It seems there is no room for disagreement afterall. It wasn’t so long ago that very many people “could neither recognize nor receive the ministry” of a woman. Seems the Church was willing to press ahead on that matter. But now they aren’t? Will the Episcopal “apologize” for doing what they felt was right or will they stand up to the pressure?
That chastizement also encompassed the Canadian dioceses that are blessing same-sex unions, such as New Westminster in Vancouver.
I didn’t know that, matt. Interesting.
I find it odd that the conservative American church leaders who are asking the African Churches to step in join their assault on the Episcopal leadership are among the same demographic that is so rah-rah American and “stuff the UN and foreigners” in every other aspect.
I haven’t read this yet.
Two points, however:
-
The Commission was tasked with finding ways in which to preserve the state of intercommunion between Anglican Churches, not to evaluate, judge, chastise, or otherwise regulate the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada, which would be beyond their purview completely in any case. We were cautioned Sunday that the press would likely read it as the latter if there were any words of criticism in it – but that’s not its function; it’s an effort by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his capacity as head of the Anglican Communion to preserve that intercommunion, by laying out ways in which the member churches can come to see eye to eye on issues dividing them, notably VGR and same-sex unions.
-
The Commission is advisory – the one person who can decide whether or not to invite X, Y, or Z to meetings of the Anglican Communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury; and it’s up to X, Y, or Z to accept or refuse those invitations. So what the Commission says is merely good advice for him – not “the rules the churches must follow.”
More after I read the statement.
My dad was a member of the Episcopal church for several decades. He recently was thrilled to have been “accepted” into the Anglican church precisely because of them accepting Bishop Robinson.
I don’t see the big deal, but then that could be part of the reason I don’t go to the same church as my dad anymore.
I appreciate the nuance you’re trying to see, Polycarp. However, you must admit that when I tell my son that I invite him to go take his bath and advise him that it’s bedtime, I’m not really giving an invitation he can refuse without consequences.
The relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church is very different then the relationship between Homebrew and Homebrew’s son. I don’t think this is a particularly good rebuttal analogy. 
Are you suggesting that coconuts migratre.
Opps, sorry, wrong suggestion.
Are you suggesting that there are would be no consequenses if the Episcopal Church doesn’t apologize as invited to do?
I just wasted 40 minutes reading what started out good and ended up a piece of crap. I know where they were coming from, and what their purpose and mandate was, and I defended that in post #4.
But my final reaction is that they threw out the baby with the bathwater – getting into too much detail about modes of authority and such, and failing to recognize the underlying moral questions on both sides of the issue.
That document will be relegated to the dustheap of history, and rightly so.
As for Homebrew’s comment, that relationship may have been the case in Catholicism, and in Anglicanism before 1784 – but it’s probably far more like your mother advising you, today, to take a bath or go to bed – you’re an adult human being with your own autonomy in making your own decisions. Granted, telling her to go to Hell instead of acceding to her will may have consequences for your future relationship – but you’re free to do so where your son is not.
More later…I’m too irritated to write more in any cogent fashion right now.
One more comment: as I said before reading it, they came up with advice and then, as they should have, dumped the problem in Rowan Williams’s lap. I look forward to seeing what he has to say about it.
BTW, the idea of a bishop who disagrees with you coming in and fucking around in a parish in your church is at least equally divisive as VGR’s consecration or New Westminster’s approbation of same-sex unions. One thing I find truly repulsive there is that one got a real chastisement and the other a “that wasn’t very nice” light slap on the hand.
I’ve got an invitation to give to the Commission, by the way. After Lawrence, it’s actually legal for them to accept my invitation, too.
Okay, I’m probably a century or three behind the role of the Sovereign in the Anglican Church but what is the Queen’s take on this? Or is her being Head of the Church of England even less real than her being in charge of the country?
Right the first time. In England, she appoints the Bishops – “choosing” them from a slate of one per vacancy nominated by the Prime Minister, who usually gets the name of whom to nominate from the CoE officialdom. Outside England, including in the rest of the U.K., she doesn’t even have that much say.
To be quite blunt about it, I had thought about offering them the same invitation in my second post here, but more explicitly.
Remember, my friend, that’s pretty much the situation my own church is in. The bishop of my diocese is one of the ones who was talking most about splitting off from the Episcopal Church after Bishop Robinson was ordained. My church is leading the opposition to our bishop. That’s one of the reasons I joined it.
I’ve a feeling Sunday’s sermon is going to be very interesting. I just wish our prayers for unity had worked a bit better.
CJ
Okay, now I’m confused. I though Robinson was the gay bishop whose ordination (or should I say, orientation?) was causing the big controversy. And you joined your church specifically because it was spearheading the opposition to said gay bishop? That can’t be right, can it?
Not quite. The Bishop of Pittsburgh is one of the old-school hard-liners who is threatening to withdraw his diocese from the main American Episcopal Church organization because of the elevation of Robinson. The church that Siege just joined is one of the Pittsburgh parishes that are opposing the bishop’s intentions and attitude.
Oh, okay, I get it now. Duh. Thanks, jayjay. I knew I missing something* when I read Siege’s post.
[sub]*My brain, apparently.[/sub]
So, which church can piss the farthest? That’s what matters.
A very difficult matter to settle, too, considering how many piss artists are employed by organized religion.