I Pit the Primates

No, not the order of mammals to which lemurs, apes, monkeys, and ourselves belong; I mean the Anglican archbishops and equivalents gathered in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

News story.

Summarizing, the assembled chief honchos of the national Anglican churches worldwide have decided that the U.S. Episcopal Church, which helped found the Anglican Communion as an institution 60 years ago, will be obliged to choose between two distasteful courses of action:

  1. Accept the following:
    [ul][li]No more blessing of same-sex unions[/li][li]Disavow the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson and agree never to name another gay person to the clergy[/li][li]Accept a “primatial vicar” to be imitation-archbishop over seven dioceses that have a case of the ass about the above and about the Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori being our presiding bishop (apparently having a penis is mandatory for being a primate in their view); or[/ul][/li]2. Face a state of “impaired communion” with the other national churches.

Memo to these pompous asses: The reason you have your jobs is that back in 1531 the Church of England decided that whose uncle had troops in Rome was not proper grounds for denying an annulment. The reason our church has St. Andrew’s Cross in its canton is that after the American Revolution, we refused to require our bishops to swear fealty to George III, sending our first bishop to Scotland instead.

Not a one of you has volunteered to surrender your autonomy – in fact, an asshole named Peter Akinola, styled Archbishop of Nigeria, who ought to be renamed Simon, thought nothing of expanding his personal empire by becoming bishop of some U.S. churches (in Virginia).

We’ve taken a stand that GBLT Christians are welcome in our churches, fully able to participate on equal footing with straights. Because that is what Jesus Christ said to do with your fellow man, and He never decided to restrict that to straight people.

It’s probably offensive as hell to say it, but the thought that comes to my mind is that when you gather a bunch of primates on an island off Africa, you should not be surprised when they start flinging shit around like this.

So what am I supposed to be giving up for Lent? My gay brothers and sisters? Or the Anglican Communion?

For shame, assholes. My only solace is that when you strut before the throne of judgment in your archiepiscopal robes, you will be judged as you have judged others. And you may not be happy with the results.

I would tell you all to go get fucked – but in view of of your attitudes, that would be just too ironic.

How do you expect the U.S. Episcopal Church to react? Will it split in two? What will the international church do without half of the money that used to come from the US?

Your argument takes the premise that the archbishops give a shit about Jesus Christ. :stuck_out_tongue:

Darn. I really wanted to post “Primates fling poo. Film at Eleven.” :smiley:

This guy is not just a parishioner, but a monster. He supports and lobbies for far more than just beliefs and association, but the actual physical destruction of gay people using his countries barbaric legal system. The fact that Virginians would ally with a man like him is still something I have a hard time believing really happened.

Why renamed Simon? I’m guessing a biblical reference?

Simon was renamed “Peter” (Greek: the rock) by Jesus because “You are the rock upon which I will build my church.” I think that’s the reference. Poly’s saying to give the name back.

See, I was thinking Simon aka Peter, but more along the lines of the three-times betrayal of Jesus, making Polycarp’s reference a suggestion that the ArchBish is also a Peter that has betrayed Christianity.

If it turns out Polycarp just thinks Peter is too nice a name for such an ass, we’re going to look like overthinking morons. :wink:

Give em he…er…heck, Poly!

I heard about this this morning and had choice words to say about these assholes. Most of what I said elicited a “That’s not a nice thing to say, Da!” from the back seat.

One reason why my wife and I drive fifteen miles to church when there’s an Episcopal church just half a mile up the road is the Rector at the nearby church had a “nice” sermon regarding Bishop Jefferts. Well, that and the music sucked there.

Meanwhile, the UCC makes a point about how gays and lesbians are welcome. Who’da ever thunk that the (former) Puritans would be more easygoing than the (former) Anglicans.

I thought that there was a reference to simony in there somewhere, so perhaps I’m the one who’s overthinking.

However, I’m still happy to accept subscriptions for the Fucking Morons Club, which suggests I ought to be glad to strengthen my credentials for the position.

The Anglican Primates have followed the established Tradition of the Church as She has read Moses and Paul in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whatever their flaws personally or ecclesistically for which they will be judged by Christ, they are on the right side of this. It is the ECUSA which has defied that Tradition and instead sided with the Zeitgeist. The ECUSA now has to decide which path to follow.

God bless and guide the Anglican Church, Archbishop Rowan Williams, and the ECUSA, both traditionalists and revisionists, through this difficult path.

As to how this will eventually resolve, the best I think can be hoped for the growth of an American Anglican Church alongside the ECUSA, both in Communion with Canterbury.

On a personal note, if a charismatic-friendly Anglican Church were in my area & I had already left the Assemblies of God for some reason, I would probably become an Anglican.

The tradition of excluding homosexuals from the community of the Church (including clergy) is Biblically unfounded and ethically and theologically unsound. The “revisionists” are actually on the right side, Biblically, ethically and theologically speaking.

I still can’t get over the snitty churches in BC that decided to place themselves under the Archbishop of Rwanda. Rwanda, for pity’s sake!

Incidentally, if ECUSA gets turfed, the Canadians are probably going to be right there with them, gay weddings, female bishops and all. Maybe you could rename yourselves the Sensible Church.

I’ll admit the other reason I don’t like the church near us was the Rector’s Easter sermon where he told us that Looking for God was a waste of time. He (the Rector) would proper way to find God. That really didn’t sit well with this son of a Quaker.

