tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post210124750259418321..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Anglican a better descriptor than Episcopal? Rwanda thinks so.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-19180296811354567502008-01-22T15:45:00.000-05:002008-01-22T15:45:00.000-05:00In reference to Jim Pratt's comment - I recall whe...In reference to Jim Pratt's comment - I recall when we Canadians changed the French name of our church (L'Eglise Episcopale) to be consistent with the English name (L'Eglise Anglicane). I recall thinking, we'd changed the wrong bloody name.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-72475174247875566132008-01-21T15:44:00.000-05:002008-01-21T15:44:00.000-05:00From the NewTimes article:"If the Anglican Church ...From the NewTimes article:<BR/><BR/>"If the Anglican Church of Rwanda has been at the forefront in evangelisation and peace building in the world, why not fight homosexuality?"<BR/><BR/>Um, since *when* has the *Rwandan* Church, of all provinces, "been at the forefront in evangelisation and peace building in the world"???!!!<BR/><BR/>"Evangelisation and peace building in the world," a' la Rwandaise, apparently mean silence and timidity (and in some cases, complicity) in the face of genocide at home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-29642265557479380652008-01-21T09:49:00.000-05:002008-01-21T09:49:00.000-05:00Mark,I'm a member of the Synod of the Province of ...Mark,<BR/>I'm a member of the Synod of the Province of Canada. At our last synod (Sept. 2006), the most controversial motion was one to send a memorial to General Synod to encourage a change in the name of the church in French from L'Eglise Anglicane du Canada to L'Eglise Episcopale du Canada. Bishop Clarke of Montreal moved it (and Archbishop Stavert had previously endorsed it in his presidential address), citing two grounds:<BR/><BR/>1. That it would bring the Canadian church in line with other francophone Provinces (such as Rwanda). This had been requested at a meeting of francophone bishops from around the Communion.<BR/><BR/>2. That the name "Anglicane" is too English for Quebec, suggesting that the church has an overwhelmingly English and Anglophone identity, and hindering efforts to evangelize among Quebecois (where nationalism and cultural identity are very important).<BR/><BR/>The motion was defeated, largely on the strength of opposition by clerical and lay members from Montreal and Quebec, who felt that "Anglicane" was not an impediment to mission and was a retreat from the heritage of the church.<BR/><BR/>The French name of the Canadian church had been "L'Eglise Episcopale du Canada" until the 1970s or 1980s, when it was changed to Anglicane.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-50901024245498090542008-01-19T19:11:00.000-05:002008-01-19T19:11:00.000-05:00RE: We are not creating havoc for them. They have ...RE: <I>We are not creating havoc for them. They have havoc of their own.</I><BR/><BR/>That is a matter of opinion, I guess. You do have a popular American response, from all over the spectrum on a whole variety of issues, but others do seem to think differently. Is it our success that we're blind how our action impact others? Everything from emission to social agenda? Some issues you may see which others on 'other side of the gulf' may downplay and some they see which you may downplay. <BR/><BR/>I do think there are many layers which this is only one example of being in the globalized world of modernity.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00261766465382455822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-52885893206897266082008-01-19T17:51:00.000-05:002008-01-19T17:51:00.000-05:00kevin... I know.. and said that here, "But of cour...kevin... I know.. and said that here, "But of course England was a major colonial power in Africa and that must dangle there as a bit of an identity issue. (I know...Rwanda was not an English colony.)"<BR/><BR/>The move from Francophone to Anglophone is interesting. When I was there in 1989 both French and English were widely in use in the the Province of the BRZ (Burundi, Rwanda and Zaire) but of course not so much outside that context. <BR/><BR/>You are right... several layers.<BR/><BR/>Too bad they didn't take the route taken is some former English colonies... and simply call themselves THE Church in the Province of __________, or more simply THE Church of __________.<BR/><BR/>As it is they are caught with some sort of identification out there. The day will come when being identified as Anglican won't be very good either. The incumbent Archbishop of Rwanda doesn't particularly like the Church of England's engagement with gay and lesbian persons either.<BR/><BR/>We are not creating havoc for them. They have havoc of their own. Their stand re the Episcopal Church gives them cheap virtue points in the internal politics and church life of Rwanda. Or so it seems to me.