tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post3188501631748321067..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Arrival or departure?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22136814822925243222011-01-11T03:29:41.548+13:002011-01-11T03:29:41.548+13:00Now see -- that's better Hermano David. A lit...Now see -- that's better Hermano David. A little time to cool down and try to gather a few scraps of rational calm discourse before the mask slips again -- maybe you can make it a few more days before you lose control again.<br /><br />RE: "I think that your comments here show most folks that you are your own Exhibit A."<br /><br />Oh, I'm confident that most folks can read the comments from the two of us and come to their own conclusions. The revisionist activists will think as they please -- and the traditionalists, of course, with the values and Gospel that they believe. So I'm quite satisfied with the contrast and comparison between the two of us.<br /><br />RE: "The rest of us usually treat one another as fellow Christians with different theological ideas and understandings."<br /><br />Er . . . yeh, yeh . . . *that's* what we're all seeing from you! ; > ) Of course, of course.<br /><br />Maybe Peter Carrell could be prevailed upon to erase those comments of yours that occur whenever you wig out. But it would take away so much of the humor, though, of commenting -- that would be a shame.<br /><br />RE: "The tennis in the NZ leg is in Auckland (1hr20min flying from here in Christchurch) but is on free to air TV ... but I am a lukewarm fan (cricket is another, warmer story for me). The Australian Open will, I think, only be on pay TV which I do not have ... but being several hours behind NZ it makes for good evening viewing for those who can afford to do so!"<br /><br />Now see -- this is tragic, Peter Carrell. You like cricket more than tennis. And don't even bother to watch one of the four greatest sporting events worldwide. It may be that you are Not A Real Anglican. I will have to consider this. <br /><br /><br />Sarah<br /><br />The Committed, Traditional, Wholly Orthodox, Conservative and Catholic, Yet Centrist and Moderate Blonde BuddhistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25701903990968010122011-01-10T15:27:26.085+13:002011-01-10T15:27:26.085+13:00Sarah, my experience many times at SFiF in the pas...Sarah, my experience many times at SFiF in the past has been that a particular person jumps on my comments and begins telling me what I do or do not believe, in spite of the fact the comments are off topic and no matter how much I ignore her and but comment on the relevant topic, she will not let go. To me, junk yard dog behavior.<br /><br />I think that your comments here show most folks that you are your own Exhibit A. You and Al M are the only folks who comment here and have a long list of judgmental labels for various Anglican leaders and personalities as well for the other commenters; false teacher, heretic, apostate, neo-this or that, revisionist, activist, etc. The rest of us usually treat one another as fellow Christians with different theological ideas and understandings. I have been angry here with someone's comment but once and it was before you appeared. Most of us point out bigotry and prejudice when we experience it here.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69084384674851850632011-01-10T13:53:26.125+13:002011-01-10T13:53:26.125+13:00For a moment there, Sarah, my hopes seemed dashed ...For a moment there, Sarah, my hopes seemed dashed ... anyway we shall compare notes at the end of the month.<br /><br />The tennis in the NZ leg is in Auckland (1hr20min flying from here in Christchurch) but is on free to air TV ... but I am a lukewarm fan (cricket is another, warmer story for me). The Australian Open will, I think, only be on pay TV which I do not have ... but being several hours behind NZ it makes for good evening viewing for those who can afford to do so!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3084412240649511902011-01-10T13:42:37.632+13:002011-01-10T13:42:37.632+13:00Well -- I hope I have not left you even faintly ho...Well -- I hope I have not left you even faintly hopeful. *That* would be a Fatal Mistake! It appears that I have failed in my purpose.<br /><br />; > )<br /><br />Kidding . . . mostly . . . <br /><br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br /><br />Sarah<br /><br />PS: Do you get to watch any of tennis on the Aussie/NZ tour swing? I am jealous -- I consider the Australian Open as my official Beginning To The Run-Up To Spring!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38643527812636252372011-01-10T13:34:46.586+13:002011-01-10T13:34:46.586+13:00Ok, Sarah, I will have slightly more expectation o...Ok, Sarah, I will have slightly more expectation of good things developing post-Dublin!