I also disagree with the idea that the Church, unlike Christ, should turn people away.

Dropzone: What do I expect will happen? Or what do I wish would happen.

I’d like to see us (ECUSA, and ACCanada as matt notes) stand for our convictions. What I expect is that our leaders, who are masters at what they consider reconciliation, will attempt to redefine terms, renegotiate, etc., and prolong this nonsense as long as possible. We already started that process at General Convention 2006 where we passed a moratorium on ordaining gays and making SSM local option, at the discretion of the bishop. This was not satisfactory to the abovementioned clowns in ecclesiastical garb.

Lib and RT: Yeah, my reference was to a reverse Tu es Petrus.

Count Blucher: Wish I’d thought of that; I’d make an excellent title for this thread! :smiley:

Friar Ted: And we all know that you are not Assemblies of God because the Holy Spirit led you there, but because you enjoy the un-Scriptural “Jesus jollies”! (I remember that from Barb’s and my experiences with the charismatic renewal; if you haven’t been told it yet by some dour hypocrite, it’s only a matter of time.) There may well be a few Zeitgeistliche secular humanists among the majority Episcopalians, but speaking from personal experience – my own and Barb’s beliefs, those of the parish we belong to, our Bishop, and many others who think along the same lines – we stand for what we firmly believe Jesus Christ taught. It is not the Zeitgeist but the Heilige Geist that calls and guides our behavior. Anglicans do set great store by the Tradition of the Church, but see Matthew 15:6. Finally, for your information: I know no more about the ICCEC than that a evidently very decent young person at Chrisfian Forums belonged to it, but I thought you might find it of interest.

Re “un-Scriptural Jesus jollies” (that’s pretty good, btw) - I came to the AOG from the Christian & Missionary Alliance, and I will say my brothers & sisters in the Alliance were much nicer than to say that tho I have no doubt some of them believed that. And of those CMA folks I knew were anti-charismatic, I would class none of them as dour hypocrites, but as fellow Christians who read Scripture differently.

Re the Anglican crisis & the Gay issue- we are just going to disagree on this.

I am aware of the ICCEC. If I were in an area that had one & I was for some reason not in the AOG, I would certainly consider it.


[li]Accept a “primatial vicar” to be imitation-archbishop over seven dioceses that have a case of the ass about the above and about the Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori being our presiding bishop (apparently having a penis is mandatory for being a primate in their view); .[/li][/QUOTE]

The LA Times article about these issues indicated that it was Schori’s suggestion to have the primatical vicar put in place.

Hi Polycarp! It’s been a long time since you and I argued about this (summer of 2003, I recall). It seems the shoe is on the other foot – I was thinking of starting a thread in GD titled “I’m Proud of My Church” :slight_smile:

First I want to point out that you’ve misrepresented several important points in the Primate’s message to the Communion and the Episcopal Church.

o There is nothing in the communique that I have seen that requires a disavowal of Bishop Robinson. If he is mentioned at all, it is only as a point on the timeline that brought us to this day. The EC can be in full compliance with the Primates’ requests and have Bishop Robinson keep his see, as I understand it.
o The “primatial vicar” is not for only the seven dioceses who have requested alternate oversight. The Primates make it clear that it would be available for the 24+ “Windsor bishops”, who represent about 25% of the dioceses of the church.
You are correct about the same-sex blessings - but this was the same thing that was requested back in 2004 and we refused. So they are giving us another chance.

Certainly you know that this was not done at the initiative of Archbishop Akinola, but at the pleading of the Virginia parishes themselves – who, in a 95+% majority, voted to realign themselves with the Nigerian church rather that remain in an American church that they found increasingly drifting from the Gospel.

GBLT Christians are welcome in our churches too, and I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise. However, we do agree with the majority of the Anglican Communion (and the Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox, and the Baptists, and the Methodists, and the Lutherans, etc) that the blessing of homosexuality is incompatible with scripture. And therefore blessing same sex unions, or consecrating homosexual bishops, is inappropriate.

Well, yeah, frankly, that is offensive as hell. (Is Tanzania an island?)

Nope, you’re not being asked to give up either. You are being asked to slow down, though, and give the rest of Christendom (or at least a larger part of the Anglican Communion) to catch up with you before you go running ahead on this issue.

I think, given the circumstances, the warnings, the reports, and the communiques that have been issued since 2004, the Primates were gracious to give us another seven months to align our practice with the rest of the Communion or to walk away.

In fact, this seems to be a win-win. You and the Presiding Bishop and the Bishop of New Hampshire can follow your conscience and be freed from the Communion you find too restricting. The Windsor dioceses and parishes like mine have a vehicle to follow our conscience and remain in communion with Canterbury, Nigeria and the rest without having to be embarrassed everytime ++Katharine gives a newspaper interview.

The Virginia churches were begging to “realign themselves” with this?! :eek:

They want not just to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage within their own sacraments, but to criminalize it under the secular law, not to mention throwing people in jail for legally registering any homosexual organization or portraying a same-sex relationship in the media?

Who’s supposedly “drifting from the Gospel” here, again?

How is it more “inappropriate” or “incompatible with scripture” than consecrating female bishops? You folks seemed able to come to terms with that without demanding a major schism.