Thursday, April 12, 2012

News from America and news from Australia

Just posted on Preludium is an article on three proposals re the Covenant which will go to TEC's July General Convention. The newest of these proposals would see TEC all but commit to adopting the Covenant, and is masterfully set out as a series of resolutions which refer to the detail of the Covenant. I shall study this carefully with a view to firming up my mover's speech for our Christchurch motion (which, by the way, is ever so slightly changed by our Resolutions Committee, as Synod members will find in the next mailout re Synod).

Posted on the Bible Society of Australia's site is an article about, "A “protocol” passed by the Australian Anglican Bishops reaffirms policies against gay priests and bishops passed by earlier Anglican meetings." This is worth a read, if only to keep in touch with what our Anglican brothers and sisters are determining on their side of the Tasman. As far as I can tell (and recall), what the bishops there have reaffirmed is pretty similar to what our bishops (over the past few decades) have affirmed, veered from in some cases, and returned to by way of a current "moratorium" which is under pressure in various ways at this time. (That "pressure" may or may not come up at our GS in Fiji in July. There was a flurry of excitement last year, and notice given on forming a commission of eminent persons, but, so far this year, that commission has not yet been announced, so I am confused about exactly where things are at).

15 comments:

carl jacobs said...

Since there is basically no orthodox component remaining in TEC, GC in 2012 is going to be radical. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Soviets of Clergy and Laity seize the initiative and reject the Covenant outright. This GC just might be the moment when the institutionalists of TEC lose control to the revolutiionaries.

carl

Father Ron Smith said...

Thank you, Peter for the link with the article from the Anglican Church of Australia - published by the Bible society and affirmed by a bishop of the Sydney diocese. Here is the paragraph mentioning the action taken by TEC Presiding Bishop Griswold, after having met with the Communion Primates:

"Presiding Bishop Griswold of the (American) Episcopal Church who took part in a 2003 meeting of the Anglican Primates (lead bishops of each national church) that reaffirmed the 1998 Lambeth motions. He went home and led the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, the world’s first openly gay Anglican archbishop. He said the motion expressed the mind of the meeting as a whole rather than each participant."

This statement demonstrates the need for a continuing independence of each of the Provincial Churches, to promote what is determined by its own Bishops to be the mission of the Church in the local context.

This is why Anglicanism is so very different from the Roman Catholic model. It gives provincial Churches the missional freedom to carry out what they determine to be a Gospel initiative appropriate to perceived needs; while still affirming the basic creedal definitions of the Church Catholic common to Anglicans

If there had not been this freedom to institute 'new' ministerial initiatives (i.e., if provincial churches had waited for the Church of England and other provincial Churches' permission) we would not have had the privilege, in our diocese, of having a Woman Bishop!

Pope John XXIII urged the church to function according to the maxim: 'Semper Reformanda' - which the R.C. Church has resiled from. We do not want Anglicans to also move in a backwards direction.

Peter Carrell said...

Father Ron Smith has left a new comment on your post "News from America and news from Australia":

Thank you, Peter for the link with the article from the Anglican Church of Australia - published by the Bible society and affirmed by a bishop of the Sydney diocese. Here is the paragraph mentioning the action taken by TEC Presiding Bishop Griswold, after having met with the Communion Primates:

"Presiding Bishop Griswold of the (American) Episcopal Church who took part in a 2003 meeting of the Anglican Primates (lead bishops of each national church) that reaffirmed the 1998 Lambeth motions. He went home and led the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, the world’s first openly gay Anglican archbishop. He said the motion expressed the mind of the meeting as a whole rather than each participant."

This statement demonstrates the need for a continuing independence of each of the Provincial Churches, to promote what is determined by its own Bishops to be the mission of the Church in the local context.

This is why Anglicanism is so very different from the Roman Catholic model. It gives provincial Churches the missional freedom to carry out what they determine to be a Gospel initiative appropriate to perceived needs; while still affirming the basic creedal definitions of the Church Catholic common to Anglicans

If there had not been this freedom to institute 'new' ministerial initiatives (i.e., if provincial churches had waited for the Church of England and other provincial Churches' permission) we would not have had the privilege, in our diocese, of having a Woman Bishop!

Pope John XXIII urged the church to function according to the maxim: 'Semper Reformanda' - which the R.C. Church has resiled from. We do not want Anglicans to also move in a backwards direction.

[For some unexplained "Blogger" reason, I received the above comment by email, but it has not actually appeared on the blog for me to press "publish" to. Hopefully this method works ...]

Juan Kinnear said...

Dear Peter

In common discourse one would associate the term ‘moratorium’ with a cessation of a particular action for a time, until some condition or another is met or some preparatory task completed. In the context of the debate concerning homosexuality and the Anglican Church, ‘moratorium’ is a poor choice of words which, I argue, serves particular power interests at the expense of truth.

Exactly what condition is being worked towards, what preparatory task being completed? If Scripture has spoken, what more can be said? If tradition is set, what argument can be mounted to change the minds of those whose life and values are affirmed by the status quo? No, in this context ‘moratorium’ is a weasel word designed to safeguard the position of the powerful as the sole arbiters of truth. This will to power is cloaked by a cynical word game where ‘moratorium’, ‘unity’ and ‘collegiality’ mean the opposite.

Little wonder that the proposed commission has been starved of oxygen. God forbid light should shine on our grubby dealings with one another.

Regards

Juan

John Sandeman said...

Ron Smith,
a small clarification:
Bishop Stuart Robinson is not a bishop of the Sydney Diocese. He is Bishop of Canberra Goulburn, and is a diocesan Bishop, ie heading his own diocese.
Eternity approached Sydney Diocese for comment - and they declined to make a response . The same with melbourne diocese who referred us to the Primate.