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43064547159524597692011-01-10T13:23:49.749+13:002011-01-10T13:23:49.749+13:00On to the actual rational, non-hysterical comment ...On to the actual rational, non-hysterical comment of substance:<br /><br />RE: "Thus it would be a helpful step if the primates collectively, all being there, could come to that decision, having discussed the matter face-to-face. (I am not aware that previous meetings of the primates have come to precisely that decision). Thus, while each primate who believes they should not sit down to dinner let alone eucharist with a fellow primate they believe is a false teacher has the right to absent themselves from the primates meeting, when a small minority of the primates do just that, it is hard to convince the Communion that a majority of primates thinks similarly.<br /><br />To some, such as myself, it is important that the numbers behind the absenting primates are taken account of. But I suspect many Anglicans will simply look at a figure such as 6/38 primates being absent and say, 'Well, there you go, a majority do not feel strongly about this matter.'"<br /><br />I agree that it would be helpful for the Primates to come collectively to that decision.<br /><br />But obviously it's not going to happen.<br /><br />It's not going to happen for a variety of reasons.<br /><br />The Primates are -- as with the Communion -- divided roughly into thirds. You've got the revisionists [full speed ahead], you've got the moderates [please make this go away], and you've got the traditionalists.<br /><br />I think the moderates will only come to the same decision as the traditionalists as they see TECusa current leaders continue to travel the rather steep and hurtling path that they have chosen in the coming decade or so. <br /><br />RE: "it is hard to convince the Communion that a majority of primates thinks similarly . . . "<br /><br />But they don't think similarly.<br /><br />So I think that's an accurate assessment of the picture.<br /><br />Again -- I don't think the traditionalists Primates showing up at the Primates Meeting and engaging in more debate and urgent conversation is going to cause the moderates to come to the same collective decision at all. In fact, I think the traditional Primates showing up merely makes the Moderates say "see there -- we're all together still." <br /><br />In my experience with TEC, the only thing that causes the Moderates to eventually become Traditionalists is not their theology changing -- for they essentially already have the same theology. <br /><br />It's that they watch the activities of TECusa current leaders and slowly come to the conclusion of "Good heavens, they really are crazed!!! And it's not going to stop -- why look -- it's getting worse -- what on earth are we all going to do???"<br /><br />*That's* what makes a moderate a *former* moderate.<br /><br />And I sincerely believe that that will be what changes that third of the Primates from moderate to traditional over the coming years -- not any further participation in the various Instruments of Unity by the traditionalists. We've already seen, happily, some formerly "let's all go and support the ABC and the institution" traditional Primates move away from that stance, based on the activities of the past several years since Lambeth. In fact, I think their past participation has merely served to lull the Moderates into a contented slumber.<br /><br />Moderates tend to wake up and smell the coffee when they suddenly realize they are alone on the vast sea of revisionism! ; > )<br /><br />At any rate, I don't believe that attending yet another Primates Meeting will cause moderates to change -- and it actually harms things too, since it leads to false impressions about the state of the Communion and the seriousness of the situation and the leadership of TECusa.<br /><br /><br />Sarah<br /><br />The Committed, Traditional, Wholly Orthodox, Conservative and Catholic, Yet Centrist and Moderate Blonde BuddhistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47474216244903686432011-01-10T13:23:10.646+13:002011-01-10T13:23:10.646+13:00RE: "Wow Peter, now if you would but deign to...RE: "Wow Peter, now if you would but deign to grant her the authority to ban folks along with her slobbering invective and then you too would have a toxic "Anglican" blog. She can vie with Al M on who sparks the need for HazMat suits most quickly.<br /><br />I just sincerely hope that SFiF's resident Junk Yard Dog does not follow her over."<br /><br />Oh dear -- he's not been able to control himself again -- he managed to hold out for a few days, but just couldn't help it -- once again serving as "Exhibit A" for my highly accurate description. Fun to read. <br /><br />But my my -- calling another human being a "junkyard dog" -- talk about the typical double standard! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=junkyard%20dog<br /><br />Demanding displays of respect from conservatives while engaging in pejorative slang like that -- how typical. No doubt this is . . . er . . . just a problem with the whole "English is a second language" meme which seems to get wheeled out whenever he snaps and is betrayed into displaying his nature and values. Were I to care -- or others at SF -- what revisionist activists thought -- especially those not really in charge of themselves or emotions -- I'd be distraught. But -- as I said earlier, I smile. It's a *compliment*, when coming from people like that.