tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post2324090988537959662..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Gracious Restraint again!Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-85540104401259599062010-03-24T09:30:25.221-04:002010-03-24T09:30:25.221-04:00I suppose I wasn't as specific as I might have...I suppose I wasn't as specific as I might have been. The colonies that became the United States were certainly part of the Empire. However, the nation was formed before the Episcopal Church; and neither was formed with consent from Empire and Imperial church, but without.<br /><br />NB: my verification term is "words." <i>Words</i>! Now, how much more appropriate can it get?Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-44205766229039593952010-03-24T00:03:42.286-04:002010-03-24T00:03:42.286-04:00I can see your point.
However, again, it's n...I can see your point. <br /><br />However, again, it's not the term that I originated. I think, largely, it's been used by ACNA and ACNA supporters because to recognize, as you have, other nations within our structure gives lie to the accusation of xenophobia and navel-gazing.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-415024118327568742010-03-23T22:47:44.490-04:002010-03-23T22:47:44.490-04:00You know, John, that many of the "provinces&q...You know, John, that many of the "provinces" of the Anglican Communion include more than one nation. Closest to you, for example, are Aotearoa/New Zealand/Polynesia, or Southeast Asia. That's also true of Southern Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Cone. My own usage ("national/<b>provincial</b> churches") might be more clear in one sense. However, neither changes the relationship of autonomy in relationship between and among the various churches in the Communion. However, we also find the term "provincial" problematic, because some of the "national/provincial churches" of the Communion were literally "provincial," extensions of the Church of England in provinces of the British Empire that later became independent nations (Nigeria, Kenya, Australia); while others were not (TEC, Brazil). To avoid confusion about historical relations with Canterbury, we sometimes focus on "national churches in" instead of "provinces of" the Anglican Communion.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-86333042518694481642010-03-23T08:28:29.752-04:002010-03-23T08:28:29.752-04:00The existence of dioceses from countries other tha...The existence of dioceses from countries other than the USA inside TEC makes the term "national church" inappropriate. In rejecting the term I make no comment about TEC's place in the Anglican Communion.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-68667687123407066072010-03-22T23:58:59.498-04:002010-03-22T23:58:59.498-04:00I'm using the term others have used, John, in ...I'm using the term others have used, John, in saying national church. You may be thinking in terms of the established church, which is not the case. We are the national expression, in the U. S., of Anglicanism. If we are ejected from the "communion," we will still be a national church, simply no longer a part of the AC.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-47205132634350390872010-03-22T17:20:07.668-04:002010-03-22T17:20:07.668-04:00John Sandeman -- you interject with jaring rationa...John Sandeman -- you interject with jaring rationality, factual information and remembrance of last week's history. Simply astonishing. <br /><br />Thank you, Rob+robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16598249282829894945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80727253515104401272010-03-22T03:48:45.534-04:002010-03-22T03:48:45.534-04:00@Sydney Priest anon,
You may well be right, but be...@Sydney Priest anon,<br />You may well be right, but being neither Peter nor you, I don’t know of those parishes. I do my best not to lie, but I will admit to invincible ignorance. Would you like me to ask PFJ? There would be plenty of parishes doing diaconal administration, though. <br />@ Marshall Your last par puts it well. We simply disagree about whether this change in the episcopate was important enough to discuss with the communion, which would have meant doing the theology rather earlier. It surprises me still that TEC did not do that.<br />BTW can I congratulate you as the Episcopal Hospital Chaplain on the USA adopting a national health insurance scheme. Welcome to the civilised world.<br />@Margaret the link appears to have worked for Marshall. Start it at http: <br />I think the communion agreed to disagree about women’s organisation. That meant that some would change and others would not. Foot dragging was built in to that consensus.