Reports from Canada about the Southern Cone are piling up:
Conservative Anglicans shun Canada for S. America Reuters
Bishop gives Anglicans new option National Post
The Anglican Network in Canada is organising a conference shortly
And the Anglican Journal reports that Bishop protests unauthorized ordinations.
Update
Michael Valpy has ‘Full-blown schism’ in church, Anglican bishop says in the Toronto Globe and Mail
My view is that Bishop Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, exercising his ministry in Canada, must force the hand of Rowan Williams. Having said to Fred Hiltz that he is operating change properly, it must follow that Harvey is indeed carrying out schism, especially if there are ordinations in New Westminster. If Rowan Williams does not invite Martyn Minns, and yet invites Harvey, he is inconsistent. If he invites Harvey and therefore Minns (say on a chane of mind that Canada is jumping the gun), but withdraws invitations from bishops of The Episcopal Church who he deems… Read more »
Like others, Donald Harvey is free to start a new denomination. If, however, he attempt to claim that his new sect is the “real” Anglican presence in Canada, he will be lying.
What I find most interesting re the SC is that ++Venables has said he spoke with the ABC before starting to open his doors to orthodox Anglicans trapped in liberal national churches…… the implication was that he is not going against the ABC’s wishes – maybe the ABC sees many people in TECUSA and its friends are just normal AC people who cannot any longer tolerate the continuous drift away from the bible and the 39 articles?
… or then, maybe not.
(always ask for the alternative/pose the alternative questions ;=)
“Alternatively a new fence is to invite everyone and exclude no one, a new and rather desperate non-position”
You mean something akin to what Jesus himself did?
The Archbishop of Canterbury needs to make a statement about this EITHER way. I’m surprised he hasn’t done so already. If he disapproves, he must say so. If he approves (as he is reported to have done), he must say so – and explain himself.
badman…. it is clear he sees the need for APO
It was legitimised in Tanzania
It was the ABC’s idea to have a “confessing church” in the US….. APO follows from this….and remember he thinks the diocese is the real representation of the church and not the “abstract reality” of the national church
Predictions:
(1)Williams won’t do much if anything about Canada and Venables unless something within the CoE forces his hand;
(2)Only conservative evangelicals could do anything to force his hand, and they would only do so in the direction of permitting Venables to do whatever;
(3) Williams’ public theology as Archbishop will bend to whatever he happens to be forced into accepting by conservative evangelicals.
What I don’t understand, NP, is why folk who might fairly be categorized as “ANO” – “Anglican in Name Only” – get so fired up about this business? Does HT Brompton, or whichever parish you frequent (I personally could care less, tho’ your regular attendance at St Mary’s, Bourne Street would grab my attention) stick another gold star on your card every time you re-itterate “Lambeth 1:10” and “TWR” on this site?
“orthodox Anglicans trapped in liberal national churches” Oh, the poor suffering little darlings! Being made to worship week after week in an Anglican church where the person sitting next to you might be *GASP* one of THEM! I fail to see how words like “trapped” in any way define their position. Of course, the fact that their moderator, by his actions, is one of THEM is a bit puzzling. “Bishop Harvey is moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, which describes itself as “a national fellowship of Canadian Anglicans who share a commitment to biblically-faithful, historically-authentic Anglicanism.” “ As opposed… Read more »
Rowan fiddles while the AC burns . . . but, perhaps it is part of some grand strategy beyond the kin of lesser minds (like mine). In either case, his options seem to be diminishing with time. If he excludes equally he could end up with a huge Lambeth boycott (given the numbers sympatico with each side). If he doesn’t, he will have to come down on one side or the other. Once again, either way, he is going to end up exacerbating and accelerating the current split. If, as usual, he tries to split the baby and invite everybody,… Read more »
Erika:
Jesus was accepting of all people, not all behaviors.
