BREAKING: Global South Primates and Others Announce ‘Global Anglican Future’ Event

Friends, we’re delighted to bring you this announcement in conjunction with Anglican Mainstream. Hope it brings a lot of Christmas cheer!!!

So far, so good. I’ll be keeping an eye on how this develops.

I bumped into +Duncan, +Harvey, and ++Jensen at the Kenyatta-Nairobi airport on the 13th.  They were very warm and friendly but didn’t have much to say about why they were there.  Now I know what they were up to

One line catches my eye:

Bishop Bill Atwood (Kenya) representing Archbishop Greg Venables (Southern Cone)

That may be worth pursuing.  It’s possible that it’s a typo and that +Harvey was representing ++Venables, not +Atwood.

Also note that it meets a month before Lambeth.  There was some speculation that an “alternate Lambeth” would be held at the same time but that’s apparently not the case.

Was this mailed to StandFirm, or posted elsewhere?  Source?

Was this mailed to StandFirm, or posted elsewhere?  Source? 

The source is the Global Anglican Future organisation. We received it directly from them.

Who is paying?  What is the agenda? And who are the presenters?

Who is paying?  What is the agenda? And who are the presenters? 

I’m afraid this is all we have at the moment. When their website is back up we’ll be able to go to the FAQ to find out extra details.

Thank God for Godly leaders and the enabling power of the Spirit.

Well, I don’t want to risk drawing down the ire of Sarah or other leaders at SF by re-opening the whole subject of a “march on Lambeth,” but I’m eager to see if this huge new conference in the Holy Land in June rules out the main Global South leaders attending Lambeth as well.  I’m hoping that there is still the possibility of a both/and solution here, rather than it being an either/or situation.

But I can’t help but applaud the strong future orientation of this exciting conference, and I rejoice in the focus on fulfilling our mission mandate from Christ, instead of allowing the maintenance of Anglicanism to continue to be the dominant topic.  By failing to take decisive action, Canterbury has effectively ceded the initiative to others who will be much less histant to act, and act boldly.  The lineup of major players behind this strategic move is impressive.

I take this stunning announcement as a Christmas gift to us all from the Lord, and from the brave leaders of the Global South.  Hmmm, it sure looks more and more like a New Reformation is indeed underway and gaining momentum.  Thanks be to God!

David Handy+

Some notable names missing here, including Drexel Gomez and Mouneer Amis.

Sounds like my kind of gift, praise and thank the Lord!

What a perfect way to end Christmas day…Glory Be to God!

[comment deleted. BishopOfTheBadlands, if the event you’re promoting is genuine, please send me a PM and we can chat about promoting it some other time. Right now, it’s confusing to have your announcement in this thread. Thanks - Greg]

My wife gave me Philip Jenkins’ revised and expanded, “The Next Christendom - The Coming of Global Christianity” for my Christmas present. (Hint to all married out there, place things in your wish list on Amazon.com and then leave it open for your spouse to find it.) It sounds like the book will be timely.

I certainly hope that all orthodox will participate.

Interesting—this is one month BEFORE the scheduled start of the Lambeth Conference. Perhaps a good way to take the initiative at this point.

David,

I hope this doesn’t run the risk of being off-topic, but did the number of “55 million active Anglicans” strike anyone else as curious?  Or significant in some way?  The official Anglican Communion website says over 80 million, Wikipedia has 77 million, and I’m always assumed a number somewhere in the seventies.  Would I be correct in thinking that the 55 million is simply the “official” numbers less inactive Sunday attendees, primarily in the UK?  Thanks.

Johng,
good question - on the website FAQ it argues that the 70+million figure is deceptive since it overinflates the CofE numbers. They’ve taken the active numbers from the CofE to restate a more accurate figure.

What great news! Thanks be to God.

What a wonderful way to end a long, but blessed Christmas Day.  Thank you, David Ould!

[comment edited - reference to edited post upstream]

I speak as member of another independent jurisdiction, the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches. We are interested in joining forces with Common Cause, although I don’t know yet if that is going to be welcomed by the other participants. What is the stance of your people?

[comment edited - thanks for the heads-up, though, mousestalker - G]

As for the on-topic meeting, that is clearly a significant event. The timing is very interesting as well. It’s an awful lot like holding a party caucus before the main event. My guess is that if they come to an agreement, then the attendees will proceed to Lambeth to implement it communion wide. If there is no agreement, then things will get very messy.

I have a blog thingy

BTW, the FAQ is up.
Here are some excerpts:

Who is sponsoring the Conference?
The Global Anglican Future Conference is being called by those who took part in the Nairobi Consultation:

  * Archbishops Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Henry Orombi (Uganda), Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya), Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania):
  * Archbishop Peter Jensen (Sydney) and Archbishop Nicholas Okoh (Nigeria).
  * Bishop Don Harvey (Canada) and Bishop Bill Atwood (Kenya) who also represented Archbishop Greg Venables (Southern Cone)
  * Bishop Bob Duncan (Anglican Communion Network and Common Cause USA.) and Bishop Martyn Minns (Convocation of Anglicans in North America),
  * Canon Dr Vinay Samuel (India) and Canon Dr Chris Sugden (England)
  * Bishop Michael Nazir Ali (Rochester, England)  and Bishop Wallace Benn (Lewes, England) were consulted and also form part of the Leadership Team.

These bishops and their colleagues represent over 30 million Anglicans out of the 55 million active Anglicans. (Nigeria 18m, Uganda 8m, Kenya 2.5m, Rwanda 1m, Tanzania 1.3m plus Southern Cone, US, Sydney, England). The notional total of the Communion is 77m. The active membership is nearer 55m, since of the 26m notional members in CofE 3.7m attend at Christmas Services.
{snip}
Why call it in June?

The pilgrimage is to strengthen bishops at a crucial time in the life of the Anglican Communion. Many bishops will not be able to accept the invitation to the Lambeth Conference as their consciences will not allow it. Some will attend both gatherings. The purpose of the consultation is to strengthen them all spiritually. 
Is it not really an alternative to the Lambeth Conference?

No.
It is not at the same time or in the same region as the Lambeth Conference. So there will be some who will attend both conferences and thus be able to consult with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others there.
As Archbishop Gregory Venables has said: “While there are many calls for shared mission, it clearly must rise from common shared faith. Our pastoral responsibility to the people we lead is now to provide the opportunity to come together around the central and unchanging tenets of the central and unchanging historic Anglican faith. Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God’s call at this time and build a network of cooperation for Global mission.” 

GAFCON is a call to vision and action for mission based firmly on the “faith once delivered to the saints” and revealed in Scripture, to reform the church and transform persons, communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. African Bishops had this focus at their Lagos 2004 conference. The Episcopal church’s agenda has recently overshadowed it. We now need to develop this gospel agenda for all like-minded in the communion.

It is to outline the mission imperatives for the next 25 years and how to begin to respond to them.

It is a pilgrimage to the places of the Biblical story to renew our faith and commitment. It is to envision the Global Anglican Future. 

The Lambeth Conference has a different agenda.

Lots of stuff to chew on.

I have a blog thingy

Of world altering import. +++Rowan is in the soup for real this time. The initiative has left Canterbury. This from someone who has supported him, recognizing his tactical manouverings would ultimately put TEC out in the cold while he would rightly escape censure for having engineered it. What has happened is he seems to have seriously miscalculated the resolve of GS and company to deal with this before Lambeth. It goes without saying that ++Peter Abuja and the rest have been in communication with him and that they saw early on he was sticking to his agenda, and determined they must move on to save the Communion from any other damage from the loon left of Northern Europe.  This was as inevitable as the sun rising in the East. Praise God.
The sequelae of this decision:
1. The ridiculous over numbering of Anglicans in USA, Canada and England has been exposed and clarity in this matter has been achieved;
2. Lambeth Invitations, as an instrument of coercion, are useless.
Who cares if anyone goes to that “Jamboree” or not. +++Rowan would be well advised to disinvite all of the revisionist and heretical bishops at once if he is to save Lambeth. I seriously believe that he will do something like this. I have stated from the start that he would not allow his primacy to be remembered in history as the one that split the church. He can save the Communion by acceeding to the demands of the GS majority. I say he will.
3. The most significant effect of this is that the conceit of TEC that it is a hierarchical church is demolished by the sundering of the Communion. Simply, any arguement of hierarchical supremacy must rest on there being only one hierarchy! The BeersKat Manor gang at 815 must be writhing in rage this fine morning. They have lost their cases in California and Virginia. Other orthodox parishes and dioceses may now dissafiliate at their liesure. (if their corporate structures hold up!)
4. The Wobbly Windsors are faced with the stark new morning sun that illuminates their weakness and fears. They can hide no more. Do they choose the HOB or GS? They will soon have to decide.
5. South Carolina must now recant his awful decision to abandon his priestly vows and sucking up to the smarmy HOB majority to get his job. It will be painfull, but he must do it or resign or refuse consecration. His integrity demands it.

There is now hope for justice and safety all across this Province . Thanks be to God for the holy men who have brought it too us.

Has +Suheil Dawani, (Anglican) Bishop of the Diocese of Jerusalem, been consulted and agreed that he’s happy with this taking place within his jurisdiction? Odd that +Mouneer Anis seems not to be involved in a leadership capacity, given that it’s taking place within his province. Was he present at the Nairobi meeting when this was agreed to?

Another thing of interest: ++Kolini of Rwanda is one of the conveners, but no AMiA names are on the list.

TeddyMak.. What cases in CA in VA are you addressing?  To my knowledge the CA Supreme Court, having conflicting rulings from two appellate dictricts has agreed to hear the St. James, Newport case… As far as I know only the briefs have been submitted in the Va. cases?

So far there’s been no comment about a very striking feature of this thrilling new conference, i.e., that it won’t be reserved just for bishops (and their wives).  The GAFCON announcement clearly states that priests and lay leaders will be invited as well, with a special push to include young leaders, in keeping with the future orientation of this unprecedented event.  That will help deflate the balloons full of “hot air” (and other gases) so regularly launched by those on the Left about how the ACC is the only truly representative international Instrument of Unity/Communion.  It also helps make it plain that this is NOT just another meeting for talking and talking some more.  It involves real planning for future action in the area of world mission, over the next 25 years no less. 

In fact, the more I think about it, the more this GAFCON seems like an alternative to the ACC rather than to Lambeth.  I’ve been claiming for some time now that we need to develop whole new Instruments of Unity and Action for the Anglican Communion.  That’s part of what this whole New Reformation must do, come up with some new structures to replace or drastically modify the current four Instruments, which are simply grossly inadequate.  I see this as a very promising start.  What a wonderful Christmas gift!

David Handy+
Ever more optimistic about the New Reformation
(Down with TEC!  Up with GAFCON!)

What I’m wondering - where are the lay leaders and where are the women?

bb

On +Rowan withdrawing Lambeth invitations as in #23-2 above: I have also seen this comment at many other threads and posts. Look at +Rowans history and personality, notice the ‘early’ Lambeth invites, +Rowan has never given into pressure,——& unless the Holy Spirit infuses +Rowan with more backbone this will not happen. Also in spite of the 3 Bishops from TEC ‘consulting’ with +Rowan; +VGR will not get an invitation, but he’ll be there dancing on the edges - can’t let a little Lambeth invite interfere with a honeymoon at Church expense.

As two of the prominent leaders of my growing fan club have weighed in earlier, I’d like to comment on their comments.  First, I may be wrong, but it looks like Br_er Rabbit (#20 aboe) is too busy moving into his new digs in Pittsburgh to take the time to read the “confusing” post from the “Bishop of the Badlands” (#13), which Greg has now deleted.  I took the putative SD bishop’s remarks to be in jest, with his tongue firmly in cheek.  But as Greg’s editorial comment shows, you weren’t the only person likely to be confused by that probably spurious announcement.  But while you’re moving in, we’ll let the Pres., robroy, chair the meetings of the NRAFC.

And as for robroy, I’m glad to know Philip Jenkins has come out with a new, updated version of his bestselling book, “The New Christendom.”  I think it’s likely to go down in history as something of a classic.  I hope everyone buys a copy and reads it, along with the two sequels in his trilogy on world Christianity.  That is, his follow-up study on how the Bible is interpreted so differently in the Global South (I forgot the title at the moment; it’s at the office, not with me now) is number 2 in the series.  And the third is his fascinating take on the status and prospects of Christianity (and other religions) in Europe in “God’s Continent.”