Peter Carrell said...

I do not find your analysis of the situation helpful, Juan.

We live in a church where the interests of the "powerful" could fall one way or another, neither of which may serve the whole church well in the medium to long term. We see (to give just two instances) Anglicanism move one way in Sydney and another way in TEC, neither of which offers a reasonable breadth of Anglicanism, both of which have, effectively, chased certain Anglicans away. If "moratorium" or any other word we choose to use permits us time to find another way forward as the church in these islands then I rejoice that we are allowing ourselves time to avoid one form of disaster or another.

I am sad that you have used the word "grubby" in your description of our church's inner life and ask whether it is appropriate as a description from a priest of our church to describe the work of our fellow priests, of the laity, of the deacons, and of the bishops who work so hard to keep our church as one body of Christ?

Father Ron Smith said...

You're quite right, Mr. Sandeman, the bishops mentioned is the Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn. The only Sydney diocesan person connected with the original 'leak' of the report is none other than blogger David Ould!

I must say, I am surprised at the Australian Province's conservative stance; which might indicate it may be considering approval of Rowan's Covenant, which has been rejected by his own Provincial Church. The whole 'moratorium' idea was that of the Windsor Report conglomerate, which would probably not receive universal support in today's Communion climate.

Anonymous said...

"This will to power is cloaked by a cynical word game where ‘moratorium’, ‘unity’ and ‘collegiality’ mean the opposite."

Nietzsche, Foucault and Lyotard in one sentence. No substitute for the New Testament, however. Has Juan Kinnear no 'will to power' either? no agenda waiting to be 'unmasked' with neo-Jacobin zeal?
This isn't 15th century Europe or 16th century England. Nobody has to be a Christian today, let alone an Anglican. Let those who diasgree - conscientiously, I am sure - leave, just as many traditionalists have left Tec. Of course there is a cost. I once knew a Roman Catholic priest, a NT scholar who has since lost his faith, resigned his orders and now teaches in a university. I regret his loss of faith but at least he has acted consistently. More so than Richard Holloway, who gave up believing many years before he retired - a story he tells very candidly in his most recent book.
'moratorium' simply means a block on unilateral change if and until agreement is reached.
If the church is indeed what the NT calls 'the bulwark of truth', some way of deciding what the truth is must be agreed.
Martin

Kurt said...

“I wouldn't be surprised to see the Soviets of Clergy and Laity seize the initiative…”--carl

If it were only true! Unfortunately TEC’s leadership is too cozy with the Capitalist Establishment.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Shawn said...

"If it were only true! Unfortunately TEC’s leadership is too cozy with the Capitalist Establishment."

What capitalist establishment?

Capitalism rightly understood is a free market in which the foundations of free trade, property rights and voluntary association are sacrosanct.

This does not exist in the U.S. or much of anywhere else. This there is no "capitalist extablishment".

Moreover the TEC leadership has been largley consistent in promoting economic and cultural Marxism.

I would say however that KJS deserves credit in one area at least. She has stood up to the Jew-haters in the divestment movement, and is taking a lot of heat for it from the alliance of the far left and militant Islam that has captured some mainline "Ptotestant" churches.

Good on her for that.

Kurt said...

Very well then, Shawn:

“I wouldn't be surprised to see the Soviets of Clergy and Laity seize the initiative…”--carl

If it were only true! Unfortunately TEC’s leadership is too cozy with the Plutocratic Establishment.

Kurt Hill
Awaiting the Spring Offensive of the 99%
In Brooklyn, NY

Shawn said...

Kurt,

"Kurt Hill
Awaiting the Spring Offensive of the 99%
In Brooklyn, NY"

You do realise that in reality a large part of the so-called 99% are conservative, Bible believing Christians who reject Marxism and liberalism? That the "occupy" movement is, far from representing the 99%, largely a small minority of far left urban liberal activists?

The real offensive you may want to prepare for is gathering pace, not just in the U.S., but throughout Europe, and is conservative, traditionalist and nationalist, and deeply suspicious of, and antagonist to, the ideology you follow.

carl jacobs said...

Shawn

Honestly when I read "Awaiting the Spring Offensive of the 99%" my first reaction was to laugh out loud. As in "Hooray! More drums, and urinating in the streets!" There is a reason the "99%" got chased away from their "occupations." They alienated everyone within seeing, hearing , and smelling distance. Not even Trinity Wall Street was dumb enough to give them space to "occupy."

And of course the imagery if the "Spring Offensive" was just as hilarious. We couldn't have a "Winter Offensive" because it's ... you know ... cold. The struggle for incoherently demanding free stuff .. err ..justice must be carried out in relative comfort. And then there is the concept of an "Offensive" as in "careful planning and employment of military forces in an attack to achieve a military objective." A leaderless gaggle without either coherent agenda or plan is going to launch an "offensive." Sure, it is.

Here, let me guess. They are going to wait until Spring, and put up some tents on some public space. Then they will beat drums incessantly, vandalize property, relieve themselves wherever and whenever they find convenient, demand access to other people's money with clever chants, and generally create a public nuisance. Except this time the police won't wait to clear them out.

carl

Kurt said...

If you really believe that Shawn, then I’ve got a bridge here in Brooklyn that I want to sell you--cheap!

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Shawn said...

Carl,

David Horowitz has a very good pdf booklet on the Marxist occupy movement, with a particular focus on the anti-Jewish elements of the ideology.

http://frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/OccupyWallStreet.pdf