One running theme in recent comments here, but also for a long time now on many blogs, is the plea to see some real discipline of TEC. Something which did not occur with any substance after 2003 (the closest was the suspension of TEC for one ACC meeting at which its suspended members were observers), and something which should now happen with the Glasspool confirmation. So the argument goes, and it is an argument with merit because the Glasspool confirmation has a deeper significance than being the confirmation of a partnered lesbian person to be a bishop. That deeper significance is this: following Gene Robinson's consecration a series of restrained decisions on the part of TEC's GC meant that there was plausible argument in response to calls to discipline TEC that TEC might not actually be walking apart from the Communion, the Robinson consecration being a temporary diversion from the one path of Anglican polity; now however TEC has effectively announced that no temporary diversion has taken place, it is walking apart from the Communion.
Actually I want to suggest it is walking apart from the Communion in two ways. The first is walking apart from the common direction in the Communion, that Anglican bishops who are neither single nor married are living contradictory to Scripture and tradition. The second is walking apart from an emerging direction that the Anglican Communion cannot remain as it is, essentially a meeting point of Anglicans, but must move forward to becoming a worldwide church. To me it is inescapable that a consequence of the Glasspool confirmation is confirmation that TEC under no circumstances will be beholden to any authority larger than itself and thus is deeply opposed to any movement of the Communion towards becoming a worldwide church.
While I do not see any time soon that the majority of Anglican churches will signal that they are walking with TEC re homosexuality, it is possible that TEC's actions will be acknowledged as highlighting the question of whether the Communion should become a church or not. At which point TEC could be joined by a number of other Anglican churches who for various reasons would prefer to assert autonomy over accountability.
Back to the possibility of discipline. Please challenge me if I have this wrong, but I see no meaningful way in which the Communion - not being at this time a worldwide church - can discipline TEC in a manner likely to yield a change in direction. Sure, some invites to meetings could be withdrawn, but I do not see that as effective discipline.
Besides which, I am not convinced that this is a situation where TEC should be disciplined. What they are doing is responsible, considered, adult decision making. It would be wise to allow TEC to follow their path and see whether it is fruitful or not in respect of the well-being of their future life. In short, they do not believe they are rebelling against God's Word, rather they are obeying it. If that is so they will be blessed; if not so they will be judged. But if the latter it does not require humans to enforce the judgement. As with many situations, judgement will work itself out as life unfolds. A possible clue as to how it is working out lies in this report. Of course TEC's defenders will vigorously challenge that take ... on all sides, however, some more time is required as to how this might pan out.
Meantime, in respect of the emerging direction that the Communion might become a worldwide church, we now have a paper by Michael Poon to consider. I shall try to find time to read it and reflect on it soon.
PS To head off one possible critique of my supporting this emerging direction, there is no necessity for a worldwide Anglican church to be more or less Roman in structure. We could, for example, be conciliar rather than papal. In fact it would be fairly simple for us to become a worldwide church: approve the Covenant, restructure the shambles of councils we do have into one world council!
30 comments:
Thank you for sounding the warning bell so clearly: signing the covenant destroys the nature the Anglican Communion has been thus far and creates something new: a world-wide church.
You have vividly described the hidden agenda: the "question of whether the Communion should become a church or not."
Historically, bar one, episcopal churches form communions. The exception is the Catholic Church.
I suggest one learns to live with the strengths and weaknesses of a communion, or join the Catholic or some other church.
As I cannot find others as openly stating the issue as you are, please can you indicate any others who are admitting they are seeking to transform the Anglican Communion into a (world-wide) church.
If God's blessing is indicated to you by numbers or percentage growth, then I hope you are seriously considering Buddhism (Australia), Deism, Falun Gong, and Islam. If you persist in being a Christian, your logic will lead you to Rome.
Hi Anonymice
I take exception to both your comments :)
(a) I do not think signing the Covenant destroys anything but it has capacity to change the Communion.
(b) Such change needs to be accompanied by intention. All member churches could sign the Covenant resolved that nothing will change ... and nothing will change.
(c) Potential change is towards overcoming 'ecclesial deficit' (as Michael Poon argues). But this possibility is scarcely a "hidden agenda". A Communion which has been evolving ever since the C of E left the shores of England is going somewhere ... why not towards a church?
(d) I have expressed a personal view of my understanding of Communion: it's either going forwards or backwards ... but I have not revealed some inner working of the bowels of Communion bureaucracy. I have no contacts there for starters!!
