" But that self-regulation may not be enough. One province may think it has acted to maintain the Covenant and other provinces disagree. What should be done then? Who can monitor on behalf of all signatories?" - para. from Andrew Goddard -
Andrew Goddard is a known conservative Evangelical in the Church of England who does not approve of LGBT acceptance in the Church. Therefore, his apologia for the Covenant must be seen from that particular perspective.
He here outlines the very weakness of the Covenant process that will work against the independence of Provinces to pursue their unique understanding of how to pursue what they see as necessary pastoral initiatives in their own context.
GAFCON has already signalled its unwillingness to debate with TEC and the A.C.of C. over their local initiatives to include the LGBT community into the life and ministry of their Provinces.
They are not likely to join up with TEC and the A.C.of C. in a Covenant relationship that they have already rejected. So what would be the point of it all? They have already judged the situation by moving out of Eucharistic fellowship! GAFCON will have to repent of their refusal to dialogue, for any possible reconciliation to happen.
The Covenant, it would seem, is dead. Rowan Williams' failure is now complete. He burned the Instruments of Unity to ashes in hopes that he could call forth a Covenant from those ashes. He produced nothing but soot and charred flooring. Now there is nothing at the top of the Communion to hold it together, and he has tethered his own church to the runaway train that is TEC.
Perhaps we should call him Oedipus Rowan. Fate doomed him to destroy what he most wanted to save. No matter how hard he tried to avoid it, he produced this endpoint through the inevitable consequences of his own decisions. History will not be kind to him.
"Andrew Goddard is a known conservative Evangelical in the Church of England who does not approve of LGBT acceptance in the Church. Therefore, his apologia for the Covenant must be seen from that particular perspective."
Just as your apologia against the Covenant must be seen from your perspective of ignoring Scripture to support the acceptance oif homosexual sin.
" He burned the Instruments of Unity to ashes in hopes that he could call forth a Covenant from those ashes." - carl jacobs -
Never one to avoid a chance for hysterics, carl here now blames the Archbishop of Canterbury for what he sees as the failure of the Anglican Communion to be reconciled by the Covenant process.
It would have failed anyway, because of the intransigence of GAFCON to accept the fact that the historic Communion has already subscribed to the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral agreement - which was to allow Provinces the dignity of their own mission in context, while agreeing to live together under the provenance of Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
Pushing for 'Sola scriptura' was never an axiom for koinonia in the Anglican Communion.
"Pushing for 'Sola scriptura' was never an axiom for koinonia in the Anglican Communion."
Historically that is arguable. But nevertheless, Sola Scripture should and must be the basis for koinonia in the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church was brought forth in the ferment of the Protestant Reformation which made, or rather restored, Sola Scriptura as the supreme and foundational basis for knowing God and His will.
Any other formulation will only lead to the corruption of the Church's understanding of God and His revelation to mankind.
Which is why the pro-homosexual liberal wing of the Church rejects it. If God is allowed to speak clearly to the Church in His Word written, then that will get in the way of the agenda of the "inclusive" church to ignore God in favour of cultural Marxism.
Never one to avoid a chance for hysterics, carl here now blames the Archbishop of Canterbury for what he sees as the failure of the Anglican Communion to be reconciled by the Covenant process.
No, actually I didn't. I said he systematically destroyed each of the four instruments in turn in order to facilitate his covenant before TEC could be called to account. He castrated the Primates meeting in Feb 2007. He manipulated Lambeth into a meaningless group hug in 2008. He reduced the ACC to a wholly owned subsidiary of TEC such that the token conservatives resigned. He demolished what little trust remained in the AoC by his incompetent scheming in Jamaica. And having done all that, he failed to get his covenant. So now he resigns with no covenant in place and all the instruments in a shambles. That's what I said.
And in case you haven't noticed, I am glad the Covenant failed. It was a Judas Goat for conservatives.
Carl's comment is sadly correct. For all his personal qualities - which are widely acknowledged - Rowan Williams has failed as a leader, precisely because he undermined the existing "instruments of unity" while offering the Byzantine covenant which has now, rather predictably, been widely rejected. The realignment of world Anglicanism will continue, along with its gradual disappearance from the West.
