I cannot resist posting this photo depicting united Anglicans (H/T Titus One Nine)
I think we could run a wee quiz:
1. Who are these bishops? (Obviously you can cheat on this one by heading to the source). But some readers here will recognise all three. Archbishop Peter Jensen (retired, Sydney), Bishop Mark Lawrence (Diocese of South Carolina), Archbishop Ben Kwashi (one of the archbishops of the Anglican Church of Nigeria).
2. Which one is due to speak in Christchurch later this year? ++Peter Jensen, at a couple of events arranged by the Latimer Fellowship.
3. All three belong to member churches of the Anglican Communion. Discuss. Discussion should include reference to the Diocese of Sydney being part of the Anglican Church of Australia and, along with the Anglican Church of Nigeria a member church of the Anglican Communion, while the Diocese of South Carolina has remained outside of the Anglican Church of North America and other Anglican churches, including The Episcopal Church itself, nevertheless coming under the oversight of the Primates' Council of the Global South (a network of member churches of the Anglican Communion). You may like to write your essay with either an aspirin or a glass of whiskey handy.
4. Which two of the three belong to Anglican churches which are not in a formal relationship with ACNA? See above: Mark Lawrence and ++Peter Jensen. Nigeria, by contrast, is 'related' to ACNA via the involvement of CANA (i.e. North American branch of Nigeria's Anglican church) within it.
5. What recent event might have contributed to these three bishops being in the USA at the same time? ACNA had a recent meeting at which it elected a new archbishop. Perhaps that event drew ++Peter and ++Ben to the States? The photo was taken, however, in a different place, in the Charleston Airport, South Carolina, where +Mark resides.
Well done to Andrew and Bryden re answers.
I will post my answers here tomorrow morning. I will publish comments till then without responsive comment from me.
39 comments:
Not too hard to recognise, Peter. All three have had some part in the devolution of traditional Anglicanism over the past few years.
The reason for their talk-fest due to open up in the U.S.? To further undermine the unity of the Communion by subversive attempts to high-jack its provenance.
Calculated schism rarely does anyone any lasting good.
Jesu, mercy; Mary, pray!
Hi Peter,I thought Ron was back from Noosa but it looks as though he has bought some of their woolly thinking with him.
His argument amounts to accusing the Police of dividing society because they apply the law.
It is not the departing Anglicans in the USA who have brought the Episcopalin Church into disrepute and division.This can be squarely laid at the feet of Robinson and the present Presiding Bishop.
All we ask for is a Church that abides by it's Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Re P.Jensen:
"We have decided to rescue people in the west who want to stand for the old ways, who want to stand on the Bible”.
It's very hard to read the Bible if you're standing on it. You have to become quite a contortionist.
Hi, grant, In my former parish I remember being told of the local Baptist Pastor who actually STOOD ON a large Bible in his church, and told his people: "This is where I stand". How can one cope with that sort of theology?
I guess though that some of the sola scriptura people have learned so much of the King James Bible by rote they haven't kept up with modern hermeneutics. They still 'stand' on their former under-standing.
Hello, Father Ron. I suppose one could view that pastor as engaged in a bit of prophetic performance art, a la Ezekiel: a memorable display of foundationalist zeal.
My main concern in that situation, were I present, would be the stability of the pastor's chosen volume. A large, sturdy lectern Bible would, of course, offer a secure base; but some faux-leather study version hastily snatched, in the heat of the homiletic moment, from a nearby pew-sitter, could prove very slippery indeed. I'd hate to see a snapped femur, or a slipped disc ...
When your sole is on the scriptura, you want it to get a good grip.
Hi Peter,
Can I politely ask why it is that every site has to be taken over by those who promoting the modern revisionistic attitude to the Church?
Can't they develope sites of their own where they can promote their own beliefs.Sites such as Anglokiwi soon disengage with you as soon as you disagree with them.
Hi Michael,
Do you want a few quotes from Darwin ?