And as for the practical suggestion to submit titles to your own wish list for books on Amazon.com, that’s typically brilliant of you, robroy.  You’ve just shown once again, if any confirmation be needed, why you are “the Man.”  The head honcho.  The big cheese.  The illustrious President of the NRAFC.

Still accepting applications for other positions, such as Treasurer.

David Handy+
Founder, NRAFC

Br-er Rabbit, on your Common Cause question, you may find it helpful to contract Bishop Ray Sutton of the Reformed Episcopal Church.  Bringing together orthodox Anglican bodies in CCP and FACA has been a focus of his.

Orthodox Primates with other leading bishops from across the globe are to invite fellow Bishops, senior clergy and laity from every province of the Anglican Communion…

Does this meean there will be an open invitation to all, or will the ‘orthodox’ primates and bishops be picking and choosing who they extend an invitation to? Which bishops, clergy and laity get an invite? Who decides? On what basis will an invitation extended?

+Rowan has a split on his hands, one way or another. +Akinola and +Orombi (and +Kolini too, I believe, although I can’t remember at the moment) have already said they aren’t going to Lambeth. For them, GAFCON will be instead of Lambeth. Whether they will consider it “their Lambeth” I don’t know, but +Rowan has to consider that very real possibility.

At this point, the only way +Rowan may get them all to Lambeth is to rescind invitations to those American bishops who voted to confirm +VGR and/or participated in his consecration. If he does this, the wailing from the gay lobby will be excruciatingly loud and painful, and it will spread to their counterparts in Canada and England. We all have to remember that he’s facing not just a split between liberals in TEC, and conservatives in TEC and in the GS; he’s also perhaps looking at a split within the Church of England itself.

I personally think he should call the bluff of the liberals in the CoE, and rescind invitations to the American liberals. I think the GS will, with regret and not a little apprehension, walk if he doesn’t (GAFCON represents the door being opened and one foot being placed outside), but I don’t think the liberals in the CoE will go anywhere if he does.

Baby Blue and Mick,

Good questions.  Many of us are eager to know such things.  I suggest everyone go ahead and register on the new GAF website, as I just did, so you can get updates sent you automatically.

A further comment on what little information we already know at this early point.  Was anyone else struck by the significant mention of the Primate of Tanzania as one of the promoters of this hugely important event?  I bring it up because the eminent leaders of ACI love to point to Tanzania as an orthodox African province that has refrained (so far) from engaging in interventions in the U.S. and that supposedly takes more of a moderate Com/Con type approach.  Recall the informative piece recently posted on the ACI website from one of the leaders in that province.  I see this move by the Tanzanian primate as further evidence in the growing pile of data that suggests that the GS-led initaitives are continuing to build momentum and attract ever-increasing support.  I wouln’t worry too much at this point about the absence of certain big names, such as ++Drexel Gomez or +Anis of Egypt.  I’d be very surprised, in fact, shocked, if they weren’t on board with this, or soon will be at any rate.  We’ll see.  We shouldn’t have to wait long, even with all the inevitable distractions of Christmastide.

BTW, in my earlier post about robroy, I was referring to his early post (#14) which mentioned the new, 2nd ed. of Philip Jenkin’s marvelous book, “The Next Christendom.”  Even if you’re broke now after splurging on Christmas gifts, if your wife wasn’t as thoughtful and smart as robroy’s, then by all means, “sell all thou hast and buy…”
Jenkin’s book!

David Handy+

This is wonderful news.  Rowan just got “one-upped” big time.  But, frankly, he has earned it.  He does NOT provide clear direction or leadership - who wants to follow him?  It will be interesting to see what GAFCON comes up with.

#22 Teddy:

I would imagine that ++Mounir Aziz will be there since it is taking place in his province and also since his words have shown that he is of one mind with the Global South. 
What a wonderful location to meet though, and to pray, talk and fellowship in the land where Jesus was born, walked and preached, died and was resurrected.  Further, the first church spread out from Jerusalem, so what an appropriate place to talk about a reformation.

Bill

I would imagine that ++Mounir Aziz will be there since it is taking place in his province and also since his words have shown that he is of one mind with the Global South.

Perhaps so. But +Mouneer does not have Anglican jurisdiction in the Diocese of Jerusalem. I do hope +Suheil Dawani has been approached, had foreknowledge of this announcement, and agreed to this taking place. It is, if nothing else, at least good manners. I’m sure +Akinola would be less than pleased if an international Anglican event (involving primates and bishops) was organised in Abuja without his consent, and especially if it was without his knowledge. Or would +Dawani’s lack of agreement merely indicate his ‘unorthodoxy’ and therefore render his opinion as being of no consequence?

Interesting too that the website chooses to use the Compass Rose - the official symbol of the Anglican Communion.

Last week, 12/18, in an article about the CCP meeting (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8470) , someone posted a comment I made in another location:  “There is one other meeting taking place this week, related to this event, which has not been publicized.”

++Akinola announced in his address to the CANA Council on 12/8 that many GS primates and other bishops would be meeting to plan a gathering of worldwide Anglican leaders to map out the future course of Orthodox Anglicanism. Those who were listening closely to ++Akinola knew about the “unpublicized” planning meeting and the intent. GAFCON is the result of that meeting.

The timing says a lot. My prayers go with these people for success in what could be described as a super-“CCP” gathering.

I’m in the minority in that this is actually less than I expected. In Shangai at the end of October nine primates asked the Global South Steering Committee to plan a fourth Global South Encounter.  This appears to have evolved into a pilgrimage to the Holy Land for a broader group, including clergy and laity, with a vague agenda.  The name, Global Anglican Future, hints at a more important agenda, but that remains unspecified. 

And there is still no response to the ABC’s Advent letter from the Global South.  Everyone is playing his cards very close to the vest right now, and one suspects there are many more shoes to drop.  +Rowan Williams was conveniently (and characteristically) vague about his next steps and now the main players in the GS are (uncharacteristically) following suit.  The Holy Land pilgrimage could easily evolve into a church council.  The next move is the ABC’s.

But +Mouneer does not have Anglican jurisdiction in the Diocese of Jerusalem

I believe he does since he’s the primate now.

bb

PS His office though appears to be built on the original TEC model and he is like a presiding bishop, not an archbishop.

bb

#40 +Mouneer is bishop of the Diocese of Egypt, not of Jerusalem. His jurisdiction as Primate of J&ME;is, in all likelihood, as canonically limited as that of most other primates over the dioceses in their provinces - unless J&ME;gives its primate greater authority.

b.b.  Yes, where are the women and the lay people?  And,  equally true, where are the theologians?  In the civil realm the organizers of this group would most likely be called lobbyists or politicians.  It is important to remember that +Akinola’s earned degree from VTS is a MTS ...a master’s in theology and society and a curriculum heavily weighted to social and political concerns, not hermeneutics or exegesis. 

The group, +Atwood, Anderson +Minns +Guernsey etc. is also co-terminus with the recipients of the Allison Barfoot Memo of 2004.  They are self-nominated and elected by no one.  They have been working to establish a critical mass of the “orthodox” for years and a communion based on orthodoxy, not relationship.

This conference is just one more step.  They will invite those whom they have decided are orthodox…(will the line be set at homosexuality or women’s ordination?)  and who will be discerning saints from sinners?  CANA has already claimed in a US court that the “division”  has taken place and Canterbury leads a branch of communion based on relationship and Nigeria, that of orthodoxy so it might be assumed that +Akinola and Nigeria (aka +Minns, +Anderson with help from Sugden) will be making the orthodoxy decision?

The agenda of the meeting?  I believe: 1. to establish parallel instruments of communion for this “branch” as those of Canterbury. 2. To count heads to determine if Lambeth can be dominated
If Lambeth can be dominated:  3.  To determine an agenda and strategy for its implementation.  including a fast track implementation of the draft covenant transferring virtually all authority to the primates, the instrument of communion that the GS has the best chance to dominate.  4.  If Lambeth can not be dominated, announce the formation of the new orthodox communion…as already argued as existant by the CANA attorneys.

The FAQ’s on the news do not address who is to be invited to this event or who is paying for it.  Sugden+ and +Anderson both have funds from Ahmanson or Ahmanson related foundations.  +Anderson’s budget is circa 500K? and he, in his recent fundraising letter seeking 150K from ordinary folks (not close to his budget) has promised that the AAC will be at all functions working for the orthodox or, if not invited, close by)

They have been working to establish a critical mass of the “orthodox” for years and a communion based on orthodoxy, not relationship.

A communion based upon common belief.  What a shocking idea.  Whatever novel innovation will they think of next?

carl

#43,

b.b.  Yes, where are the women and the lay people?  And, equally true, where are the theologians?  In the civil realm the organizers of this group would most likely be called lobbyists or politicians.  It is important to remember that +Akinola’s earned degree from VTS is a MTS ...a master’s in theology and society and a curriculum heavily weighted to social and political concerns, not hermeneutics or exegesis.

Why is that important to remember? At best your argument here is ad hominem. It definitely fails to address the content. St Augustine did not have a degree in theology, but I think he managed.

The group, +Atwood, Anderson +Minns +Guernsey etc. is also co-terminus with the recipients of the Allison Barfoot Memo of 2004.  They are self-nominated and elected by no one.  They have been working to establish a critical mass of the “orthodox” for years and a communion based on orthodoxy, not relationship.

Not certain what you mean by this, as to be consecrated as bishops they need the help of pre-existing bishops. Even assuming that border crossing is wrong under the present circumstances, the fact remains that they are duly consecrated bishops. They answer to their superiors.

This conference is just one more step.  They will invite those whom they have decided are orthodox…(will the line be set at homosexuality or women’s ordination?) and who will be discerning saints from sinners?  CANA has already claimed in a US court that the “division” has taken place and Canterbury leads a branch of communion based on relationship and Nigeria, that of orthodoxy so it might be assumed that +Akinola and Nigeria (aka +Minns, +Anderson with help from Sugden) will be making the orthodoxy decision?

I think you’ve hit on the general idea, yes. As far as a bright line test, there is a pre-existing test already in place. It just hasn’t been enforced. A careful re-reading of the Creeds of the Apostles, Nicaea and Athansasius might be fruitful. Ask yourself how many bishops of the Episcopal Church can say them in complete honesty. It’s a measure of how low we have fallen that I believe the number to be far less than half.

As to who decides, I dare say the participants. Your suggestion that Archbishop Akinola is somehow controlled by Bishop Minns is unfair, unjust and untrue. Before you start disparaging +Akinola’s abilities, ask yourself how many Episcopal bishops have grown their diocese more than 25% during their tenure. Then take a look at how large the Church in Nigeria is and how much it has grown. Archbishop Akinola is not unflawed, but he is a very able and intelligent man.

The agenda of the meeting?  I believe: 1. to establish parallel instruments of communion for this “branch” as those of Canterbury. 2. To count heads to determine if Lambeth can be dominated
If Lambeth can be dominated:  3.  To determine an agenda and strategy for its implementation.  including a fast track implementation of the draft covenant transferring virtually all authority to the primates, the instrument of communion that the GS has the best chance to dominate.  4.  If Lambeth can not be dominated, announce the formation of the new orthodox communion…as already argued as existant by the CANA attorneys.

I think that probably sums it up. I wouldn’t use that language but I think that’s the general idea. Unfortunately the Anglican Communion has grown past the point where it can be run as a gentlemen’s club. The Episcopal Church has shown a total unwillingness to honour its commitments, to discipline itself and to consult with the other members in regard to doctrinal shifts.

The FAQ’s on the news do not address who is to be invited to this event or who is paying for it.  Sugden+ and +Anderson both have funds from Ahmanson or Ahmanson related foundations.  +Anderson’s budget is circa 500K? and he, in his recent fundraising letter seeking 150K from ordinary folks (not close to his budget) has promised that the AAC will be at all functions working for the orthodox or, if not invited, close by)

I suggest that you ask them. Speculation in the absence of facts is at best fantasy, at worst it’s rumour-mongering. Posting the sources of your information would also be lovely.