On another matter, I am resolved not to react or respond to Ron Smith's remarks. I am not likely to persuade him nor he to persuade me, and my busy enough job doesn't allow me the leisure time for fruitless exchanges. A holy Lent to you all. Martin
The 'Judas Goat' in all of this nasty con/evo activity in the Communion has actually turned out to be the saintly Archbishop of Canterbury.
One of my English clerical brothers-in-law (I have two of them) has recently offered the comment that Abp. Rowan is too blooming Christian for the post of archbishop in the present Church!
The 'Judas Goat' in all of this nasty con/evo activity in the Communion has actually turned out to be the saintly Archbishop of Canterbury.
I am not convinced you have thought this through. A Judas Goat is an unwitting tool, so who exactly was using the AoC as an unwitting tool to lead conservatives to their own slaughter?
The correct metaphor for you to use would have been the Pied Piper with the covenant as his flute. If you had used that metaphor, I would have agreed with you.
"A Judas Goat is an unwitting tool, so who exactly was using the AoC as an unwitting tool to lead conservatives to their own slaughter?" - carl jacobs -
Since you've asked, carl (just think again) it could well be GAFCON - after next months clandestine meeting in the U.K. - where their local branch, AMiE, with local clergy ordained by the Archbishop of Kenya, already is employed to undermine the Church of England. Their empire-building may just not be acceptable to C.of E. loyalists.
I take exception, Ron, to your use of the word "clandestine" in your comment: the meeting is well signposted: http://www.gafcon.org/news/anglican_leaders_gather_to_work_towards_visionary_future/
Peter. I will sustain your objection to the word 'clandestine'.
However, IMHO, what GAFCON is doing, and has already done with the introduction of it's love-child, AMiE, in the U.K. is 'sneaky' and disloyal to Canterbury and the Church of England.
So ... GAFCON has been plotting to use Rowan Williams as an unwitting tool to destroy itself, and has been doing so since even before GAFCON existed? Man, I knew these Conservative conspiracies were nefarious and complicated, but I never knew how nefarious and complicated. Until now.
"and has already done with the introduction of it's love-child"
Ron,
language such as this ("love-child") is childish and un-Christian.
Repent.
Your point here, as are most of your comments, hypocritical. The Inclusive Church has been doing all the things you claim to disaprove of in GAFCON. IC has been organising local churches into a unified group, making public declarations, and publishing position statements, all actions which you have attacked GAFCON for.
Thus to be consistent, you must also disagree with the Inclusive Churches actions.
However, I do not expect you to be consistent. Your arguments against GAFCON are a sideshow. What you REALLY disagree with is their theological/moral positions. But as you seem to have trouble engaging in serious theological debate and discussion, or you simply have no ammunition to counter GAFCON's arguments, then you engage in these hypocritical attacks on their right to organise and speak.
The truth is that GAFCON came about, not because it is disloyal, sneaky, clandestine, or any of the other silly claims you have made, but because of the formation and political activism of the Inclusive Church.
Now, while I disagree with most of the positions of IC, I, unlike you, respect their right to organise and speak their mind. But, if they can do so, then so can conservatives.
You seem to think that conservatives and Evangelicals should just shut up and say nothing. This is monumentaly arrogant and self-righteous, and unless you have been made Pope of the Anglican Church, you have no right to make such demands.
For someone who claims to on the inclusive/tolerant/loving side of the debate (self-righteousness again), I have seen nothing from you on this blog except hatred, intolerance, abuse, childish behaviour (such as refusing to debate with me), and paranoid conspiracy theories.
I have yet to see one substantive theological argument from you.
So I ask again. Apart from abusing and attacking people you disagree with, why do you bother to comment here?
Because apart from confirming what I already knew about the hypocrisy of so-called "inclusive" Christians, you are achieving nothing. Nobody is going to be swayed by your arguments as they are. All you manage to achieve is to make the atomosphere here (so to speak) tiresome and unpleasant.
As a student of the English language, I am often surprised at the lengths people will go to establish their own credentials - mostly by the use of many words, some of which may not even be properly grammatical.
I cannot take comments that involve accusations of hypocrisy, hatred etc. If I have let them through above then I regret that.
You are entitled to think what you like of each other but I am entitled not to accept comments which involve arguing about each other's moral status (e.g. whether one or other or even both are simultaneously "self-righteous.")
I like you both commenting here, but let's stick to issues.
16 comments:
" But that self-regulation may not be enough. One province may think it has acted to maintain the Covenant and other provinces disagree. What should be done then? Who can monitor on behalf of all signatories?"
