Here it is: Bishop Anderson, at Archbishop Akinola's request, lambastes The Episcopal Church and its leadership for a wide range of heresies. Remembering that the Jerusalem Declaration, which all Anglican Church in North America folk were required to sign on to, requires that ""We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord."
The 40 page paper from which these jewels of accusation derive is titled, "THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH: TEARING THE FABRIC OF COMMUNION TO SHREDS," a rather odd revision of the notion that the Anglican Communion is a net that might be mended. Nets are a bit permeable, fabric is less so...the net has become a fine sieve indeed. The paper was commissioned by Akinola to be distributed at the Primate's meeting but was not. This paper and one on the Anglican Church of Canada were released last week.
So here is the "executive summary" of the charges of heresy from the catalogue of TEC
terrors, for those who do not wish to go into the ghastly details.
terrors, for those who do not wish to go into the ghastly details.
Anderson writes,
"Catalogue of Heresies
Quoting Episcopal Church leaders denying Jesus as the only way to the Father, denying the divinity and uniqueness of Jesus Christ, denying the Resurrection, denying heaven and hell, denying salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ, denying the authority of Holy Scripture, denying the Creeds, and denying Biblical standards for human sexuality.
We also document the fruits of TEC’s new theology—which include a refusal to reaffirm the historic articles of the Christian faith, syncretism, the promotion of abortion, weakening traditional marriage, promoting same sex blessings and other sexual aberrations, communion for the unbaptized, and accelerating litigation by TEC against the orthodox.
We conclude with the heresies of the current Presiding Bishop, in her own words, an analysis that demonstrates her affirmation of the classic heresies of Pelagianism, Marcionism, Pluralism, Universalism and Gnosticism."
"Pelagianism, Marcionism, Pluralism, Universalism and Gnosticism..." Who would have believed that the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church could possibly have been accused of five, count them five, genuine heresies all at once!
Anderson has done his best to discredit The Episcopal Church and its leadership, showing that if nothing else he takes on the Jerusalem Declaration's item #13 with zeal. He rejects with gusto.
Too bad his zeal is not accompanied by any deeper analysis that that of name calling.
accelerating litigation by TEC against the orthodox
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's accelerating fast enough, or there'd be another suit filed: against Mr. Anderson, for libel.
The AAC paper (published on the web and disseminated widely) openly and publicly states that ++Katherine Jefferts Schori is a heretic - the section specifically referring to her is headed "Heresy of the Presiding Bishop". It then openly states 5 heresies of which she is guilty. This is libellous and constitutes written "defamation per se" - i.e. an allegation or imputation "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession" - unless the quotations which follow can be proved without doubt to be 'heretical' and examples of the 5 declared heresies. They cannot. ++Jefferts Schori should strongly consider bringing an action against Matt Kennedy, David Armstrong and the Council of AAC.
ReplyDeleteAnglican
Where might one find the libelous screed directed against teh Canadian church?
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised those are all the heresies they could come up with. Where's Arianism? Where's Monothelitism? Nestorianism? Monophysitism?
ReplyDeleteThis is so disappointing. They're obviously getting lazy in their slander.
Hi Anglican,
ReplyDeleteI am very pleased that the AAC has published this truthful and accurate paper and even more honored that my brief article "The Presiding Bishop's Top Five" heresies was used. I stand by every word.
Matt Kennedy
Malcolm+ the link is imbedded in the Akinola letter on the AAC website. There are two linked papers. The Canadian blast is the second one. Paper link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americananglican.org/an-open-letter-from-archbishop-akinola-to-archbishop-williams
Some of you love to be outraged! Libel is only libel if it ain't true.... so, your beloved KJS can only sue re, for example, being called a pluralist, if she would testify in court that she believes John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 mean exactly what they say....but she would not do that..... but do carry on enjoying being outraged despite the facts.
ReplyDeleteWell, Matt Kennedy, you can be happy that the Sullivan case protects you -- holding, as it did, that there can be no libel of "public figures" absent actual malice. Although, come to think of it, you come very close to crossing that line indeed!
ReplyDeleteMatt Kennedy: "I stand by every word."
ReplyDeleteCourse you do - after all an ACNA pointy hat won't arrive on it's own...
But of course, hypocrisy as usual is only just hiding around the corner. Seems your own beloved Kenyan Church (and other GAFCON bishops) are happy to take the heretical TEC shilling when it suits them:
"Anglican Bishops from West Africa are attending a week’s Consultative Meeting...