<br />On snarkiness: I think we should own our own snarkiness and not blame it on each other. <br />@counterlight I think I have bored Mark’s readers on this subject already - in earlier but recent threadsJohn Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-725442188875254672010-03-21T23:23:51.839-04:002010-03-21T23:23:51.839-04:00John - you're not really telling the truth abo...John - you're not really telling the truth about lay presidency in Sydney, are you? We could both name at least a dozen parishes in which it regularly occurs with Peter Jensen's full knowledge. So if he's not sure it's legal why doesn't he act to stop it? He's never slow to to send his stormtroopers around for a visit if hears rumors of those of us who consider ourselves traditional Anglicans doing something outrageous like wearing eucharistic vestments, or reserving a portion of the Sacraments so that they can be shared with the sick and housebound.<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with defending an Archbishop you clearly admire, but please don't resort to lies in the process.<br /><br />A Sydney Priest<br />(Who apologizes for remaining anonymous on the grounds of wanting to keep his job).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-35493699494609136012010-03-21T22:19:13.137-04:002010-03-21T22:19:13.137-04:00You know, John, you and I actually addressed this ...You know, John, you and I actually addressed this difference before three years ago(<a href="http://episcopalhospitalchaplain.blogspot.com/2006/08/church-whole-church-and-nothing-but.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://episcopalhospitalchaplain.blogspot.com/2006/09/catholic-order-impaired-communion-and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> ).<br /><br />Interestingly enough, our rite of ordination of a bishop says little about the Church beyond the Episcopal Church. There is the comment in the Examination that, "With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world." There is a commitment to "share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church." However, the actual words are, "Therefore, Father, make <i>N</i> a bishop in your Church." In what sense does that suggest function for the Anglican Communion? Only to the extent that other provinces recognize it; which is to say, by courtesy, largely intellectually, and then only when it suits. The timeline on the ordination of women that you cite, reflecting the Australian experience, is wonderfully accepting of the authority of the ACC to settle the matter, when functionally it isn't settled at all; for while more provincial/national churches than not ordain women as priests, not all do - and significantly fewer are those who extend inclusion of women to the episcopate.<br /><br />As for my citation of the Quadrilateral: Lambeth accepted its wording about the historic episcopate, including "as locally adapted." Have we changed the definition, the boundaries of "Communion?" Well, you're actually suggestion we've done so by changing the definition of "bishop." Does our "local adaptation" mark a change of definition? Clearly, you think so. Our thinking is that we are only adapting to our local mission field.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-26523177583059721912010-03-21T16:21:59.397-04:002010-03-21T16:21:59.397-04:00John, your first link doesn't work.
As to the...John, your first link doesn't work.<br /><br />As to the second, the first paragraph reads: "with the added recognition that a woman bishop being appointed as a focus of unity could present problems in a diocese and in episcopal collegiality."<br /><br />Let's just stop for a moment, and replace man (or more appropriately perhaps, male) --do you get how offensive it is? --that a 'man bishop' as a focus of unity could present problems..... sheeesh<br /><br />Any way --so, yes, indeed, thank you, according to the time line provided in the second link, in 1973 'women priests' were considered people too and their presence should not be a communion breaker. My point remains then, why are some places still dragging their feet on the issue --we would still be waiting if we were waiting to come to some consensus.<br /><br />If we are still waiting for equality and justice for women nearly 40 years after the fact.... well, I rest my case. And equality and justice delayed is equality and justice denied.<br /><br />Oh --and we've been waiting for 25 years for the rest of the communion to even talk out loud reasonably about homosexuality --no sense in waiting any longer. The last decade has proven that those who don't want to, won't ever. Time has come.<br /><br />PS: I know ACC doesn't make 'rulings'... I was being snarky.... mostly because you made it sound as though they do, or perhaps even should. And I am ordained a priest for the whole church, even though there are places where I would not be recognized as such.... how would that make YOU feel?<br /><br />Just sayin'.it's margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13577280471100732619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-62499544087747845022010-03-21T08:21:01.588-04:002010-03-21T08:21:01.588-04:00"Orombi does not support the laws you mention..."Orombi does not support the laws you mention. The Ugandan church made a statement opposing the death penalty in November and more recently has made it clear it does not support the legislation."<br /><br />Orombi only opposes the death penalty provision. All the reports I've seen indicate that he still supports the discriminatory provisions of the bill, which is the whole point of the thing.Counterlighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345956180434795401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-34313423070476672732010-03-21T00:24:33.356-04:002010-03-21T00:24:33.356-04:00@ Margaret