(e) Did I say God's blessing is measured by numbers? (Though it is hard to measure the blessing of churches when they close down and are sold).
(f) Why Rome and not Constantinople? Actually, why not a world Anglican church based in Canterbury which is smarter than its sister churches?
Cheers
Peter
By "Constantinople", correct me if I am wrong, I'm presuming you mean Eastern Orthodoxy. Last time I looked Eastern Orthodoxy was a communion, not a "worldwide church" in the sense that you have been describing.
Hi Anonymous
A bit loose there, perhaps, with reference to 'Constantinople'.
Nevertheless, within Eastern Orthodoxy we find (a) individual orthodox churches are spreading around the world (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Antiochene Orthodox are all present in NZ), but without diversifying of doctrine and practice; (b) the possibility of this description being given in Wikipedia of all of Eastern Orthodoxy:
'The Church is composed of several self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically and nationally distinct but theologically unified.'
I like that 'theologically unified'. It is not something we Anglicans are very good at being. But perhaps if we were a world Anglican church we would be better ...
It’s pretty clear to me, Peter, that the attempt to transform the AC into a “world-wide church” would be unacceptable to most Episcopalians I know.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Hi Kurt
I agree!
It is by no means clear that it would be acceptable to (say) English, Scottish, Nigerian, and Japanese Anglicans.
So the idea might be stillborn.
But great ideas are worth thinking about!!!!!
"Discipline TEC" - an imperative header, leading a rather imperious post, Peter.
So then, what is the sin for which this discipline is necessary? "Walking apart" ... hmm, that has Brethren rather than Anglican overtones for me. Still, that doesn't rule it put per se.
Walking apart - is that always a sin? Surely there are some circumstances in which it might be a virtue, such as when a majority are heading off into sin or error. At that point walking apart becomes prophetic, noble, courageous, etc.
Down to specifics now. You name two ways TEC is separating itself from the majority of the Communion. The first involves them advocating change for the whole and implementing that change within its own rightful borders. TEC has a widely shared belief that its mission can only be advanced by a more inclusive policy towards LGBT people and is exercising its responsibility for turning its faith into works. Faith without works is dead, and mission without innovation is only maintenance... unless it lacks majority support, in which case the status quo is to be preferred and dressed up as mission.. Now in which moribund parish did I hear that before?
Your second charge is that TEC is resisting an innovation, the emergence of a more church-like Communion structure. That resistance, you say, also merits discipline. In this case it is a sin to resist a majority call for change. Apart from the issue of how that majority is to be assessed (most primates/ most bishops/ a full survey of lay as well as ordained opinion across the Communion?...), your opinion that it is an offence to resist change if a majority desires it is in itself an innovation for Anglicans. Can you give us some helpful historical precedents for this doctrine? I presume you might not want to apply it immediately to the case of conservative elements within TEC resisting recent changes. Obviously one factor for distinguishing majorities that must not be ignored is the scale on which they operate. Dissent is OK within a parish, a diocese and even a province, but not at Communion level. What about the Communion itself then? How long can we maintain our dissent from the Catholic majority? Have we been in sin ever since the Reformation?
Then there remains a question about how the discipline you advocate might be applied to TEC. Exclude the Episcopal PB from primates meetings, and stuff like that? Oh please Brer Fox, don't throw me into the briar patch! You do acknowledge that no effective disciplinary measures are actually on hand for the Communion to bring TEC into line. One thing I learned as a teacher was that threatening disciplinary actions I had no power to apply only served to diminish my authority in the classroom. Applying such threats to adult relationships is even worse, making the threat-maker look infantile and powerless.
Wait and see how it pans out then? Leave any disciplining to God? Now that's a biblical theme to think about!
RE: "It’s pretty clear to me, Peter, that the attempt to transform the AC into a “world-wide church” would be unacceptable to most Episcopalians I know."
Interesting. Most Episcopalians I know would love it.
Of course, the easy path to discipline is simply the ABC not inviting TEC reps to the Primates Meeting or TEC bishops to the Lambeth meeting. That would also eliminate KJS from being on the Standing Committee as well.
It's a fairly simple and neat solution. If TEC is not recognized by the ABC, it's not in the Anglican Communion. Now -- it's not being in the Anglican Communion would be a blow for its pretensions, certainly, and its agenda to "do what it has done to itself to the entire Communion" -- but it would recover from its wounded ego eventually and pretend as if it didn't care.
