Car crash or train crash, the imagery of where the Anglican Communion heading is not particularly life enhancing! To reiterate my own position, even if it is held by a minority of one, the Communion ought to hold together with TEC in it, and ACNA brought into it. Despite many jaundiced comments against it, based, it must be said, on appearances to the contrary, TEC has not actually repudiated the creeds or authorized liturgy worshipping other gods. To do this would be a challenge, and would involve some walking apart, for a while at least. The analogy, since we are talking about sexuality in the church of Henry VIII, would be that some separation might be necessary for the relationship between TEC and the Communion, but divorce does not need to be the outcome.
Realistically, however, there will be people with aspirations to be train drivers keen to get onto the locomotive, with a view as to the destination the train ought to end at. Steer a train off the rails and there will be a crash! See Ruth Gledhill's post, for example, to get a sense of prognostications being made. Will God be gracious and assist us to keep the train on the track? Here are my set of talking points for their Graces the world over to consider:
(1) Did God ever give up on Israel? Will he ever give up on the church? God did not. God will not. We should not either!
(2) We can, with God's help, love TEC with a love not only as deep and broad as the ocean, but willing to understand each aspect of their decisions, including the aspect of care for the human dignity of gay and lesbian members of their church. Out of that love we can find a way to live with disagreement - a way that will, for a time at least, be different to the way the Communion has been till now. (Note: to not love TEC because they appear not to love their African sisters and brothers is childish).
(3) We should focus in our own member churches of the Communion on our own processes for engaging with the reality of difference in our midst. Where we think TEC has taken the wrong pathway for welcome and inclusion of gay and lesbian people, what is the alternative we are offering which is theologically orthodox and graciously loving?
(4) We must face squarely the challenge of being truly inclusive. This inclusion is both about those supporting same-sex blessings and those not, those supporting the ordination of women and those not. One critique of TEC is that it has included one group of people at the expense of another. If the Communion cannot do better, then we shall split!
(5) One sign (but only one) of a different breadth of inclusion by the Communion would be to hasten the full membership of ACNA in the Communion. (However ACNA would need to drop all talk of aspiring to replace TEC and ACCan). Note: once ACNA was included, 'cross-border' excursions by bishops should fade away as ACNA elects its own bishops.
(6) Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report should be reaffirmed by the ABC and the Primates so that the Communion is clear that TEC's continued membership is precisely acknowledging of their disagreement with Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report, rather than pretending otherwise.
(7) A new climate of appreciation of GAFCON, FCA, and the like should be encouraged! The health of the Communion depends on communication and relationships. Let the conservatives meet together with joy and not suspicion. Likewise the liberals and the moderates, the Anglo-Catholics and the evangelicals. But let all such meetings dismiss talk of separation and talk instead of how their particular perspective can enrich the life of the Communion.
(8) Learn from the Roman Catholics! We seem so frightened of things which might help us, such as 'alternative episcopal oversight'. For centuries Roman Catholics have lived with 'alternatives' in their midst: Marist priests and parishes, for example, mingling side-by-side with diocesan priests and parishes. To be sure there is only one bishop of the diocese, but they are not completely in control of all their appointments!
(9) Commit and re-commit to study, to listening, to learning about Scripture and being human. This point is brilliantly made by More than a via media.
(10) Let God be God ... gracious, loving, forgiving, patient, merciful beyond our conception.
What do you think?
Please justify your "One critique of TEC is that it has included one group of people at the expense of another."
ReplyDeleteIf you are looking for certain predictions - here is real breaking news for you: ACNA will not survive united.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteIt is probable rather than certain, in my view, that ACNA will not survive. Time will prove which of us is correct!
When I say 'one critique etc' I am attempting to summarise a variety of observations I have seen made over recent times, including local conversations, which note that it is a genuinely difficult thing to include those who want X to happen and those who do not want X to happen.
In the specific case of the movement towards greater explicit and formal inclusion of gay and lesbian people in TEC, it has done this knowing (in my view, you may well disagree with my view) that to do so would set up a situation in which a number of people were likely to leave. There is nothing particularly profound in the observation. One of the things (I believe) which is staying the hand of ACANZP authorities re same-sex blessings is that, notwithstanding their availability on Dunedin's website, a certain kind of promotion of them will lead to people leaving our church.
"One of the things (I believe) which is staying the hand of ACANZP authorities re same-sex blessings is that, notwithstanding their availability on Dunedin's website, a certain kind of promotion of them will lead to people leaving our church."
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on this, Peter? My understanding is that Dunedin diocese has lost about 70% of attendance since 1989 - outstripping even Newark!