<br /><br />But hey -- where's the joy? Come on, man -- "live into the tension of our differences!" ; > )<br /><br /><br />Sarah<br /><br />The Committed, Traditional, Wholly Orthodox, Conservative and Catholic, Yet Centrist and Moderate Blonde BuddhistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69627494398982496862011-01-10T12:20:37.183+13:002011-01-10T12:20:37.183+13:00"And so all references to procreation have be..."And so all references to procreation have been excised"<br /><br />And quite properly, I would think, in such a circumstance. I, too, have often, when conducting the marriage service of a man and a woman who is post menopausal, with little hope of producing a child, have intentionally left out any reference to procreation.<br /><br />The Bishop of Massachusetts was acting within his prerogative as Ordinary of his TEC Diocese to preside at this ceremony - as a pastoral response, enjoined upon him by the Convocation of TEC. He was not acting in disobedience to his episcopal vows of allegiance to Christ and his Church.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30031095530881308632011-01-10T12:18:42.643+13:002011-01-10T12:18:42.643+13:00That the Lord blessed them could mean a lot of thi...That the Lord blessed them could mean a lot of things, but a blessing does not mean a marriage. In Anglican theology the priest does not marry a couple, s/he may bless them, but they marry themselves. In light of the stated biblical economy of words perhaps this author was a bit cheap in not actually alerting us that Adam and Eve married one another.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72398255089877889112011-01-10T11:14:55.894+13:002011-01-10T11:14:55.894+13:00“engaging in sophistry to try and make the Bible s...<i>“engaging in sophistry to try and make the Bible say things it doesn't” such as quoting a verse which makes no mention of marriage as “a scriptural reference to marriage”.</i><br /><br />What do suppose <i>"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,"</i> might mean if it doesn't mean marriage, Alison?<br /><br />Why doesn't the text just read "God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply" without the "God Blessed them"? <br /><br />Scripture is very economical with its words unlike postmodern biblical scholars who use as many as they can in order to blind the reader to the simple truths contained in scripture.<br /><br />"And God Blessed them" reads to me as marriage, particularly so in the context of the rest of the verse.Andy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36321864000577031362011-01-10T08:38:36.333+13:002011-01-10T08:38:36.333+13:00“engaging in sophistry to try and make the Bible s...“engaging in sophistry to try and make the Bible say things it doesn't” such as quoting a verse which makes no mention of marriage as “a scriptural reference to marriage”. <br /><br />Priceless!<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-12717900164062973752011-01-10T07:14:16.928+13:002011-01-10T07:14:16.928+13:00because the fact is, PB Jefferts Schori, ++William...<i>because the fact is, PB Jefferts Schori, ++Williams, ++Duncan, to say nothing of ++Jensen, ++Akinola etc are, in the world of Anglican blogging, familiar characters</i><br /><br />All the more reason to be aware that +Katharine uses a double last name.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-623220265744231452011-01-10T06:52:55.563+13:002011-01-10T06:52:55.563+13:00Hi Sarah,
Yes, I have been a bit inconsistent or u...Hi Sarah,<br />Yes, I have been a bit inconsistent or unclear or both. I think the resolution works like this ... it would be helpful if "the Communion" is to make a pronouncement that "X is a false teacher" (or, for that matter, that X is a true teacher!!) that it does so in a watertight fashion, that is, by each of the Instruments of Unity making such a pronouncement. Thus it would be a helpful step if the primates collectively, all being there, could come to that decision, having discussed the matter face-to-face. (I am not aware that previous meetings of the primates have come to precisely that decision). Thus, while each primate who believes they should not sit down to dinner let alone eucharist with a fellow primate they believe is a false teacher has the right to absent themselves from the primates meeting, when a small minority of the primates do just that, it is hard to convince the Communion that a majority of primates thinks similarly.<br /><br />To some, such as myself, it is important that the numbers behind the absenting primates are taken account of. But I suspect many Anglicans will simply look at a figure such as 6/38 primates being absent and say, 'Well, there you go, a majority do not feel strongly about this matter.'Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82876986738681554792011-01-10T06:45:05.787+13:002011-01-10T06:45:05.787+13:00Hi David,