Sarah
Hi Howard
I actually wrote this within that post,
"Besides which, I am not convinced that this is a situation where TEC should be disciplined. What they are doing is responsible, considered, adult decision making. It would be wise to allow TEC to follow their path and see whether it is fruitful or not in respect of the well-being of their future life. In short, they do not believe they are rebelling against God's Word, rather they are obeying it. If that is so they will be blessed; if not so they will be judged. But if the latter it does not require humans to enforce the judgement."
So (a) I am not advocating discipline of TEC, but I am (b) reflecting on the possibility of discipline as raised by others!
It is not a sin per se for TEC to be walking apart from others; but walking apart from others does not enhance fellowship.
I tried to make it clear that I presume that on the question of the emerging possibility of the Communion becoming a church, TEC will find itself joined by others. They would not be sinners if they do that but Anglicans expressing a viewpoint. There will be no transformation of the Communion if there is insufficient support. Personally I would not like to bet on that support being found to be sufficient. (Incidentally it would not be about a simple majority of support - an overwhelming number of member churches would need to be in favour).
Your point (f) was questioning my point "Historically, bar one, episcopal churches form communions. The exception is the Catholic Church." Now I see you say the source of your Orthodox ecclesiology is Wikipedia. I would be interested for you to find an Orthodox theologian who would describe Orthodoxy as "composed of several self-governing ecclesial bodies" rather than a communion of churches. In training as a priest if you do your ecclesiology examining only Catholic and Protestant positions and use Wikipedia for the rest, then, yes, it is understandable that the only option you can understand is a world-wide church.
Well, that's a relief Peter. For a moment there I thought you were showing a harsher side to your ecclesial persona than I am accustomed to seeing. Instead you were expressing, and debunking, the thoughts of others. I had read that paragraph you quote and found it oddly out of sorts with the tenor of most of what you had written, and read it inaccurately as a regretful acknowledgement of reality rather than as your true preference that TEC not be disciplined but left in God's safe hands. Maybe your headline put me on the wrong track. Should it have had a question mark?
“Interesting. Most Episcopalians I know would love it.”--Sarah
Hmm, Sarah; are you sure you don’t mean “Most ACNAers I know would love it”?
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
Interesting point, Sarah! Perhaps you and Kurt move in different Episcopalian circles :)
A question mark, Howard, would be appropriate ... but less biting as a headline!
Anonymous 7.44am: of course the world Eastern Orthodoxy movement is a communion and not a world church. My point is that nevertheless it has found a way to stick more tightly to an agreed theological unity than we Anglicans are managing to do.
RE: "Hmm, Sarah; are you sure you don’t mean “Most ACNAers I know would love it”?"
Pretty darn sure, as I don't have occasion to hang out with "ACNAers" as I do with TECers.
; > )
Shocker, huh, as an Episcopalian.
RE: "Perhaps you and Kurt move in different Episcopalian circles . . . "
Yes, Peter Carrell. Keep in mind that the polarity over here in TEC is intense. I hang out with the traditional Episcopalians, and he with the progressive activists. There is a chasm between us and the general frozen indifference to the other is quite charming.
There's just two antithetical, mutually opposing gospels represented in TEC -- and that means a very very deep and broad and long lasting and pervasive conflict.
I'm far more willing to work with Presbys, RCs, Methodists, etc, etc, than I am with progressive Episcopalians. And as all of us have learned, they are far more willing to sell old church buildings to Muslims than to ACNAers.
I think that's pretty normal, though, honestly. Both sides recognize that neither shares the same gospel, and it's pretty normal to flock with those who care about the same things and have the same foundational worldview.
At least we live in interesting times over here!
Sarah
Having briefly looked at Michael Poon’s essay (reserving a fuller examination for tomorrow’s plane trip), it seems to me that a due historical analogy might be the sundry reactions/responses to the very idea of a Lambeth Conference back in the 19th C - both in principle at all at all, and in precise format. Nowadays of course we still have vigorous debate about its format! Even as some others also debate the principle - viz. GAFCON ... So actually nothing truly new here frankly - despite objections so far aired ...
So too once more we see the AC evolving, under specific stimuli, into another type of creature. Or should that be “two creatures”? (1) TEC, comprising USA (bits of), Canada (bits of), plus .... (fill in the blanks, according to taste). Plus, (2) Canterbury’s Covenantal Communion of Churches (for want of a better label). Is this what is occurring?