I have a blog thingy

Carl, who is to determine that orthodoxy?  Will it be a new magisterium? Will it be solely by those who bear both xy chromosomes?  “Orthodoxy” or common belief may look good, but it isn’t.  All movements based on common tenets of belief contain within them,  by nature, the seeds of schism.  Whose hermeneutic will prevail?  Whose “plain reading” of scripture really is its plain meaning?  If orthodoxy is to be determined by the action of the Holy Spirit in council, will we know it by a plurality, a simple majority, 2/3rds or 3/4s? vote?  If that’s the case then slavery is surely correct.  It has a biblical basis, it was the tradition, and still is in some lands, and the church supported it for years,  assuming an unchanging faith of our fathers.  WO is certainly wrong.  Paul is quoted as saying women should keep silent.  Surely birth control is sinful as we, as church, decided that sex was for procreation sometime ago.  And those who divorce and remarry are certainly going to hell.  Jesus was clear on that.  And those who fail to believe in the real presence have denied a clear reading of John.

EmilyH,

I think perhaps you ought to review your church history. Our times are closely analogous to the Arian vs Athanasian controversy. How was that dispute settled? And how long did it take for the flames to die out?

Today we are confronted with a province that acts unilaterally, breaks promises made and is seen even by its allies as being out of control. What ought to be done in such a case?

And if the Anglican Communion is to abandon any required belief, then why bother being an Anglican? Such a commitment would be essentially as meaningless as being a Unitarian or a Spiritualist.

I have a blog thingy

a communion based on orthodoxy, not relationship.

Thanks be to God!

EmilyH - you know, that was an excellent first paragraph and I thought we could actually discuss this if we didn’t have to suddenly careen off from the second paragraph on into the tiresome “tinfoil hat” conspiracies (remember, every time the conspiracy thinkers bring up IRD what they are really saying is Diane Knippers make no mistake about it, but of course she was a woman so it couldn’t have been that she was so effective, it had to be some money-bags guy who can’t do press interviews because of his illness - it’s Diane Knippers you really have your quarrel with - notice how she is never named - but it wouldn’t suit PR efforts to admit why) - oh but nevermind.  Must we go off into wearing tinfoil hats?  Please, let us come down from the Grassy Knoll - such diatribes reveals more about the activist are then the content of the arguments.  In fact, it shuts the whole argument down by picking up the foolish tinfoil hats.

I will say it again - and isn’t it ironic considering your first paragraph, EmilyH - the reason why the progressives continue to hold these Tin Foil Hat Conspiracies is that they can’t believe that a WOMAN was able to turn the entire Episcopal Church upside down.  And a LAY WOMAN at that.  It has to be a conspiracy.  A woman could not be that brilliant.

When I read comments like EmilyH - where she has a very good first paragraph and then careens off into pulling on the tinfoil hats I am reminded that conspiracy-thinking abounds in the progressive corridors of the Episcopal Church. 

Meanwhile, we wait to see where the millions of dollars are coming from to finance all the Episcopal Church lawsuits.

So now we all have our tinfoil hats on yet again - you know what this means. 

bb

EmilyH,
I am aware that Jesus said, in essence, that those who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery, but I am not sure where in Scripture he is “clear” that those who divorce and remarry are going to hell. Or do you believe that people go to hell because they sin? 

I was also unaware that there has been an unequivocal decision made by us “as a church” that sex is for procreation only.  Could you point me to some document that demonstrates the unambiguous teaching of the church on this point? 

You note, correctly, that orthodoxy is difficult to define, and that defining orthodoxy often provokes its own controversy.  It does not however follow from those premises that defining orthodoxy is futile, nor that there can be no orthodoxy, nor that whatever a single individual wishes to believe de facto constitutes saving faith.  There is either a knowable truth, or there is not.  There is either a definable saving faith, or there is not.  Jesus Christ is either the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the only means by which we can be reconciled to the Father, or he, or John the Evangelist, or both, were liars.

Lawsuit funding?  Go to this site:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/finance_58295_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=856.  Here’s an email I sent to David Virtue.
I too was curious about how much money TEC is spending on lawsuits, so I went to the TEC financial statement on the internet at: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/finance_58295_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=856.  In 2005 there was a line item for “Title IV investigations, trial and legal.”  The amount budgeted was $8333/month, or $100,000/year.  The amount spent was $453,014 or $353,014 over budget.  In 2006 the same line item appeared with the same amount budget ($100,000/year) and the actual spent was $635636, or $535636 over budget.  In other words, 2005 and 2006, $200,000 had been budgeted for “Title IV investigations, trial and legal,” yet nearly $900,000 had actually been spent.  In addition, in 2006, $430,648 was listed as being spent on legal fees.
In 2007, “Title IV, investigations, trials and legal,”  was still listed
but the budgeted amount had been increased from $8333/month to $25,000 per month; a 300% increase.  In addition, listed under the Title IV item was another line item titled,  “Property Protection for Missions – Legal costs.  It is budgeted for $41,667 / month, or $500,000 for the fiscal year 2007.  If the two line items are for different operations, $300,000 has been budgeted for “Title VI, investigations, trials and legal.” Again this is a 300% increase over last year alone.  If the new line item “Property Protection for Missions – Legal costs is intended to fund legal costs for lawsuits, etc., this would mean that the TEC has budgeted a total of nearly $800,000 for that purpose.  Could it be that TEC has actually budgeted nearly a $800,000 a year to sue parishes and clergy? If this is so, that cost added to the additional costs TEC will incur
from assuming mortgages should be an eye opener to someone in the business office.  (unless she’s sent them one of her “form letters” threatening to fire them as well.  The next obvious question would have to be, how much of that money is going into David Beers law firm.
In 2007 TEC had budgeted $282,000 for the MDG Partnership program but as of the end of November $0 had been spent.  Did this money go toward lawsuits ????? 
Bottom line:  TEC has spent over 1,250,000 since Oct of last year, just after PB Schori took office.  For some reason these lawsuit numbers seem to somewhat of a mystery, but if one goes to the webpage I suggested, they can do the math.  Pretty straight forward.  They probably aren’t advertising this because it should raise a very big issue, spending money on these frivilous lawsuits to simply to prove a point out of vengance while so many people are going to bed hungry.  Sinful to say the least.

who is to determine that orthodoxy?

Why, that would be you, of course;  As you are obviously completely nuetral on what that orthodoxy ought to be. 

“who is to determine that orthodoxy?”
Yes, really EmilyH. You (assuming you’re in line with TEC) have notions of orthodoxy (the decisions regarding Redding, or McGreevey, affirmation of the creeds, etc.). So you do believe in having ‘common tenets of believe’, you would just disagree with which propositions are orthodox. So why don’t you simply present your case for why your positions are correct, instead of implying that you don’t hold any. To start with, where do get the notion that avoidance of schism is the ultimate virtue?

TEC has spent 4 times as much suing churches as it has donated to the Millennium Development Goals?

Clarity.

If I may be so bold.  It’s all very simple really.  We’ve been believing or questioning things in the Scriptures for 2000 years and now all of a sudden in the 21st century, WE WANT ALL THE MYSTERIES TO END, AND WE WANT IT NOW.  We’re better educated, more sophisticated, and certainly more “realistic.”  Well, “ain’t gonna happen”  A faith and a belief is something God helps us develop, and I happen to believe that it’s a life long work in progress.  It’s what we struggle with everyday of our lives, trying to make sense of it all.  Personally, I don’t think God expect us ever to fully understand all the mysteries, and meanings of everything in the Scriptures. I think He put them there to serve as those little nuggets that when we finally think we do think we know what they mean, we say to ourselves,  “AH HA, now that makes sense to me.”  Then we move on.  A spiritual journey is just that, a journey and the nuggets and ah ha’s we find along the way are what help us to make some sense of at least a small part of it all.  Like a vacation, I don’t know what all I’m going to see along the way, but I really don’t care, it’s the journey I enjoy and when I see something I don’t understand, I kind of like that too.  Reminds me that I don’t know everything, and I kind of like that too.  It’s a great reality check.

Greg,

Your math is off. As of November, 815 has spent $721,767 on legal fees as of 11/30/2007. They have spent $0 on the MDG’s. The ratio therefore is 721,767 to 0, which is undefined. I think the willingness to embrace undefined numbers says much about 815.

I have a blog thingy

mousestalker,

Delicious as it may be to think of TEC as a mathematical mystery, I do believe they reported having donated a little over $300,000 to the MDG’s. Drell wrote a piece about it.

mousestalker:  I still get $864,674 through Nov. 2007, the other $430,000 was what TEC spent the last 3 months of the year in 2007.  Regardless, I think both our numbers do show that these costs should raise a red flag with someone or somegroup.  Frankly, these numbers are very very troubling.

Greg,

I hate to argue, and this is getting off-topic, but their own budget figures show $0 for 2007.

DJ,

Agreed.

I have a blog thingy

Square Pantheist, I guess I wasn’t able to convey my point.  My point is that if “beliefs” are to be the measure of communion, then communion will fail.  It is not a consequence of bad spirit, it is a consequence of the human condition.  We do not have the knowledge of good and evil, the righteous and the unrighteous.  In fact, our attempt to have that knowledge is what got us out of the garden (if one accepts Genesis).  So, are we to live in the gray?  We have so much in common.  We have religious experience.  We even have the doing of theology.  Can we call it reflection upon religious experience.  And then we have the formation of dogma.  It is only at this tertiary step that we get to “I’m right and you’re wrong” or vice a versa.  For me the genius of the Anglican experience is its willingness to leave things at step 2.  We agree to disagree and yet we will worship together, work together, talk together, and be kind to each other.  We will remain in the quandary of being human beings and not gods.

We agree to disagree and yet we will worship together

The eye-opener for me was the realization that we do not worship together, in Spirit and in Truth, because we do not believe in the same Jesus.  This was confirmed for me when Katharine Jefferts-Schori informed us all that, for Episcopalians, Jesus is our “vehicle to the divine.”  Kinda like a Ford Pinto, I guess.

Emily,regarding your standard of orthodoxy question.
In the pre 1979 BOCP the Bishop being consecrated is asked:‘Are you ready,with all faithful diligence,to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word:and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to do the same.’
It seems that the old Book Of Common Prayer not to mention the Scriptures spelled it out pretty well,but then I suppose when all folks have for foundational belief is selective relativism and propertarian fundamentalism one must do what one can…..

With regard to EmilyH’s post earlier that questioned the whole idea of a Communion based on orthodoxy instead of on “relationships” (read polity), I simply want to point out how common that viewpoint is among liberals.  I lost track long ago of how often I’ve heard variations on that theme, with liberals actually CELEBRATING the lack of doctrinal boundaries in modern Anglicanism.  Often, I have to control my gut level instinct to run to the bathroom and throw up.

Now it’s true that we Anglicans have fuzzier doctrinal boundaries than any other major Christian tradition.  And God has been able to redeem that weakness and turn it into a strength in some ways, for it is precisely the ambiguity and vagueness of our Anglican doctrinal bounds that allowed first the Caroline Divines (from the 1620s onwards in the 17th century), and then the great leaders of the Oxford Movement (from the 1830s on) to recapture much of the Catholic theological and spritual heritage that had been thrown out needlessly at the time of the Refomration.  Thus, we have Lancelot Andrewes, Henry Hammond, Jeremy Taylor, John Cosin and similar “Caroline Divines” to thank for helping to restore the balance between the evangelical and the catholic elements in Anglicanism.  If the grand old 39 Articles (of 1563) had been strictly enforced as still binding, that wouldn’t have happened.  Nor would the later Oxford Movement led by J. H. Newman, Keble and others have ever happened (and the REC would never have had to separate and bolt from the PROTESTANT ECUSA), and the whole Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church simply wouldn’t exist.  (No cheering please from SC, VTS, and similar low-church places!).

But things have gotten completely out of hand these days, in a way that the founders of the Elizabethan Settlement could never have imagined (in their worst hightmares).  Here’s the way I like to put it.

Our genius as Anglicans has been to focus on the central “core doctrines” of Christianity, leaving the outer limits rather vague, out of focus, and seldom clarified.  Or in the familiar old cliche, “In ESSENTIALS unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.”  And we Anglicans have traditionally allowed a much larger area to be considered “non-essential” than more creedally oriented traditions like the Presbyterians and Lutherans (that try to spell out the limits of orthodoxy in much more detail).

The problem, however, is that this crucial distinction between doctrinal essentials and non-essentials (or “adiaphora,” indifferent matters) has now disappeared.  It’s gone.  Vanished.  Kaput.  Extinct like the Dodo bird.  And that is simply KILLING us.

