Updated again Thursday evening
There is a further article Archbishop of York: Exclusive interview which contains more detail than the news report.
——-
The Daily Telegraph carries a report by Jonathan Petre headlined Archbishop warns Anglican conservatives.
The Archbishop of York has warned conservative Anglican leaders that they will effectively expel themselves from the worldwide Church if they boycott next year’s Lambeth Conference.
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr John Sentamu pleaded with them to attend the conference despite their war with liberals over homosexuality.
But he told them that if they “voted with their feet” they risked severing their links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with historic Anglicanism, a breach that could take centuries to heal.
“Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury,” he said. “If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it…”
And this:
But he also warned the American bishops that Dr Williams reserved the right to withdraw their invitations if they were not prepared to engage in the decision-making processes of the Communion in the future.
Update
Church Society is particularly concerned by the statement that:
“Dr Sentamu, a close ally of Dr Williams, said that as long as Anglican bishops did not deny the basic Christian doctrines they should all be able to remain within the same Church.
While liberal north Americans disagreed with conservatives over sexual ethics, these were not core issues, he said.”
See Telegraph reports Sentamu saying sexual ethics are not core issues.
Thursday evening Church Society has more to say about it in Archbishop Sentamu on Unity.
I agree with Sentamu’s concerns about excessive legalism. Jesus came to set us free from laws, not to have shackles added upon shackles. The Harry Potter imagery has been bouncing around over the weekend. I find myself totally empathising with Harry Potter’s decision to contrive the house elf Dobbie’s freedom from his cruel Malfoy master. I don’t mind being hissed at for depriving a cruel master of slaves. There is a concern that there are souls trying to bind the Americans to an etiquette prior to the conference itself. It’s a bit like demanding that a wife gives their husband… Read more »
A rare talent for saying what both sides want to hear?
(this irritates everyone, achieves nothing, unfortunately)
Throughout all of this, I have said that +++Rowan will never expel TEC or the Canadians, and this is the first strong statement, through his friend ++York, that he is prepared to lose the conservative Africans. I hope but doubt that Akinola will submit to this demand of ABC to attend. My hunch is that many other African primates, not just South Africa, will sooner defy Nigeria than Canterbury. In 2008, we may have a Communion smaller in numbers but more tolerant, loving, forgiving, more like Jesus.
“The more you write down your laws and have more of them, my view is that you are becoming less and less of a free society.” “Discuss”, as examination questions say, “in relation to the proposed Covenant”.
How, one wonders, will “while liberal north Americans disagreed with conservatives over sexual ethics, these were not core issues” play against last week’s statement of a clique of selected Global South bishops, relative to the recent meeting of the Canadian General Synod, that “we … are dismayed by their unilateral declaration that ’same-sex blessing is not core doctrine’”.
Interesting times ahead.
….either that or Dr Sentamu is picking up a bit of rhetoric from Benedetto XVI to shoot at both sides; you are not a real church without Canterbury. Now there’s a line for you….
Andrew – did you not read the bit about it still being possible to withdraw invitations to the TEC bishops???
I’m not sure we will be smaller. Our communion is now in covenant with the Lutherans and Methodists worldwide, thus creating a communion of mainline-with-bishops churches. If we consider the Anglican/Lutheran/Methodist/Old Catholic as a continuum of churches, then we are actually quite large and reasonably similar in our approach to things. Maybe losing the conservatives in Africa will draw us into deeper relationships with our Lutheran and Methodist brothers and sisters.
The edges of a system that go on and on that something is intolerable tend to be those who find themselves out of it, if the rest can hold. However, should September 30 disappoint those who find something intolerable (as it probably will) and go on to have their own Not the Lambeth Conference, then it will follow that consecrations will be made for England (and probably Scotland, even Wales) as the Sugden doctrine is introduced – that is God showing his anger at national Churches and introducing international oversight. This does not mean some meeting of prelates making decisions… Read more »
And we begin to see the attempted coup d’eglise collapsing around the heads of its ringleaders.
“But he also warned the American bishops that Dr Williams reserved the right to withdraw their invitations if they were not prepared to engage in the decision-making processes of the Communion in the future.” Taken at face-value, ++Sentamu’s “warning” is no danger at all (as TEC has REPEATEDLY stated, it’s committed to the AC, and deliberating among its member churches). But if “not prepared to engage in the decision-making processes of the Communion” is a EUPHEMISM for “refusing to SUBMIT to the Draft Covenant—as it stands” (especially as interpreted by its drafting chair, ++Gomez), then that’s another kettle of fish…… Read more »
I see:
Lambeth 1.10
Windsor Report
Dromantine
Plea after plea that TEC consider the rest of the Communion before it acts.