Anon1
Once again can’t follow your logic: when ACNA breaks up – how will it “prove which of us is correct”?
ReplyDeleteAs to your thesis that differences of opinion are not respected within TEC, and strongly held positions different to that of the majority have no place there, it is again noticeable that you blog makes no mention of Bishop Gary W. Lillibridge of West Texas’s “Anaheim Statement” – but, of course, the respect shown to those who do not accept the majority position, and the respect shown back from the majority to those who differ from them completely contradicts the whole thrust of your blog and its justification and support of the schismatics.
It is difficult to ascertain what would be “a certain type of promotion” in your province. There appears to be no mechanism whatsoever to keep your clergy, let alone your laity informed of anything within your province. Websites do not function and clearly you regard even official diocesan websites as counting for nothing. Clergy including bishops using the allowable rites as they do is clearly not what you mean. You do not clearly recall the General Synod meetings you have been to and there is no record of their decisions online. Up to date formularies, canons, and passed motions are not publicly available. There is nowhere anyone can actually see what your primates are thinking. You have acknowledged there is no up to date knowledge by anyone of how many are even attending or attached to your churches. When you say people might leave your church – how would those “people” ever discover the events that are actually happening (you, as a priest and member of General Synod were unaware of your own Liturgical Commission’s rites not to mention the content of the Worship Template that you appear not even sure you seriously debated)? How would anyone even notice that people had left?
Who are these "authorities" whose hands are being "stayed"? Clearly not that of your bishops, your Liturgical Commission, or General Synod.
Hi Anonymous (i.e. not Anon1),
ReplyDeleteIf ACNA survives, which I believe is possible, I shall be proven correct. If it does not we shall both be correct, but you shall have more satisfaction as you will be able to say 'I told you so' whereas I will only be able to say 'I thought that might happen'!
For those who remain in TEC there is respect for difference of opinion. But I did not say, "As to your thesis that differences of opinion are not respected within TEC, and strongly held positions different to that of the majority have no place there,". My point is that TEC has done things knowing not only that some would differ in opinion but some would leave. If you continue to misquote me I shall be disinclined to respond to you.
You make allegations about the poverty of communication in our church which leads me to wonder if you are a member of our church for what you say is quite similar to other complaints I have heard voiced from within our ranks!
The authorities whose hands are being stayed for the time being are (a) our bishops (b) our General Synod. This is my interpretation of the current situation. I will happily publish the protests of any bishop or member of General Synod who says it is not the case.
Hi Anon1
ReplyDeleteI do not know the Dunedin attendance figures 1989 compared with the present. I should be a little surprised if it was as much as 70%. I do not think the Dunedin Diocese has particularly promoted same sex blessings within it's own area and as far as I know they have never brought them to General Synod (nor has anyone else) for explicit approval.
Thank you for the more charitable tenor of your recent posts.
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph of concern at the difficulty of communications in your province is drawn a little from searching for things online but mostly paraphrases your own posts and responses.
You still have not mentioned the affirmation of Christ’s Lordship in TEC, or today’s passing that tithing be a minimum to be Episcopalian.
I am astonished again that you cannot ascertain the correctness of the assertion that you have lost 70% of your worshippers recently in one of your only seven dioceses.
Your positive comments on the Anaheim Statement and its respectful reception by the majority appears to contradict your call for ACNA’s acceptance as it appears there is little justification for ACNA’s existence. Then you consistently seek to have TEC and ACNA part of the same communion – why can ACNA then not be part of a bigger TEC (as it was)? D025 and B033 were not changes to our ordination canon – you continue to confuse their status. You should not be surprised that the future is not predictable even by what you term “the two most powerful leaders of TEC”. Your own position is unclear and appears to vary, and you are just one person – why do you expect no compromising within the largest legislative body in the world after India’s parliament?
The collection of NZ Anglican rites formally in the name of your Liturgical Commission, online, and used by clergy and bishops in your province you now suggest has not been presented to your General Synod – or at least you do not know – and of course we agree there is nowhere to check. And you suggest that TEC is unclear!!!
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDelete"Thank you for the more charitable tenor of your recent posts." OK
"The paragraph of concern at the difficulty of communications in your province is drawn a little from searching for things online but mostly paraphrases your own posts and responses." Fair enough
"You still have not mentioned the affirmation of Christ’s Lordship in TEC, or today’s passing that tithing be a minimum to be Episcopalian." I do not have time to search these out - I have been to the resolutions page and been overwhelmed by the sheer number there; I have also not yet come across an 'easy digest' of the days deliberations at GC. If you could point me to one ...