- para. from Andrew Goddard -
Andrew Goddard is a known conservative Evangelical in the Church of England who does not approve of LGBT acceptance in the Church. Therefore, his apologia for the Covenant must be seen from that particular perspective.
He here outlines the very weakness of the Covenant process that will work against the independence of Provinces to pursue their unique understanding of how to pursue what they see as necessary pastoral initiatives in their own context.
GAFCON has already signalled its unwillingness to debate with TEC and the A.C.of C. over their local initiatives to include the LGBT community into the life and ministry of their Provinces.
They are not likely to join up with TEC and the A.C.of C. in a Covenant relationship that they have already rejected. So what would be the point of it all? They have already judged the situation by moving out of Eucharistic fellowship! GAFCON will have to repent of their refusal to dialogue, for any possible reconciliation to happen.
The Covenant, it would seem, is dead. Rowan Williams' failure is now complete. He burned the Instruments of Unity to ashes in hopes that he could call forth a Covenant from those ashes. He produced nothing but soot and charred flooring. Now there is nothing at the top of the Communion to hold it together, and he has tethered his own church to the runaway train that is TEC.
Perhaps we should call him Oedipus Rowan. Fate doomed him to destroy what he most wanted to save. No matter how hard he tried to avoid it, he produced this endpoint through the inevitable consequences of his own decisions. History will not be kind to him.
carl
"Andrew Goddard is a known conservative Evangelical in the Church of England who does not approve of LGBT acceptance in the Church. Therefore, his apologia for the Covenant must be seen from that particular perspective."
Just as your apologia against the Covenant must be seen from your perspective of ignoring Scripture to support the acceptance oif homosexual sin.
" He burned the Instruments of Unity to ashes in hopes that he could call forth a Covenant from those ashes."
- carl jacobs -
Never one to avoid a chance for hysterics, carl here now blames the Archbishop of Canterbury for what he sees as the failure of the Anglican Communion to be reconciled by the Covenant process.
It would have failed anyway, because of the intransigence of GAFCON to accept the fact that the historic Communion has already subscribed to the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral agreement - which was to allow Provinces the dignity of their own mission in context, while agreeing to live together under the provenance of Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
Pushing for 'Sola scriptura' was never an axiom for koinonia in the Anglican Communion.
"Pushing for 'Sola scriptura' was never an axiom for koinonia in the Anglican Communion."
Historically that is arguable. But nevertheless, Sola Scripture should and must be the basis for koinonia in the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church was brought forth in the ferment of the Protestant Reformation which made, or rather restored, Sola Scriptura as the supreme and foundational basis for knowing God and His will.
Any other formulation will only lead to the corruption of the Church's understanding of God and His revelation to mankind.
Which is why the pro-homosexual liberal wing of the Church rejects it. If God is allowed to speak clearly to the Church in His Word written, then that will get in the way of the agenda of the "inclusive" church to ignore God in favour of cultural Marxism.
Father Ron Smith
Never one to avoid a chance for hysterics, carl here now blames the Archbishop of Canterbury for what he sees as the failure of the Anglican Communion to be reconciled by the Covenant process.
No, actually I didn't. I said he systematically destroyed each of the four instruments in turn in order to facilitate his covenant before TEC could be called to account. He castrated the Primates meeting in Feb 2007. He manipulated Lambeth into a meaningless group hug in 2008. He reduced the ACC to a wholly owned subsidiary of TEC such that the token conservatives resigned. He demolished what little trust remained in the AoC by his incompetent scheming in Jamaica. And having done all that, he failed to get his covenant. So now he resigns with no covenant in place and all the instruments in a shambles. That's what I said.
And in case you haven't noticed, I am glad the Covenant failed. It was a Judas Goat for conservatives.
carl
Carl's comment is sadly correct. For all his personal qualities - which are widely acknowledged - Rowan Williams has failed as a leader, precisely because he undermined the existing "instruments of unity" while offering the Byzantine covenant which has now, rather predictably, been widely rejected. The realignment of world Anglicanism will continue, along with its gradual disappearance from the West.
On another matter, I am resolved not to react or respond to Ron Smith's remarks. I am not likely to persuade him nor he to persuade me, and my busy enough job doesn't allow me the leisure time for fruitless exchanges.