A pretty arch comment, Grant. Still, perhaps its the only way for some people to get 'legless'. Although some moderns might say that S/S (sola scriptura not same-sex) people may have not a leg to stand on anyway. (I know, I'm a heel).
Given no one has actually answered the questions so far...
1) Jensen, Lawrence, Kwashi
2) No idea
3) Indeed they do. Diversity of approach and culture but a common orthodox faith.
4) Not sure - probably Jensen and Lawrence?
5) Anglican Relief & Development meeting / conference??
Andrew
Hi Glen
I am trying to run a broad church site here. All welcome, etc; all asked to engaged in respectful conversation.
So far, on this particular post, no one, of any hue, as attempted to answer each of the questions!
Thank you Andrew!
When I made my plaintive plea at 9.42 pm I had not posted your 9.18 pm comment!
Answers marked in the morning!
I'll answer the commenters who wish to detract from those answers offered by the lives of faith of these three gentlemen.
Please purchase and read one of the better pieces of cultural analysis published this year: Robert Reilly, Making Gay Okay: How rationalizing Homosexual Behaviour Is Changing Everything(Ignatius). The subtitle clearly spells out the purely symptomatic nature of what is occurring, while the text covers both historical causes and subsequent effects, including specifically sexual behaviour.
Please read the text before sounding off; ignorance is not a safe stance. Thank you!
5: an episcopal election ...
4: J & K
3: History wld have a field day with that question ...
2: PJ ...
Hi Peter,
Glen asked me if I would like a few quotes from Darwin. Perhaps I might be permitted to offer the following quote, from Charles Darwin’s Autobiography, which occurs under a sub-heading “Religious Belief”
“That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.”
Michael Primrose, Christchurch
Hi Peter,
Reading the interview with Foley Beach, in VirtueOnline, after his election in the recent Conclave, I was interested to note the following exchange
“VOL: Have you heard from any of the Global South Primates with congratulatory notes or emails?
ABP BEACH: Yes, I have. I have also been receiving texts, emails, Facebook posts, and tweets from priests and bishops all around the world. It is really quite amazing. As far as the primates, I have been with Eliud Wabukala (Kenya) , Stanley Ntagali (Uganda) and Tito Zavala (Southern Cone). I had a delightful conversation with Nicholas Okoh (Nigeria) on the phone and he prayed with and for me. I have been with Glen Davies (Sydney) and we prayed together as well. Last night I had dinner with Stephen Than (Myamar), Henri Isingoma (Congo), Mouneer Anis (Middle East and Jerusalem; chair of Global South Primates), Datuk Bolly (SE Asia), and all were supportive and enthusiastic about my election and the future shared ministry together”
http://www.virtueonline.org/latrobe-pa-new-acna-archbishop-ranges-over-issues-facing-church
The sentence “I have been with Glen Davies (Sydney) and we prayed together as well.” might well explain the presence of Dr. Jensen, in the United States, who may also have wanted to pray with Dr. Beach.
I note that New Zealand doesn’t rate a mention in the list of those congratulatory calls, texts and emails. Perhaps we may get more of an “archiepiscopal” glance after the meeting in Christchurch later this year? However, I doubt that Dr. Beach would have much to say, of relevance, to +Victoria
Michael Primrose, Christchurch
Hi Michael
It sounds like Glen Davies was at the electoral meeting. Perhaps Peter Jensen was there as well or in the States for another reason ...
Hi Ron,
It is certainly a novel take on the senario of the Episcopal Church USA; to see the orthodox Anglicans as the 'high-jackers'.Absolute shame on them for wanting to remain true to their Faith.
The present unity of the Communion is built on sand not on The Rock of Faith.
[To further undermine the unity of the Communion by subversive attempts to high-jack its provenance.-Ron] These words sound like a very harsh judgement. Where is the 'UNCONDITIONAL LOVE' for these men? This message of unconditional love needs to be sent to the present Presiding Bishop of TEC; who,it is alledged,has spent 22 million dallars litigating against the departing Anglicans.