"I am astonished again that you cannot ascertain the correctness of the assertion that you have lost 70% of your worshippers recently in one of your only seven dioceses." These statistics are not available on the web. I may be able to do a search of the Dunedin year books in our Diocesan archives ... again, time ...
"Your positive comments on the Anaheim Statement and its respectful reception by the majority appears to contradict your call for ACNA’s acceptance as it appears there is little justification for ACNA’s existence." I think there is justification but perhaps I shall give it in a post rather than in a comment.
"Then you consistently seek to have TEC and ACNA part of the same communion – why can ACNA then not be part of a bigger TEC (as it was)?" I think ACNA folk want to work on different agendas when they meet in Convention. But that's only a partial answer.
"D025 and B033 were not changes to our ordination canon – you continue to confuse their status." I maintain my position that, irrespective of non-change to canons, B033 was associated with a willingness to be in moratorium and D025 is associated with a willingness to move out of moratorium.
"You should not be surprised that the future is not predictable even by what you term “the two most powerful leaders of TEC”." Except that some TEC bishops seem very clear that D025 will lead to gay and lesbian bishops in due course.
"Your own position is unclear and appears to vary, and you are just one person – why do you expect no compromising within the largest legislative body in the world after India’s parliament?" I always expect compromise when legislatures meet. Along with others I am wondering if what has been delivered is 'honest' ...
"The collection of NZ Anglican rites formally in the name of your Liturgical Commission, online, and used by clergy and bishops in your province you now suggest has not been presented to your General Synod – or at least you do not know – and of course we agree there is nowhere to check. And you suggest that TEC is unclear!!!" I do not think GS has ever been formally printed with texts for same sex blessings that it has then approved as formularies. I can be sure of that because that would have created a stir. Because of the ambiguous thing known as the Template people assert that these somewhat hidden, though available, liturgical resources are authorised . If they are it is by an indirect route and I think ACANZP Anglicans are entitled to be unclear about that. By contrast I think TEC has been very clear that it is authorising the development of pastoral resources while also being clear that these will not (unless and until presented to GC and approved in the prescribed way) become formal services of TEC enshrining doctrine.
You see: I can be clear about what TEC is clear about ...:)
Your readers I hope are charitably taking your repeated changing tracks as genuine confusion on your part rather than belligerence. No one (but you now) has suggested that the Blessing of a Relationship is a formulary of your church. You show an inability to understand what a formulary is or how it is arrived at on another one of your sites.
ReplyDeleteLiturgical resources can be (1) a formulary (2) authorised but not a formulary (3) allowed. “For all the Saints” is a liturgical resource in your province that is not a formulary, nor is it authorised – it is allowed. It is available on one of the official websites of your province.
The “Blessing of a Relationship” is a liturgical resource in your province that is not a formulary, nor is it authorised – it is allowed. It is available on one of the official websites of your province.
The Blessing of a Relationship is allowed by your Worship Template which was authorised by your General Synod. Your Worship Template is not a formulary.
Your Worship Template was not required for “approving flexibility for Sunday Worship” as you (unspecified plural) thought. Adaptation for non-communion services is allowed through page 54 of NZPB which is a formulary. Adaptation for communion services is allowed through pages 511-514 of NZPB which is a formulary.
Your province was the first in the Anglican Communion to allow the Blessing of a Relationship, in Canada was next, TEC is following.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI am much relieved to find that I have misunderstood so much about the life of my church which you understand so well, and from such a long way away, including the very much overlooked point here that the Worship Template is completely unnecessary because of the flexibility already allowed for in NZPB.
I have been confused because I have heard argument that the Worship Template is a formulary and thus (so the argument went) certain allowed services were authorised, if not themselves formularies). Thankfully I did not leave the church during this time of confusion!
But, checking my canons book, you are correct: the Template is not a formulary!
It is good that we are progressing to agreement at least on the facts.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside it is interesting that you and some of your church members thought that the Worship Template is a formulary – again this means you and they are not paying attention to the process of how a formulary is arrived at, let alone at General Synod. It once again also highlights both the poor communication and training in your province.
What is important is that whether or not your Worship Template is a formulary makes absolutely no difference to the status of the Blessing of a Relationship which it allows. You and those debating with you appear to be suggesting that its being a formulary would have affected the status of the Blessing of a Relationship. It does not. So, once again, I cannot follow your logic that this would lead you to leave your church.
We have established that the Worship Template was not introduced to allow flexibility in your Sunday service – you already had that. Clearly, then, it was introduced to allow for rites not covered by your already broad liturgical provisions: the suite of services “for life events”.