To use a vivid visual analogy.  We Anglicans like to highlight the CENTER, not the outer limits, sort of like painting a big red bullseye at the center of the target and saying, “aim at that.”  The trouble is that in TEC these days, the doctrinal target is nothing like an archer’s target.  To mix metaphors, it resembles a DOUGHNUT instead.  That is, instead of a hard, dense central “core” (like the dense hot central core of the Earth itself) exerting a massive gravitational pull that holds everything together, we are looking at a complete vacuum at the center, like the hole in the middle of the doughnut.  There’s just nothing left in the center any more.  There’s literally no “core doctrine” at all, except of course, for the new substitutes (inclusivity, the social gospel, MDG’s etc.).  And that’s why we are flying apart, with nothing to hold us together.

Two glaring, undeniable examples of that lamentable reality.  First, the decisions of the TEC House of Bishops (HoB) to avoid enforcing any doctrinal boundaries at all, even in the case of notorious and scandalous heretical bishops like James Pike and John Shelby Spong.  After all, we wouldn’t want to re-institute the Spanish Inquisition now would we??  That is simply INEXCUSABLE.  It’s totally IRRESPONSIBLE, DEPLORABLE, and utterly WRONG.

Second, the pathetic decision of TEC in the infamous heresy trial of Bp. Walter Righter in 1995 (or was it 1996?) that in ordaining an openly gay man to the priesthood, +Righter had violated no “core doctrine” of the Episcopal Church.  And as we all know, our brothers and sisters to the north followed the same ridiculous and pathetic tactic when the infamous St. Michael Report of the ACoC led the General Synod in Canada to declare this past summer ordaining active gay people was not in conflict with the “core doctrine” of the Anglican Chruch of Canada.

Hmmm.  Well, isn’t that interesting and revealing.  Since homosexual behavior is plainly and indisputably “incompatible with Holy Scripture,” as Lambeth 1998 rightly insisted, that means that TEC and the ACoC have for all practical purposes decided that the authority of the Bible is no longer a “core doctrine” for them.  And that is just plain STUPID.  Dumb.  Totally wrong.  Inexcusable.

Likewise, we now see a rush to unlock the gates of the altar rails and invite anyone and everyone, baptized, believing or not, to receive communion in our “progressive” churches.  Once again, a very plain and undeniable transgression of one of the “core doctrines” of the faith.

It’s high time to put the DOCTRINE and the DISCIPLINE back in the classic Anglican triad of the “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship” of our tradition.  It’s long past time to start ex-communicating people once again for heresy.  Starting with the bishops.  I personally won’t be satisfied until I see lots of liberal heads roll on the floor, chopped off by our orthodox guillotine blades.  (OK, Emily H, and any other liberal readers who’ve lasted this far, without throwing up yourselves, I grant that I’ve just indulged in a little hyperbole).

The very fact that EmilyH and so many other liberals HATE and ridicule the whole idea of having a church with clear doctirnal boundaries, and a church that enforces those boundaries, is proof positive that we are indeed dealing with two completely different religions under one roof.  We are facing nothing less than “the clash of orthodoxies” (in the apt phrase of Princeton’s Robert George).  And they are simply incompatible and mutually exclusive.  Neither can or in the end will tolerate the other.  Nor should they.

That is why we need a New Reformation.

David Handy+
Ardent champion of MUCH STRICTER doctrinal boundaries, and more importantly, the firm ENFORCEMENT of those boundaries once again, no matter how divisive it is.  AND TO HELL WITH THE LIBERALS!

All right.  I feel better now.  I got that out of my system.  Sorry for any of you offended when I just threw up that bile all over this thread.

EmilyH, I respectfully submit that the three step construct you have outlined in #60 makes sense only if all parties agree on “Step 3” concerning the fundamentals of the Faith. Those fundamentals are succinctly stated in the Creeds. Because Anglicanism shared those core beliefs about what Christianity is, it was able to accept diversity of opinions concerning less important matters.

What reappraisers don’t want to acknowledge is that Anglicans really no longer agree concerning the core tenets of Christianity, as #61 said. For me the development that expressed this reality was the defeat of B-001 at GC 2003. The actions of GC since, and the many statements of the Presiding Bishop denying that Jesus is the way by which God forgives sins sums it up. Instead, the reappraisers view Jesus as merely one of many equally valid ways by which God redeems humans. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, the reappraiser view is that Aslan is Tash, and Tash is Aslan. The reappraising religion may be attractive to certain 21st century post-modernists, but it is simply not Christianity.

Progressives (liberals) believe they are born to lead, and anyone who does not condone their agenda is not worthy of governing. If they lose power, they disrupt the efforts of the opposition to lead by using parades of “intellectuals,” media, and the courts. We must be very careful to recognize and not use their metrics, when evaluating the planning of this meeting. GAFCON is clearly a conference. The invitation is not a Lambeth-type invitation to tea, where the invitation itself might be more important than the event.

GAFCON organizers did not exclude any orthodox, primate, bishop, priest, or laity. Presence or absence of any named orthodox person in the organizing committee is not worthy discussion. Simply, the representatives at the Nairobi Consultation will be doing the work to make GAFCON possible. The key here is that there will be a meeting and orthodox from the entire world are invited.

The quote from Greg Venerables is particularly noteworthy:

Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God’s call at this time and build a network of cooperation for Global mission.

The goal is to provide a forum to serve orthodox visions and to plan the mission of the Anglican Communion in orthodox terms. The progressives are spending a lot of money on activism, media, and legal cases, and are gathering significant control towards a civil/political/social agenda that is troubling to many in the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury has crystallized this problem for the Church in his Advent and Christmas messages. However, as leader of the entire Anglican Communion, he must manage both sides and has limited ability to take a stand for either side.

In October, the Global South and others on the orthodox side told the Archbishop of Canterbury to act within his powers to call a Primate’s meeting and place the new innovations of the progressives in their proper perspective. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury seems unable to return stability to the Anglican Communion’s place in the Church, as encouraged by the orthodox, it is important that the orthodox position their representatives to deal with the problems brought forth by the progressives. It is good that they are now starting to approach their mission systematically, and their efforts should not be objected to. This will be helpful towards the discussions proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in that claims of fragmentation will be diminished.

Remember, the liberals will naturally try to find fragmentation and troubles in anything the orthodox do – unclear agenda, who wasn’t invited, who’s in control, who is paying for it, the venue is wrong or inconsistent with polity and jurisdiction, women and marginalized are not included in the organizing committee, …  The best thing to do is work to assure the orthodox in our regions are supported to get to this meeting and that it is covered live by Anglican TV and our media support. If done well, the message will set the stage for Lambeth 2008, so the whole world will be watching what goes on there. We need the orthodox to attend both meetings in strength.

My point is that if “beliefs” are to be the measure of communion, then communion will fail.  It is not a consequence of bad spirit, it is a consequence of the human condition. 

Are you in communion with the Muslims, the Buddist and the Wiccan?

EmilyH,

With regard to your comment, and most particularly this portion

For me the genius of the Anglican experience is its willingness to … agree to disagree and yet … worship together, work together, talk together, and be kind to each other…

I would humbly suggest that the refusals by some (many?) TEC bishops and their Executive Councils to:

(a) allow candidates for ordination to attend either of two orthodox seminaries, or,

(b) accept already-ordained Episcopal clergy, who happen to be orthodox, to be called into their diocese, or,

(c) grant approval to orthodox clergy for installation to the episcopacy, which bishops-elect have been duly elected by their calling diocese’s convention (think bishop-elect +Lawrence as an example),

examples of which have been clearly asserted asserted on this site since I began watching it, a period covering less than one year, clearly support one, and only one, conclusion. That conclusion is that the progressives (the revisionists, if you prefer that term) are, as a group, unwilling to permit the continuance of the peaceful arrangements which your comment so blithely (and apparently incorrectly) assumes are presently the case within TEC.

Now, if you are asserting that none of the incidents cited actually occurred, or that they are sufficiently infrequent as to be “down in the noise,” then perhaps I have been overly accepting of others’ comments. But I didn’t notice any rebuttals at the time on the threads that included these comments. Therefore, simple logic compels me to classify your assessment as unrealistic, to be state it in the most generous possible fashion.

All of the above prompts me to ask you two questions. First, do you honestly believe that the progressive leaders of TEC have any intention of tolerating the orthodox, absent an unambiguous and irrevocable renunciation by the latter of their right to give voice to their orthodoxy? Second, if you do so believe, on the basis of what factual evidence do you base your belief?

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Emily attempts at non-dogmatism again, but trips on her own dogma in delivery:

My point is that if “beliefs” are to be the measure of communion, then communion will fail.

“Genius of Anglicanism?”  It’s funny you should say that, Emily.  Because I am happy to be in communion with all sorts of people who disagree with me.  Pro-WO types who reject non-celibate homosexuality in the context of the Christian Life?  Yup, happy to be in communion with them, and happy to work with them.  Anglo-Catholics?  Yup, again.  Anglo-Papalists?  Yup.  Arminians?  Yup.  Amyrauldians?  Yup. 

Couldn’t be more happy. 

Frankly, I can’t think of a bunch more disparate than that.  The odd thing is, a lot of us would reject your dogma about how communion should not be dictated by commonly held beliefs.  We’d all agree, for example, that it is critical for a Christian to embrace Christ’s Lordship;  though we may disagree on how this works out.  Oddly enough, the agreement picks up again (even more sharply), in matters of morality. 

So, we in “Group ‘A’” disagree with your belief that doctrine ought to be done away with, as a requirement for communion:  <u>We disagree with you</u>.  Given that disagreement, it is you and not us, that will have to capitulate in order to maintain communion.  But given your belief about the genius of Anglicanism, your capitulation should not be a problem. 

Right?

“It is only at this tertiary step that we get to “I’m right and you’re wrong” or vice a versa.  For me the genius of the Anglican experience is its willingness to leave things at step 2.”
EmilyH - in an ideal world it could be left at step 2, but imho this is no longer feasible. We could all have a certain amount of liberty as long as we’re all on our ‘best behavior’, but TEC’s chronic misbehavior sadly removes that possibility. What used to be acknowledged as truth implicitly must now be explicitly stated as dogma.
And you are right there will be difficulties, there are difficulties, but as #50 Rick OP put it in his last paragraph, we can’t use the possibility of difficulties as an excuse to avoid duty.

Thanks to Paddy for the chuckle when reading the TEC gospel descriptors, “selective relativism and propertarian fundamentalism.”

You are going to have difference of opinion anyway.  Don’t you need a pope, one set theology and excommunication of heretics to make all this work?

[#66] Jackie wrote (to EmilyH)...

Are you in communion with the Muslims, the Buddist and the Wiccan?

There is a Muslim priest in TEC.  And a Wiccan priest.  And there was that priest in India offering sacrifices to an elephant god.  He was from TEC, iirc.  So a Buddhist priest wouldn’t be an awful stretch.  I bet there are in fact priests who claim to be Buddhists.  And the last time I attended a TEC service I was treated to quotes from the Koran, some Buddhist scripture, and some Hindu scripture.  They also quoted the Bible but it was from the ‘Message’ so that hardly counts. 

So I think the functional answer to this question would be “Yes.”  And given that TEC has made it a metaphysical truth that metaphysical truth cannot be known, why should we be surprised?  If God is nothing but an opaque cloud, who then is it who can claim to see through the mist?  Every man is right, because every man is blind.

carl

if “beliefs” are to be the measure of communion, then communion will fail.

And if anything else is to be the measure of the Communion, it is utterly worthless.

Carl, we just need to spend a little more time in a labyrinth, don’t we?

EmilyH,

You must feel like everyone is ganging up on you, but what do you expect when you throw some red meat in front of us like that?  I think your posts illustrate perfectly my claim in my long rant above (#63) that there are no “essential” doctrines at all for many of those on the so-called “progressive” side.  You certainly APPEAR to treat all doctrines as in principle matters of adiaphora.  Needless to say, I couldn’t disagree more.

But there was another eye-opener in your provocative post #60 when you allude to the famous story of the Fall in Genesis 3.  You said,  “We do not have the knowledge of good and evil, of the righteous and the unrighteous.  In fact, our attempt to have that knowledge is what got us (kicked) out of the Garden.”

I think you’ve completely missed the point there.  Yes, it was indeed our desire to have INDEPENDENT knowledge of what’s good and evil, to become like gods and decide that for ourselves, that got us expelled from Eden.  But that does NOT mean that we are left with no knowledge of what’s good and evil, right and wrong.  Rather, it means that we have to rely on divine revelation for that.  Because GOD HAS REVEALED what is good and evil, and the primary and supreme source of that moral knowledge is in the Bible, the Word of God.  We aren’t left in the miserable position of perpetual uncertainty because “everything is relative,” (ala situational ethics) so that there are only shades of gray, no moral blacks and whites anymore.  The Ten Commandments, for example, remain probitive, i.e., authoritative (as modified by the New Covenant of course).  They aren’t merely the ten suggestions.

