First, sorry for dropping out of this thread for a whlie… life got busy. But now with the Red Sox eliminated, I have a lot more time on my hands.
Homebrew, you’re absolutely right and I do understand that the interpretation of scripture on homosexuality is the subject of debate. I really didn’t mean in this thread to debate whether or not the AAC was right in their interpretation; but more to focus on their actions promoting “realignment” of the church in North America, and whatever statement the AC made coming out of the Primates’ meeting.
My first reaction to the Primates’ statement was that is was pretty weak. They re-affirmed the 1998 statement and warned that making Robinson Bishop will fracture the communion. Well jeez, isn’t that what the conservatives have been saying since he was nominated? Then they asked for a committee to study the issue (just like they requested in 1998). I guess I was hoping for something with a little more bite.
OTOH, they did call for Robinson’s elevation to be stopped and provided for parishes to receive support from bishops outside their diocese if needed. Those are positive steps. I fully expect the ceremony to proceed, however, further withdrawing ECUSA from the Anglican Communion.
I was also glad so see this specific passage from the 1998 statement quoted, although readers like jayjay prefer to dismiss it:
Aren’t “full members” of clubs allowed all of the rights and priveleges of the club? If I’m a “full member” of a country club, I get good tee times and can run a tab, just like everyone else. If I’m a “full member” of the SDMB I can post new messages and replies, just like everyone else. If I’m a “full member of the Body of Christ” I should get to do all of the things other “full members of the Body of Christ” get to do, which includes getting married.
If you deny rights and priveleges to some, they aren’t “full members.”
The primates didn’t slap down the schismatics as openly as I’d hoped, but they did put a “road closed” sign in the way of any attempt to secure independent recognition from other provinces:
It’s clear that any alternative “episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities” needs to be arranged by the province in question.
Wonder if this works both ways, though: if dissenting dioceses in provinces that don’t recognize the validity of gay unions can petition for alternative episcopal oversight from the US or Canada provinces.
Skammer, you’ve referred on more than one occasion to the Lambeth resolution on human sexuality. Thought it might help things if I included it here. (With a link, of course.)
The resolutions referred to in (g) (which were defeated or tabled) can easily be reached through the link above.
Marriage, in the understanding of orthodox Anglicanism (and most of the rest of the universal church), is the lifelong union of a man and a woman. Gay people have the exact same rights and priveleges in marriage as any other group of people.
Similarly, Bishops vow to uphold the canons of the church, and are expected to be faithful in marriage or celibate outside of marriage, sexual orientation aside. Robinson is being held to the same standard as any other candidate.
Like I said though, I’d really like to talk about the statements from the AAC and AC and speculate on the future of Anglicanism, and not keep debating the church’s stance on homosexuality.
Havind re-read the Primate’s statement again, I still get a different sense than RTFirefly. When you refer to the schismatics, I gather from context you mean the AAC. It sounds to me “schismatic” more accurately applies to the ECUSA, at least in the AC document. Here are the points I see in the statement:
The Lambeth statement of 1998 is re-affirmed. It has moral force.
Holy scripture is the basis of our common faith.
Most of the Anglican Communion will not recognize the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of NH.
The “recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of the Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other.”
The consecration of Robinson threatens to cause schism in the church (not the actions of the conservatives, btw); as does the actions of New Westminster.
“Adequate Epicopal oversight” is called for, for those dissenting from their own provinces in these issues.
The fact that you and I can read the same document and draw different conclusions shows the genius of the bureaucracy we are dealing with here.
I see it more straightforwardly. The ECUSA isn’t seeking schism; it’s seeking to allow the blessing of gay unions, and to consecrate a gay bishop.
The AAC is seeking schism. It’s doing that in reaction to what the ECUSA is doing, but that doesn’t change the straightforward reality that it’s seeking to break off from the ECUSA.
At any rate, it’s been told it can’t go asking for other provinces to recognize it. Nor is the ECUSA expected to recognize the AAC. It is called upon “to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury” but not with the AAC.
I’m kinda unnerved by AAC president David Anderson’s approach to this business. Despite the primates’ statement, he still seems to be longing for this controversy to result in a split:
He sounds like a man who knows what he wants, and he’s going to do his best to get it. I don’t feel any reluctance in referring to him and his crowd as the schismatics in this matter.
