Good grief, who are David Virtue's sources?
If only he would interview me - he knows where to find me - instead of interviewing his typewriter and coming up with this excoriation which is well suited to TEC but not so well suited to ACANZP which he confesses he does not really know.
Anyway, you can rely on David Virtue for a laugh when he talks about me. This is not my first excoriation at his typeface!
PS If you want to see a real train wreck in action, well a metaphorical one, have a look at this interview of the leader of one of our political parties.
PPS Dear David, Is this the Anglicanism you crusade for, the Anglicanism that wants to punish homosexuals in draconian ways? Sincerely, The Watching World.
David Virtue says:
"I was born in Wellington, NZ, more decades ago than I care to remember and grew up attending a Plymouth Brethren Assembly Church while attending a private, very liberal Presbyterian Boys College (school). It wasn’t until years later, when I fled to England to study theology, that I came under the influence of men like H.D. McDonald, John Stott, Martin Lloyd Jones and others, thus working my way out of fundamentalism on the one hand and liberal Presbyterianism on the other. It’s been a long journey and apparently, it is not over."
In my opinion, Peter, far from being in advance of the theological understanding of ACANZP, Mr. Virtue cannot escape his early beginnings on the closed shop atmosphere of his original 'Brethren' upbringing.
Despite boasting that his 'virtue on line' site is the guardian of 'Orthodox Anglicanism', his life seems to be consumed by a virulent antagonism towards the Anglican Communion - except that part of it that has encouraged schismatic severance from authentic Western Anglicanism - simply because of its Gospel Inclusivity of ALL people - regardless of gender, race, ethnic origin, status or sexual orientation.
After 'fleeing' to England (to escape liberalism?) he has hardly stopped running since. He has ended up in the right place for him, I think.
I wouldn't worry, Peter, about being on D.V.'s black list. It is probably a sign of your Gospel openness to the world as God has created it. Not a problem!
So what's all this about becoming a bishop? Is that for real? Note that denials will not be accepted at face value so you might as well tell us the truth.
It is a pity that this is being personalised, and I don't think it reflects the excellent work you do Peter+
I can't comment on the New Zealand situation and what the future holds, not knowing enough about it, but hope you all have the sense to avoid the fate of TEC.
David Virtue’s fundagelical sweatings are no more suited to the American Episcopal Church than they are to your own province—or yourself—Peter.
The truth is, Carl, that people say such things, but the reality is that we elect bishops for our church. Kindly thoughts need translation into electoral action before they move from wishful thinking to anything else. The next elections (because of prospective retirements) are a few years away, the recent trend of our church is to choose young (40s) bishops. I suggest whomever David has talked to is not reckoning with the facts of Anglican life Down Under.
Nelson the only orthodox diocese huh?
And you a neo-evangelical?
My ... my ... so many things I never knew.
Oh my gosh ACT still plays to the same tune...
I hope he realises the Maori seats were first introduced to limit their representation when the majority of the population of NZ was Maori....
Or doesn't overlook how Maori veterans returning from WWII received no land or compensation given to Pakeha's.
Or how Maori's were strapped at school for speaking in Te Reo Maori ...
Or if he can cite any other race native or otherwise to NZ who has endured the same degree of systemic discrimination.
It would be interesting to see their policy of how they 'legally' intend to dis-honour the Treaty if they make it into government. A little big if.
That's your story, huh?
So then I assume that the campaign war chest has already be established, and the appropriate smoke filled rooms reserved. Important endorsements have been sought and remunerated with promises of important cabinet positions in a Carrell Administration. Media time has been purchased and the campaign planned out. Whips have been identified in each parish to turn out the vote. Not to mention flyers, buttons, bumper stickers, and hats. And of course there is the Opposition research to find out which potential opponent supports lay presidency or is secretly a credo Baptist.
The campaign is in full swing.
"Vote Pete. For a change."
I try to tell you, Carl, New Zealand is not America :)
(though our PM does like to play golf with your President)
"The Rt. Rev. Stanley Ntagali, Archbishop of Uganda, asserted that the law is still needed, and was a legitimate response to the will of the people.
“The ‘court of public opinion’ has clearly indicated its support for the Act, and we urge Parliament to consider voting again on the Bill with the proper quorum in place,” Ntagali said on Monday."
