Thursday, August 7, 2008

And so the fallout begins

H/T to Adrian Worsfold at the Pluralist Speaks.

From NewsDaily:

Some Canada Anglicans may reject same-sex moratorium
...the head of the Canadian church, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, told Reuters in a phone interview on Wednesday it would be especially tough for Bishop Michael Ingham of the British Columbia diocese of New Westminster to halt the homosexual blessings altogether.

Ingham caused an outcry among conservative Anglicans around the world in 2003 when he started authorizing some parishes to bless gay unions.

Hiltz pointed out that the decision-making synods of four more Canadian dioceses have in the past year asked their bishops to authorize same-sex blessings.

...Hiltz expressed his frustration that Latin American and African bishops have been offering support to disaffected conservative Canadian churches, and said this caused more havoc than the discussion over homosexuality itself.

"It's not welcome," he said. "Nobody seems to be able to say to these primates, 'Stop'."


Cany said...

The folks who (mostly) stayed away from Lambeth didn't listen to Windsor, obviously (based on Venables statement that he WILL continue to cross provincial lines even though his church cannot do so, legally) I believe it safe to assume Orombi et. all will do likewise. They
didn't like the Lambeth process (though most were not a part of it), didn't like the results (which perhaps they could have changed had they attended), and are wondering why renegade dissenters in other provincial areas cannot be slapped-down or removed, or make to sit in the corner by some sort of rule-making entity within the communion via a covenant.

Well there are about a thousand things wrong with their thinking, not the least of which is that many provincial churches have different polity and different process. While Orombi and Akinola CAN threaten their Bishops to keep them in line, that is NOT something we in the Episcopal Church would tolerate. Thank heavens.

Since Orombi et. al distain the non-elected stature of the ABC, one can only wonder WHY he is Anglican, at all? Is this some sort of new revelation? If you LOOK at the timing between +Robinsons ordination and his revelation as to the seeming impropriety of the non-elected position of ABC, they coincide. Not a coincidence in my mind.

What is clear in EVERY release they send out is they are hurt and angry because they feel they are not being listened to AND heeded. The latter part of that is the real problem. God knows, we hear them:)

This goes directly back to their black/white view of scripture and ecclesiology, doesn't it? While the Roman Church, the more fundamental churches and some Baptist churches
are more black and white, we Anglicans live mostly in gray, doncha think? I just don't GET why he remains Anglican at all, frankly. The process, as crazy as it may seem to some (apparently including many of the GAFCON/FOCA types) has a certain signature and that is Anglican.

It would be interesting to see all the Bishops in the world get together and discuss, for six months, church history in light of where we are today. Wanna talk about potential fireworks!

Yet, it is clear that Anglican history for those in GAFCON doesn't seem to really have much traction. How can it when more literalistic, one-legged stool types are really only concerned with some sections of the Bible, and not others?

Here's an interesting challenge: How in the world could TEC agree with GAFCON even on THE BCP to use when, given our polity, we revise our own, as do others? Are they REALLY asking for a standard of Anglicanism in PB version year?

Well, as a matter of fact, they are. They did. They just don't get how we work. Had they bothered to come to Lambeth and be part of the discussion and communication, perhaps they would have walked away with a little more knowledge.

But then again, they are led by people IN the U.S. who don't like us either, so without an open mind, they probably would have learned nothing. After all, they appear to know everything already.

They cannot be brought into the fold. They have already set very BRIGHT lines for whose in and whose out. Anyone hoping to keep them in the Communion is dreaming.

So the question is, pragmatically, why are we trying to work down to the lowest common demonimator? Is it because others in the Global South don't intend to go with GAFCON but need serious consideration? Yep, that's how I read it.

Just my $0.02.

Cany said...

Oy... not whose, but who's. But then you knew that, right:):)

Leonardo Ricardo said...

You see some may say the "destructions" at GAFCON have a great Home Savings and Loan empire manipulating scheming behind them but it all boils down to something that must be guaranteed in any Marketing "takeover" simply must, eventually deliver the product as matter the hoopla, the print ads, the Fanglian TV set-up/back-up prop, the costly professional scripting of speeches, the blogging righteous "sounding" bigots or the expensive recruiting of a "in house" fear/hate generating team of hungry previously rejected still won't work...there is "quality" lacking in the product...they are attempting to manufacture defective Love for ones "neighbor" at can't buy the REAL desire we have to LOVE oneanother/others at The Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion...we all know what the purchased kind of "love" is get what you pay for and some things can't/won't be bought...a REAL desire in ones love for peace and generosity of spirit throughout humankind is not for's not a Home Savings and Loan "business venture" investment kind of a thing.

James said...

Let's see ....

The U.S.
New Zealand

The list grows and I'm sure I've forgotten at least one province.

Anonymous said...

Most of Australia and, I believe, Brazil.

What I am waiting to see is our conservatives giving up their beloved 1928 BCP! Betcha, that will be a reality point for many of them.


James said...

Does anyone know (Ob?) Is Sydney it's own province? It has and archbishop so I would think it is. England has two archbishops, but the rest of the communion only has one per province, i think.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about Australia, but Canada has more than one Archbishop. I don't think the Archbishop of Sidney is the Primate, in fact I'm pretty sure he isn't.


JCF said...

South Africa.
Central America?

David G. said...

I don't really care one way or the other.

It's all a farce, there never was a G-D, what's the freaking point????

Brian R said...

Each state of Australia (except Tasmania) forms a province so Jensen is Archbishop of Sydney and therefore head of the province of NSW. However the Primate of Australia is elected and is currently the Archbishop of Brisbane ++Aspinall. An election is due in October but there is no way Jensen would be elected.

JCF said...

You having a bad day (night), DavidG?

Hang in there, my brother: there IS a God (sez my heart!), who LOVES you.