All ignored or pushed aside.
But it is Akinola at al who risk severing ties? Beyond laughable! The path to God does not run through Canterbury.
NP, round these parts we have a saying:
“live in hopes, die in despair.”
Sorry to upset your triumphalist apple cart, but your gloating might be a bit premature. Shame to add a sin to your soul for no reason at all!
The blame game is over…all cards face up por favor (especially the ones up your sleeve +Akinola)!
But they have never said they are unwilling to engage in the decision making processes in the future….
Fact is, whether you like it or not, NP, is that the CofE isn’t going to throw out all the liberals. So maybe you will have to leave instead?
I am not irritated by Sentamu attempting to consider all the perspectives. It’s called peacemaking and reconciliation. It’s also reconciliation to suggest the strengths or pitfalls in possible strategic decisions. That’s called giving good advice, rather than conniving to throw your competitors into the lions pit or burning furnace. Colossians 1:20-23 Through Jesus God was able to reconcile all things, whether of earth or heaven, by making peace through his consenting sacrifice. Ephesians 2:13-22, Jesus’s purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of… Read more »
“The path to God does not run through Canterbury”
DAN:– THE path does not, but one path surely does and it is called Anglicanism. It is open, moderate, kind, and as the Dean of Grace Cathedral has often said, allows people to be Christians who find other interpretations difficult. TEC is the first daughter of the Church of England; they are in the same family forever. We also have a Presiding Bishop of extraordinary intellect and emotional skill, who is determined to keep TEC within the communion. —Andrew
I see the Church Society quote St Paul as to who is in and out—including not just the sodomites but the covetous. I am reminded of the holy old French priest who said he had heard people confess many sins, and sins that were not sins, but in his long life he had never heard anyone confess to breaking the commandment “Thou shalt not covet”.Just who IS going to be in this “Godly” church of the future?? They tried it in the 17thc-it didn’t work then, it won’t now.
Ford – in your hast to attack me…..you refer to “gloating” – what do you mean? Nothing on this thread from me can (fairly) be described as gloating – can it?? As for what I have actually said, Sentamu trying to bully both sides into sticking with Rowan is not powerful or helpful – as we can see above, pro-TEC people will not see them compromise and merely assert membership of the AC without willingness to give up “rights” they have won in TEC…….. and everyone else does not really believe that our souls are in mortal danger without….Canterbury! Very… Read more »
Perry – yes, and your point is?
THe issues in the AC are that a few want to redesignate certain things as no longer sins, ,making no confession necessary.
Confessing sins is supposed to be followed by repentance – you are making up your own religion if you think confession with no intention of repentance is meaningful at all – this is just not what the bible teaches and an abuse of grace
NP, The majority of your posts have an air of “nyaa, nyaa, just wait, we’ll win. We’re bigger than you are, so we’re right and you’re wrong. TEC will be put in its place, you’ll see.” “Confessing sins is supposed to be followed by repentance” Coming from an Evangelical who, I assume perhaps wrongly, would faint at the idea of actually MAKING a sacramental confession, this is odd. I rather suspect a little frisson of joy on your part everytime someone comes to the mercy seat, it’s another example of a wicked sinner grovelling. There’s something unsettlingly pornographic about that.… Read more »
Reading Romans 1 again — it is great rhetoric, and its quaint utterances about the men deserting the natural use of the female and doing what is shameful to one another is just a baroque adornment to its rhetoric. I don’t recall the older exegetes obsessing about that clause, no doubt because they were in touch with the rhythms and conventions of Hellenistic rhetoric. We don’t obsess about “all Cretans are liars” do we? We know it is just rhetoric. What we should reflect on is Mt 21.31: “they will into the Kingdom of Heaven before you”. Cynical clerics talk… Read more »
I would have thought that rather than ‘redesignate certain things no longer sins’ – which may or may not be an accurate analysis of what some people may be doing – one of the tasks of the church at present is to both: (i) give accurate descriptions of what it is we are talking about, rather than using generalised or perjorative language (the Church Society piece refers to sodomites, for example, which is both perjorative and so genaralised as to be inaccurate in relation to the range of activity which causes concern to “conservative” groups) (ii) understand the biblical categories… Read more »
Yes Mark Bennet but what if you do all that careful analysis and the Bible – if on balance – is still against gay relationships? My answer is we do what has always been done, eg for divorce, say the Bible is wrong. Nowhere does the Bible talk about faithful, loving, relationships. It does not mean it approves of faithful, loving relationships. If it doesn’t, so what?
FJOL – the reason that people in the past were not “obsessing” on certain texts is that there was nobody saying that certain acts were good and holy….but today there are so we have to see whether their assertions are based on scripture…..or not.