Steven
I begin to wonder if we are not dealing here with another example of people hearing what they want to hear. Given the subtlety of Rowan-speak, this is not entirely to be blamed on the hearer. And I don’t think Venables is a liar. But it strikes me that Rowan may have said something along the lines of wishing that the proposed Primatial Oversight plan proposed at Dar had proven acceptable, and Venables suggesting he might do something informally, and Rowan opining that was certainly within his range of options — which was heard as approval rather than as a… Read more »
Trouble is that the ABC is trying to avoid “schism” He should learn from Augustine: ‘By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe’ (De fide et symbolo, ix). In the AC, we have a situation in which people do not believe the same things – in this situation, a split is not “schism”. Schismatics “deviate from fraternal charity” despite sharing the same beliefs….. TECUSA and and some others in the AC clearly have different beliefs to most of the AC on a number of issues and… Read more »
“it is clear he sees the need for APO”
Why? What does he not get now from the Primate of Canada? Primates are not Popes. The current primate has an administrative role, he can’t do anything in another bishop’s diocese without that bishop’s permission. He is purely an administrator. What will APO give anybody? It’s not like the Primate can set doctrine, or decide who will be ordained or not, or who can go to seminary, so what’s the issue?
When the ABC betrayed his friend, Jeffrey Johns, we were told he was keeping the Greater Good in mind. When all of the surrent nonsense got started, and some of us wished the ABC to take action, we were told – by some – that he as being wise like a serpent. I think that, having given in to bullies in the first case, and having tried to avoid appearing to give in to them in the second, he is now simply paralyzed with funk. If he scolds the border crossers, ++Akinola etc will dump all over him. If he… Read more »
once again, NP manages to repeat the Donatist/Lollard/Biliolitrus lines. Once again: His own side has rendered Lambeth 1.10, TWR and Tanzania dead letters. They force these things on the Communion and then freely ignore them. What I find fascinating is that they get so up in the air when honest attempts at movement are made. Like all rigorist movements, this band of intellectual and spiritual sloths do not care about anything other than their being “right.” Nothing but the monomaniacal press forward into their increasingly heretical and “pure” world view is important. Cannon law, the Church Catholic and even the… Read more »
So much of the “conservative” position seems to depend on the vain repetition of lies. The lie that “conservatives” are “persecuted.” The lie that Lambeth 1:10 had only one clause. The lie that Windsor approved of interprovincial incursions. Even lies that aren’t necessary. (ie, It would have done nothing to undermine their case to admit that Minns was the drafter of the recent Akinola screed.) We know that they have frequently lied about who has assented to particular documents. And we know that they have, more than once, completely misrepresented comments from Cantuar. So now yet another foreign prelate justifies… Read more »
NP:
APO. ABC. TWR. ANO.
Are you *trying* to drive me BSI??
Perhaps Rowan Williams is planning to barricade himself in the crypt of his cathedral where Becket met his end and stave off the global hoards.
God bless you Erika, yes Jesus confounded and outraged with his inclusive theology. A lot of the retired bishops and their cohorts’ movements are simply political machinations and attempts to stack the numbers so they can have “overwhelming” or “unanimous” endorsement for their next round of accusations and oppressive strategies. Can you imagine if this was done in any democratic parliament e.g. the US. Imagine if there were attempts to remove every member of one party from the room, even though they had a mandate from their constituents. Imagine if they attempted to stack the legal system. In Australia we… Read more »
What makes this particularly interesting, and particularly distressing, is that this is in explicit contradiction, and constitutes functional rejection of, the Archbishop’s Panel of Reference. In their first report (http://www.aco.org/commission/reference/docs/report_october.pdf) they recommended reconciliation within the provinicial structures of Canada. This has been implicit, of course, in other, similar events; but in this case it is explicit.
Canterbury has expressed implicitly and explicitly commitment to the Windsor Process. He can hardly call “Windsor-compliant” so clear and deliberate rejection of that process.
Well, in one way con realignment Anglican believers may just be garden variety folk, and in another way they may not be quite so ordinary and unremarkable as they think themselves to be. At least as the rest of us tend to see some things about them. The ordinary part has two markers. One, who can keep up with the empirical data flooding out, even in the specialized science communities? We excuse the average citizen from having to follow or weigh all of this until a second marker comes into viable play, i.e., until we seem to be reaching an… Read more »
Problem is, Steven, that the GS demands would mean throwing out about a third of the CofE
The answer really must be a civilised and global split, within as well as between provinces. Both can then call themselves Anglican if they wish. The priority is that they do not remain in the same sack, clawing each other to bits – the current situation cannot continue.
