Speculation over whether Atwood et al to come to Lambeth

As we report, the two Bills, Atwood and Murdoch, have now been consecrated and are Anglican bishops, even if rather 'extraordinary' ones. Or irregular. Or even rather frightening, if this picture is anything to go by. (Lots more wonderful pics in Kevin's gallery.) The question now for me is whether they will be invited to the Lambeth Conference. It appears they might be. But then again, they might not. Thinking Anglicans has latest news reports. Meanwhile, in Peru, the Anglican diocese is struggling to feed 5,000 people a day after the recent earthquake. Which is the more important story, I wonder?

But back to Lambeth and the new bishops. On the side of their being invited is the recognition given the two bishops by more than 30 General Synod members today, including the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali.

On the minus side is the guidance from inside Lambeth Palace: 'This is very similar to Cana.' In other words, Martyn Minns isn't coming. Therefore, neither will these two be.

But another insider tells me this: 'The question is genuinely open.' It would of course be an 'easy solution' to extent the AMiA principle to all the 'irregular' consecrations. But it appears this might not in fact happen. No decision has been made. I don't want to risk my reputation on this, but there does appear to be a chance that Atwood might be invited to Lambeth.

How come? Well, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who specialises in nuanced responses, will be aware that each scheme is unique and distinctive. This therefore opens the possibility of a differentiated response. I've not seen the scheme for William Murdoch, but it certainly appears that, with regards to Bill Atwood, he is described in much more traditionally understandable 'suffragan' terms than Martyn Minns is in his scheme. What is certain is that the question of the two new bishops and Lambeth has not been considered in a deliberate way as yet. And all points of view will be taken into account when the Archbishop of Canterbury makes his decision.

One thing that has amused me today is Andrew Carey's description of Atwood as 'one of the new breed of independent shadowy Anglican fixers.'  I'm tempted to speculate what that makes Andrew, then! I'll resist, because I like him too much. But ha ha, it is funny to see how we Anglicans love one another.

Incidentally, if large numbers of bishops do not attend Lambeth, either because they boycott it or because they are not invited, this will not be unprecedented. I am told that of the 114 or so bishops invited to the 1867 Conference only 76 attended. In fact, a large Church of England contingent stayed away, led by none other than the Archbishop of York.

Anyway, the welcome is not universal. Fulcrum's Graham Kings says: 'On Saturday 1 September 2007, Rowan Williams returns from his study leave and family holiday. On 20-22 September he will be with the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in New Orleans and that House has until 30 September 2007 to respond to the Primates' Communique from Dar es Salaam. These consecrations in Nairobi and Kampala, as well as the earlier consecration of Martyn Minns in the Church of Nigeria, seem to me to be examples of 'trans-communion interventions' that are warned against in The Windsor Report and in the Primates' Communique from Dar es Salaam. Paragraph 26 of that Communique states: 'The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation. Furthermore, those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons.'

Kings continues: 'Just when the central weight of the Anglican Communion is backing The Windsor Report and the Covenant process as the way forward, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has clearly underlined these as part of his letter of invitation to the Lambeth Conference, why are these consecrations considered to be helpful and wise? Andrew Carey has written a perceptive article in the Church of England Newspaper this week entitled 'Chaos Reigning?' and uses the phrase 'adventurism on American soil'.  I still don't see how separate Rwandan, Ugandan, Kenyan and Nigerian adventurism on American soil really helps create any kind of solidarity around central theological convictions.

'These consecrations seem to me to follow a 'Federal Conservative' model of the Anglican Communion rather than a 'Communion Conservative' model. The supreme irony of this is that they put a higher priority on 'independence' over 'interdependence' just at the crucial time that the model of 'interdependence' is being pressed on The Episcopal Church and its House of Bishops. As we approach the month of decision of September 2007, let us continue to pray for wisdom for the Archbishop of Canterbury.'

Here's some links for how the story's being covered elsewhere. Father Jake has some of the best analysis of what is being said. StandFirm carries a comprehensive report with the full text of Drexel Gomez' sermon. See the BBC's report. Anglican TV will be streaming a video of the consecration shortly. StandFirm are carrying comments on our story from yesterday. There's lots of background in these two posts from Thinking Anglicans. Bishop Gene, who started this all off, was interviewed by the Beeb the other day, I didn't get around to doing anything on it then so here it is now. Greg Venables believes Anglicans do not have the structures to deal with the row. Creation Project has blogged the consecrations. ACN has welcomed them. If we think this problem is just going to go away of its own accord, we are fooling ourselves, as this story shows. Here's an African take on the consecrations.