Indeed, to stick with the story of the Fall in the Garden, the real reason why Adam and Eve fell, and we with them, is that they fell for the lie of the Father of Lies, when the serpent slyly asked, “Has God really said…?”  In other words, in our current situation, Satan has likewise deceived so many of our friends and colleagues and neighbors outside the church by the same old trick (literally the oldest trick in the Book),  “Come on.  Has God REALLY SAID homosexual behavior (or any sex outside marriage) is always wrong?  You don’t believe that now, do you?”  Same temptation, to choose what’s right and wrong for ourselves, instead of simply obeying the clear commands of God, plainly set forth in Holy Scripture.  Same lie, same result: spiritual death and severe discipline by God himself due to our freely chosen rebellion.

EmilyH, can’t you see?  Your viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as divine revelation, or at least no reliable human access to it.  And that is simply incompatible with biblical, historic, authentic Christianity, in any of its highly diverse forms.

Can’t you hear the hiss of the snake in those words, “Has God really said it’s wrong?”

David Handy+
Defender of the reality of Divine Revelation

From a practical side:

I do hope +Suheil Dawani has been approached, had foreknowledge of this announcement, and agreed to this taking place.

A gathering of this size with the personages in attendance will require significant security measures, especially In Jerusalem and other places in the Holy Land. One would hope that not only the local Anglican Authorities have been consulted, but the local civil governments who will have responsibility for the safety of all out of country visitors.

Otherwise, I am greatly impressed by this announcement and would like to be able to attend.

Gary, SWFLA

“We do not have the knowledge of good and evil,...”

Huh?  What?  Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened after eating from the tree.  Genesis 3:22 later provides:

“22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever…”

I suppose it would be convenient to forget this fact, if I desired obfuscation and the avoidance of facing the reality that somethings are revealed as good and somethings are revealed as evil.

#72 - Carl -
Hence the separation.

[60] EmilyH

What you describe has no basis in how the actual doctrines of the Church have been formed. The Nicene bishops were (to use your phrase) “human beings and not gods”, yet they came together and chose to define Arianism as heresy and do it by agreeing on a number of essential beliefs, every one of which has a foundation in scripture. The various church reformers, Anglican and otherwise, were also “human beings and not gods”, yet they were led back to scripture to refocus the church toward God’s intent.

You say, “We do not have the knowledge of good and evil, the righteous and the unrighteous.” Exactly, and that is why it is so dangerous (and I mean dangerous in an eternal sense, not in merely an annoying or troublesome sense) for TEC to invent its own theory of “if I or society wants it, then it must be God’s plan”. That is why it is so important for Anglican leaders to defend the faith once received, a faith received from the inspired word of God and from the Apostles and succeeding church leaders. The Apostles and early church leaders all knew it was important not to stray from the rule of life set forth in God’s inspired word, since without that, as you say, “We do not have the knowledge of good and evil, the righteous and the unrighteous.” and would merely “do what right in our own eyes”.

After reading what I wrote here and the many comments that have spilled out in response to EmilyH’s words, I think we all need get back from the dim twilight far away from the council fire, even though we did hear some suspicious noises, and sit back down at the council fire and discus the actual topic at hand - GAFCON.

#77 Thank you for setting the record straight and saving me the effort. Indeed we and all creation are dying because we have the knowledge of good and evil; knowledge we were never meant to have. Knowledge we cannot bear. Emily H, why do think God sent his only begotten Son?? Oops, I’ve taken us off topic…

and be kind to each other

Was that supposed to be a joke??

#77, tired,

Right on.  You’re making the same point (in essence) that I did just before you posted (see my #75).

But did anyone else notice the crucial assumption that EmilyH made in her provocative post #60 above when it came to the nature of theology?  Namely, EmilyH ASSUMES (without arguing the point) that theology is a matter of reflecting upon our religious experience.  That is the classic liberal move, made by the Father of Protestant Liberalism, Friedrich Schliermacher, back in the early 1800s.  The result: what you see in Schliermacher’s justly famous and infamous volume summing up “The Christian Faith” in 1835.  His magnum opus, that one volume systematic theology is notorious for relegating the key doctrine of the Trinity to… the appendix! 

He was embarrassed by it.  Schliermacher was so very eager to make Christianity appealing to its “cultured despisers” (his phrase).  But in shifting the grounds for theology from divine revelation (primarily found in Holy Scripture of course, but also “general revelation” found in the created order etc.) and substituting human religious experience instead as the data that theologians work with, Schliermacher pointed liberal theology in the wrong direction.  And it’s only gotten worse and worse over the years since then. 

All the seminary-educated readers of SF will hopefully remember that this was Karl Barth’s big criticism of Schliermacher.  It fits in with our natural fallen tendency to want to make humanity the measure of all things.  In other words, to become as gods, and not rely on God himself. 

The same old lie of the serpent.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  There’s no new lie of Satan under the sun.  Not really.  Yet we keep on falling for those tired, worn-out old lies, time and again.  Lord, have mercy.

David Handy+
Wanna be theologian, of the ANTI-Schliermacher sort

#79, Bill Cool,

I agree with you.  Sorry, I was busy composing my last refutation of EmilyH when you made your appeal for getting back to the original topic and discussing the incredibly important announcement of the upcoming GAF Conference in June.  I seem to be venting a lot of anger toward liberalism today, not sure why.  I’ll cease and desist responding to EmilyH or any of her liberal kin who may chime in.

As always, “the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”  Thanks for reminding us, Bill.

David Handy+

EmilyH

Good question regarding the establishment of orthodoxy. I can say from personal knowledge, that the Episcopal Church is losing leaders and members because we have agreed by default not to have a set of “core beliefs” (re: the +Righter trial, +Spong, +Pike, etc). We don’t seem to want to have a Vatican style “Teaching Magesterium,” but TEC lacks a workable replacement. Our Anglican tradition has established a set of core beliefs. I propose that we take another look at the following as a basis for answering your question. These all have been produced in a concilar format - which is the traditional way of establishing Church teaching (based on Holy Scripture):

Original Text of Resolution: 2003(B001)

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 74th General Convention affirm that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation,” as set forth in Article VI of the Articles of Religion established by the General Convention on September 12, 1801; and be it further
Resolved, That the 74th General Convention re-affirm that “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain [that is, establish or enact] any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another,” as set forth in Article XX of the Articles of Religion established by the General Convention on September 12, 1801; and be it further
Resolved, That the 74th General Convention affirm that every member of this Church is conscience-bound first of all to obey the teaching and direction of Our Lord Jesus Christ as set forth in Holy Scripture in any matter where a decision or action of this Church, or this General Convention, may depart from that teaching; and be it further
Resolved, That the 74th General Convention reaffirm that the statements known as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilaterial of 1886, 1888, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, 1979 continue to be true and accurate statements of the faith and policy of this Church, and the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 74th General Convention affirm that councils of the Church have, and sometimes will, err but that Our Lord Jesus Christ, present through the person of the Holy Spirit, can and will correct such error.

This should be a good starting point for the conversation. It’s time we stood up for affirming who we are as Anglican/Episcopalians by going back to affirming our Anglican roots (Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed, 39 articles of religion, Chicago/ Lambeth Quadrilateral,etc). If we can’t do that then the Hemorrhage will continue. As a reminder we have lost 4 good bishops to Rome in the last year. One of them was my good friend +John.

Don’t you think it’s way-cool that it’s in Jerusalem?  It was the site of the First Council. That’s just way-cool.

I’m not thrilled with the name “GAFCON” - it makes me think of the word “Gaffe” which means mistake.  I might as well say it before some bright-eyed progressive does. 

As we call the Lambeth Council “Lambeth” perhaps we call this Council simply “Jerusalem” - as in “Are you going to Jerusalem?”

bb

Yes, David (83), the liberals are always ready to attempt to sow the seeds of doubt in their desperate wish to see the orthodox Anglican movement fail, but we need to focus on “the main thing.”  It must be painful for them to see any sign of success in the orthodox world.

GAFCON is incredibly important and we should not doubt that many other orthodox Primates who were not part of the organizing group (Gomez, Anis, Akrofi, Ernest, Dirokpa, Marona, ??) will likely be involved.  The Primates who were at or were represented at the Nairobi consecrations in August made their views clear by their presence.  GAFCON is very big and will give a great boost to the Common Cause Partnership.

In re: Gafcon, they’ve already started in on the bad puns over at the “Thinking Anglicans”. There seems to be a certain mentality that enjoys belittling people, places and events by twisting their names.

Back to the topic at hand. Is there any chance that the organizers could prevail upon the Israeli government to ban all candy sales and manufacture anywhere near the event? I’d love to read about at least one Anglican function that is totally fudge free. This one has a good shot at being the one.

I have a blog thingy

Picking up what Hanks (#86) said, might this conference “recognize” the Common Cause Partnership as [an] or [the] expression of Angicanism in North America? Might the conference recognize Abp. Venables’ acceptance of San Joaquin? Whatever else happens, this conference demonstrates that the ABC’s abdication of leadership is complete, to the permanent damage of the office of ABC as an instrument of unity.

No big deal, but: I wonder why Kendall Harmon seems to be ignoring this important announcement on T19 ?

I’d love to read about at least one Anglican function that is totally fudge free. This one has a good shot at being the one.

Oh, I don’t know. With the makeup being “Anglicans from both the Evangelical and Anglo-catholic wings of the church” I think there will be plenty to fudge over - lay presidency, ordination of women, penal substitutionary atonement, receptionism, eucharistic adoration, prayer for the departed, divorce and remarriage, baptismal regeneration…

As noted in [65]. it is good to just have a forum to discuss mission from an orthodox perspective.

Why are you folks wasting so much virtual ink on Emily?

84 BB: Isnt GAFCON some sort of antiacid? Or was that GAVISCON?

EmilyH: Girl, they are on your case today! Go make a Bombay Saphire Martini. 2 Olives, sip it down, and take a nap. The heck with them.

Re your question on my comment about the law suits. Well taken. They are certainly still in process, not adjuticated. I was just clumsily forecasting outcome. At my age may I be forgiven for clumsy? How about bad spelling (clumbsy, clumsy???)

It’s hard to be a 70 year old radical reasserter bomb throwing conservative if you can’t remember how to spell or find your glasses.

Sigh.

Teddy

All the seminary-educated readers of SF will hopefully remember that this was Karl Barth’s big criticism of Schliermacher.

New Reformation Advocate

You’re quoting Barth favorably?  Oh, the humanity!  And there I was earlier - standing in my chair and applauding your vision of liberal heads rolling (at least until you went and spoiled it all by admitting you were being hyperbolic.  ) 

Say it ain’t so, NRA.  Say it ain’t so.

carl

I am old (mature) enough to know I’m not placing any money in an endowment of The Episcopal Church, and certainly won’t fund them in the short term. I hope the GAFCON meeting will enlighten enough orthodox to kick the progressives out, so we can get back to building a Church in North America that is worthy of supporting.

Simple steps like
getting rid of self-proclaimed priests, who will kill their babies, to be ordained

Ah, I wasn’t finished with that post. Dang.  I’ve got more…  but, maybe you folks can a few agreeable items to the list.

Say, no supporters of crucifix dildos or street-side masturbation in front of children.

Sorry, let’s just get beyond liberal nuance and clean up the church!

Kate and Pat were married on Sunday morning. The bishop turned his back, the congregation accepted it, and it was an illegal marriage in California! +VGR left his wife and kids and has been living with a male partner for years, and was made a bishop! Maybe they should be married, so they are Bishop and spouse for Lambeth. What are we teaching our kids?

Let’s have a conference, show this stuff to the world big time. Then, act at Lambeth.

Sorry, let’s just get beyond liberal nuance and clean up the church!