And then Peter is broadly right: some historical sifting will occur according to “fruit” - even as wheat and darnel continue also to grow together - until such time as the Holy Spirit reignites another form of ecumenical vision and labour ... Though I for one would also see the substance of Poon’s essay as just that: a distinct pigment in the picture of the Spirit at work for the sake of the 21st C Church. But then westerners were mostly a bit one eyed when it comes to appreciating what occurs beyond the First World ... Pace Jenkins et al!
Sarah has put her finger on the issue that Peter in his benevolence doesn't want to face up to: that Kurt and his "progressive" co-religionists represent a different gospel, a different religion to historic Anglicanism, even though they may still formally belong to a historic Christian church with its roots in the Reformation and before. There is nothing new to this phenomenon; the New Testament is replete with warnings about it ('a form of religion but denying the power thereof') and it has featured throughout history. Gresham Machen's 'Christianity and Liberalism' is still the best analysis of this recurrent phenomenon.
Put most simply, what Schori and co. are promoting sometimes uses Christian language (as the proto-gnostics of the NT era did, as did the full-blown gnostics of the second century, and so did Mary Baker Eddy and Harry Emerson Fosdick) but the language must not be confused with the content, whcih is decisively different.
This is why the Diocese of Central New York would dispossess loyal Anglicans and sell off the property to Muslims. By their fruits ye shall know them.
Outis
Hi Anonymous
When you say, "Sarah has put her finger on the issue that Peter in his benevolence doesn't want to face up to: that Kurt and his "progressive" co-religionists represent a different gospel, a different religion to historic Anglicanism, even though they may still formally belong to a historic Christian church with its roots in the Reformation and before.", where is the evidence, the jury's decision and the judge's decision?
I know this charge is brought against TEC - indeed I have brought similar myself in posts some distance back. But I find it gets refuted; TEC persistently says through various commentators, "This is not true of our faith." We need more than individuals charging that this is so!
So my benevolence is at least this: like the umpire in cricket, giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt, even though the bowler is sure the ball has knicked the bat's edge!
RE: ". . . where is the evidence, the jury's decision and the judge's decision?"
Obviously there's plenty of evidence, and there's no "jury" or "judge's" decision -- which would be why the Anglican Communion is in the mess that it is in. The lack of a jury or judge's decision is kind of the problem, isn't it?
I mean -- those who have looked at the copious quantities of evidence have either said "good heavens -- I'm cutting communion with such blatant heretics" or . . .[drum roll] "let us all gather at this table and engage in further dialogue."
Let's face it -- eventually the folks in the former group are going to leave the Anglican Communion, unless the folks in the latter group actually engage in some boundary setting. The formal fracture in the Anglican Communion will come, sooner or later because the folks in the former group wish to act on the evidence, and the folks in the latter group most certainly do NOT want a jury or judge's decision!
RE: "TEC persistently says through various commentators, "This is not true of our faith.""
Well sure, the progressive activists in TEC are saying that.
RE: "We need more than individuals charging that this is so!"
Whom are we trying to convince, Peter Carrell? Anybody who has kept up with things knows it [and truth to tell, the revisionists at least know they believe a different gospel than we do as well -- sometimes they've even said it aloud and called the consequences "the cost of discipleship"]. And folks who have not kept up with things aren't going to know it, no matter how many "objective" evidentiary papers we present to them.
I think going through any kind of further evidentiary papers -- after six years of the evidence piling up -- is a big waste of effort and time.
Sarah
Hi Sarah
Obviously you do not need convincing that TEC is in a place where discipline not applause is the appropriate response. But I suspect you are not a member of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia. For that body to become convinced that (say) TEC should be dismissed from the Communion and ACNA welcomed into it in TEC's place, it would require evidence that went beyond (a) lots of claims on blogs, or (b) foci on one or two well-known individuals (e.g. Spong) and/or one or two egregious incidents (a Muslim Episcopalian priest here, a Wiccan ritual at a seminary there). What would help would be for the GC to change various canons and liturgies in a more obviously heretical direction. Has it done this? TEC supporters can, after all, point to GS members in a church such as my own and say that when a neo Buddhist candidate for episcopacy was elected, consent was denied!!
However please do not misunderstand me in this way: I see TEC clearly divided between progressives and conservatives (with conservatives still in TEC weakened through those who have chosen to leave); and I see the trajectory TEC is on as one day revealing for all to see what people such as yourself see.