Comments

[alan]

Why don't you two stop squabbling, Alan and Geoffrey? Normally I'm at loggerheads with both of you, but now you seem to be at loggerheads with each other. I realise that heretics have always been more dangerous than non-believers. Wasn't that what the Thirty Years War was all about?
I've read in the bible that Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers"- So try making peace with each other - till next year at least. After all you both worship the same god (don't you?). Happy New Year to you both.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"There are circumstances where a choice has to be made between the life of the mother and that of the unborn child she is carrying".
- Alan Marsh, 1 OCT 2007, 21:22:45

It is hardly possible, Alan, to choose the death of the mother without also killing her unborn child. Such a choice would be impossible if the life of the child is being defended. Everything must be done to preserve the life of both, but the deliberate killing of the child is forbidden by the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

[Alan Marsh]

Hardly so, Geoffrey. There are circumstances where a choice has to be made between the life of the mother, and that of the unborn child she is carrying.

Your argument condemns the mother to death every time.

I think most Christians would regard that as "bestial", to use your own terminology.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Even now Geoffrey is wriggling, because he is unable to defend papal teaching on birth control, and is trying to libel the Church of England by introducing a debate about abortion".
- Alan Marsh, 28 SEP 2007, 16:43:26

I said: "This violation [abortion] of the Fifth Commandment has yet to be condemned by the Church of England".
I quote: "The Church of England combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be strictly limited conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative".
Humbug, Alan, humbug. "Strictly limited conditions"? I think the obgyns will decide those, not your theologians, on the basis of accruable income.
I quote: "We do not believe that the right to life, as a right pertaining to persons, admits OF NO EXCEPTIONS WHATEVER, but the right of the innocent to life admits surely OF FEW
EXCEPTIONS INDEED". (My capitals)
- Board of Social Responsibility, (BSR, 1980)
Humbug, Alan, humbug. Who will decide what those exceptions are? Definitely not the BSR or whatever it calls itself these days.
I quote: "However, as that statement makes clear, THE MORAL LEGITIMACY OF ABORTION UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IS RECOGNISED". (My capitals)
- The Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Division, February, 2005.
Humbug, Alan, humbug. Who decides what those circumstances are? The Church of England? That'll be the day!
Sorry, Alan, I made no mistake. Your assertion that the Church of England affords 'strong opposition' to abortion is quite untenable in view of the fudgy waffle contained in this report. A report, I might add, I read on the C of E website, as recommended by you.
I repeat: the Church of England has never condemned, unequivocally, the practice of grievously offending Almighty God by violating one of His Commandments in such a bestial manner.
You, Alan, are doing the wriggling, not I.

[Alan Marsh]

It's biblical authority that I accept, Malcolm, not the various codes and canons by which TEC sets its store, or the supernatural claims made for the pope.

Even now Geoffrey is wriggling, because he is unable to defend papal teaching on birth control, and is trying to libel the Church of England by introducing a debate about abortion.

He might like to take a look at the Church of England's web site, before making the same mistake again.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/abortion.html

"The position of the Church of England is often compared to that of The Roman Catholic Church. This according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

This means that direct abortion is 'gravely contrary to the moral law'. The Church of England shares this general opposition to abortion."

[Malcolm+]

Well Alan. See where centralized authority can take you? Still sure you want Anglicanism subjected to the governance of foreign prelates?

[Alan Marsh]

"They are NOT ignorant of the realities of bringing up children."

If you say so, Geoffrey.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"There is no biblical authority for the notion that it is a Christian duty to breed and raise large numbers of children..."
Alan Marsh, 26 SEP 2007, 14:19:11

So? There is no biblical authority for the notion that it is morally
permissible to kill a preborn child, but this violation of the Fifth Commandment has yet to be condemned by the Church of England.
Your idea of 'biblical authority' is a convenient verse or two which
can be 'interpreted' to lend support to your preconceived, personal moral code.

[Geoffrey Smith]

", it would benefit the Roman Catholic Church enormously if its leadership had more of a grasp of the realities of bringing up children".
- Alan Marsh, 26 SEP 2007, 14:19:11

Do you think our bishops grow on trees, Alan? They, too, were children once, with several siblings, and had all the experience they need to know what family life is all about. Many of them are uncles with numerous nephews and nieces. They are NOT ignorant of the realities of bringing up children. High office in the Church does not isolate them from their families and prevent them learning from their brothers and sisters. It is absurd to suggest that it does.