The problem is that few will openly call for this and both sides want to be seen to ‘win’.
“Jesus was accepting of all people, not all behaviors.”
And he did not define people BY their behaviors, but by their faith. Shame that Akinola, Iker, Harvey, et al do not follow his example.
“…the issue is the authority of scripture and all that is being achieved by trying to keep the AC containing both those who give scripture little authority and those who can give unequivocal support to the 39 articles is that the AC is slowly killing itself.”
I wish you’d stop saying that those of us who differ with you “give scripture little authority.” Rather, we interpret scripture differently and, hence, employ its authority in a different manner.
John Robison posted: “once again, NP manages to repeat the Donatist/Lollard/Biliolitrus lines. Once again: His own side has rendered Lambeth 1.10, TWR and Tanzania dead letters. They force these things on the Communion and then freely ignore them. What I find fascinating is that they get so up in the air when honest attempts at movement are made. Like all rigorist movements, this band of intellectual and spiritual sloths do not care about anything other than their being “right.” Nothing but the monomaniacal press forward into their increasingly heretical and “pure” world view is important. Cannon law, the Church Catholic… Read more »
A question for all. Are retired bishops invited to Lambeth?
I ask because Bishop Harvey is retired. If he would not have received an invitation to Lambeth in his previous status as a retired bishop, then there is no invitation to be withdrawn following his accession to the frostiest bits on the top of the Southern Cone. (Thank you, Dave Walker!)
If so, ++Rowan need do nothing in response. But however much ++Rowan may be relieved by that, the rest of us would, I think, appreciate a word or two from him at this juncture.
Charlotte
No, retired bishops are not invited to Lambeth Conferences.
In England, FWIW, retired bishops cease forthwith to have any role at all in the House of Bishops, even though a few of them, e.g. the former Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries, continue to be active in the House of Lords, as “life peers”.
What was wrong with my previous entry here was the word “withdraw” – and because indeed a retired bishop is not invited to Lambeth then there is the option of do nothing, that kind of excludes Bishop Don Harvey as he becomes a full timer for the Southern Cone in Canada, but doesn’t involve Rowan Williams in moving a muscle. Had he had to withdraw an invitation for the incursion, then the matter would be all the clearer.
I see that it has become necessary at Anglican Mainstream to chuck dirt at the Canadians. Ho ho, what fun it must be over there.
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/11/21/open-minded-canadians/
“… the issue is the authority of scripture and all that is being achieved by trying to keep the AC containing both those who give scripture little authority and those who can give unequivocal support…”
Even you should be able to see that it is the other way around in Reality (God’s very good Creation, you know).
You CLAIM Messrs Gagnon, Cameron and Wright for yourselves and contend that their Works as per Lambeth I:10 are set and infallible, yet are not able to defend their false “teachings” when called upon it.
“NP:
APO. ABC. TWR. ANO.
Are you *trying* to drive me BSI??”
scripsit MRD
;=)
The quote from Saint Augustine of Hippo above means that Schism is w o r s e than Heresy!
Steven
“Jesus was accepting of all people, not all behaviors.”
Jesus INVITED all and died for us while we were sinners.
That he would like us to behave differently is a totally different issue.
Pat says “I wish you’d stop saying that those of us who differ with you “give scripture little authority.” Rather, we interpret scripture differently and, hence, employ its authority in a different manner.”
Our bishops say something is “incompatible with scripture”….. so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures
“Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!”