Indeed. And no more Christian burials for suicide victims. This creeping liberalism knows no bounds…

#89,

Mere Christian, I assume that Kendall is simply enjoying a much deserved holiday.  I’m sure it will pop up soon at T19.  But I think it will be much more interesting to see when the ACI team issues a statement about GAFCON and what they say.  I imagine that Dr. Radner, Dr. Seitz, and Dr. Turner won’t be quite as enthusiastic about this new development as most of us here are.  They may see it as the thin end of the wedge that will lead to the breakup of the AC.  And just as the CCP is a proto province in North America, they may interpret this brave new step as a whole new proto Communion.  Anyway, I’m curious and look forward to what they’ll say.  Especially, as I mentioned above, because this Global Anglican Future conference has already gained the backing of some of the so-called moderate primates (like Tanzania) that the scholarly ACI gang like to hold up as sensible centrists as opposed to supposed hotheads like ++Akinola.

#85, babyblue,

I too find the location in Jerusalem very appealing and suggestive.  And yes, I too immediately thought of the famous Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.  Lots of interesting possibilities to explore there.

On the other hand, does anyone else worry about the possibility of a terrorist strike taking out a LOT of our top orthodox leaders in a single devastating blow?  How do you provide adequate security for a big international event like GAFCON?  It can be done, but it’s so terribly expensive…

David Handy+

Emily

For me the genius of the Anglican experience is its willingness to leave things at step 2.  We agree to disagree and yet we will worship together, work together, talk together, and be kind to each other.  We will remain in the quandary of being human beings and not gods.

If you are in a liberal diocese such as Minnesota the only way you can worship, work, talk and be kind to one another is to follow the liberal path completely or be ostrazcied and hounded by the bishop to change your orthodox beliefs. There is no middle way in a liberal diocese so please remove the rose colored glasses you are wearing and come back down to earth and see what is actually going on.

A rather different conservative view of the proposed Gafcon from Dr Peter Toon (posted on V*****Online). Here’s some of it:

It is not clear whether the Conference is supported by other Global South Primates-e.g. S.E. Asia-or, more importantly, whether sufficient time has been allowed for bishops, clergy and laity to raise the money and be free to get to Israel in six months time. There are no cheap flights to Israel from many parts of the world, and one wonders whether the bishops and clergy of East and West Africa-let alone the laity—will be able to afford to get there. Each American going from the East coast area will need a minimum of $2,000.00 to pay for airfare, accommodation and the like. Those from Britain will need nearly 1,000.00 sterling.

Far better that the Israel Conference for 2008 be canceled, and ALL the Bishops go to Lambeth and engage in genuine conversation with those with whom they disagree, in order to work out ways of making the ideal for which to strive to be - Mission based on truth with/in unity and unity in/be canceled with truth.

I wonder why Kendall Harmon seems to be ignoring this important announcement on T19 ? 

#89 Mere Christian, Kendal is fasting until the morning of the 27th.

God bless people like Dr. Peter Toon, and with all due respect, is he freaking insane?  This whole WO argument and orthodox lite stuff is nuts in face of what TEC has become.  What choice does a true Anglo-Catholic have today?

The absolute best deal Anglo-Catholics can get is a communion that truly respects their point of view, and does not impose WO on them unduly.  It truly is time to shut up about WO vs. non-WO or Evangelical vs. Anglo-Catholic vs. Charismatic or High Church vs. Low Church. 

The alternative is a church that is Christian in window-dressing only, openly supporting abortion-on-demand, promoting Homosexual marriage and no-alternative but full support for WO (opposition to either means you are a bigot and a misogynist).

If Christian Anglicans are persuaded to anything but unity because of tweedy ivory tower intellectual types poo-poo this or that, then the Christian Anglicanism in North America deserves to be a footnote in Christian History.

DoW

#61 Chazaq wrote:

This was confirmed for me when Katharine Jefferts-Schori informed us all that, for Episcopalians, Jesus is our “vehicle to the divine.” Kinda like a Ford Pinto, I guess.

No, Chazaq, clearly it was a Honda, because Scripture states that “Jesus and the apostles were in one Accord”. 

I’m with you, DietofWorms [103]. I love the 1928 Prayer Book, but we cannot afford to argue over that now.

As New Reformation Advocate explained in his post [63], we have lost any sense of what is central:

To use a vivid visual analogy.  We Anglicans like to highlight the CENTER, not the outer limits, sort of like painting a big red bullseye at the center of the target and saying, “aim at that.” The trouble is that in TEC these days, the doctrinal target is nothing like an archer’s target.  To mix metaphors, it resembles a DOUGHNUT instead.  That is, instead of a hard, dense central “core” (like the dense hot central core of the Earth itself) exerting a massive gravitational pull that holds everything together, we are looking at a complete vacuum at the center, like the hole in the middle of the doughnut.  There’s just nothing left in the center any more.  There’s literally no “core doctrine” at all, except of course, for the new substitutes (inclusivity, the social gospel, MDG’s etc.).  And that’s why we are flying apart, with nothing to hold us together.

However, I do think a common prayer book is part of the long term answer. We do need that as a goal. We need to clean out the language that has lead to this mess in the Episcopal Church from the 1979. (And it would be nice to restore the linguistic beauty to the Choral Morning Prayer service.)

I see that “hit and run” Emily H. has shown up early and often.  In answer to your question in #6:  you can be sure TEC is not paying, showing or winning.  (pun intended)  I think their tired old horse of “inclusivity” has just been sent to the glue factory by the Orthodox.

Not really of to a great start is it? We have a self-selected group of orthodox calling for a conference in the ‘Holy Land’ in six months time, the bishop of which may or may not know of it and may or may not have approved. We don’t know where it will be, or who is organising it on the ground (accomodation, transport, conference facilities, security, etc.) We don’t know the proposed programme. Orthodox bishops, clergy and laity will be invited - but we don’t know who, how many, what criteria will be used to decide, nor who decides and invites. Attendance will cost thousands of dollars for each participant - we don’t know who will pay this, or how those who can’t afford it will attend. And finally we have orthodox already saying the organisers aren’t orthodox enough and that it should be cancelled. Let’s hope things become clearer.

Well Emily—They have taken apart your stuff and put it back together again. I tried to read the thread and may have missed comments on one more thing. It’s a small thing. But the seminary degree M.T.S. doesn’t mean Masters in Theology and Society and it doesn’t exempt you from Biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. It means Masters of Theological Studies almost everywhere. I doubt it was different at VTS.  And when P. Akinola was there, it probably still had a pretty serious theology faculty.

Take some time off Emily.

Mick, you have done everything you can to throw cold water on GAFCON, picking up where Emily has seemingly stopped.  If you can’t stand to see orthodox Anglicans succeed, why don’t you pass on your negative thoughts to Father Jake and let us enjoy the good news?  As I noted above, it seems to be terribly painful for some folks to see Godly leaders taking bold stands for the faith.

Poor Emily, poor at math:

My point is that if “beliefs” are to be the measure of communion, then communion will fail.

.25 billion Orthodox share beliefs for their measure of communion, and exclude outsiders from communion until they pledge acceptance of those beliefs. The Orthodox Church grew by over 1.2% last year in the US.

1.25 billion Roman Catholics do the same with beliefs, and their membership grew by over 2% last year in the US.

Those wacky “fundie” Evangelical independent megachurches grew so fast over the last three years that there are now at least ten independent congregations with membership over 10,000. Ten thousand people in one parish!

Anglican Churches in the Global South, specifically in Africa are growing so fast that they cannot build churches fast enough, in spite of constant threats and harrassments from their Islamic neighbors and governments.

Meanwhile, fewer than 800,000 Episcopalians meet every Sunday, and throw the Communion rail open to whoever feels like going forward, because their “relationships” and “polity” are their measure of communion, and their membership is shrinking faster than a leaky child’s baloon.

Tell me again: which type of communion will fail?

Hanks,
Good observation about how Emily’s distractions become Mick’s cold water! Perhaps they are “closely” related?
It does seem that the better the news is for the orthodox, the more our worthy opponents show up to distract us, not from the actual news at hand but from the weakness and instability it exposes at 815.  Perhaps when Mick and Emily (and a few other relatives) show up and gab, gab, gab, we should celebrate?
Makes me think of a Wizard of Oz scene - “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
Carrie in MD

RE: “Not really of [sic] to a great start is it? . . . “

Well . . . according to revisionist-Mick, it’s not. 

One has to just giggle.  I’m sure the fact that “Mick” proclaims it not “of [sic] to a great start” will cause all of the reasserters to step back in concern.  ; > )

And then, as evidence, Mick lists questions that he does not have answers to.  “Hahwuhs!”

But let me just assure Mick . . . those who need to know the answers to those questions right now [and those would not include any progressives], know the answers.

I’m sure that Mick is greatly relieved to hear of that.  ; > )

hanks [111], Mick is using a typical liberal approach to dealing with opposition. It shows they are concerned about this meeting.

What is most important is to work to assure the various orthodox visions are represented at the meeting, so that the worldwide orthodox constituency is represented both in the media and at the Anglican Communion. By all reports, orthodox views have the numbers to stop the innovations. I also think the pew sitters will feel increasing pressure in their social circles about being a member of a church that holds such a “progressive” agenda. As this agenda becomes a worldwide public concern, it might be the liberals who can’t afford to go to Lambeth.

Our focus needs to be on getting funding resources available, so that spokespersons for the orthodox position can get to the meetings.

Please also note as someone pointed out to me about Emily that she shows up and when she gets seriously challenged, she either changes the subject or disappears.  She never sticks around to seriously defend her position, thus “hit and run” Emily.

There have been some positive comments on +Rowan’s sermon.  He references John of the Cross.  I admit to having read Dark Night of the Soul.  I admit to having read Teresa de Avila’s Interior Castle and I admit to having read the Ascent of Mount Carmel and the Cloud of Unknowing.  Sometimes the saddest thing I feel is that the writings of these are virtually unknown and, unexperienced by our current generation.  Yes, the question of adiaphora is a real one.  But “believing” is not alway a process of the head, but one of the heart as these masters have taught us.  I am not so concerned about the purity of belief of him who prays beside me as I worry about my own faith and neediness.

Good night ya’ll.  I’ll be out of touch for a while on a post Christmas trip.  But I do wish you a happy St. Stephen’s Day and Boxing day.

Emily H AKA “Hit and run Emily”:
“I’ll be out of touch for a while”
I rest my case.  So glad the Windsor report taught you about “adiaphora”.

  she either changes the subject or disappears. 

Guess you were wrong, No Longer NH . . . , Emily BOTH changed the subject AND disappeared!

NH Episcopalian, just read your note.  Quite amazing.  Having lived in the San Joaquin, I can understand your unhappiness.  Isn’t the feeling of pain and injury the same feeling of pain and injury for the liberal in San Joaquin and the conservative in New Hampshire? 

And would you say your comment was one intended to engage me in thoughtful dialog on the issues raised on the thread or simply a “drive by shooting”

Parallel alert: TIME online/mag has made the Episcopal/Anglican division their #5 religion story of the year. I hope the following long link fits. If not, Google Time top 10 religion stories:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1690170_1692403,00.html

Hanks
Love the literal reading!!  Blessings and celebrations for 2008 for all the Orthodox….

Emily—Have a good trip. I’ll bet many here will say a quick prayer for “traveling mercies” (old fashioned verbiage, but effective).

Diet of Worms,
No, Dr. Toon is not insane. As much as we all would like there to be a panacea to all our problems, there isn’t one that I know of. Dr. Toon has raised several issues which need to be addressed if there is to be a unified orthodox Anglican witness. In the meantime those of us who aren’t privy to the back-room deals going-on need to pray and watch.

I see the latest goal for the liberals is for the orthodox to set up a separate communion. This is fine for them, if they hold the property. Their biggest fear must be that the orthodox will organize and expose their behavior, and then discipline them into a position where the pew sitters will demand their ouster or stop feeding them.

The organization of GAFCON is great, because it can give a media focus for the orthodox positions. The world will see that the real Anglican Communion does not promote abortion-for-convenience as a religious freedom of women, free love, your god is good enough for me, etc.

Next from the liberals - the orthodox are guided by imperialism. Who’s going to rise as the orthodox king?

Mad Potter,
The phrase I was going to use was ‘deals cut in incense-filled back rooms’, but I thought that the Anglo-catholics might take offense. Seriously though, whose making these deals and who are they accountable to? is a question we might ask. Regardless of what happens there’s bound to be some aspect which will offend someone.

You know better, Mad Potter [128]. Just because libs want total disclosure for control purposes, it is not their business to be involved in orthodox planning and decision making. History has shown that the progressives of TEC do their planning in closets, and the Church has been wise to let it continue that way. It is by their deeds that we know them.