[Malcolm+]

When I was at college, I took a pastoralia class from one of the Roman colleges on the Sacrament of Penance. The two hours of the class were split between a one hour lecture and a one hour tutorial. In the tutorials, one student would be the confessor and another (after consulting with the professor outside) was the penitent. I was the only non-Roman Catholic in my tutorial.

One week, the "sin of the day" was . . . masturbation. During the debrief, one of my classmates said, "I'd have asked the penitent how long he'd been married and how many children he had." The "penitent" said that in the scenario he'd been married twelve years and had two children. The first student remarked, "well, there you are then," and all my classmates nodded knowingly.

It took me a few hours to puzzle it out. Two children in 12 years surely meant that (as good Roman Catholics conforming to Humanae Vitae) the penitent was maturbating because his wife wasn't having sex with him. Since Anglicanism has accepted contraception as morally responsible for more decades than I've been alive, the idea had never occured to me.

When I tell this story to Roman Catholi clergy, they all have a good chuckle.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Actually, Alan, I hold the view that the College of Cardinals should be abolished as being surplus to present-day requirements. With the advent of the Internet, a papal election can now be conducted without all the theatricals that the media like so much. But that's another topic.
I take note that you have declined to reply to my charge that the widespread practice of birth control, coupled with abortion (another issue you prefer to dodge), is beginning to threaten the survival of our country. It will require many families with more than three children to raise the national birth-rate to its necessary level of 2.2 in order to stabilise our population, and even increase it. Overpopulation is a secular myth, like global warming, condoms will beat AIDS, homosexuality is a perfectly natural, God-given function, etc.
I further note that you ignored my question concerning the break between Rome and Kiev. I understand.
However, I look forward to reading your reply to this post.

[Alan Marsh]

"birth control is a violation of God's will and plan for the happiness of the human race."

Well, that's the view of the Vatican, and its current curia composed of...elderly bachelors.

It's not the view of the many Roman Catholic families I know, who have recent and personal experience of bringing children into the world and raising them, unlike the celibates who make such claims about contraception.

There is no biblical authority for the notion that it is a Christian duty to breed and raise large numbers of children, not even (as you seem to think) in order to increase the general population of this or that state.

Indeed, many of us think the world is becoming more than a tad overcrowded, now that human beings are already consuming 20% more of the world's natural resources than can be replaced. Promoting contraception would be a more responsible project....

Young celibates, or old celibates, it does not matter: the simple fact is that the Vatican's hang-ups about birth control are just that: irrational objections to the desire of Christian couples to be responsible parents.

The cardinals would have greater credibility if they were to speak out against fornication rather than contraception. Having taken vows of celibacy they can vouch for the fact that sexual intercourse is not a requirement for human health or happiness.

But it's time we saw some young, married cardinals in the Vatican: it would benefit the Roman Catholic Church enormously if its leadership had more of a grasp of the realities of bringing up children.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The bishops and clergy voted [1534] almost unanimously for the termination of the pope's claim to power and taxes in England".
- Alan Marsh, 25 SEP 2007, 23:06:15

Voted, Alan? With the prospect of losing their heads if they said 'No'? Please, Alan, you not a fool. Even you know how weak human nature can be in the face of such an ultimatum.
If John Fisher was in a minority of one, and utterly without influence, why was he destroyed in such an unChristian manner, with the approval of his fellow bishops? Maybe the King did not enjoy the support of the masses as much as you think he did?

"Humanae Vitae is not the Christian or Catholic faith,....the opinions of a group of elderly bachelors in the Vatican in the 1960s".

Why should 'elderly' be a disqualification? If they had been young bachelors, like Our Lord, would that have made a difference?
Would you not think that advancing years would confer some degree of wisdom and experience over youth?
Of course, Italy and Ireland are not alone with this demographic nightmare of a shrinking population caused by the widespread practice of contraception, helped in no small measure by a horrific degree of baby-killing. Our own country, also, is facing extinction with a birth-rate dropping through the floor at only 1.65. A similar situation prevails throughout the whole of the EU.
The wisdom of Humanae Vitae has never been so manifest as it is today. No babies, no country. It's as simple as that, Alan. You can't beat demography, Anglican or no Anglican.
But aside from these statistical abstracts, the fact remains that birth control is a violation of God's will and plan for the happiness of the human race. Our sexuality was designed by our Creator for the continuance of our race, and its function and operation must be used in accordance with that intention. To deny its main purpose is to reject the providence of God, Who will always satisfy the needs of His faithful for as long as they need it.

[Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey, one might have expected, if the papal claims were of such eternal significance, that the English Church would resist Henry VIII to a man. But the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. The bishops and clergy voted almost unanimously for the termination of the pope's claim to power and taxes in England.

This does not excuse the spoliation of the monasteries or the various crimes committed in implementing Cromwell's agenda. Henry was a brutal pragmatist. But he could not have carried through the assertion of royal supremacy if he did not have the support of large sections of influential society. London was already largely committed to the reforms.

I am glad you mentioned contraception. It is another of those bizarrely imposed oddities which are so divisive. But the main division is within the RC Church, between the 2% who do what Humanae Vitae tells them to do, and the 98% who simply ignore it. The birth rate in Italy and Ireland is an eloquent witness to this.

Humanae Vitae is not the Christian or Catholic faith, but the teaching, life and witness of the Church of England certainly is, being based on the Scriptures - a firmer foundation than the opinions of a group of elderly bachelors in the Vatican in the 1960s.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"When the English Church rejected the rather temporal authority of the papacy in the 1530s it took care to demonstrate that it was not rejecting the Catholic faith - as its documents at the time still bear witness".
- Alan Marsh, 25 SEP 2007, 16:37:59

I seem to recall that it was King Henry who did the rejecting , Alan. The bishops, almost to a man, did the King's bidding, under the threat of decapitation. Only one, John Fisher of Rochester, defied the King and he paid for his refusal with his life.

"What it did leave behind was the claim of a part of the Church to be the whole of the Church - a claim which you still wish to maintain".

In other words, the Anglican tail was wagging the universal dog.

"...a large part of Christendom regards the Roman jurisdiction as schismatic..."

In 1054, the Christian Church in the Slav lands was less than 100 years old. It chose to rebel against a mother Church which was
already a millenium old, and had been in the business of salvation a lot longer than the obstreporous Slavs. Which of the two, in your opinion, Rome or Kiev, knew what they were talking about?

With respect, Alan, the Church in England has not taught the Catholic faith since 1558. In this year Elizabeth I came to the throne, and, unlike her father, Henry, she was most certainly a Protestant. She loathed and detested the Catholic faith, even more so than our critic, Mr Pearce, if such a thing is possible.
She began the process of decatholicising the Church, and history records just how well she succeeded in that endeavour.
Sadly, even the Orthodox must now be regarded as heretical rather than 'merely' schismatic. Their approval of abortion, especially in Russia, puts them absolutely beyond the traditional Christian pale. Since abortion is one of our five non-negotiables, unity with the Orthodox Churches is out of the question. Likewise with the Church of England, for much the same reasons: refusal to condemn abortion, approval of contraception (1930 Lambeth), nothing recognisable as a consistent faith,
and a reluctance to say 'boo' to the Zeitgeist. And so it will remain, the unity of Christians will come about when - and only when - the unity that Christ intended in His Church, founded on St Peter and his successors, is finally realised. It will always be a case of one or two, or three or four. The dream of corporate unification has gone for ever.

[Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey, the idea of schism requires that there be in the first place a universal church from which to break away.

When the English Church rejected the rather temporal authority of the papacy in the 1530s it took care to demonstrate that it was not rejecting the Catholic faith - as its documents of the time still bear witness.

What it did leave behind was the claim of a part of the Church to be the whole of the Church - a claim which you still wish to maintain.

But a large part of Christendom regards the Roman jurisdiction as schismatic, having severed ties with the Orthodox churches in the 11th century over its unwillingness to accept correction in an important credal issue.

The priority ought to be to establish Christian unity - including Rome, Constantople, Moscow, Canterbury and all the many other jursidictions which hold and teach the Catholic faith.

The chief stumbling block remains the unfounded claims of the papacy.

[Geoffrey Smith]

It's ironic, isn't it, that a Communion which began as a schism with the rejection of governance by a foreign prelate is now disintegrating into schismatic sects
with the rejection of governance by foreign prelates? The Anglican wheel seems to have turned full circle.

[Malcolm+]

Of course, one of those "doctrinal oddities" from Rome - the idea that Anglican Orders were not valid - delayed Dr. Newman's conversion by some years. And the evidence suggests he was still not persuaded when he finally went for his swim.

And Alan, you've made a number of excellent arguments against the centralization of authority in the hands of those who would claim it. Might I suggest that these arguments apply equally to Abuja as Rome, and equally to a committee of Primates as to one Italian Primate.

[Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey, I cannot say what the others believed, but I know personally Dr Leonard, who already believed these things as an Anglican.

I cannot comprehend why, although I respect him as a man of great integrity.