Skammer, thank you for tarting this thread. I was away and without Internet access up until Sunday, and so have not had a chance to respond.
I found the Primates’ meeting to be characteristic of the “genius of Anglicanism” – that we can disagree on issues while remaining in fellowship with one another. I think RT’s analysis of the motivations of the AAC leadership is pretty accurate – though I have a great deal of compassion for those who feel outraged by what they see as condoning sin (and, of course, the other side of the picture is that we as a Church are finally dealing with our gay members as full members of the Body of Christ, not despicable outcasts – and that IMHO is much more in keeping with Christ’s ministry than the siding with the Pharisees that we had been doing).
I consider it foul play to claim “mainstream” status for one side in this dispute. General Convention is composed of bishops and delegates selected by Diocesan conventions, who were in turn elected (or called, in the case of clergy) by their local parishes. It would seem to me that an evident majority favor the episcopacy of Gene Robinson, and that the AAC is engaged in the consumption of sour grapes. And I sincerely wonder about the motives underlying the insistence on separation and legitimacy on the part of the AAC leadership – defeats on measures in the past have not caused similar “take my bat and ball and go home” responses from the “liberal” wing of the church.
In any case, the Primates have told the AAC that their remedy is to change the hearts and minds of the majority, to look for episcopal oversight and any realignment from within the Episcopal Church, and that they will not get separate provinchial status within the Anglican Communion. If they schism, it will be from not merely the Episcopal Church but from the Anglican Communion as a whole.
What happens on November 2, however, is a quite different question. The Primates indicated that proceeding with the consecration of Bishop-elect Robinson is something that would strain or break the Communion. Will Frank have the courage of his convictions and proceed? Will he attempt a delaying tactic? “Truly we live in interesting times.” :dubious:
The Primates have spoken, and voiced their fears that Robinson’s consecration will divide the AC. I’m hoping that Robinson responds to this by withdrawing his name, saying the time isn’t yet ripe, but that the ECUSA stands firm on the issue of blessing gay unions. On this latter issue, ISTM that the time for study and waiting is overdue to end; it’s simply time to accept and bless gay couples who desire to be joined “until death do us part”.
Skammer:
Which is kinda like saying that men the same right as women to breastfeed babies, and women have an equal right with men to be sperm donors. They do, but it sure doesn’t benefit them.
The problem here is that the AAC apparently isn’t just a gathering of like-minded Episcopalians, trying to work out their reaction to this together; it seems that the Golden Rule of ‘them that has the gold, makes the rules’ is in effect here: Howard Ahmanson’s money is to an extent bankrolling the AAC, and what the group can do is seemingly somewhat constrained by what makes him happy. If what he wants from the AAC is a “clear, compelling forward strategy”, then I’ve got a hunch that ‘waiting on the Lord in prayer’ doesn’t fit that description.
Clear compelling strategies tend to be strategies involving action. In Christ, however, the time for decisive action usually tends to follow a time of waiting, prayer, reflection, and counsel. Such times can be of indeterminate length, and the point is to put ‘strategy’ in the hands of the Lord, rather than to formulate one for oneself, whether or not it’s clear and compelling. But here we may have a person who thinks he already knows what the Lord wants, who is apparently using his wealth as a tool to hurry conservative Anglicans toward action - i.e. division - now.
The leaders of the AAC seem quite happy with the results of the Lambeth meeting. A press release from the AAC says:
They seem pretty satisfied with the statement and warning issued from Lambeth. It acheives their goal of having alternative episcopal oversight apart from the liberal leaders of the ECUSA. It will be in the months after Nov 3 that we see how it all shakes out, though, including the financial impact on the ECUSA.
Life of Brian scene vii:
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But… you can’t have babies.
LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.
Not really advancing the debate, but RTF reminded me of that scene. And it’s not so different from the one we’re having.
I’m bothered by parts of the AAC’s statement, which Skammer linked to.
The primates nowhere referred to any action as ‘schismatic’. That’s spin. The actual language is plenty serious, but at least it’s not slanted.
I wonder if the Church views Jesus’ ministry as schismatic?
Nothing in the statement refers to the ‘responsible realignment’ that the AofC’s commission will supposedly oversee. This is an interpretation that Anderson seems to be pressing, but I’m missing where it’s present in the words.
‘There may be a few bumps along the road, but there are good times ahead!’
