1956 on 10-01-2007 at 10:09 PM • top

kyounge 1956,
Oh gee, now I have to answer questions? I immediately think of one that may apply to all. When you are up to your buttocks in alligators, it is hard to remember you came to drain the swamp.

[380] Posted by bradhutt on 10-02-2007 at 06:57 AM • top

Fair enough. If the TEC came into line they wouldnt have to do this would they.

[381] Posted by Apollos on 10-02-2007 at 06:58 AM • top

“But to continue your analogy, the straw of CCP’s recent actions would not be sufficient to break the camel’s back, if the beast had not already been grievously overloaded by TEC’s doings over the last four years or more.” (Kyounge1956)

To help you understand this more clearly, there would be no “straw” placed by CCP if it wasn’t for the grievously heretic and defiant doings of TEC over the last 4 years or more.

[382] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 10-02-2007 at 07:07 AM • top

Since VGR:

TEC has consecrated NO bishops living in same sex relationships
TEC has not officially authorized SSB’s though they occur in some dioceses.
TEC has not agreed to a primatial vicar but has offered alternative oversight to dissenters.

vs

The GS Primates have unabashedly continued receiving parishes and consecrating bishops in the US despite Windsor and DES.
The CCF has basically dissasociated itself from TEC by this action.

I just can not see how you can complain about the scism of TEC when the actions of GS/allies are scismatic….certainly more intrusive.  TEC has not gone to demand the consecration of gays in Kenya or Uganda or Nigeria…nor in Quincy, yet primates from other provinces have done just that along with the attemt to keep properties that , by law , belong to TEC.

If the CC had waited out the response of the AAC, ABC and the Primates to the HOB response then it would have at least seemed
they wanted some sort of reconciliation or compromise or unity. It is clear that is not their agenda at all…they want TEC gone and to take their place

As much as they criticize, they use the same methods..act now fix later…lets go ahead and consecrate irregular bishops, create a separate structure, promote and go into actual scism….in the end all will be well….how Episcopalian!

I do not think it will not go the way they expect….and it will be to the detriment of the Communion they claim to love and uphod.

blessings
seraph

[383] Posted by seraph on 10-02-2007 at 07:19 AM • top

OK…What is the official name of this “new structure” going to be?

[384] Posted by RLundy on 10-02-2007 at 07:25 AM • top

That’s because the ABC is in hot water.  He may be presiding over nothing but the General Convention Church soon

The AC extends beyond the GS provinces and I would dare say even most of those will not trade +Canterbury for +Abuja . 

Today is about gays, what will the intolerance be about tomorrow? Africanized Anglicanism of the evangelical fundamentalist stripe is NOT for everyone nor will most of the Communion follow it…imho.
blessings

seraph

[385] Posted by seraph on 10-02-2007 at 07:30 AM • top

Dear Seraph,

If this were a heavenly court where partial blame could NOT be assigned, i.e., it’s only 100% to blame for one side or the other (meaning that you can’t say that one side is 90% to blame and the other 10%), then….

TEC is 100% at fault.

[386] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 10-02-2007 at 07:34 AM • top

I am sure you feel that way…but believe it or not outside your circle many see it very differently.

TEC did consecrate a candidate tothe episcopate whose “manner of life caused scandal”. The scandal, scism and intrusion into this province from the outside and this action by the CC bishops can surely not be blameless.

There is a great deal of intransigence on both sides….and refusal to deal responsibly with the issues at hand. Makes me wonder what kind of a church TEC would be if you were in power…..

blessings
seraph

[387] Posted by seraph on 10-02-2007 at 07:43 AM • top

If this were a heavenly court ....

WE would all be in for a surprise….life is seldom as simple as 100% blame. I am sure the pharisees thought that Jesus would find the adulterous woman 100% to blame and stone her….it did not play out that way.

seraph

[388] Posted by seraph on 10-02-2007 at 07:50 AM • top

OK…What is the official name of this “new structure” going to be?
Posted by baptistforanglicans

How about calling it The C-h-u-r-c-h?

[389] Posted by Dallas Priest on 10-02-2007 at 08:32 AM • top

Seraph wrote:

TEC did consecrate a candidate to the episcopate whose “manner of life caused scandal”. The scandal, schism and intrusion into this province from the outside and this action by the CC bishops can surely not be blameless.”

I am eagerly awaiting seraph’s magnum opus showing how both Arius and Athanasius were at fault, but that Athanasius was far more un-Anglican than Arius; cf.:

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

since Arius was guilty of heresy, and Athanasius of schism, and, as all good seraphic Anglicans should know by now, “schism is worse than heresy.”