I have no intention of running a toxic b...Hi David,<br />I have no intention of running a toxic blog, but I do like to think I have more than a few readers and commenters, so welcome comments from a range of Anglicans and run the risk that some offence between commenters is incurred.<br /><br />While I think "Mrs Schori" is both disrespectful and demeaning, I am not convinced that "Schori" is always disrespectful and demeaning (though it may be, depending on the exact usage which occurs) because the fact is, PB Jefferts Schori, ++Williams, ++Duncan, to say nothing of ++Jensen, ++Akinola etc are, in the world of Anglican blogging, familiar characters like Obama, Putin, Sarkozy, Palin, Mugabe and co in in the world of politico blogging.<br /><br />In short: I request respect for PB Jefferts Schori and for ABC Williams et al, but if that respect is not observed, the blog may, or may not have descended into toxicity.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54056445177391381992011-01-10T06:17:41.063+13:002011-01-10T06:17:41.063+13:00Wow Peter, now if you would but deign to grant her...Wow Peter, now if you would but deign to grant her the authority to ban folks along with her slobbering invective and then you too would have a toxic "Anglican" blog. She can vie with Al M on who sparks the need for HazMat suits most quickly.<br /><br />I just sincerely hope that SFiF's resident Junk Yard Dog does not follow her over.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4212818887960571872011-01-10T06:12:48.475+13:002011-01-10T06:12:48.475+13:00RE: "moderates in a church such as my own can...RE: "moderates in a church such as my own can understand individual primates making a claim that ++Jefferts Schori is a false teacher and acting on that claim by not attending the Dublin meeting; but would not understand that that claim has been made substantively by the Communion itself."<br /><br />I agree -- the Communion itself has not made such a claim, which is why the Communion is inevitably dividing into those three groups which I have mentioned before.<br /><br />I personally don't ever see the Communion itself making such a claim -- with the results that we are seeing.<br /><br />But haven't you subtly shifted in a sneaky fashion [kidding -- sort of] your original response to your original statement: "I do not think it is clear that the charge of 'false teaching/false teacher' has been well-explained by these primates in a prior primates meeting in respect of TEC/Schori."<br /><br />That is, surely, a bit different from "the Communion itself" making a claim. Surely we can both grant that the false teaching/false teacher claim *has* been "well-explained" by the noted Primates in question. And that the *consequences* of their well-explained claim are that they aren't attending Communion Instruments where the PB et al is acknowledged as equivalent in the Gospel.<br /><br />So then we are left with your belief that certain Primates -- having clearly expressed and explained with copious amounts of urgent written missives -- their belief that the PB is a false teacher -- should *still act as if* she is not a false teacher and should thus attend the Primates Meeting.<br /><br />So aren't you then urging them to behave in defiance of their belief -- that is, to act inconsistently with their own statements?<br /><br />They should issue statements -- but continue on acting as if those statements are not true?<br /><br />Surely if they did that they would be no different from the ABC? And nobody would care about their statements since no consequent action would ever take place consistently with those statements.<br /><br />Sarah<br /><br />The Committed, Traditional, Wholly Orthodox, Conservative and Catholic, Yet Centrist and Moderate Blonde BuddhistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2092527763863338392011-01-10T05:36:09.732+13:002011-01-10T05:36:09.732+13:00Hi Sarah,
Thank you for your robust response to my...Hi Sarah,<br />Thank you for your robust response to my request for addressing the PB of TEC with respect. There is a fine line between respect and disrespect and you make the case well that speaking with familiarity about leading figures in the Communion such as 'RW' or 'Rowan' is not necessarily disrespectful as such. (For myself my preference would be '++RW' or '++Rowan' ...).<br /><br /><br />To your other comment: I agree that over time, without some specific Anglican forum addressing the specific charge of 'false teacher' it may become clearer and clearer who are the false teachers in the Communion. But right now the point I am trying to make is this (in other words): moderates in a church such as my own can understand individual primates making a claim that ++Jefferts Schori is a false teacher and acting on that claim by not attending the Dublin meeting; but would not understand that that claim has been made substantively by the Communion itself. It is an implication, to be sure, of Lambeth 1998, but the relevant resolution of that conference is (a) under much attack, doubt and scorn flung upon it, etc, (b) unconfirmed by Lambeth 2008 which as you know - you were there interviewing bishops!! - deliberately avoided being a meeting for determining anything.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68327342136177525822011-01-10T04:41:34.784+13:002011-01-10T04:41:34.784+13:00Setting aside the rabbit trail and to respond to y...Setting aside the rabbit trail and to respond to your comment.