- News link to 'Episcopal Cafe -
As you so rightly point out, Peter, this news from Uganda - after the legal overthrow of the draconian law against Gays in that country - is mute testimony to the homophobia existing in Uganda and other GAFCON Churches of the world-wide Anglican Communion.
This is one reason I could never go along with an Anglican Covenant that would have reduced us all to this level of injustice.
Pray God Ntagali doesn't win out!
I feel a strong need to point out in response to your comment above re Uganda that:
1. GAFCON as a movement consists of Anglicans from across a wide range of Anglican provinces, well beyond the few Anglican churches which support Ugandan-type legislation.
2. There is absolutely no connection between the Anglican Covenant and the Uganda legislation. The Covenant was an attempt to find common ground between Anglicans in respect of understanding our common doctrine and its application in our common life. It neither required nor inspired Anglicans such as Uganda bishops to support the legislation Uganda is currently engaged with.
No, Peter. But the Covenant was not supported by the GAFCON partners - for the very reason that it would have aspired to include everyone, including TEC and the A.C. of Canada.
If the Covenant had gone ahead - to have pleased GAFCON - it would have required the exclusion of TEC and the A.C. of C., with whom we at ACANZP have a Lambeth-connected relationship.
I do not believe that ACANZP would have wanted to be in a Covenant relationship with any Province that exhibited homophobia.
Yes, Ron, the Covenant has failed for lack of support!
What sort of Lambeth-connected relationship do we have with TEC(USA)??????Did they not thumb their noses at the Lambeth Moratorium and ordain Gene Robinson???
Some of your commentors do not seem to accept, that seeing homosexuality as sin,is not being homophobic.
Virtueonline was obviously born out of the secularisation of the
western Church.I would suspect
that he would be of an age,to have experienced Geering's herectical assult on the Doctrine and Faith of the Presbyterian Church (NZ).
Having been through that experience myself,it is certainly enough,to make anyone who wishes to maintain a sane worldview;to flee a hundred miles.
C S Lewis spoke out about Clergy, who did not believe the FAITH of the Church but remain their office;Christian Apologetics,Easter 1945.
You need to keep up with the play, Glen. I don't suppose the good Anglicans of Henderson were at all aware that neither ACANZP, TEC nor the Anglican Church of Canada ever left the world-wide Anglican Communion. Also, they have been represented at each Lambeth Conference and the Primates' Meetings hosted by ACC. We and they are all voluntary members who have not sought to live apart.
It is only Provinces of the GAFCON that have threatened dissociation from Lambeth, and promulgated their own version of Anglicanism with their 'Jerusalem Statement'.
The good Anlicans of Henderson are
well aware of the fact that the ACANZP,The A C OF Canada and TEC
have never left the worlld wide Anglican Communion.
In stead,the Lambeth Conference has been turned into a lame duck,by TEC's actions in disregarding the Moratorium; and the ACC has become,'a birds of the same feather flock together' outfit with the Presiding Bishop of TEC being appointed to it's
Standing Committee.in 2012(Auckland).
Do the maths and add up the numbers.Where is the greater part of the Communion now found and do they feel represented by this 'new age'doctrine of 'pseudo
Where is the JUSTICE in having millions of Anglicans being dictated to, by a few western liberals obsessed with feminism and homosexuality???
"Where is the JUSTICE in having millions of Anglicans being dictated to, by a few western liberals obsessed with feminism and homosexuality???"
- Glen Young -
Glen, what you call 'the greater part of the Anglican Communion' in the GAFCON Provinces have already walked away from the ACC - by not attending either Lambeth or ACC Meetings. All they need to do now is shake the dust off their feet.
However, they cannot legitimately call themselves Anglican if they cut themselves off from the source of the Anglican tradition in the C. of E. The 'Jerusalem Statement' has taken care of all that for you
The Anglicanism we have left is that which is invited to Lambeth and actually attends. There is no compulsion to attend Lambeth - only an invitation. Those who attend are entitled to call themselves 'Anglican'.
Perhaps a good title for your own group could be 'The Global South Christians'. You could probably join them - either in Henderson or Hamilton. (or, maybe, Sydney would be your nearest group?)