Those who already believe Roman Catholic doctrines - will no doubt be very happy as Roman Catholics.

As an Anglican I am a member of the Catholic Church but I am not required to believe in ideas which belong to mythology rather than scripture.

Nor am I required to believe in the Spirit of the Age, which seems to have taken possession of the Episcopal Church. And parts of the RC Church as well, especially on the Continent!

There is much to be said for Anglicanism, not least as a corrective to unfounded claims by other churches. And our liturgy is vastly better than yours...

[Geoffrey Smith]

"To do so [convert to the Catholic Church} would require me to sign up to things for which there is no scriptural or historical warrant and in which I simply do not believe".
- Alan Marsh, 24 SEP 2007, 14:19:04

I should imagine John Henry Newman, G K Chesterton, Ronald Knox and Graham Leonard said exactly the same thing, Alan. Your prejudice is not insurmountable and your opposition to the Catholic faith can be shown to be founded on nothing more than false information. It would be a long process, I agree, too long for a blog, but it would show you why TEC will never see sense 'as it peers over the edge of the precipice'.

[Alan Marsh]

Swim the Tiber, Geoffrey? To do so would require me to sign up to things for which there is no scriptural or historical warrant and in which I simply do not believe.

If you would like a history lesson I would be glad to oblige, but suffice it to say that Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction was a late development, and was contested long before 1053. It was disputed in England long before the Tudor monarchy.

The mere fact that the RC Church is the largest church numerically speaking does not mean that it is right about the issues such as filioque, over which it has chosen to cut itself off from many of the ancient sees of Christendom, and to remain cut off. That is what "sect" means - cut off.

It is an incomplete church until it finds reconciliation with those from whom it has separated itself along the way - numerous Orthodox sees, Lutherans, and Anglicans. The unfounded papal claim to jurisdiction will have to be dropped if the RC Church is serious about restoring Christian unity.

BTW the Church of England is not "bankrolled" by TEC. The TEC itself is facing financial difficulties having alienated many of its most faithful supporters. It faces internal collapse if it proceeds as you suggest. I hope it sees sense as it peers over the edge of the precipice.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Yes, yes, yes, Alan, I am well aware that the 'filioque' preceded
Henry VIII by c.500 years and that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not exactly an issue at the Reformation. I included these in your category of so-called 'oddities' to exemplify the pretexts used by Anglicans to reject papal authority, a refusal which began with Henry in 1534.
To describe the Catholic Church as 'just one among many' of the numerous Christian sects is indeed a touch of comedy. A Church which embraces 1.1 billion of Our Lord's faithful, more than half of the entire number of Christians in the world, is no sect, Alan!
The claims made for papal authority, while substantiated by biblical and patristic authors, do not depend entirely on these sources. The simple historical fact is that no Christian Church, other then the Catholic Church, existed in the first few centuries after the death of Christ. Orthodox? 1053 AD.
Protestant? 1517 AD. Anglican? 1558 AD. All of them very late starters. The Catholic Church had been in business for centuries before these johnnies-come-lately arrived on the scene.
Tomorrow, September 25, 2007 will be Black Tuesday for the Anglican Communion. The US bishops will vote to ignore the Windsor report, to resume the'consecration' of homos, and leave the Communion. The Church of England will lose its bank-rolling brethren in TEC.
What will you do, Alan? Stay where you are in the CoE, place yourself under the spiritual direction of another sect, or join an increasing number of your fellow Anglicans in 'swimming the Tiber'?

[Malcolm+]

Alan, I am beyond many things.

For example, I'm beyond knowing how the Bishop of Abuja claims to have authority in the United States of America.

I'm beyond knowing how a small minority of people who decide to leave the Episcopal Church because they are bothered by what other people think and do claim against all reality to be a persecuted minority.

And I'm beyond knowing how a few thousand believers need 20ish bishops.

But I do know that the real oddity of this whole affair is the slanderous lies about "oppression" coming from self-serving controversialists have become the premise for schismatical and heretical actions by an odious little man in Abuja.

[Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey, the Filioque clause precedes Henry VIII by several centuries. The Immaculate Conception was hardly one of the issues of the English Reformation since it was not made an article of faith for Roman Catholics until 1854.

The fracturing into numerous sects began a long time ago, and the RC Church is just one among many, having adopted and promulgated divisive doctrines like these.

There is no biblical or patristic evidence for the claims you make for papal authority. The Bishop of Rome may well be the successor of St Peter, but that is all. There really is no basis for the powers which have been claimed by his office.