The meeting under the auspices of Global Partners Trinity Grants Programme would in addition, strengthen ties within the Anglican Communion through mission-based partnerships.
It is being attended by Anglican Bishops from Ghana, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Kenya, Cameroon..."
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/artikel.php?ID=157588
Anglican
It's interesting to see how for many Episcopalians, their first reaction to being hurt or embarrassed or insulted now is to see how the situation can fit into a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteThe reaction to having some leaders being called out as heretics isn't "Why do they think these leaders are heretics?" or "What did these Bishops say that makes people think they are heretical" or "Have what they been misunderstood?"or "Did they make some claims that are outside the bounds of Christianity?"
The first question asked is, "who can we sue, and on what grounds?"
Being litigious is starting to become a part of what it means to be an Episcopalian. So much so, we have seen financial support for the MGD's dropped in favor of paying lawyers.
DoW
DoW,
ReplyDeleteWe would be able to support the MGDs much more vigorously, as you would, if you would please give back that which does not belong to you.
May God protect you, Matt; but before you "stand by every word," please read through the list of resolutions purported to "defy Anglican Communion calls for moratoria on same sex blessings and consecrations to the Episcopate of persons in homosexual relationships by (1) calling for the repeal of General Convention 2006 resolution B033 which calls upon “Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion,” (2) weakening the definition of traditional Christian marriage, and (3) promoting the creation of rites for same-sex blessings."
ReplyDeleteThe resolution from the Diocese of West Missouri, for one, does none of those things. Instead, it quotes Lambeth 1998 1.10; the Windsor Report; and the Anglican Communion web site to support a local expression of the Listening Process. Yes, it's cited on an Integrity web page; and yes, Integrity folks probably do think it's progress. However, it's not what was cited.
Matt, your consistency is not in question, nor your integrity in general: you certainly believe what you say, and argue for it. But, before you "stand by every word," be sure of the sources.
"Being litigious is starting to become a part of what it means to be an Episcopalian." Brings to mind the well-known Jewish joke about the man who murdered his parents and pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan, DoW.
ReplyDeleteMarshall,
ReplyDeleteMy reading of Matt Kennedy's post is that he stands by every word of his article - "The Presiding Bishop's Top Five Heresies" - not every word of the report itself. I haven't seen any indication that, other than allowing permission for this article to be used, Fr. Kennedy had anything to do with writing the report.
I love to see the amateur lawyers foaming at the mouth. It isn't libelous to opine that the public statements of the PB are inconsistent with orthodox Christianity or that they are heretical any more than it is for you to say that in your opinion, the things Peter Akinola says proves he is a homophobe. But go ahead and rant. It is what you do best here.
ReplyDeleteCurious they don't seem to accuse anyone of the heresy Donatism.
ReplyDeleteI'd be surprised if any American court would accept a libel case which necessitated deciding whether or not Dr Schori's public utterances are heretical.
ReplyDeleteDan: "But go ahead and rant. It is what you do best here."
ReplyDeleteThis 'report' is nothing but a foam-flecked rant, because the AAC don't have the b*lls to initiate any heresy proceedings against +KJS - ("oh, but those nasty liberals wouldn't allow it...excuse...excuse..." - how about simply on principle, which you're so fond of claiming you have?) - just like ++Akinola didn't have the b*lls to bring it to the Primates Meeting but acted the big man when he was safely home.
Anglican
Phil, perhaps so; I could have misunderstood Matt's intent, although it could be read as I understood it. Whether or not that is the case, however, I would still question his characterization of the AAC Report as "truthful and accurate." He may simply be mistaken, or misled; but I have documented at least one inaccuracy.
ReplyDelete"Pelagianism, Marcionism, Pluralism, Universalism and Gnosticism..." It boggles the mind!
ReplyDeleteI asked God about Matt Kennedy. God said, "Oh, I love Matt, even though he's a twit."
KJS can only sue re, for example, being called a pluralist, if she would testify in court that she believes John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 mean exactly what they say
ReplyDeleteIsn't it because she (perhaps) doesn't believe Scripture means exactly what YOU (and Matt Kennedy) say, Observer, that you call her a heretic?
[Can someone tell me where I can get one of these VOICE-OF-GOD Self-Interpreting Bibles that the ConEvs always seem to rely on? (Does Amazon carry them?) All my Bibles, regretably, are just words on a page to my eyes, till my brain tells me what they mean---you know, as best I can figure out, w/ the help of Holy Tradition]