<br /><br />RE: "All without a definitive Anglican Communion forum which has power to declare that Z is a false teacher. In the absence of that forum those who think Z is a false teacher do have the choice to make their determination known by absence/boycott; but it is a reasonable alternative to encourage the case to be made again and again until such time as the overwhelming majority of the Communion is perceived, even by the minority, to have definitively expressed that case."<br /><br />I'm confused by the latter lines and may not be interpreting them correctly.<br /><br />I do not know what you mean when you say "the overwhelming majority of the Communion is perceived, even by the minority, to have definitively expressed that case."<br /><br />Are you saying that you think Primates/Bishops should keep repeating what they believe until the majority agree? Or until the majority have heard the case? Or the minority? I have no doubt that they will do so -- but I don't understand how that has to do with the *consequences* of what they believe. A part of those consequences is no longer participating with false teachers. <br /><br />I think the minority [if I'm interpreting correctly] *have* perceived that the case has been made. They just don't accept that case. I don't think there's anything left to be said. Everybody can read the remarks consistently and urgently stated over the past 7 years. <br /><br />I think the way those remarks should be communicated at this point is simply to no longer involve oneself with Communion instruments and activities which involve the PB and Hiltz. Otherwise, nobody believes the urgency of the remarks or what the traditional and informed Primates and bishops have said!<br /><br />I also think that the progression of understanding of the bishops and Primates of the AC will only continue. I believe that most of the provinces led by traditional/moderate Primates will come to see the gospel of the TEC current leaders -- particularly as they continue to ride further off the rails and hurtle in an ever steeper and ever speedier path downward -- and wish to have nothing further to do with that gospel. So I think the "learning and education" will continue to progress onward very well.<br /><br />Sarah<br /><br />The Committed, Traditional, Wholly Orthodox, Conservative and Catholic, Yet Centrist and Moderate Blonde BuddhistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65868008080262239012011-01-10T04:38:43.722+13:002011-01-10T04:38:43.722+13:00RE: "You have better manners than Sarah Hey, ...RE: "You have better manners than Sarah Hey, Peter, she says Schori as an act of disrespect, especially when she calls her Mrs. Schori, please do not follow in her footsteps."<br /><br />And that would be UTTERLY false.<br /><br />I do *not* call Schori "Mrs. Schori" and I never ever have indulged in such childish displays. The folks who do that are people who are OCD about WO. I understand the commenter's ire at me -- it's irksome, obviously, to have someone like me commenting.<br /><br />But I would appreciate falsehoods not being stated just because someone is angry and resentful at my comments and stated beliefs.<br /><br />Nor do I call her "Schori" as some sort of mark of disrespect. Naturally my opinions of her bizarre, irrational, and niche *ideology* are negative and contemptuous in the extreme, as are my opinions on her actions -- as they are for the *ideology* of all revisionist activists. <br /><br />I call her "Schori" just as I call Rowan Williams often "RW" -- or Bob Duncan "Duncan" -- it's a shorthand that anyone other than the most sensitive harping revisionist activist should be fine with. Some of my heroes I refer to as "NTW" or whatever. <br /><br />I'm happy to use the shorthand "PB" if that is acceptable to the moderator of this blog -- I use that often as well. <br /><br />Of course . . . nobody other than those in TEC will know what the shorthand "PB" means -- but if it fits the requirements that will be fine. But I shall no more follow revisionist activists' schoolmarmish instructions on how to refer to their heroes than they will follow mine. Blessedly I couldn't care less how they refer to my heroes -- I'm indifferent as to their terminology or opinions on those whom I respect, nor do I care to fit in with their concepts of "better manners" -- I'm happy to be thought of however they please.<br /><br />Peter Carrell is welcome to edit my remarks as he sees fit -- it's his blog. Or simply not post them if he thinks them disrespectful to revisionist activist heroes. I respect the PB as a person made in the image of God. Period. I have respect for the office of the PB because I am an Episcopalian and believe strongly in the Episcopacy. Period. Obviously I have my own opinions as to the current PB's rational acuity or consistency or belief in the Gospel -- everybody knows that. But since I respect devoutly faithful pagans and committed atheists as made in the image of God that should be no problem either. Naturally revisionist activists will be irked at what I have left out in my respect -- that goes without question since they seem to be obsessed with what conservatives think and say and wish devoutly that they would be quiet -- I understand that. As I've said before, I'm indifferent as to their thoughts about my heroes nor do I care about what they call them. They might call Kendall Harmon a murdering pervert and heretic and I'd smile.