“There is a great deal of intransigence on both sides….and refusal to deal responsibly with the issues at hand. Makes me wonder what kind of a church TEC would be if you were in power….”

A church that excommunicates heretics (including sodomists), once that have been admonished about their errors, and refused to repent and recant—an “Athanasian” church, in other words, rather than an Arian or Gnostic one.

[390] Posted by William Tighe on 10-02-2007 at 09:02 AM • top

For a new name, would it be a good idea to follow our GS brethren’s lead and call it the Anglican Church of America?  Personally, as an (almost) adopted Canadian, I might think we could invite our co-dissenting brethren in the True North along, and make it ACNA.  Now that might torque a corset of two in Jadis’ Castle, but it’s the truth, ain’t it?

BTW, Seraph, you argue from other people’s opinions, as if we all “know” that Truth is a matter of opinion polls and water-cooler speculation.  Truth is set.  One’s Your opinion has nothing to do with what happens after you walk through a door, and whether the light is not a mental exercise.  Jesus is Truth.  We know that because we know Him, and that truth is that which conforms to His nature.  In other words, the ultimate source of truth is God, and not Gallup.  Otherwise loved ones would never die, and fat people’s scales would always read 110#..

(Now where’s the adjuster on that scale?)

Robert

[391] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-02-2007 at 09:25 AM • top

Seraph:

If the CC had waited out the response of the AAC, ABC and the Primates to the HOB response then it would have at least seemed they wanted some sort of reconciliation or compromise or unity.

... and of course if TEC had followed Lambeth I.10 while pressing for further discussion of the matter, then it would have at least seemed they had some sort of interest in remaining in the Anglican Communion.  Or if they had heeded the repeated warnings of the Instruments of Communion, or if they had listened to the Theology Committee of their own HoB, or if they had sincerely addressed the requests of the Windsor Report, or if they had responded humbly and forthrightly to the communication from Dromantine, or ...

It is clear that is not their agenda at all…they want TEC gone and to take their place.

Well, of course.  That’s what the Network has said from the start.  Your point is? 

Seriously, since TEC has shown repeatedly and unmistakably that it values its membership in the AC at less than nothing, why on earth should TEC pay any attention at all to the prospect of losing it?  Remember that to an economist, how much you value something is measured directly by what you’re willing to give up (in money, time, or whatever) to get it.  TEC has repeatedly shown itself absolutely unwilling to sacrifice anything at all for its Communion credentials; why should it get all bothered now that they may be taken away?

[392] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 10-02-2007 at 09:37 AM • top

re: “For a new name, would it be a good idea to follow our GS brethren’s lead and call it the Anglican Church of America?  Personally, as an (almost) adopted Canadian, I might think we could invite our co-dissenting brethren in the True North along, and make it ACNA.”

I think the name Anglican Church of America (or something very similar which gives the initials ACA) is already taken by one of the Continuing Churches. The initials ACNA are, AFAIK, still available.

[393] Posted by kyounge1956 on 10-02-2007 at 09:37 AM • top

Actually, Seraph, Jesus did find the adulterous woman 100% at fault; He just didn’t stone her.

The implicit message to the crowd was, “well, if you think you’ve got the stones,...” but the fault in the case at hand was the perp’s.  The meta-case was different, but had nothing to do with what the woman had done.

[394] Posted by Ed the Roman on 10-02-2007 at 09:41 AM • top

“If this were a heavenly court ....WE would all be in for a surprise.” (Seraph)

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt. 7:21-23)

I’m thankful that I’m not God and that I don’t have to judge, but Seraph, you are right:  There will be surprises.  And if someone were to press me up against a wall at point of death and to make a guess as to who will be surprised more, the liberal revisionists or the biblically faithful, then I would have to say that it’s the liberal revisionists who will most likely be surprised on the day of Reckoning.

Peace and Blessings.

[395] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 10-02-2007 at 09:45 AM • top

ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) was the name given originally to the Continuing Anglican church that was founded in Denver in 1978; in 1979 it changed its name to the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church).  When in 1991 this body attempted to merge with the AEC (Tony Clavier’s American Episcopal Church) it changed its name to ACA (Anglican Church of America)—but that portion of the ACC (half or more than half of the bishops) that rejected the merger kept the name ACC-OP (Anglican Catholic Church - Original Province).  I suspect that ACNA is at least a bit shopworn, and perhaps even ill-omened.