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-43981935081766189202008-01-19T17:16:00.000-05:002008-01-19T17:16:00.000-05:00Well, Mark, Rwanda was not an English colony, it w...Well, Mark, Rwanda was not an English colony, it was under Germany for a bit, transfered to Belgium from with it gain it's independence. After the genocide, with France and Belgium doing very little the government switched from a Francophonie to Anglosphere (French speaking to English {Kinyarwanda is the offical local language).<BR/><BR/>CIA World Fact Book list religious affiliation as Roman Catholic 56.5%, Protestant 26%, Adventist 11.1%, Muslim 4.6%, indigenous beliefs 0.1%, none 1.7% (2001) .<BR/><BR/>So I think you have several layer of items going on at one time.<BR/><BR/>Officially it was "L'Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda," however I'll bet there a twofold negative association in their context. The French name and the Episcopal part with all the association with the American church with the Catholics, Adventist and Muslims. <BR/><BR/>So in context it probably better to disassociate with a 2 million and shrinking 700K ASA group that is creating havoc for them.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00261766465382455822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-33441184028265959992008-01-19T08:24:00.000-05:002008-01-19T08:24:00.000-05:00Can someone point me to "the original creeds of th...Can someone point me to "the original creeds of the Bible"? <BR/><BR/>I seem to have missed those....Wormwood's Doxyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10882756844690851674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-315420552255081312008-01-18T11:59:00.000-05:002008-01-18T11:59:00.000-05:00Wait til she learns the word 'snarky'.(just jestin...Wait til she learns the word 'snarky'.<BR/>(just jesting)-frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15065107773031033288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-68130829973923889882008-01-18T10:13:00.000-05:002008-01-18T10:13:00.000-05:00RB...the name change was not all that recent and a...RB...the name change was not all that recent and as you know has become a practical change, but at least in the Church Constitution an equivalent name to PECUSA.<BR/><BR/>I do agree that The Episcopal Church, with no additional info, makes it hard for other churches - the Sottish Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church of the Sudan, etc - to escape identification with The Episcopal Church.<BR/><BR/>The "otherwise known as" intro to the name The Episcopal Church, is not a legal replacement for the first name. <BR/><BR/>I believe the request that we begin using "The Episcopal Church" was because about 1 in 10 dioceses of the Church are not in the bounds of The United States of America. So the idea was to take the short name (the Episcopal Church) and use it instead of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It almost immediately became grist for the blog mill.<BR/><BR/>"The Episcopal Church" is used in the BCP on occasion and in normal conversation I think it serves well. But it is not an easy solution for all purposes.<BR/><BR/>If I had my druthers I suppose I would say we ought to use The Episcopal Church as shorthand and The Protestant Episcopal Church etc as the formal name both at home and in the wider communion.<BR/><BR/>BTW the Anglican Communion website mucks it all up by calling us something we are not by either read. The web site calls us The Episcopal Church in the USA. - which of course defeats both the intent of talking about The Episcopal Church (more than just in the USA) or PECUSA (spelled out) which is our legal name.<BR/><BR/>I still think that Rwanda changed its name because it did not want to be identified with us. <BR/><BR/>As a child I lived in Venezuela and in history class there (taught in Spanish)we were told often to remember that the USA had to be the United States of North America, since there were other United States in the Americas, etc. And in particular the simple phrase The United States was never to be used without qualifiers!<BR/><BR/>Names are edgy at best. I am Mark or Marko...but only my daughter can call me Marky.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-57426472094975346382008-01-18T09:51:00.000-05:002008-01-18T09:51:00.000-05:00threeminutetheologian...the word 'anglican' has be...threeminutetheologian...<BR/><BR/>the word 'anglican' has been around a long time. The phrase 'the Anglican Communion' has only been around as you point out since about 1850 (more or less). I thought the word Anglican (or its Latin equivalent) was used by Bede, as a reference to the church of England...(I'm not at my books to check). <BR/><BR/>There might well have been the possibility of calling ourselves something other than The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America... the word Anglican was around then, I believe, and of course we might have beat our heads against the wall and called ourselves The Church of England in the United States of America, thereby dwindling to nothing almost overnight.