Gotta say, the sense of ‘we look on division along these lines as a good thing’ is coming through loud and clear.
I’m also having a lot of problems with stuff in the AAC’s FAQ about the primates’ statement, and its analysis of the statement. I’ve got to get some work done, so I’ll have to mostly hold off until tomorrow. But with respect to the latter, let me say the obvious: two wrongs do not make a right. Saying that:
doesn’t mean the AAC has a free pass to act irresponsibly.
They are two different documents. A Place to Stand is the AAC’s statement of faith, and is a pretty general statement about what they believe. All attendees to the conference were asked to sign it when they registered (with the exception of the press, and invitees from other denominations).
A Call to Action is the petition created at the conference two weeks ago. Conference attendees helped draft the document and were invited to sign it, but were not required to do so.
Griswald was told that anyone from his office was welcome to come if they were able to sign the AAC statement of faith like the other attendees. Apparently he didn’t have any staff members who could do that in good conscience. It might have been this part:
There’s a lot more to the statement, of course, but I suspect those last two items were a stumbling block.
It’s incredibly childish. “You can’t even come and watch if you aren’t one of us!”
Of course, who “us” is comes down to AAC’s definition thereof. In other words, “none o’ them dirty heathen libruls”.
What were the AAC so afraid of that they wouldn’t even let the official head of their denomination send people to observe their meeting? Griswold is still the head of the ECUSA, isn’t he? Regardless of the whining of the Sexuality Rump Parliament (if you’ll excuse the near-tacky double-entendre)…
OK. Thanks for clearing up that confusion. (In each of them, it does look like “A Place to Stand” is the title, and “A Call to ______” is the subtitle, making things unclear.)
A couple of comments, though:
I find it interesting that while neither the press nor invitees from other denominations had to sign this document to observe, those from the ECUSA who didn’t see a number of issues of controversy in the same manner as you guys, but still wished to be present, weren’t given that same opportunity.
This is especially important because there’s nothing ‘general’ about this statement. The AAC has very specific positions on a number of societal issues that are also issues of controversy within Christianity these days, and these positions were right in the statement of faith, such as:
Without broadening this discussion into an abortion debate as well, the reality is that Christians of good conscience can disagree on whether a person is present in, say, a newly fertilized egg, and whether the use of a ‘morning-after pill’ is a legitimate means of preventing pregnancy.
Or it may have been the part I just cited, or some other part.
The reality of the AAC statement of faith is that it’s a side-taking on a number of ‘live’ issues, and to sign it wasn’t simply to adhere to an older orthodoxy. To the extent that persons are included in, or excluded from, fellowship and discussion on its basis, it’s a statement that ‘we only want to worship with people who agree with us, up and down the line.’
It’s a schismatic document.
I can only conclude that - kinda like the antebellum South in the USA - the AAC decided a long time ago that it was either going to control the ECUSA’s agenda, or bolt. And just like the South, the AAC decided to bolt, the moment it lost a key vote.
I think I must respectfully and regretfully agree with that. I’ve seen, on a diocesan board I belong to, what I can only describe as glee that the AAC separation from us liberals is imminent.
To a very real sense I can understand them taking a Luther-esque stance: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” But the attitude of being joyful and anxious for schism is one that is strongly unAnglican to my mind.
Skammer, I’ve been deeply touched by the times you’ve shared what lies on your heart about these issues, and I note that this thread speaks in general to issues – who says what, and what the implications of that stance are. I’d be personally grateful to hear you speaking of your own feelings regarding what’s happening.
That really cuts to the core of my annoyance with quite a few in the AAC. I can respect, although not agree with, articles of true faith which go against my grain. I, too, have beliefs that require me to stand like Luther did at Worms and say “I cannot compromise here”. This does not mean I should be happy about the fact that another person and I can not reconcile differences. Indeed, I should be very much regretful that reconciliation is not possible. Schisms do happen, although I think the actions of the AAC are premature and unnecessary, but dancing around the church as it burns is excessive and extremely disrespectful.
Now, as Poly does point out briefly, its not just a lot of the members in the AAC doing the dancing. Lord knows plenty of liberals in the ECUSA are throwing logs onto the bonfire, and I think them just as silly. It just often seems like so many assume schism must happen and now are just waiting for the self-fulfilling prophecy to occur. If they can slander those they don’t like while striding out the door, then so much the better.