Orthodox and Anglicans alike can recognise him as a senior Christian leader: but not as the "Vicar of Christ", as "infallible" or having "universal jurisdiction" over the Church. These things are divisive in themselves.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The RC Church has managed over the years to come up with the 'filioque' clause and the 'Immaculate Conception' among other oddities which separate it, very sadly, from other Christians".
- Alan Marsh, 22 SEP 2007, 17:10:43

This separation, Alan, is caused by the refusal of other Christians to recognise the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor of St Peter. The so-called 'oddities' you mention are used as excuses to justify their Henrician breach of Christian unity. Without the central authority of the papacy, these other Christian bodies continue to fracture into countless sects, which is what the Anglican Communion is doing right now.

[Alan Marsh]

Central authorities guarantee no such thing, Geoffrey. The RC Church has managed over the years to come up with the "filioque" clause and the "Immaculate Conception" among other oddities which separate it, very sadly, from other Christians.

Malcolm is clearly long past knowing what a doctrinal oddity the TEC has become.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"TEC has been pursuing some very strange docrines of its own, which have turned it into a sect".
- Alan Marsh, 20 SEP 2007, 22:14:51

Alan, your debate with Malcolm will continue ad infinitum. You both ignore the basic flaw in your thinking: without a central authority with the power to enforce
doctrinal belief and practice, there is no reason whatsoever why a certain section of the Anglican Communion (either TEC or the Global South) should not pursue 'some very strange doctrines of its own'.
As an Anglican divine once said: "Organic identity depends on dogmatic identity". I forget the man's name; perhaps one of you would refresh my memory.

[Malcolm+]

Not by either TEC or the Communion it isn't.

So, when your Akinolist prelates choose to depart and create their own fundamentalist sect, will you be going with them?

[Alan Marsh]

TEC has been pursuing some very strange doctrines of its own, which have turned it into a sect. And the cutting-off is about to happen.

[Malcolm+]

Actually, Alan, "sect" is often used to refer to those whose tendency to schism leads them into ever smaller and smaller groupings.

And it isn't TEC that has been assiduously advocating schism.

It is your fellow sectarians in the so-called Global South.

[Alan Marsh]

I would have thought the very word "sect" meant a group which had cut itself off from the rest of the world.

Rather like TEC, perhaps.

[Malcolm+]

No, Alan. That is not how I view the Anglican Communion.

However, that is clearly what certain schismatically inclined sectarians like the Primate of Nigeria, the Archbishop of Sydney and the Bishop of Pittsburgh wish the Anglican Communion to become.

I don't want to go there. If I wanted to be an intolerant fundamentalists, there are already enough denominations on offer.

[Alan Marsh]

"a hardline, neoconservative and fundamentalist sect."

If that is how you view the Anglican Communion, Malcolm, you really have lost touch with the much greater reality outside N America.

[Malcolm+]

I should note that I draw a distinction between those I refer to as "conservatives" (note use of quotation marks) and those honest conservatives like Howe of Central Florida or Henderson of Upper South Carolina.

The latter group have taken clear and uncompromising positions on the presenting issue, and have done their best to carry on this debate within a united ecclesiastical body. While I disagree with them on almost every facet of this issue, they have conducted themselves with integrity and honour throughout.

The former have used the presenting issue (a la Karl Rove) as a "wedge" issue to advance their real agenda - the destabalization of another mainstream religious body in the United States and its replacement with a hardline, neoconservative and fundamentalist sect.

[Alan Marsh]

Sadly, the ones who have lost the arguments are the TEC leadership. They just can't comprehend that the world is rather bigger than the USA. And that Uncle Sam's dollars can't buy people like they used to.

People are leaving the TEC, Malcolm. It's not a recognisable church any longer. It has no relevance to real Anglicans in the USA.

It is a new Anglican church which is finally forming in the USA, and neither you nor any TEC leaders have any jurisdiction over it.

[Malcolm+]

Militant Tendency lost in their struggle for the soul of the Labour Party. To a very great extent, they lost because they were intolerant extremists.

Likewise, the "conservatives" are losing in their struggle to subject the American (and Canadian) church to the control of foreign prelates. And to a very great extent they are losing because they are intolerant extremists.

But you carry on with your delusions, Alan.

[Alan Marsh]

Yes, I see, Malcolm. The militant tendency are those who have somehow arranged to have their property seized and their clergy deposed by the TEC bishops...

Please keep taking the tablets. Or not, as the case may be.

[Malcolm+]

The "conservatives" involved in the Chapman memo and other machinations had a clear and unambiguous response to any attempt to accomodate conservative opinion. They rejected it as inadequate.