I think it would be wise for the “progressives” to have their own meeting to present their vision for the next 25 years. Where are they headed with their innovations? We would all like to know. If they were forced to write down their mission for public discussion, they would be fighting amongst themselves over an orthodox position they need for public relations, and continuing to live lies.

Mad Potter,
I also was raised a Romanist, then spent about twenty years in the Orthodox Church. Someone once asked me why I wasn’t drawn to the ritualist form of Anglicanism, to which I replied ‘having been an Orthodox priest, I had already ingested enough incense to kill ten men.’

I’m still with Diet of Worms on this. Mick’s quote from Dr. Toon ends:

Far better that the Israel Conference for 2008 be canceled, and ALL the Bishops go to Lambeth and engage in genuine conversation with those with whom they disagree, in order to work out ways of making the ideal for which to strive to be - Mission based on truth with/in unity and unity in/be canceled with truth.

But the ABC who has not provided invitations for ALL the Bishops to go to Lambeth. And only the ABC has control over those invitations.
The same thing for the orthodox to do is to base plans on what they can control and decrease dependence on what they cannot control.
Insane may be a bit of an exaggeration, but, to say the far better option is to cancel what the orthodox can control is very very poor advice.

Ah, who said it was incense in those thuribles.

Dr. N,

They don’t dare spell out where they are headed. They do not know where they are going. The modern Episcopal church is currently all about process, relativism, subjectivity and asking questions with out believing there are any answers.

They can not answer what they believe in, because they don’t believe. Lacking a grounded centre of faith they follow the zeistgeist and accomplish little to nothing. To conceal their lack of accomplishment from others as well as themselves, they tout their superior process, without ever discussing where exactly they are intending to wind up.

I have a blog thingy

Mad Potter,
The incense was always much nicer in the Orthodox Church. As an evangelical I never use it; but when I first became an Anglican the Church I served my curacy in used stuff that smelled like burning sweat socks.

mousestalker [139], that’s just the point. They don’t want GAFCON, because it provides the orthodox a forum to show direction. They want the Lambeth meeting where they have, to a great extent, the media in hand. They can then come out of sessions and wave their hands with claims of narrowmindedness, bigotry, unenlightenedness, etc., to the press.

Even better ... an incense-filled Upper Room.  Never know Who might show up!

#94, Carl,

Somehow, I missed your earlier plea for me to deny that I was invoking the authority of Karl Barth favorably.  “NRA,...Say it ain’t so!”  Well, I may just be causing you disappointment once again, but let me hasten to assure you that I am NOT the “Neo-Orthodox” sort (like Barth).  For one thing, Barth was a Calvinist, and I most definitely am not (although I was raised Presbyterian, and I did get my doctorate from what was once a great Barthian seminary, Union-PSCE in Richmond; alas, it’s gone downhill a lot in the last decade and is much more liberal now).

Instead, I prefer to identify with the Methodist patristic scholar Thomas Oden, who jokingly refers to himself as “PALEO-ORTHODOX.”  Yeah, that’s more like it.  Not Neo-Orthodox, Paleo-Orthodox.

David Handy+
(BTW, I’m still taking applications for the NRAFC cabinet)

So this is by invitation only?  Wonder who will be on the list?  Will the ABC be invited?  Just kidding.

Chazaq,
Perhaps the Holy Spirit, Himself, since he always attends General Convention and almost everyone these days claims to have had direct, personal contact with Him.

The Holy Spirit should either write or inspire the minutes.

I am unenlightened. Is NRAFC the New Reformation Advocate Future Conference. Lots of other things are fitting those letters, and it is becoming scary.

Mad Potter….Just finished MapQuest and realized I’ll be headed through Biloxi,  and thinking of you and Ohr, George.  “And the potter said unto clay BeWare and it was”  I am also a potter, mostly functional wheel work but known for pitfired pieces.  We are visiting family but I will return to NOLA where I lived and worked for three years. Many friends still there.  They have had much to handle..even in the University communion.  Prayers for safe travel appreciated.

“:-)” is

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of going back to Jerusalem for this epoch-making conference.  It aptly symbolizes the idea of making a fresh new start and simultaneously suggests the idea of going back to reclaim our roots, where it all began.  Hey, isn’t that what Reformations do?  Hmmm…we make a fresh new start, but by reclaiming the historic teaching of the Christian Church and returning to our doctrinal roots.  Where better to do that than in Zion?

I think babyblue was on to something earlier in calling our attention to the significance of meeting in Jerusalem.  There’s great potential here.  It fits the cry of the Reformers:  “Ad fontes!”  (Back to the source!  Back to the fountainhead!)

It reminds me of the famous prayer of Pope John XXIII, when he courageously summoned Vatican II, another similarly bold step in seeking the renewal of the Church.  The pope prayed for a new outpouring of the Spirit upon the assembled Catholic bishops, as though Vatican II might be “a New Pentecost.”  And the changes that resulted from Vatican II far exceeded anyone’s expectations.

Now there’s an exciting prospect.  GAFCON, not as an orthodox alternative to Lambeth, but as an Anglican equivalent to Vatican II.  Would that God in his mercy might grant us a fresh outpouring of his Spirit, so that Anglicanism experiences…a New Pentecost!

David Handy+
Lover of the Book of Acts
Author of “The Gentile Pentecost” (my dissertation)
Advocate of “3-D Christianity” (evangelical, catholic, and charismatic) as well as the New Reformation

I get the impression that Emily has read too many criticisms of scripture and too little of scripture itself because she seems to be dependent on other peoples readings of the Bible when she says this in post 46:
Whose hermeneutic will prevail? Whose “plain reading” of scripture really is its plain meaning?
If she would read the Bible, with an open mind, the plain meaning might become clear to her and she might not have to rely on the arguments of others to find that common understanding that Christians proclaim as their faith.
Mark 12:
24 Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God?

Holding the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem has great significance for the global mission focus of the gathering:

“ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

I was too harsh on Dr. Toon earlier. 

BUT…I feel like a lot of people are risking a lot to reform Anglicanism in North America.  I see this meeting as both an answer to prayer, and a cause for further prayer.

If anyone has a better idea on reforming Anglicanism, then let us know.  Until then, this is the best of a bad situation.

Peace and apologies,

DoW

Barth was a Calvinist, and I most definitely am not. ...  Instead, I prefer to identify with the Methodist patristic scholar Thomas Oden

[#143]  NRA

Alas, but I regret to inform you that it is my most solemn duty to submit your case to the Committee of the Truly Reformed for disposition on the charge of (gasp) Methodism.  It’s sad really.  You made such a promising start as a reformer.

carl  

BabyBlue’s favorite:

“;-)” is

And in the spirit of kindness, here are some more MadPotter:

  “:-)”

  “:)”

  “:-)”
:p   “:p”
  “:-S”
  “:-/”

Smileys come in handy sometimes.

bb

#147, Dr. N.,

Where have you been?  I thought everyone knew by now.  Actually, I’m sure you’re not the only one wondering.  So let me set the record straight.

The NRAFC stands for the New Reformation Advocate Fan Club.  This growing group of lively commenters is led by the fearless robroy (President), and the ever mischevious Br_er Rabbit (Vice-President).  The roll of regular members is increasingly constantly.  But other cabinet positions remain open at this time, including Secretary, Treasurer, and Chaplain.  Those interested in applying for those positions should send me a private message (click on my name at the bottom of the home page to see my profile).  The pay is lousy (strictly volunteer), but the fringe benefits are considerable, chiefly a lot of fun.  But I should warn all prospective applicants, that cabinet positions in the NRAFC are now subject to confirmation by a majority vote of bishops in the CCP.

Oh, and as for all those rumors about NRAFC competing with KFC for a dominant share of the fast-food chicken business?  Not True.  A total fabrication.  Whenever I do have to eat fast food, I eat at Chick-Fil-A.

And what about all those other rumors about the NRAFC putting on the National Rifle Association Firearms Championship each year?  Nope.  Not true either.  I don’t know who keeps spreading those false statements.  Probably some angry reappraiser wanting to undermine my growing influence.  All I’m sure of is, they aren’t coming from the Rabbit Patch.

David Handy+
Founder, NRAFC (fastest growing subgroup at SF)

BabyBlue [156], you have unleased something. :p

As I said a few weeks ago-Next year in Jerusalem!  God is good and hears the cries of His people.  No, we cannot achieve unity within orthodox Anglicanism, but He can if we let Him.  Can we step back, lay down the egos and receive what He want to give us or will pride destroy us as surly as it is destroying TEC? 
Our Lord will have His Church.  It is up to us to decide if Anglicanism is part of it or whether it goes the way of the English Empire, split into many autonomous entities. We have had 40 years of waiting for someone to do something and end the growing heresy.
Either way-MARANATHA!

Elizabeth [16]. So much is written here that it seems we are pressing our own new thing on God. He is obviously working within the communion and calling forth his timeless Church. Contrary to the “progressive” posters, I see the new orthodox leadership moving forward with patience and moderation.  I think that is why we are generally rejoicing with each new announcement.

Although the ++ABC is in the liberal mode, he has been trying to position himself to allow his continuing leadership of the Anglican Communion, however the AC might go in the coming year. The restlessness in the “progressive” camp is also seen in the comments coming here. They try to destabilize, but really are offering little towards a future program. GAFCON is a good move, and placing it in Jerusalem could be good for that region and the Church’s future role there.

Mad Potter (#122),

I have sent you, via Private Mail, some basic instructions on how to do it. The Smiley pop-up window is not working correctly, so I sent you the easiest workaround. I hope that you are having a blessed Christmas and will also have a blessed New Year.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

NRA [157], the reported growth of NRAFC sounds like an Episcopal activist event - standing room only in a cathedral = 20 people. Only two officers then must mean there are so many applicants that the two officers and founder need help to evaluate them. And now, I see above that you have Br_er Rabbit (homeless in the TEC sense), as minimally functional in a transitional role. Ah, and not so independent, with CCP oversite. Well, at least FC isn’t Frick’n Catholics.

Hey . . . hey hey . . .

Why on earth are we helping out revisionists with their smiley-faces???!!!

Emily has not left…she is “Listening”.
Intercessor

Mad Potter,

To use the Private Mail, look up near the top of the page on any thread page or the main page. You will see a Your Account hyperlink. Click it, or if you want it in another window right-click it and select Open in New Window. That will take you to your account. On that page are a bunch of links in the navigation Menu laid out vertically along the left hand side of the page. One of the major headings under the Menu is Private Messages, followed by either a plus or minus sign between brackets, i.e., []. If it is a minus that portion of the menu will be expanded vertically listing the following:

Bulletin Board
Compose New Message
- InBox (9)
- Sent (4)
Trash (0)
Edit Message Folders
Buddy List
Blocked List

If it is a plus sign, click it and it will open to this. To view incoming messages, click on the InBox (#) link, doing which will open a listing of messages in the main portion of the window. From there it should be fairly straightforward.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Has Culi been around recently?

Not to worry Sarah…they can find what they need right here…
http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/ede/acd890

Intercessor

Sarah Hey wrote her surname three times (but correctly capitalized only the first of those) followed by

Why on earth are we helping out revisionists with their smiley-faces???!!!

Dear, dear Sarah,

Who knows when our revisionist correspondents might wish to indicate that what reads like a rant is actually intended humorously or at least ironically? We wouldn’t want to deny them the opportunity to at least attempt to communicate clearly, rationally and succinctly, now, would we? I think our arguments and our faith in the Holy Spirit providing the words as promised by our Lord are each sufficiently strong that we need not fear allowing our Opponents (whether or not Worthy) to make the best argument they can.

Besides which, (and I can’t remember if I have mentioned exactly which martial arts my screen name alludes to besides Greg Griffith) I always have both small arms marksmanship and my swordsmanship to fall back on in a pinch.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

#155, Carl,

Well, wanna be reformers can’t be too surprised when they get hauled before the fearsome Committee of the Truly Reformed on the charge of Arminianism.  Perhaps it was predestined.