Intentional Schismatics cannot claim the label. That belongs to the originators of the brand.
When you say, 'However, they cannot legitimately call themselves Anglican if they cut themselves off from the source of the Anglican tradition in the C. of E.', I get rather uneasy. This is because it sounds rather similar to the sort of thing I've heard from RCs for years: 'They cannot legitimately call themselves Catholic if they cut themselves off from the source of the Catholic tradition in the See of Peter'. Anglicans have always made the point that 'Catholic' has more to do with what you believe and practice than with whom you're organizationally connected to. Well, duh!
And if the defining factor in whether or not I'm entitled to call myself an Anglican is 'whether or not I attend Lambeth', then I'm not an Anglican, and neither are the vast majority of Anglicans around the world. Neither are you, in fact, as I don't think you've ever attended a Lambeth conference. You might want to reword that argument.
In fact, the global instruments of Anglican unity are dominated by ordained people, and especially bishops, to an unconscionable degree. Many of my Christian friends in other faith traditions tell me of global gatherings that are attended largely by lay people. It is long past time...
To reinforce your excellently made point, Tim, one would need to take care not to say that Anglicans in dioceses whose bishops do not go to Lambeth are not Anglicans: that would disenfranchise some good friends of Ron's in Anglo-Catholic parishes in Sydney!
Conversely there are bishops who go to Lambeth who have parishioners who do not think they should go to Lambeth.
All of which makes a rumbling point through this blog through all these years: there is a doctrinal thread which holds Anglicans together as much as any reckoning with who goes to which meetings and who has communion with whom.
"And if the defining factor in whether or not I'm entitled to call myself an Anglican is 'whether or not I attend Lambeth', then I'm not an Anglican, and neither are the vast majority of Anglicans around the world. Neither are you, in fact, as I don't think you've ever attended a Lambeth conference. You might want to reword that argument."
- Tim Chesterton -
I think, Tim, you actually know what I was speaking about here - not the rank and file but the leadership - both of those who attend Lambeth, and those who have refused the invitation. I think you are trivialising my basic point.
I agree, in part, though, with what Peter is saying here. When one considers the conservatism of people like the GAFCON Archbishop of uganda, who has just urged his government to repeal its recent overturning of illicit draconian legislation against homosexuals; one wonders whether this is the will of rank and file Anglicans in Nigeria. And if it is; then we know who to blame. Archbishops in Africa have far more power over their 'subjects' than any other Anglican Primates.
Dear Tim, re your comment about the label 'Catholic'. I find that word to be rather more of a genre than a brand. After all the titles catholic and Anglican may not be mutually exclusive - although some R.C.s might believe they are. Catholic indicates a whole faith tradition, whereas Anglicaismn is a sectarian division of the same tradition.
Anglicanism is Catholicism, only reformed.
Protestants can be any number of things besides. It all depends on what one is protesting about
TEC(USA) walked away from the Anglican Communion when it thumbed its nose at the Lambeth
Moratorium and ordained Gene Robinson.
If a refferendum was taken amongst every practicing Anglican
in NZ; Motion 30 might not be a
However, returning to the question of the Global South; those in Africa have not walked away from Anglicanism,but from APOSTACY and HERESY.They have walked away from Church Instuments
which are weak and insipid.They realise that their orthodox feathers are not the same as the liberal feathers that flock to Lambeth.They realise that the liberals who attend Lambeth only acknowledge a passing recognition of our Catholic heritage the true
Apostolic Faith and teaching.
And yes Ron,I have decided to not only to 'shake the sand of my shoes',but to disinfect them as well.As I leave dead and secularised Anglianism behind me,I want to be free of this liberal heresy.There is a sad truth ,Ron,that sometimes God gives you what you want.
By all reports,the Hamilton West Anglican Church has about 6 followers and Michael's congregation is flourishing.
Over and out,and stick to your reformingGerring and Spong will be proud of you.
I am allowing your comment to stand as a sign of strength of feeling on your part re important matters.
However your comment is wrong to the extent that it links Geering and Spong to Ron Smith's theology. I have never found a sign of such link in all my years of correspondence with Ron. He is thoroughly orthodox on all creedal matters of our faith.
Thanks, Peter. I very much value your words here.
Post a Comment