http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/WomensO...@ Margaret<br />http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/WomensOrdinationTimeline.doc.<br />or a more detailed account by a former chair of ACC\http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20050709craston.cfm?doc=62<br />(He would agree with you on the issue of gay bishops and blessings - I try to cite resources for progressives from people they agree with). By the way the ACC does not make "rulings". The issue is not one of control and power being exerercised over TEC - the Anglican communion cannot tell TEC what to do. But in changing the boundaries without consultation TEC is acting in a unilateral way. But then, you are American after all _ a nation that exerts control and power over others often without realising it.<br /><br />@Marshall <br />If you look at The time-line I have given Margaret about women's ordination, and compare it to the time-line attached to "To set our hope on Christ" it is amazing how little TEC has engaged with the wider communion on the issue of openly gay bishops. As several progressive posters have pointed out the TEC is now being open about who you are. Which raises the issue of whether TEC was open before.<br />Are your TEC bishops made bishops in and for the Anglican Communion? You tell me. In my province they are made bishops "in the Church of God" which derives from the English ordinal. This is one more step in making the Anglican Communion less of a communion.<br />Your argument that "this falls within the parameters of the Quadraliteral" is actually quite telling. have you (TEC) made that decision of by yourselves? Have you talked to others about it? Is the Quadraliteral the only Anglican instrument or agreement with any bearing on it? Once again - who decides? <br />I am not accusing TEC of being malicious towards the rest of the Communion, rather of being literally care-less.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-27290283016909700952010-03-20T22:10:48.061-04:002010-03-20T22:10:48.061-04:00Oh dear John!!! Your citation for this ACC 'ru...Oh dear John!!! Your citation for this ACC 'ruling' please --pre 1976. <br /><br />What I do remember quite clearly is the rhetoric, the name calling, the dehumanizing content of 'the sky is falling' predictions, the call that ECUSA had broken Tradition and thrown the baby out with the bath water, the biblical citations telling women to sit down, shut up and cover their heads... with all the hyperventilation that went on and the fear that we would be kicked out of the Communion even then... I heard it all first hand. I experienced the scathing burns and barbs to my soul first hand. All because I am the 'wrong sex'.... and yes, those were the very words.<br /><br />I didn't have to research it... I lived it. and to think those same arguments are going on presently in jolly ol' England with regard to the 'wrong sex' being ordained bishops.... for whom is such restraint gracious? For the little girls around whose necks some have tied mill stones?<br /><br />And now the very same rhetoric is used to abuse those who in the eyes of some have 'sex wrong'. <br /><br />Feh! It's all about control and power.<br /><br />Marc hit a home run with this post.it's margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13577280471100732619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-90809148870179111412010-03-20T21:36:43.598-04:002010-03-20T21:36:43.598-04:00Here we have one member group believing it can dec...<i>Here we have one member group believing it can decide for the whole group.</i><br /><br />Not at all, John. The Episcopal Church has no intention of deciding for any other church in the Communion. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.<br /><br />Brian Lewis, I hear you. The Episcopal Church does not decide for any other church, but what we do affects the other churches in the Communion. We've done what we thought was right, and now the other churches will decide their responses to the actions we've taken.<br /><br />People in the Episcopal Church whom I highly respect think that we should fight to keep our place at the Communion table. I'm not there as of now, but I'm willing to consider the idea.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-62498266792935850592010-03-20T10:36:49.908-04:002010-03-20T10:36:49.908-04:00@John Sandeman