<br /><br />Obviously what the owner of this blog does with my comments is up to him. As it is up to me to refer in my shorthand descriptions to all bishops and clergy of the AC and ACNA.<br /><br />If he decides to edit my remarks in such a way, of course, as to please the strange obsessions of some revisionist activists -- that's fine, I'll comment elsewhere and the revisionists' blood pressure over here will be able to stop spiking. ; > )<br /><br />Up to him.<br /><br />Sarah<br /><br />The Committed, Traditional, Wholly Orthodox, Conservative and Catholic, Yet Centrist and Moderate Blonde BuddhistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42577181521925372532011-01-09T16:20:23.027+13:002011-01-09T16:20:23.027+13:00You left out a scriptural reference to marriage Pe...You left out a scriptural reference to marriage Peter <br /><br /><b>Genesis 1:27-28</b><br /><br /><i>27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.<br /><br /> 28 <b>And God blessed them</b>, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.</i><br /><br />But the problems with the Anglican Communion are not over this - they go far deeper, this issue is just a symptom of apostasy within the Church. <br /><br />Bishops, theologians and priests who are not believers! Who do not hold to the Nicene Creed - some are outright athiests, some believe in some new agey ultimate being.<br /><br />Why would Bishops from the places where the Church is robust want anything to do with Bishops who are in the process of emptying the Churches in their provinces? <br /><br />And engaging in sophistry to try and make the Bible say things it doesn't.Andy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76573175303669836292011-01-09T12:30:09.877+13:002011-01-09T12:30:09.877+13:00Hi Sarah,
I am well aware that much has been said ...Hi Sarah,<br />I am well aware that much has been said and written from the Windsor Report onwards as to why X is wrong and Y should be moritorium-ed etc. But much has been said and written in response, including the assertions that X is right and Y should not be moritoriumed etc. All without a definitive Anglican Communion forum which has power to declare that Z is a false teacher. In the absence of that forum those who think Z is a false teacher do have the choice to make their determination known by absence/boycott; but it is a reasonable alternative to encourage the case to be made again and again until such time as the overwhelming majority of the Communion is perceived, even by the minority, to have definitively expressed that case.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9561995707644579692011-01-09T12:25:36.238+13:002011-01-09T12:25:36.238+13:00Hi Bosco,
I recognise that those Anglicans who sup...Hi Bosco,<br />I recognise that those Anglicans who support the Covenant include in their ranks those who may not be interested in my musings about Scripture Alone :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4259078204853994282011-01-09T12:24:17.366+13:002011-01-09T12:24:17.366+13:00Hi David,
Your point is well made about addressing...Hi David,<br />Your point is well made about addressing/speaking of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori properly; I ask commenters here to be so respectful.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4393133787351295652011-01-08T13:34:50.609+13:002011-01-08T13:34:50.609+13:00You have better manners than Sarah Hey, Peter, she...You have better manners than Sarah Hey, Peter, she says Schori as an act of disrespect, especially when she calls her Mrs. Schori, please do not follow in her footsteps.<br /><br />Respectful editorial policy should be to refer to/identify someone the first time with title and name, whether Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori or the Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori. After that it is fine to refer to her as Bishop Jefferts Schori, Jefferts Schori or as do those of us who hold her in more affection, Bishop Katharine or +Katharine.<br /><br />I would certainly expect you to do no less for your own bishop, as would I for +Victoria, with whom I have felt at odds many a time. Whether I agree with her theology or politics, or as often is, I do not agree, I still respect her as a bishop in the church of God, called, confirmed and ordained by both ACCanada and ACANZ&P. As I also respect you as a priest, even when I give you personally, the frail human, a hard time.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54307817324478020252011-01-08T11:26:18.603+13:002011-01-08T11:26:18.603+13:00“Of course, to attempt to bring that charge [of th...“Of course, to attempt to bring that charge [of the specific (and very, very grave) charge of false teaching/false teacher] into a meeting of the Communion in a meaningful way would highlight the lack of a Covenant or something akin to it!”<br /><br />An astonishing conclusion for you to make, Peter, in a post that is surrounded by others about scripture alone! :-)liturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.com