It is not just one issue too…..again, based on scripture, I would be against an alcoholic being a bishop….or a “prosperity gospel” heretic.
The issue is the authority of scripture – we want bishops who uphold the faith (call us weird if you like but that is what we “conservatives” want)
As anachronistic as the tag Sodomites is, its use in the article linked nicely encapsulates part of the intellectual and emotional core of our hot button religious controversies. Do any of the Cons-Evo believers who so facilely resort to its use as a pejorative? – what would we do in these conversations without terms like Sodomite, like Abomination? – at all comprehend in critical perspective how their reading of scripture aided in the laborious social construction – it took slow centuries – which simplistically and originally equated All non-procreative sexual activities done by anybody with brute heresy? Now, of course,… Read more »
Those of you interested, I have blogged a number of themes together, here:
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-this-rumour-matters.html
Which combines this, Chris Sugden, the ACI and more.
NP I think we need to define sin. Do we pick and choose which biblical rules we will and won’t follow? Stoned anyone lately? Have any mixed fiber clothing on? Circumsized?
Also, what translation do you want to read when defining sin?
One was of looking at what ++ Sentamu statement is to look at what happened to TEC and the ACocC when we absented ourselves (or at agreed not to vote) at the ACC function, in Nottingham, back in 2006.
All in all, we need to keep talking. It’s what Christ wants.
Bob
“Dr Sentamu, a close ally of Dr Williams, said that as long as Anglican bishops did not deny the basic Christian doctrines they should all be able to remain within the same Church. While liberal north Americans disagreed with conservatives over sexual ethics, these were not core issues, he said.” I hope this is accurate and I hope it sinks in. Sexual ethics are not core doctrine. Of course, that was the ruling in the presentment against Walter Righter, quite a few years ago now, that it made not one whit of difference with the sexually obsessed amongst us. It… Read more »
NP commented “…you are making up your own religion if you think confession with no intention of repentance is meaningful at all…” Having been previously married to a Catholic, many a household debate was based on whether his confession was genuine. My complaint was that saying sorry for a deed of today or yesterday was no guarantee that tomorrow he would not go out and commit the same sin again. That we are now divorced shows that my capacity for perpetual forgiveness has its limits. Yet that said, the process of the debate brought out that it is not humanly… Read more »
On the rhetoric of Romans 1, we should recall the notion of the skopos (purpose) of a passage. Paul is not talking about sexual ethics in this passage, still less about the concrete issues of homosexual orientation. His theme is God’s revelation to the gentiles and their failure to embrace it. The sexual allusions are just conventional Jewish vision of a corrupt gentile society. In the following passage, Romans 2, Paul does a similar rhetorical diatribe against the Jews. His rhetoric may be slightly off, considered as real-life phenomenology, but it serves his purpose in the larger scope of the… Read more »
Whilst as a Roman Catholic I believe sexual matters are key doctrine, I find this ironic when it comes from Church Society. They are divided over the meaning of marriage, whether it is indissoluable or not. They can not come to an agreement as to what the Bible means, hence the ambiguous reference to marriage in the Covenant they signed.
Bob – yes, we do need to define sin….and Lambeth 1.10 is quite clear in its interpretation of the bible on the presenting issue – is it not? Cynthia – Sentamu has tried this line before and it has not worked……he tried it before Tanzania and see what happened then – a few people asserting that their particular innovation is not core doctrine is not a strong argument. In the end, I will be very surprised if (after Dromantine, TWR, TAnzania and the covenant) the ABC changes tack and lets the AC fall apart, leaving just a few liberal churches……but… Read more »
NP There are those of us who would love you to have your church united in integrity. We also love the secular state to ensure that none of your members (covertly or overtly) harass or steal from those who choose not to be in communion with you. We choose to love our children, from their first faeces until death. There are some who are not prepared to push their children away when they have fallen too far. Especially when their fall is less than that of the priestly castes who accuse them. Personally, I consider any homosexual man who marries… Read more »
NP Lambeth 1.10 clear? eg (b) in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; Abstinence from what, precisely – nothing is said, it is perhaps assumed that we know what we are talking about, but I’m not convinced? And 1.10 (d) “rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture” But there is no analysis here of what constitutes homosexual practice. And if the homosexual practice being described is that which is specifically incompatible with scripture… Read more »
Mark – it ain’t unclear…..the teaching of the church is that within marriage (i.e. hetero as you say) is the only holy place for activity.
Yes, the view is contested – but only by a minority in the AC and they have failed to persuade the majority….even in the CofE, today. I base this on the Dr John fiasco and the history of the CofE and AC in the last 3 years…..I do not see a huge amount of support for TEC’s promotion of VGR in England or the rest of the AC…do you?