No matter what had been offered, they would have rejected it, short of the mass resignation of 80% of the bishops in the Episcopal Church and the willful handing over of property to a gang of self-appointed elect.

Alan, you've got your militant tendency reference backwards. It is the calumny and myth of the persecuted conservatives that is the delusion.

[pendennis88]

"Provision was made for conservatives in the US"? That canard again? Where? When? With two exceptions I am aware of (one thanks to Bishop Wolf of Rhode Island - hardly a typical American bishop), unfortunately, no one in the US seems to know anything about this. You should try to come up with a few examples.

And the Chapman memo? Would that be this one:

"The steering committee members identified the following questions for a discussion of strategy: How to prepare for split after 2006 GC
...
Appeal to ABC to suggest that only diocesans be able to vote at the next Lambeth conference, or to ask for other actions.
...
1. What will be our response the “Day After” when the bishops start announcing they are in a
“new” Anglican Communion and the Network is “recognized” as the only legitimate
expressions of the A.C. in North America?
• Have ready blank presentments for abandonment of the communion.
• Have already drafted request stating that the see is vacant and requesting appointment of interim bishop. Need to coordinate with PB on these appointments.
• Have request for special convention ready to give to interim bishop so that vacant spots in diocesan government can be filled (trustees, council, standing committee, commission on ministry, etc.)
• Be ready to take legal action on property identify who will serve as litigants, what property needs to be covered.
• Have plan for locations and personnel to provide worshipping communities and “safe havens” for the faithful remnants. Identify retired priests and deacons, lay leadership.
...
• Develop criteria for recognizing schism
• Recruit 5 7 national leaders to be in a teleconference with us. Rick Matters to set up phone call and hold it. Chris and Joan will be the others involved. They will set followup steps and identify next phone conversation. Possible participants Jenkins, Parsley, Alexander, Titus Pressler, George Werner, Jon Bruno, John Chane, Catherine Roskam, Chilton Knudson, Edward Little, Don Johnson, Mark Dyer, Sauls, Bill Carroll. Deadline Nov. 15."

Oh, sorry, that is the secret "via media" memo to depose all "conservatives" should they seek to protect themselves such as through the Dar es Salaam pastoral council scheme. More about it here: http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1403

Actually, I think all sides in this matter plan ahead for contingencies. To think that doing so is a problem and some sort of conspiracy is to live in one's own imagination.

[Alan Marsh]

Malcolm, you remind me of the Militant Tendency when I was a student, with its mythology of the "brave soviet forces" enduring unimaginable persecution from people who were literally waving placards against them and damaging the soldiers' truncheons with their heads...

[Malcolm+]

Provision was made for conservatives in the United States.

Many honest conservatives availed themselves of these provisions.

However (as revealed in the secret Chapman memo unearthed throug litigation by the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh), the schismatical "conservatives" were determined to sabotage any accomodation of their position in order to provide a justification for their scheme to overthrow the Episcopal Church.

Honest conservatives in the Episcopal Church, while perhaps uncomfortable with the theology of some of their coreligionists, face no penalty for their conservatism.

Thieves and schismatics are another matter.

[Alan Marsh]

You seem obsessed with "stealing" Malcolm, but property belongs to those who have paid for it, and those who hold it in trust.

The Episcopal Church made a unilateral claim some years ago to own everything in sight, but it has not contributed a cent to build or maintain these churches, many of which were founded long before the Episcopal Church.

The title to the property depends on being able to demonstrate that the church trustees of today hold fast to the doctrinal statements made on the trust deed. That is evidently so in the case of the congregations under discussion. It is not so in the case of TEC, which has repudiated many of the most important Christian doctrines, along with the moral standards which the bible teaches. Oh yes, and they have repudiated the bible as well.

Soon TEC's claim to be part of the Anglican Communion, on which in part it holds its trust deeds, will cease to hold any legal water. The true successors to the title will be those who remain part of the Anglican Communion, and the courts will find it very difficult to deny them what they already rightfully own.

These things are not problems for the Church of England, despite your attempt to change the subject. Here we have made provision for conservative parishes and clergy, which as I keep repeating, would have prevented the crisis in TEC had it had the grace to tolerate diverse points of view.

[Malcolm+]

Alan, Alan, Alan. When your former arguments are proven wrong you simply create new ones.

I can assure you, neither Church nor State in England will allow the Akinolist schismatics to steal the property of the Church of England.