"2. Which one is due to speak in Christchurch later this year?
++Peter Jensen, at a couple of events arranged by the Latimer Fellowship." - Dr. Peter Carell -
I guess, Peter, that this invitation must have been extended by Latimer Fellowship in a private capacity; not as part of the official Anglican Diocese and our Bishop Victoria?
At least, the last visit by Bishop Spong was approved by our Bishop at the time. What is different, if anything - apart from the fact that it is common knowledge that Latimer is a conservative group, and may seek some official accommodation with ACNA & GAFCON.
Needless to say, I will not be warming a seat for Bishop Jensen.
The Latimer Fellowship, Ron, and other readers, is a trans-diocesan fellowship which is a voluntary society within the ACANZP.
The events it has invited ++Peter to speak to are advertised on their website and are of an encouraging nature around the business of being Christian.
"We are Christians, and people should be able to see how we love one another, even though we disagree on this issue. Third, this presenting issue is going to be with us for a while as the Anglican Communion and even our GAFCON brothers and sisters hold different positions.' - Bishop-elect of ACNA -
So, clearly, ACNA Bishops can agree to disagree on Women's Ministry. The only problem they have seems to revolve around the relationship of same-sex persons - Oh, Yes, and about the literal inerrancy of the Bible. Now, I understand why these hierarchs of GAFCON and the Global South have gathered to support the new ACNA Archbishop. TEC: Stand Firmer!
However, Michael, there is a New Zealander in there somewhere - as a Bishop in CANA. However, he may just have gone un-noticed by the Big Boys. It really is mostly about the influence in ACNA of Gafcon Prelates
(after my 8th attempt to decipher the required code).
Hi Peter,
Perhaps an answer to M.Primrose's quote from Darwin is in order,to show why such thinking does not fall within the definded Doctrine of the ACANZP.
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly....[including the idea that]human free will is non-existent..Free will is a disastrous and mean social myth".-Prof.W.Provine.
In fact Lombroso repudiated the traditional idea that crime involved moral guilt.
This view of man does not fit too well into Arts.9&10. Maybe it is old fashioned to believe in original sin.
Then there is the question of suffering. Again it may be just too simplistic to accept the curse in the Garden of Eden.
Having devolved from being an evolutionist;the Biblical Revelation makes much more sense to me than Dawkins.
TEC:Stand Firmer.-Ron.
It is hard to stand firm on soft sand when the tides of truth are washing the sand from beneath your heels.Unlike the Baptist preacher, they probably don't have a Bible amongst them to stand on anyway.
If we are talking about unity in the Communion;then it is the proclaimations coming from the TEC leadership which is taking us to a position, which bears no resemblence to our Catholic and Apostolic Liturgy.
Hi Ron
Have you read any of Dr Spong's books? I tried but despite being a persevering person I couldn't make it through but a few chapters.
Hey Michael, I thoroughly recommend Paul Brand's book 'The Gift of Pain' it is quite insightful re suffering (don't worry it's not to do with creation, although you may know him already, he was a well known physician/scientist).
As for the three Bishops, sorry I didn't recognise any of them but I am not really up to the play with Anglican Bishops in general except for those I have personally met. I do agree with Glen though, people seemingly are quick to accuse - even if one disagree's whatever happened to love thine enemies.
Spong is in the same catagory as Dawkins.You know that the basis of their proposition is flawed,but you need to read them so you understand the oppoising argument.Jolly hard to get into the right frame of mind to do so. There is also C.S.Lewis-The Problem Of Pain.I have a delightfull 2nd hand copy purchased from an old bookshop in Charing Cross.
Having been privileged to listen to and meet up with Dr.John Spong, I was impressed with his charity towards the marginalised of society - quite a Christ-like characteristic.
Some of his theology may be very different from mine, but that does not make him a pariah - as far as I am concerned. He helped the Church to come to terms with misogyny and homophobia. "By their fruits you shall know them". He was a Blessing to many in the Church who were vilified! That would seem to me to be a profound mark of The Gospel.