Outis reminds me of the sectarian Trotskyites I encountered many years ago on college campuses. Only their group was “pure”, and “true” and “revolutionary.” Everyone else was a “revisionist” or “reformist.” Similarly, Outis calls those with whom s/he disagrees various epithets. I really can’t take this form of “discussion” or “debate” seriously. And while Outis succeeds sometimes in irritating me, nothing s/he has put forward convinces me that the fundagelical party line which Outis promotes is anything more than the ravings of a con evo extremist.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
RE: "But I suspect you are not a member of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia."
Hi Peter Carrell -- I'm under no delusions that the General Synods will *ever* as a body believe that TEC has gone off the rails. Perhaps 20 years from now but I honestly doubt it.
But I'm not certain why the synods all need to be convinced anyway. The synod level is not where discipline takes place [or should take place] within the Anglican Communion. It should take place at the level of Primates and bishops. And honestly, I do think the Lambeth Conference went a long way towards that with the *moderate* traditional bishops. Remember -- while TEC bishops were prating about how same sex unions weren't really being done much, a nice hefty paper with newspaper photos and headlines of ssu's, listed by diocese, went onto all of their seats in the big tent. Numerous other things happened like that, such that by the end of the long nightmare that was Lambeth, a number of bishops who had come "on one side" went away quite concerned and far more aware. There was a ton of good educating done there, not to mention just the vista of the various TEC bishops behaving as they do. One of the best things Rowan Williams did was come and listen to our ridiculous General Convention stuff, filled with clergy and laity and bishops behaving as they do and making inane, positively vacuous statements in front of mikes. He left shaken.
I think there is a much much greater level of knowledge about TEC's lunacy at the bishop level -- and certainly at the Primate level than there was, say, even just three years ago.
And for the record, I don't particularly need ACNA to be "welcomed into TEC's place." I hold no brief for ACNA and they've got a whole whole lot of work to do before even someone like me would see them as the appropriate "replacement body." I have some good friends in ACNA and I am so happy for them -- that they have an alternate Anglican entity of which to be a part. But being happy for individual friends is not the same as wanting them to "replace TEC."
RE: "What would help would be for the GC to change various canons and liturgies in a more obviously heretical direction."
Right -- they won't be doing that any time soon, because they need to keep the ill-informed but traditional segment of laity in the pews and paying up. ; > )
Why do you think they made such a big hullabaloo last year -- freely lying through their teeth -- that D025 was not a renunciation of B033, when quite obviously it was? The answer was that they did not want the laity to know what they had done, plus they wanted to buy more time in the Communion. Took over a year for them to come clean and for the charade to be ripped off.
At any rate, the Synods of various provinces simply aren't going to be convinceable. They're too far down the food chain, they're too oblivious, they're too disconnected from the happenings of another province [and understandably so] and they don't get to hang out with TEC bishops and clergy and laity, like oh say . . . the new Primate of the Sudan did back at Lambeth. Remember -- they were his hospitality hosts . . . and he got quite an eyeful.
; > )
Sarah
Hi Sarah
I appreciate your taking time to write your expose which is helpful in all sorts of ways.
But I would still assert the importance of evidence accepted by GSs. Suppose, for instance, that your line re episcopal discipline was followed up (++KJS disinvited to the next Primates Meeting) ... among the howls of outrage would be NZ Anglicans unconvinced by the rightness of this move; included in lack of support for ++Rowan would be the absence of GS resolution from here; to say nothing of our Primate(s) - yes, we have three - going to the meeting unable to say with the conviction of their whole church that ++Rowan had done the right thing.
But a TEC GC does sound interesting!?
Regards
Peter
Re Sarah's "And as all of us have learned, they (TEC) are far more willing to sell old church buildings to Muslims than to ACNAers"
I do not know of these cases. Please can we have some links about these - or is this just another untrue ad hominem attack, actually factually incorrect and now spreading from here as if it is true (gossip; lying)?
TEC has placed a number of old church buildings for sale on the open market, but when ACNA wishes to purchase them they are not able to, but when Muslims wish to purchase them, they get them? Sounds a strange set of stories. Can we have the links please.
Hi Anonymous
You could try this link: http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/03/dog-in-manger-ii-good-shepherd.html
Kurt, I'm certainly not trying to convince you of anything, I'm simply countering what I see as travesties of the facts and a naive institutional optimism allied with an unconcealed contempt of traditional evangelical faith. To be called an 'extremist' doesn't bother me in the slightest because that's a relative term and an extremist by definition is somebody else, if you get my drift. I think I'm pretty much in the historic center of the Anglican faith - at least I don't cross my fingers when I say the Creeds or support strange and erronoeus innovations like homosexual "marriage". If that's "extreme", then it only means secular society has moved on from positions that were very much mainstream even 30 years ago. You want to revise Anglicanism to fit a post-Christian world, I don't. You may well win in NY. But orthodox believers will just go to Tim Keller and such like.