And I do draw a clear distinction between Akinolist scismatics and honest conservatives like Bishop Howe of Central Florida. While I disagree with him on virtually every aspect of the current issues, he maintains his position with integrity and grace. If he chooses to depart the Episcopal Church, he will do so with comparable integrity and grace acknowledging that there is a cost to conscience.

Unlike those groups who have chosen to leave the Episcopal Church and tried to steal the property.

Bishop Howe has got it right.

[Alan Marsh]

You are beginning to clutch at some straws, Malcolm. These are solid Anglican congregations, who have finally said that enough is enough. They want to belong to the Anglican Communion they always belonged to, not to the sect which has taken over TEC.

In the UK they could go to court and demonstrate that they continued to believe the Christian faith stated on the title deeds, unlike the former denomination called PECUSA, and claim what is rightfully their property.

You must be desperate for an argument to have to quote Florida - most of those who have left have moved out of their former church buildings and are renting our buying new ones!

Not that TEC ever owned these churches anyway. It simply makes an outrageous claim to do so.

[Malcolm+]

Ah yes, the faithful congregations who worship there.

And through political machinations, including the manipulations of parish rolls and railroaded meetings, the "orthodox" sieze the property and drive out those who would remain within the Episcopal Church.

You would do well, Alan, to deal in facts rather than slanders.

And you would likewise do well to read the edifying letter of the Bishop of Central Florida.

http://www.cfdiocese.org/news/news07/accord0507.htm

You will note that Bishop Howe and I agree on almost nothing about this issue. But unlike the vocal minority of conservatives who seek to create schism and to marginalize other Christian voices, Bishop Howe has some consept of integrity.

Of course, we saw how Bishop Howe was rewarded when certain "conservatives" demanded foreign episcopal oversight, not because their diocesan was liberal (he certainly isn't), but because he was not prepared to launch hate-filled and schismatical broadsides.

News out of the now disintegrated Privince of Central Africa shows just how extreme the schismatics have become, banning and silencing other conservatives because they aren't quite pure enough.

Rather reminds me of the Russian Revolution, where another generation of extremists lined the social democrats up against the wall right next to the tsarists.

[Alan Marsh]

Whose silver? By any moral standard it belongs not to those who have abandoned the creeds and the scriptures, and the trust deeds of ECUSA, but to those who are determined to remain faithful to Anglican teaching.

Their places of worship are held in trust not for heretics like Jack Spong, or immoral leaders like Gene Robinson, but for the faithful congregations who worship there.

[Malcolm+]

No one denies that the dissenters have the right to form their own denomination.

They just don't have the right to steal the silver on their way out the door.

In fact, though, the Common Cause meeting later this month suggests they are not so much starting a new Anglican province as they are aligning themselves with assorted schismatical groups as the Reformed Episcopal Church (which is still protesting the 1879 BCP) and the Anglican Province of America (created to oppose the 1979 BCP and the ordination of women).

Curiously, the assorted decamping schismatics in the late 1970s all thought they were going to become the new American Province of the Anglican Communion as well.

[Alan Marsh]

Malcolm. The reality is a growing new province of Anglican Christians in N America.

Freedom of religion is written in to the US Constitution, and neither the US government nor a denomination such as TEC which has lost its spiritual way, can compel people to remain in an organisation which has ceased to teach the Christian faith.

Let alone compel the rest of the Anglican Communion to accept its unbiblical innovations.

[Malcolm+]

I am certainly prepared to use that technical term from moral theology.

The "conservative" campaign against the Episcopal Church has been fuedled by lies from the start.

And BTW, Alan, the politically driven campaign to destabalize the Episcopal Church (and other denominations which do not cave in to extreme neoconservatism) has been well documented, from the coup d'eglise in the Southern Baptist Convention to the new coup attempt nominally run from Africa but clearly directed by the IRD.

[Alan Marsh]

More warped distortions, Malcolm. You really are unwilling to engage with the reality which is being played out in the USA.

For example, the new Ugandan bishop, John Guernsey, will have oversight of 33 congregations in N America, widely scattered across a large continent. This is a sizeable ministry, comparable with many long-established TEC dioceses in terms of numbers of congregations (though not geography). The diocese of Nevada, for example, which formerly belonged to the new Presiding Bishop, has just 37 parishes listed on its web site. Some existing TEC dioceses have less than a dozen congregations.

These Uganda congregations, along with those of the other African dioceses, and of AMiA, are growing very quickly and establishing new churches, as well as receiving large congregations from TEC, some of which have up to 1,000 or more members.

I hate to use the word lies where a Christian minister is concerned, but your repeated claims come perilously close to that definition.