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Quite right, Fr. Ron. Which is why we do well to note the following fact about Spong's tenure as diocesan bishop:
"The U.S. Episcopal Church's Newark, New Jersey, diocese lost over 40 percent of its members under his nearly two decades of leadership. The Episcopal Church itself – much of it beholden to Spong's liberal theology – has lost over 40 percent of its members over the last 40 years."
A 40% loss of membership - should we call that "a profound mark of The Gospel"?
"A 40% loss of membership - should we call that "a profound mark of The Gospel"? - Bryan Owen -
It is indeed possible, Bryan; if that 40% is composed of people who refuse to recognise the human validity of 10% of Go's children who happen to be gay. Or the 50% of God's people who happen to be female
Hi Ron,
You state that you were impressed with Spong's Christ-like charity towards the marginalised of society.However,in his book'Why Christianity Must Change Or Die';he writes[I would choose to loathe rather than worship a deity who required the sacrifice of his son.]
We are certainly seeing the 'fruits' of the liberal theology which were sown by advocates such as he.
I have material here, concerning what is being promoted in TEC;
which is just not appropriate to publish on this site.
Spong and his counterparts have tried to 'liberate'those whom they veiwed as being marginalised;by showering 'cheap grace' on them.
Cheap grace is the sand upon which the 'house of radical inclusion is built.Cheap grace,is grace which comes at no cost. It is cheap grace because we bestow it upon ourselves.It is the grace which justifies sin as well as the sinner.Cheap grace is preaching forgiveness without requiring repentance.It is grace without discipleship,grace without the Cross and without Jesue Christ,living and incarnate.
It is because these fruit have come to fruition,on TEC'S vine;that thousands of orthodox believers are leaving TEC.
Your Arguments seem to be rather fixated around the liberation of those who consider themselves margialised.But the testimony of the oppressed,as in the librerationist perspective must be measured against the teaching of Scripture.Inclusiveness,as desirable as it is,cannot be enthroned as an absolute value because it to must be subject to Biblical Authority.
I would remind you, Glen, that the Father did not kill His Beloved Son; that was carried out by those who denied his relationship to God!
The sacrifice made by jesus was His own. It's called, in theological terms, 'kenosis'. For that we have to thank Him, eucharistically.
Hi Ron,
I do not have the inclination to enter into a protracted debate on the question of 'The Satisfying of Eternal Justice and the necessity of a Pure and Unblemished Lamb to offered as a vicarious sacrifice ,in the place of us sinners.
In passing on ,may I remind you that he did pray;"Abba,Father,all things are possible unto thee;take away this cup from me:nevertheless not what I will,but what thou wilt".
My point was,Spong's attitude to the CROSS.
And I would be interested to hear him actually confirm that he absoltely accepts the Creeds.
Glen, have you never heard of the Curate's Egg? Good in parts! Most of us are like that. There is no one human being with the perfect idea about God - except the Incarnate Son.
Also, I believe that the Father could, indeed, have intervened. However, the accusers of Jesus had been given free will. God was not about to take that back - even to save His own Son. That would have been manipulation - not God's way.
Ron,
Does the Curates egg hatch into a good chicken or a chicken thats only good in parts?
I accept that none of us ever comes close to a perfect understanding of the Nature and Character of God.Therefore it is incumbent upon those who claim to
represent Him;preaching and teaching in His name,to have a grasp of His Revelation.
As for the Father intervening in
the death of Christ;did not the Eternal Logos come down to earth and become fully man, in Jesus Christ,for the atonement of man's sin?
Not only fully 'man', Glen; but 'fully human' - much more complex!
But also, remember; 'fully God'.
Jesus could have said 'NO' to His Father, but, fortunately for us ALL,He chose self-abnegation.
Ron said:
"Glen,have you heard of the Curate's egg"?
Just curious Ron,whether this has anything to do with 'Henotheism'?
No, Glen! That's what called: 'Chicken out the baby with the bath-water'
Post a Comment