Perhaps AECNA (Anglican Evangelical Church of North America) might be more a propos, or ACCNA (Anglican Coalition [or Confederate] Church of North America) most accurate.  Personally, I will dub it (when it emerges) as AWOCCNA for reasons that I shall keep to myself.

[396] Posted by William Tighe on 10-02-2007 at 09:47 AM • top

Does anyone know of a historical analysis of all the Anglican, ex-Anglican and pseudo-Anglican groups?  Across the street from my old ECUSA parish, there’s a very nice farmhouse that contains a church that’s run by the Presiding Bishop of a very very small splinter.  Their web site lists about ten or eleven parishes (it’s hard to tell due to overlaps), three bishops, and no history whatsoever. 

It looks as though CC is doing it right, but it would be really useful to have some sort of documentary of the fragmentation of the Continuing and pseudo-Anglican groups out there, so we can avoid repeating their mistakes.  Allies are a bit thin on the ground here in downstate NY, so we don’t want to miss any, but it’s good to have some idea where everyone’s coming from.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

[397] Posted by gone on 10-02-2007 at 10:20 AM • top

Dr. Tighe,

In response to your AWO… for that matter it could be EGHRIG: A great old Gospel classic’s first line, “Ev’rybody gonna have religion in Glory,” and with a good boogie beat. 

I appreciate your mention of the Arian controversy.  Reading about that last week and was so taken with the parallels!  One would think that there were actually demons with playbooks out there saying, “Gee, we haven’t used this one for a while…!”

Robert

[398] Posted by Robert Easter on 10-02-2007 at 10:40 AM • top

Phil Hobbs:  This book is pretty much the recent standard—

http://www.amazon.com/Divided-We-Stand-Continuing-Anglican/dp/0971963606

[399] Posted by James Manley on 10-02-2007 at 10:48 AM • top

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

[400] Posted by gone on 10-02-2007 at 12:37 PM • top

re: AWOCCNA

Dr. Tighe,

I’m afraid you’d never make it on Maddison Avenue. Anything that long needs to be pronouncable if it’s going to sell. Scramble the letters a little or add a vowel between the last C and the N.

Either that, or stick with TLAs (Three Letter Acronymns). wink

[401] Posted by Antique on 10-02-2007 at 12:49 PM • top

Ed the Roman:

Succinctly put!

Of course, if the Text to which you refer is not revealed by the Creator of the universe, AKA: YHWH, ie the Name above every name, who called His only begotten Son Jesus, then you would not need to pay too much attention to the sin bit.  The meta story can be redefined as the central story and the rest becomes a hook to hang your story on, or anything else for which it is convenient.

I wonder what a conversation would be like between a person of the former point of view, with one of the latter point of view?

L’Chaim!  Ifan….

[402] Posted by Ifan Morgan on 10-02-2007 at 12:50 PM • top

William Tighe wrote:

ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) was the name given originally to the Continuing Anglican church that was founded in Denver in 1978; in 1979 it changed its name to the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church).  When in 1991 this body attempted to merge with the AEC (Tony Clavier’s American Episcopal Church) it changed its name to ACA (Anglican Church of America)—but that portion of the ACC (half or more than half of the bishops) that rejected the merger kept the name ACC-OP (Anglican Catholic Church - Original Province).  I suspect that ACNA is at least a bit shopworn, and perhaps even ill-omened.

Thanks for the additional info. Has NAAC (North American Anglican Church) been used?

Perhaps AECNA (Anglican Evangelical Church of North America) might be more a propos,

Wouldn’t naming it “Evangelical” be rather a cold shoulder to Anglo-Catholics, a category which I think includes some of the founders of the group?

Personally, I will dub it (when it emerges) as AWOCCNA for reasons that I shall keep to myself.

If this stands for what I think it does, has CCP decided in favor of WO? Please correct me if I have misunderstood or not gotten the facts right, but I thought the WO issue (both KJS as PB and the elimination of room for those dioceses to be “conscientious objectors” on WO if remaining part of TEC) was a big factor behind the requests for APO from some of the bishops now aligning with CCP. Also, some of the other partners (e.g. REC and APA) don’t ordain women. And dealing with the WO issue is on the Bishops’ Roundtable “to do” list (Appendix 3)—doesn’t that indicate that they haven’t yet decided? I don’t know what positions the other partners hold on this issue, but I would think a phaseout of WO in the eventual merged group is at least possible.

[403] Posted by kyounge1956 on 10-03-2007 at 12:13 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.