One definition of a Communion of ch...@John Sandeman<br /><i>One definition of a Communion of churches (rather than an association or federation of churches is that they accept each others clergy.</i><br /><br />Thank you for that. I see that you agree with the rest of us here then that the General Synod of the Church of England made no steps toward communion with ACNA. In fact the GS of the CoE reenforced their rejection of communion when they rejected the amendment to the motion to accept ACNA's clergy.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-5519393532529178542010-03-20T09:55:17.467-04:002010-03-20T09:55:17.467-04:00The Archbishop of Canterbury has become the whippi...The Archbishop of Canterbury has become the whipping boy for all sides and it's his own fault.<br /><br />He has ostracised his own liberal constituency by surrendering his own principles for a vague aspiration to a greater unity of the Anglican Communion. At the same time he has failed to convince conservative factions that he is doing anything other than appeasing them.<br /><br />It's not surprising therefore that he is now isolated and floundering around at the behest of his 'advisors'.penwatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04363809450765158672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-47358280318790344122010-03-20T08:48:27.022-04:002010-03-20T08:48:27.022-04:00John, I agree that "The boundaries of any so...John, I agree that "The boundaries of any society is of interest to all its members." And there are more that one set and form of boundaries. I live literally half a block east of the state line. I also share a fence with my next door neighbor. Both are boundaries, but with different norms and different consequences. So, your statement that "Here we have one member group believing it can decide for the whole group," begs two questions. First, what are the norms of membership in the society, and what is being "decided" for the whole group? Since the norms so far have been that no one has had authority to decide for the whole group (at least since the formation of the Episcopal Church, and perhaps since the origins of the Episcopal Church of Scotland - but certainly since the fall of the Empire and the Imperial church), I'm not sure how we have been seen suddenly to have so much power.<br /><br />So, what have we "decided for the whole group?" That they must have LGBT clergy, much less LGBT bishops? Clearly not. That they have to live with us as we are, and not as they might wish us to be? Perhaps so; but that falls within the parameters of the Quadrilateral. And that was already the case, or as I said above, that's just life.<br /><br />Or is it dealing with a different understanding of what it means to be a human person? If that's so, I would argue that's driven much less by the Episcopal Church than by Western economic and social forces, in which all our "global North" nations have a part, even if the United States receives (arguably deservedly) the bulk of the criticism. So, I am still not sure what we as the Episcopal Church have forced on anyone, beyond having to consider issues they didn't want to. "How to deal with the Episcopal Church" is one of those issues, perhaps, but only as a consequence, and not a cause.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-47929881829019254832010-03-20T06:43:55.002-04:002010-03-20T06:43:55.002-04:00Sometimes, looking from the Church of England, TEC...Sometimes, looking from the Church of England, TEC people seem to talk as though Bob Duncan and the chaos he has created in the Anglican Communion is nothing to do with TEC at all! It will be perfectly possible for TEC to take its ball and go home, but remember that the Communion you leave (or are ejected from) will not be the same as it was. TEC and its actions (which as it happens I support), the reactions and the pretend reactions have changed the Communion. - None of us is in this struggle to move forward alone whether we like it or not. Our efforts to move the Church of England forward are affected heavily by the international situation.<br /><br />Under the new covenant arrangements each of the bodies ACC, Standing Committee etc will make its decision on whether or not non-covenanted members of the Communion can be members of that body - TEC must be in there and resist ejection (including voting to stay in while it can - only the decision of TEC and Canada to agree to suspension from the ACC allowed the vote to confirm their suspension to pass).<br />Brian LewisBrian Lewisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-50025035073281745502010-03-20T04:05:25.928-04:002010-03-20T04:05:25.928-04:00@Marshall,
The boundaries of any society is of int...@Marshall,<br />The boundaries of any society is of interest to all its members. Here we have one member group believing it can decide for the whole group. This is more than people being forced to discuss something they might prefer not to.<br /><br />@Mark,<br />TEC is not the "national church" surely?<br /><br />@Lionel. Not sure if you were addressing me but... I can't speak for any Anglican provinces, but I am not angry. Just a little sad. I am not sure that psychobabble suits you!John sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-87174447619428441672010-03-20T03:58:38.683-04:002010-03-20T03:58:38.683-04:00Well, at least I liven up your threads, Mark!