<BR/><BR/>My point is that it is interesting to speculate on why the name change? There is no particular reason except to distance themselves from us. Anglican is an obvious alternative, but I have found it interesting that Churches that have almost no cultural ties to England and (for some) no missinary ties, find Anglican a reasonable name to use. Rwanda at least had the missionary connection.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-36996999624488766932008-01-18T08:46:00.000-05:002008-01-18T08:46:00.000-05:00I think you are reading a little too much into the...I think you are reading a little too much into the runes Mark. It is a long, long time since "Anglican" meant "identity with the native peoples of the kingdoms of the English" if it ever did mean that. You know, of course, that the first and only pre-Reformation use of "Anglican" is in Magna Carta ("Quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit"). The word wasn't used to describe the characteristics of those churches in communion with Canterbury until the 1850s (so it would never have been an option for the American church, no?). Even when it became current, it wasn't universally accepted by Church of England people, in that it made the established church sound as if it were no more than one sect among others (the <I>Church Times</I> preferred, up until post-WW2, to refer to "Dissenters" versus "Churchmen"! - ah! the good old days!)<BR/><BR/>So, in short, is it really possible to say that this is a distancing from PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC and alignment with the colonial, imperial power of England? ;)ThreeMinuteTheologianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086899239288406849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-87175207987488686922008-01-18T08:40:00.000-05:002008-01-18T08:40:00.000-05:00Perhaps, Mark, you might ponder the implications t...Perhaps, Mark, you might ponder the implications to other Anglican churches of our own recent name-change, from "The Episcopal Church of the United States of America," to "The Episcopal Church". The name "Episcopal Church of Rwanda" sounds like a branch of the church named "The Episcopal Church", doesn't it? And if a church wanted to make clear that it is <B>not</B> a branch of this particular church, a name change in these circumstances would be necessary; wouldn't you agree? Fortunately (as far as I know), no one yet has taken the name, "The Anglican Church".<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, if The Episcopal Church had not asserted in its name change that it is not <B>The</B> Episcopal Church but one of many episcopal churches, such name changes would not be necessary.RBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752701681681717163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-23748249012268520842008-01-18T05:22:00.000-05:002008-01-18T05:22:00.000-05:00the more important question is why does TEC bend o...the more important question is why does TEC bend over backwards and compromise its own principles in order to stay in "communion" with the Rwandan Priamte in the AC??<BR/><BR/>Why let down so many in TEC (eg BO33) in order to try and appease certain GS primates.<BR/><BR/>They do not want to identify with TEC.....why does TEC so easily get pushed into dropping its conscience in order to stay identified with the AC??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-77869042908346394842008-01-17T20:06:00.000-05:002008-01-17T20:06:00.000-05:00Do people notice that anytime the word homosexual ...Do people notice that anytime the word <I>homosexual</I> is used coming out of an African statement by the church or the press, it is always in the context of behaviour? Have we not tried to make our African (not to mention our American) conservative brothers and sisters understand that sexual orientation is something we perceive as more of an ontological component of our identity? In other words, they see being homosexual as "something you do." We understand it as "something we are." <BR/><BR/>There is definitely a disconnect in understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-67773985260992895282008-01-17T16:54:00.000-05:002008-01-17T16:54:00.000-05:00dear miserable sinner...oops. Thanks for the corre...dear miserable sinner...oops. Thanks for the correction. How indeed does one get too dead? I'll work on that.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-87645011617657223292008-01-17T16:49:00.000-05:002008-01-17T16:49:00.000-05:00Canon Harris:Perhaps the FedCon crowd also hope th...Canon Harris:<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the FedCon crowd also hope the Episcopal church is <I>too decedent</I>. Though, I'm not sure how one gets <I>too</I> dead. What for instance is just dead enough? :-)<BR/>I trust though, you meant to say <I>too decadent</I>. <BR/><BR/>Grace & peace,<BR/>-miserable sinnerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com