A holy Lent to you all.
Martin
The 'Judas Goat' in all of this nasty con/evo activity in the Communion has actually turned out to be the saintly Archbishop of Canterbury.
One of my English clerical brothers-in-law (I have two of them) has recently offered the comment that Abp. Rowan is too blooming Christian for the post of archbishop in the present Church!
Father Ron Smith
The 'Judas Goat' in all of this nasty con/evo activity in the Communion has actually turned out to be the saintly Archbishop of Canterbury.
I am not convinced you have thought this through. A Judas Goat is an unwitting tool, so who exactly was using the AoC as an unwitting tool to lead conservatives to their own slaughter?
The correct metaphor for you to use would have been the Pied Piper with the covenant as his flute. If you had used that metaphor, I would have agreed with you.
carl
"A Judas Goat is an unwitting tool, so who exactly was using the AoC as an unwitting tool to lead conservatives to their own slaughter?" - carl jacobs -
Since you've asked, carl (just think again) it could well be GAFCON - after next months clandestine meeting in the U.K. - where their local branch, AMiE, with local clergy ordained by the Archbishop of Kenya, already is employed to undermine the Church of England. Their empire-building may just not be acceptable to C.of E. loyalists.
I take exception, Ron, to your use of the word "clandestine" in your comment: the meeting is well signposted: http://www.gafcon.org/news/anglican_leaders_gather_to_work_towards_visionary_future/
Peter. I will sustain your objection to the word 'clandestine'.
However, IMHO, what GAFCON is doing, and has already done with the introduction of it's love-child, AMiE, in the U.K. is 'sneaky' and disloyal to Canterbury and the Church of England.
Father Ron Smith
it could well be GAFCON
So ... GAFCON has been plotting to use Rowan Williams as an unwitting tool to destroy itself, and has been doing so since even before GAFCON existed? Man, I knew these Conservative conspiracies were nefarious and complicated, but I never knew how nefarious and complicated. Until now.
carl
"and has already done with the introduction of it's love-child"
Ron,
language such as this ("love-child") is childish and un-Christian.
Repent.
Your point here, as are most of your comments, hypocritical. The Inclusive Church has been doing all the things you claim to disaprove of in GAFCON. IC has been organising local churches into a unified group, making public declarations, and publishing position statements, all actions which you have attacked GAFCON for.
Thus to be consistent, you must also disagree with the Inclusive Churches actions.
However, I do not expect you to be consistent. Your arguments against GAFCON are a sideshow. What you REALLY disagree with is their theological/moral positions. But as you seem to have trouble engaging in serious theological debate and discussion, or you simply have no ammunition to counter GAFCON's arguments, then you engage in these hypocritical attacks on their right to organise and speak.
The truth is that GAFCON came about, not because it is disloyal, sneaky, clandestine, or any of the other silly claims you have made, but because of the formation and political activism of the Inclusive Church.
Now, while I disagree with most of the positions of IC, I, unlike you, respect their right to organise and speak their mind. But, if they can do so, then so can conservatives.
You seem to think that conservatives and Evangelicals should just shut up and say nothing. This is monumentaly arrogant and self-righteous, and unless you have been made Pope of the Anglican Church, you have no right to make such demands.
For someone who claims to on the inclusive/tolerant/loving side of the debate (self-righteousness again), I have seen nothing from you on this blog except hatred, intolerance, abuse, childish behaviour (such as refusing to debate with me), and paranoid conspiracy theories.
I have yet to see one substantive theological argument from you.
So I ask again. Apart from abusing and attacking people you disagree with, why do you bother to comment here?
Because apart from confirming what I already knew about the hypocrisy of so-called "inclusive" Christians, you are achieving nothing. Nobody is going to be swayed by your arguments as they are. All you manage to achieve is to make the atomosphere here (so to speak) tiresome and unpleasant.
As a student of the English language, I am often surprised at the lengths people will go to establish their own credentials - mostly by the use of many words, some of which may not even be properly grammatical.
Hi Shawn and Ron,
I cannot take comments that involve accusations of hypocrisy, hatred etc. If I have let them through above then I regret that.
You are entitled to think what you like of each other but I am entitled not to accept comments which involve arguing about each other's moral status (e.g. whether one or other or even both are simultaneously "self-righteous.")
I like you both commenting here, but let's stick to issues.
Post a Comment