I've never been likened to a Trot before, but now I'll have to steer clear of Mexico City and Nooyawkers with ice picks.
Thanks for the helpful link, Peter. If it is true as your link says, supporting the comment on this site, that “contracts that buildings vacated by departing congregations can never be sold back to Anglican congregations” – then I think that is outrageous! If that clause in quotes in my previous sentence in fact is false, and it is being falsely reinforced here - then I think that is outrageous!
RE: "I do not know of these cases. Please can we have some links about these - or is this just another untrue ad hominem attack, actually factually incorrect and now spreading from here as if it is true (gossip; lying)?"
Anonymous, not only is that true *in practice and actuality* but our Dear Leader, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori is on record in a court deposition stating that she has instructed that parish buildings not be sold or given to departing Anglicans but rather sold to other groups.
Peter Carrell -- You see the comment above? There's just no way to educate people one at a time. The story of the bishop who sold a parish building to an Islamic group for 1/3 the price that the departing Anglican group was willing to pay -- and with the departing Anglican group willing to take out a good loan to do it [which they were fully capable of doing, as they have done the same with another building now] has been all over blogdom -- at least 6 different blogs now and counting.
And yet -- still -- people who actually are themselves on blogs and surfing have never heard of it.
How much less than will random synods be able to be convinced or educated about such things when they're not out there in blogdom and they're not looking.
Further, the AAC has put out at least 5 detailed extensive documents with footnotes and specific examples of the outrageous raving heresies of bishops and clergy in our diocese, not to mention the latest of just the canonical abuses, lawsuits, and depositions of the Presiding Bishop.
Let the Synods read those documents which have been freely distributed all over Anglitania -- and then say that there is no evidence.
No -- by the time this is all over, those who do not "understand" or "see the evidence" simply do not wish to understand or see the evidence.
My suspicion is that, at least in the case of bishops and clergy in New Zealand, they see the evidence and are privately thinking "ah, if only our Province could move in such an inclusive direction" -- they just know it's not "the right time" to voice it. ; > )
Sarah
Hi Sarah
I take your point that there is some detailed evidentiary work around, e.g. from the AAC; I also find, of course, that a blog I link to, Anglican Curmudgeon, offers full commentary on TEC goings on, with the bonus of a fine legal mind sharing its expertise on canonical rorts!
I do not think your suspicions re the Anglican church in Aotearoa New Zealand are well founded. They are not completely unfounded, but we are currently in a period in our life as a church when I think the "weighting" of our leadership and synods is on the conservative side of centre rather than the progressive side.
Had a great ruminating read of Poon’s article on the plane and will share some jottings after I do another day’s work - for what they’re worth! But for now, to continue Peter and Sarah’s dialogue re the ACANZ&P (Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia).
Some facts on the ground. We have just had two new bishops elected, in Dunedin and Auckland. How they will perform at our GS this coming May will be important to watch, especially as the Ang Covt is coming before us all. Yet they are NOT quite the same as their predecessors! Then we need to note what PC himself noted last year on this blog: that two dioceses (Christchurch and Nelson) have already passed motions at their respective synods in favour of the RCD of the Ang Covt.
True; to date the Maori Tikanga of our threefold church is on record as not having much truck with even the idea of the Ang Covt. But should they actually engage, the vital question of the sheer disarray of the Anglican Communion in its present state (frankly; I found PC’s link to Thinking Anglicans and so to not a few of their reactions to Poon pretty unthoughtful: we are NOT “fine as we are”, folks), notably at GS this May - who knows ... Especially if our Island brothers and sisters enter the fray.
So while there remain some strong leanings among us in ACANZ&P to ‘the left of centre’, a fair amount of recent ‘conscientization’ has raised folks’ awareness that it may soon very well come down to either the Way of the Covt, or the Way of nothing-much-left-at-all — save splintering disarray (which, one is tempted to say, merely reflects yet again the desire for a trendy western postmodern potpourri ... Or of course the work of the ‘father of lies’ ... Is there a difference?!). And this is not scare mongering; just plain observation: “there’s the rub!”
Post a Comment