But I’ll happily make this confession.  My two greatest heroes in Anglican history are…(ready for this? drum roll please…)

a.  John Wesley (yep, very Arminian all right), leader of the Evangelical Revival and a brilliant theologian as well as perhaps the most influential single reformer in Anglican history.  Because Wesley wrote for the “common man,” not for scholars, he is easily underestimated as a theologian. But I see his insistence on the absolute necessity for striving for holiness and not settling for anything short of “entire sanctification” as a crucial supplement to the Reformation’s stress on justification by faith (for holiness is something “without which, no one will see the Lord,” as Hebrews rightly says).

b.  John Henry Newman (admittedly the most anti-Reformed leader in Anglican history), leader of the Catholic Revival and an even greater and more profound theologian than Wesley, though not nearly so effective a reformer.  When he departed for Rome in 1845, the Oxford Movement soon fizzled without his leadership.  I consider Newman’s collected “Parochial and Plain Sermons” (from his Anglican period as the preacher to Oxford at St. Mary’s, the University church) to be quite simply the greatest set of sermons by an Anglican, ever.  No serious rivals even.  288 of the most original and powerful sermons of all time by anyone anywhere.  They convict, challenge, and inspire me like no one else’s sermons do.  If you’ve never read Newman’s immortal sermons, “go sell all thou hast and buy…” them.

Surprised??  Surely, the Committee of the Truly Reformed will be “seriously displeased.”  Yes, and understandably so.  Doubtless, they’d prefer me to read John Jewel, the great apologist of the English Reformation, or the great Puritans: William Perkins, John Owen, Richard Baxter, or that Puritan-loving dinosaur James Packer.  Not to mention Calvin or Bucer of course.

Now, I’m quite well aware, that Wesley and Newman could hardly be more different in many ways.  But despite their manifold differences, they shared a zeal for holiness that was contagious and unexcelled.  Both men were truly radical reformers, who gave their all without reserve for the cause they believed in so fervently.  And that’s why I admire them so, and identify with them both.

But then, I am, after all, a proud graduate of Wheaton College, the Evangelical Harvard (class of 1977).  And a loyal son of the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Albany as well (ordained 1985).  Wheaton taught me to love and appreciate the Evangelicalism of Wesley and his followers.  And I will forever proudly claim to be ardently evangelical (although not Reformed, as the Committee will doubtless notice with grave concern).  And Albany helped me learn to love Newman and the Anglo-Catholicism he represented so passionately.  And I will always identify with that movement as well.

Remember how I like to sign off?  David Handy, Advocate of “High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism.”  You see, that’s the kind of “High Church” I truly aspire to championing.  Not in the usual liturgical sense of “high church” (you know, “smells and bells,” actually in my case, due to my love of Gregorian chant, one of my friends teasingly calls me a “smells and yells” priest).  I’ve pastored churches in low-church Virginia that make some Presbyterians and Methodists look high church; that’s not the point.  I’m a fervent charismatic, and so always open to the unpredictable ways of the Holy Spirit and suspicious of overly formal worship.

Rather, I want the kind of parish that is “high church” in the general sense of being “high commitment,” high demand, and high performance, i.e., high octane, high voltage religion.  And that has absolutely nothing to do with vestments or sacramental theology.  It has nothing to do with Calvinism versus Arminianism, or what view of episcopacy you hold.  But it has everything to do with agandoning our obsolete state church mode of operation and learning to function once again as a determined minority group in an increasingly hostile surrounding culture.  That is, it has EVERYTHING to do with becoming a “Post-Christendom” kind of religion.

And that, Carl, amounts to a very radical reform indeed.  It’s nothing less than calling for “a New Reformation.”

But you’re absolutely right, Carl.  It’s not how you start the race that counts.  It’s how you finish.  And only time will tell how this seemingly mad advocacy of a radical New Reformation will turn out in the end.  But events like the realignment of the Diocese of San Joaquin with the Southern Cone, and now this stunning announcement of the upcoming GAF Conference in Jerusalem fill me with tremendous hope.

Now if only the Committee of the Truly Reformed doesn’t excommunicate me first…  Oh well, no worries.  TEC never excommunicates anybody for any reason these days.  I’m safe, as long as I don’t claim any property.

Crazy, you say?  Fr. Handy, if you think that’s ever going to fly in ever so moderate, via media Anglicanism, you have gone insane, just lost your mind.  Well, maybe so.  It certainly does appear inconsistent and confusing to many.  Here on the one hand, I admire Wesley so greatly and yet on the other hand, I love Newman too. and I regard them both as the greatest reformers in Anglican history (not one, mind you, but both of them as in a league all their own). 

Well, perhaps it is illogical.  But then again, we Anglicans have never put that much stock in logical consistency.  I prefer to think of it as “paradoxical.”  You know, sort of like Anglicanism being both evangelical and catholic, or Christ being fully divine and fully human at the same time.

Hmmm.  I think I just lost some potential members of the NRAFC.  Oh well.  It was probably predestined.

David Handy+
The Eternal Optimist (as my wife calls me)

“And the potter said unto clay BeWare and it was”
I’d pay good money to watch James White and Ergun Caner debate that!

I’d pay good money to watch James White and Ergun Caner debate that!

Ergun Caner said he would do that once, but realized quickly he was in over his head with Dr White, and ran the other direction.  That debate isn’t ever going to happen.

carl

Since we’ve spoken of John Wesley above, I will post a quotation about him; perhaps you already have it.  I hope this is not off-topic since it bears upon the attitude of ++Rowan Williams to this great reformer.  In his sermon “John Wesley,” the Archbishop called him “arguably, the greatest saint, the greatest witness to Jesus Christ, produced by the eighteenth-century Church of England—the last place you’d expect to find fools for Christ’s sake.” ++Rowan also said, “He has rightly been compared to the great monastic reformers, Bernard, Francis, Ignatius . . . .” and acknowledged how poorly the Church of his day treated Wesley: “Thank God for a saint who had to live his life so embarrassingly beyond the conventions that had marked our sanctity in Christendom!  Thank God even for the eighteenth-century Church of England, so clueless about how to handle a man irresponsibly devoted to God that it forced him into . . . unshakable witness to free and full grace.” (I wish that this kind of thinking would have governed the ABC’s approach to the American “missionary bishops,” and I wrote to tell him so.)

Do some of you know a poem about Wesley by Earl Bowman Marlatt; here is a section of it:

The shades of Oxford—
The gallant More
And princely Addison—
Beckoned him to primrose paths of glory:
A peer, a premier, or a laureate.
He chose the Wyclif-way
That led to Calvary;
He took the world for his parish . . . .

And finally, of course, Wesley died an in the Church of England, wondering how the Wesleyans would fare, saying, “The best of all is, God is with us.”

Mad Potter said . . .

Do you really want to be part of “back room deals”? I don’t…

And how about the “back room deal” that aligned TEC with the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice;” one of the most radical pro-abortion groups in the US. Do you have a problem with that?

re #163:

Ouch.

No curse could be more dreadful than to fall under the fearsome gaze of Dr. N.

Homeless,

Peter Jensen has written an article on GAFCON:
“The Anglican Future Conference is not designed to take the place of Lambeth. Some people may well choose to go to both. Its aim is to draw Biblical Anglican Christians together for urgent consultation. It is not a consultation which can take place at Lambeth, because Lambeth has a different agenda and far wider guest list.  Unlike Lambeth, the Future Conference is not for Bishops alone – the invitations will go to clergy and lay people also. But it is a meeting which accepts the current reality of a Communion in disarray over fundamental issues of the gospel and biblical authority. It therefore seeks to plan for a future in which Anglican Christians world-wide will increasingly be pressured to depart from the biblical norms of behaviour and belief. It gives an opportunity for many to draw together to strengthen each other over the issue of biblical authority and interpretation and gospel mission.”
http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/senior_clergy/archbishop_jensen/articles/the_global_anglican_fuiture_conference/

Br_er Rabbit [175], welcome back! As you settle in up north with the perks of your executive position with NRAFC, I will head south! Today, if the Lord is willing.

Living in car with GPS, satellite radio, ...

Praise the Lord, another conference.  E-mail just does not pack that wallop.  These bishops just love a good conference!

Seminary curricula are different, but there are A.T.S. standards for two-year master’s degrees as well as the M.Div.  What would most likely be different is that there would be few if any courses in practical theology in the M.T.S. than in the M.Div.  So an M.T.S. graduate might very well have the same amount of work in biblical studies and theology as an M.Div. graduate.

Rudy+

#173, Paula,

Thank you for chiming in and adding the positive assessments of John Wesley by ++RW and the poem excerpt by Earl Bowman Marlatt.  I regret to say that I wasn’t familiar with either of them.  But since I praised Newman’s sermons so highly above (my #170), let me add a correponding word of enthusiastic commendation for the marvelous collection of Wesley’s classic sermons with the outstanding notes and comments of Wesleyan scholar Albert Outler. You can find them in Abingdon’s splendid edition of Wesley’s Collected Works, in which Outler edits the first four thick volumes.

This affords me the chance to clarify how in the world I might possibly admire two such utterly different theolgians and radical reformers as Wesley and Newman.  And the key is precisely in the fact that they were so very radical.  A strong case can be made that in the end, the reason that the C of E rejected both of them (for all practical purposes anyway, at least it shunned them both) is that both Wesley and Newman INSISTED that the Anglican Church they both loved so dearly simply had to change radically and change NOW.  That is, if they made a major strategic error, and perhaps they did, it was the same error:  i.e., they were both too impatient, and they PUSHED too hard for too much change too fast.  That is, Wesley and Newma both led movements that simply weren’t willing to “tarry” and wait for the slowpokes to catch up with them.

Now I know we can all probably think of amusing jokes along those lines.  The “what’s the difference between Anglicanism and a glacier?” type jokes.  But there is a very, very significant factor here that all would be reformers must try to keep in mind, and that is the old perennial problem of the futility of pouring too much new wine into rigid old wineskins that have lost their suppleness and flexibility. The Master himself struggled with that in leading his own reform movement in Judaism, if you will (see Mark 2:22).

Well, this thread seems to be losing energy and slowing down a lot.  In going back and rereading the whole thread, I realized that of the 180 entries so far, I have contributed 14 of them myself (for all prospective members of the NRAFC, you fans should note that these often long comments are numbers 9, 27, 30, 34, 63, 75, 82, 83, 99, 143, 151, 157, 170, and now this one, probably #180).  I think that’s more than enough for one thread.  So I hereby bid adieu to one and all.  It’s been a fun discussion.  Thanks to all.

David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
More enthusiastic than ever about the New Reformation

Dear David Handy+,
Thanks for your comments here at SF. I concur with nearly eveything I have ever read here that you have posted. I, too, am a three streams Christian, and am hoping that you can give me some wisdom, I spent a good bit of time composing a note to you to send by PM, but seems I didn’t do it correctly, although, I thought I followed MA’s directives -post 166.
Yes, Reformation! I have, however, trepidation regarding my personal part in it… In other words, I have some concerns and burning questions of you, if I can get a message to reach you.  I also believe this new meeting to be held in Jerusalem signals more hope.
Your Sister in Christ,
Merlena Cushing

#181, Merlena,

Thanks for your kind words.  I’ll send you a Private Message (PM).  It will show my actual personal email address.  Feel free just to hit the reply tab and thus send me back a PM of your won, or you can type in my regular email address on your own email service provider and reply that way.  I look forward to hearing from you. 

And, naturally, I’ll include all the necessary forms for applying to become a card-carrying member of the NRAFC.

David Handy+

Dr N,
re 161-  The Israelis may think Anglican presence in Jerusalem and Israel has not been such a good thing in the past.  Perhaps we could now show a more even-handed acknowledgement of the region’s problems while we are there debating our own issues and even acknowlege our heritage comes from Isaac, not Ishmael and Mohammad.  Today’s headlines from Pakistan have real meaning for all of the Middle East.  I hope security problems don’t derail this meeting or move it.  Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.

Off-Topic—in reading such a long string of comments as this news has engendered:  THANK GOD for numbered posts!

Elizabeth [183] The image of America is largely what is seen from the liberal media, and I expect that is part of what is offensive and destabilizing. Hopefully, the orthodox view, represented from many parts of the world will give the region some hope. I recall comments by ++Akinola regarding the necessity of the orthodox perspective in Africa for being able to grow an option to Islam. It wasn’t a power grabbing thing to organize Global South or enter the USA; it was survival for Christianity (and more so, people) in Africa. That theme also was noted by +Anis of Egypt/North Africa at NOLA.

Of course, I’m now going to hear the stuff from the liberals about marginalizing women and GLBT’s. Well, maybe their excesses, as witnessed by the parades in San Francisco, etc., just might be repulsive to much of the world. The orthodox are meeting in Jerusalem, where we have common roots, to show much of the Anglican Communion is also troubled by the innovations of the West.