@ t...Well, at least I liven up your threads, Mark!<br /><br />@ toujoursdan<br />Remember Samuel Adayi Crowther was made a bishop when the (then) PECUSA was still refusing blacks membership in some dioceses. The implication in your post that the US is somehow the leader in combatting racism in the African communion is simply sad.<br /><br />wv= comeob which is guess means Obadiah Slope is welcome<br /> <br />@ Its Margaret<br />The Anglican Consultative Council agreed that provinces could ordain women without this leading to a break in communion. This was before ECUSA ordained women priests.<br />In 1998 the Lambeth conference voted "That each Province respect the decision and attitudes of other Provinces in the ordination or consecration of women in the episcopate, without such respect necessarily indicating acceptance of the principles involved, maintaining the highest possible degree of communion with the Provinces that differ"<br />I don’t think you have established your case that TEC would still be waiting permission to have women bishops. <br />Did you research this topic or just guess the history?<br /><br />@ counterlight<br />Lay presidency in Sydney is on hold, because Archbishop Peter Jensen is not convinced it is legal. It has also been delayed to allow for consultation wit the Anglican Communion.<br />Orombi does not support the laws you mention. The Ugandan church made a statement opposing the death penalty in November and more recently has made it clear it does not support the legislation. <br /><br />@lapinbizarre<br />Perhaps merely the ball and chain of consultation. Because TEC has not been straightforward with the communion, (as other posters here regret) with TEC bishops saying that TEC has not decided to go ahead with openly gay bishiops even after your 2009 general convention, consultation has been stymied.<br /><br />@Mary Clara<br />One definition of a Communion of churches (rather than an association or federation of churches is that they accept each others clergy. Whatever view you have of the vote to confirm the election of Canon Glasspool as Bishop, it is clear that this will be a step away from that ideal.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-7987434485717495632010-03-20T02:39:55.436-04:002010-03-20T02:39:55.436-04:00Others having addressed "the Oh-So-Concerned&...Others having addressed "the Oh-So-Concerned", I want to come back to Mark's question:<br /><br /><i>We shall see just what will be next - a special meeting of the Primates?</i><br /><br />If it looks to be a re-play of October '03 (that ++KJS would be summoned and coerced, as ++Griswold was, to make pseudo-promises she canonically CANNOT keep, nor SHOULD NOT, either!), then I would seriously counsel her to <i>not go</i>.<br /><br />In fact, if they're up for it---and we don't want to snub Rowan entirely (not that he wouldn't deserve it)---I suggest we send +Gene and (+)Mary in ++KJS's place! You Primates wanna talk ABOUT our gay bishops? Nuh-uh, you're gonna talk TO 'em, instead. Period! The "Listening Process" will come to YOU!JCFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-9923782119533155662010-03-19T23:32:59.579-04:002010-03-19T23:32:59.579-04:00The "leaders" in TEC may want to stay in...The "leaders" in TEC may want to stay in "Rowan's Club" (I suppose to reasserters, anyone before or after Rowan wasn't ABC, and Cantuar has devolved to a hereditary title!), but that doesn't mean The Episcopal Church does. The Anglican Communion is a useless, vestigial organ. Let it die.<br /><br />You still confuse bishops with church. It's really not a hard concept. I'm not a good artist, but maybe someone could draw something to help you?<br /><br />In the meantime, John, Peter, Observer, since we haven't been kicked out yet, and don't just storm off in a huff (who would do that, anyway? Oooops . . . sorry, I forgot!) why don't you just think of yourselves as exercising gracious restraint, or standing in a crucified place for us in TEC. There. That makes it <i>aaaallll</i> better, doesn't it?MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-18906544090568006412010-03-19T20:01:39.283-04:002010-03-19T20:01:39.283-04:00Perhaps the Jensen family firm in Sydney should as...Perhaps the Jensen family firm in Sydney should ask our permission for lay presidency at the Eucharist.<br /><br />Perhaps Bishop Orombi of Uganda should consult with us before making any endorsement of anti-gay segregation laws written by American evangelicals for the Ugandan parliament.Counterlighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345956180434795401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-43621979991414859202010-03-19T19:28:50.146-04:002010-03-19T19:28:50.146-04:00We'd obviously still be 'graciously' w...We'd obviously still be 'graciously' waiting for the church to move on female bishops if we followed this logic.... <br /><br />feh!it's margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13577280471100732619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-65821919664859455952010-03-19T14:30:09.582-04:002010-03-19T14:30:09.582-04:00I'm confused. Did we have to get permission fr...I'm confused. Did we have to get permission from the rest of the Anglican Communion before we consecrated African American, Native American or even female bishops? <br /><br />Why do we need this now again?toujoursdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08106158181662408311noreply@blogger.com