Once you stop going to church, this all seems pretty pointless.
“the Dr John fiasco”
You see, NP, I find some inspiration in this, not a fiasco. I have no doubt there was pressure put on the man, but in the end, he “gave up the honours with which he had been entrusted” for the good of the Church. Read a life of St. Chad, that is if you’re not afraid a life of one of the saints (sorry, the “traditions of men”) won’t burst into flames in your hands.
“within marriage (i.e. hetero as you say) is the only holy place for activity.”
This is just too easy!
One can assert that certain things are or are not core issues, but unless one states the criteria by which one makes this judgment…need I go on?
This is obviously necessary since there is disagreement over whether these are or are not core issues.
NP What “activity” are you specifically suggesting? It is generalisations and evasions like this which are so hopelessly inadequate to the case. In a communion as diverse as the Anglican Communion, for example, it is pertinent to discuss the cultural meanings of kissing of various kinds. Is it OK for a man to kiss a man? For a man to kiss a woman to whom he is not married? Quite apart from the very different cultural overlay, what do we make of the biblical suggestion that we are to greet each other with a holy kiss? Why don’t we see… Read more »
“One can assert that certain things are or are not core issues, but unless one states the criteria by which one makes this judgment…need I go on?” Yes, you do need to go on, since it was stated in the St. Michael Report what the reasons were. Reading into your statement, you seem to be saying this came out of thin air with no great amount of thought or justification. This is totally untrue, please do not make this claim again as it merely adds to the false characterization of the “liberals” as faithless and making things up as they… Read more »
What do you mean “too easy”, Ford?
It is in line with the bible as I see it and Lambeth 1.10 seems to agree…..and still represents the “mind of the communion” as the ABC says
What is “too easy” is those who just ignore verses which prohibit what they promote as holy and then want to say it is fine as it “non-core” – it is “too easy” to say if you ignore certain verses, your case is made
NP: “….the AC is not grateful to be linked to CAnterbury or desperate for US money but do want a church which can be united with integrity.”
There, you’vd heard it. They don’t need the ArchBishop of Canterbury, they ARE the Anglican Communion!!!
Magic is Might.
It’s all falling apart for the Global South bigots and it may be time for them to dump +Akinola, +Orombi and any other grandstanding (on the souls of other Christians) Network priests who thinks that “poaching on Episcopal Church property” for Christ is honorable, respectable and a decent cover for discrimination, outcasting and the damning of their fellow Christians…fear and hate-mongering ain’t gonna work at The Episcopal Church/The Anglican Communion or beyond. There is no excuse for perpetuating/preaching and promoting crimes of hate against LGBT people and heterosexual women in our religion and everyday Churchlife:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=531629&doc_no=G036096
“within marriage (i.e. hetero as you say) is the only holy place for activity.” NP, it would be very easy, and childish, to make the obvious joke, that those not married ought to just be inert, ‘activity’ can mean any activity. It was just a joke given that you left out the word ‘sexual’. As to ‘non-core’, well that was a statement of the Primates Commission on Doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada. They were asked to give their opinion on whether or not same sex marriage was a matter of doctrine. The St. Michael Report, their response, was… Read more »
>>>in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
Funny how no one cares much about that “lifelong union” part.
Funny how no one cares much about that “lifelong union” part.
Posted by: JPM on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 at 9:10pm BST
Well, no, of course, there needs tobe plenty of elbow room for divorces …
Ford Why are you surprised that there are those who add “…to the false characterization of the “liberals” as faithless (by) making things up as they go along”? After all, we all know that if you can’t slander people on their actual conduct, then you have to take a kernel of truth and distort that instead. That is why one of the Accusser’s other names is the Deceiver. So if souls demonstrate faith, destroy the evidence. If they can’t destroy the evidence, take it out of context. If they can’t take it out of context, create an absurd scenario to… Read more »
Choirboy…yes, scandalous isn’t it…..I don’t seem to know the verse in which the Lord said “Canterbury is the vine and you are the branches….” When did communion with Canterbury become essential to faith? Ford – I agree with you in the sense of moral issues not being credal but implicit within them – would you not agree? (This “non-core” argument is not very strong. As I have said many times, we want to hear a positive case from the bible….the ABC says there isn’t one even though he wants to make an exemption…….most of us in the AC want more… Read more »
>>>Well, no, of course, there needs tobe plenty of elbow room for divorces …
True. I mean, we can’t deprive aging heterosexual men of their trophy wives, now can we?
JPM – just to be clear, I agree with you that some have an inconsistent line re divorce….I would not support this. We have to be consistent and honest