Your bishops who prepared those rites, then prepared the Worship Template and had this passed by your General Synod. They then produced their explanation of their position in a joint statement to their diocese about sexuality. It will be easier for you to obtain this booklet from the Waiapu Diocese than me being as you say “such a long way away”. I hope you will scan this and put it on scribd (that you use so well on one of your other sites) and post a link and a blog post about it so that we and your readers can continue progressing on at least the facts before you work on some interpretations and response.
"What is important is that whether or not your Worship Template is a formulary makes absolutely no difference to the status of the Blessing of a Relationship which it allows. You and those debating with you appear to be suggesting that its being a formulary would have affected the status of the Blessing of a Relationship. It does not. So, once again, I cannot follow your logic that this would lead you to leave your church." If you do not understand the significant difference between something 'allowed' in the church and something embedded in the church in a formulary then I am not the one to explain it to you, what with my logic you cannot understand and all that.
ReplyDelete"We have established that the Worship Template was not introduced to allow flexibility in your Sunday service – you already had that. Clearly, then, it was introduced to allow for rites not covered by your already broad liturgical provisions: the suite of services “for life events”." I think you are dead wrong here. It was introduced to allow flexibility. Its application to other rites an unintended consequence spotted by some smart thinkers. The reasoning behind the Template was flawed; the process and explanations given to justify its appendices somewhat weak; and the fact that GS had to subsequently add an explanatory note to the Template was the nail in the coffin of a sad episode in the liturgical life of our church.
"Your bishops who prepared those rites, then prepared the Worship Template and had this passed by your General Synod. They then produced their explanation of their position in a joint statement to their diocese about sexuality. It will be easier for you to obtain this booklet from the Waiapu Diocese than me being as you say “such a long way away”. I hope you will scan this and put it on scribd (that you use so well on one of your other sites) and post a link and a blog post about it so that we and your readers can continue progressing on at least the facts before you work on some interpretations and response." I believe a blog is still free to set up and Scribd still free to use ... I leave it to another with time and motivation to follow your suggestion. If Waiapu itself wants to further promote its booklet then I shall consider engaging with it!
I suspect, to be charitable, you are reading Anonymous’s comments too hastily.
ReplyDeleteWe are discussing the status of the Blessing of a Relationship in your province. This is not affected in the slightest by whether the Worship Template is (status 1) a formulary or (status 2) authorised [see three comments up]. You thought the Worship Template is a formulary (1), but it is not. The Worship Template is authorised (2). The Worship Template allows (status 3) the Blessing of a Relationship. The Blessing of a Relationship would still have the allowed status (3) even if the Worship Template were to become a formulary. The status of the Blessing of a Relationship would not change by whether the Worship Template is a formulary (1) or authorised (2). I hope this is now clear and that we can agree on this?
We have already established that the Worship Template does not alter flexibility of Sunday worship. There are no appendices to the authorised Worship Template. The explanatory note is no nail in any coffin, certainly not of the suite of “life events” rites that this Worship Template allows. If your reasoning held any water whatsoever and your speaking in the past tense of it as a “sad episode in the liturgical life of our church” one would have expected for the Worship Template to cease being authorised in your province, particularly as you state it has consequence unintended by General Synod. I have yet to see evidence of your suggestion that this is the case.
The Waiapu booklet further supports my point that your province anticipates much that you berate in TEC (especially the recent GC decisions), but as I do not have it to hand, and you are unwilling to place it online, possibly another, Howard Pilgrim for example, may oblige by placing it online and move this discussion forward.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI think we are talking at cross purposes, you from the vantage point of far away, so accessing the web presence of our church, but not its daily and weekly life. It is with respect to the latter that I speak of the Template as a sad episode in our life.
Further, banging on about the status of the Blessing of a Relationship in relation to the Template misses my point that this service is not itself a formulary of the church, something I would object to.
That there are things in the life of our church which anticipate things I object to in TEC makes what point? TEC is in a particular relationship with the Anglican Communion in which various statements as to who should do what and who will do or not do what are the subject of current controversy. That situation does not apply to ACANZP. Nor does the situation in ACANZP generate the news items here that TEC generates, with consequent unsettling of clergy and parishioners here. So, currently, I am paying some attention to TEC. The roles could reverse: ACANZP could become the centre of Communion attention; our decisions could be the subject of media articles, and could consequently cause great upset. You would find then that I have a keen and critical interest in the state of the play here!
As for 'berating' TEC? Perhaps I am. If so I think I am the only commentator doing so who also thinks TEC should remain in the Communion!