Let me note just in passing that now Canada is targeted, just as TEC was targeted. I believe many in the Anglican middles and lefts rather anticipated that beating up on TEC for thinking outside the closed boxes of conservative presuppositions was not going to be the whole realignment campaign game. Surely. The current Anglican realignment cannot proceed with adding more targets to its expanding lists of all the many people who do not meet its narrow expectations, weighed gingerly down very high noses. Surely. Anybody who conscientiously stands in the Anglican middles to lefts is fair game for realignment… Read more »
“”Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!”” God is not a legislator, and neither you nor any bishop is a policeman. The fact that these things did not occur to you shows what your religion is all about. You obviously don’t sing the music of your Evangelical heritage, which, though like all hymnody theologically dodgy in places, contains a fun hymn called “Free From the Law, Oh Happy Condition!” I guess this is what happens to traditional Christianity on a steady diet of Graham Kendrick and Hill Song. It’s… Read more »
“Our bishops say something is “incompatible with scripture”….. so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures
“Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!””
First of all, of course, in Anglican tradition, “our bishops” are neither infallible not the be-all/end-all of scriptural authority.
Second, there is a great deal of difference between a hard-and-fast rule involving indisputable numbers–100 is not 99 nor is it 101–and 2000-year-old words translated variously into modern languages.
NP submits: Our bishops say something is “incompatible with scripture”….. so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures “Officer, I was not speeding by doing 100mph, I was just interpreting the speed limit differently to you!” Whoops, NP, there you go again with the distortions. The correct metaphor would involve your friends contending that the speed limit was 15 mph, and some on the far left contending that the speed limit was 120 mph. That would contrast with a posted limit which was actually phrased as “a speed that is reasonable for road… Read more »
“Our bishops say something is “incompatible with scripture”….. so I take it that those who condone such things are rejecting the said scriptures”
Certainly not. They might be rejecting the bishops’ thinking, but not the Holy Scriptures (always in the plural) of the Church.
Ford, Ephesians 1-2 – has lots on how we are saved by grace…….. it is followed by Eph 5:1-21
See 1John1….see Romans 6:1
We cannot abuse God’s grace to justify what HE calls sin
Seems to me, to use an old analogy, that some conservative evangelicals tend to use Scripture as a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than for light.
“We cannot abuse God’s grace to justify what HE calls sin…”
And please point to any place in the New Testament where God–in any of his three persons–calls homosexuality a sin. Paul may do so, but Paul is not God.
“We cannot abuse God’s grace to justify what HE calls sin”
So why do you?
NP, Lots about how those who are included came to be that way, nothing about who is excluded. There’s a curious part that seems to indicate that, for Paul, Jesus is not God. I can just imagine moderns calling him a Unitarian. You seem to have no trouble disobeying Eph 5:112, 8-10, 21. Eph 2:3, “the cravings of our sinful nature” aren’t just about sex, NP, and your misunderstanding of that has left you full victim to the non-sexual “cravings of our sinful nature”. Again, you are twisting Scripture to turn the Gospel into the very law that Christ sets… Read more »
1. Lambeth 1.10 was passed by a majority of bishops. A goodly number of bishops voted against it. 2. Lambeth 1.10 was a multi-layered resolution that said a number of things. Doubtless many who voted for it had reservations about various clauses – including your friend in Abuja who clearly had no intention of paying the least mind to the bits he didn’t like. And BTW, NP – Our Lord makes it very clear that the bread and the wine are his body and blood. St. Paul (to whom you ascribe more authority than Jesus) says the same. Yet you… Read more »
Malcolm – don’t be sillly….when the Lord gave wine and bread to his disciples and said it was his body and blood, you think it was actually his blood and body? Yeah – it makes sense doesn’t it that we should have all the bishops of the AC vote but nobody has to care about their decision and it is perfectly legit for some clergy to undermine and contradict them??? Recipe for disaster…..and disaster is what we are seeing in the AC since the ABC has wasted 4 years trying to accomodate TECUSA despite its tearing of the fabric of… Read more »
“Seems to me, to use an old analogy, that some conservative evangelicals tend to use Scripture as a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than for light.” says the Lapin
Do you cover the light so you cannot read all the verses which contradict what you may want to justify, Rabbit?
Certain behabviour is either good, holy, acceptable to God….or “incompatible with scripture” and sin in his eyes…… best to keep the light on when reading scritpure as we would not want to miss anything God says, would we?
“Do you cover the light so you cannot read all the verses which contradict what you may want to justify, Rabbit?”
Is that how you do it?
Whether or not you cover the light, you certainly cover the Light.