Down Under we see things differently.
Dear RonI am publishing most of your comment. I need to omit a point or two where you discuss what may or may not happen to particular individuals. That is not appropriate on a public discussion site.Peter"I did listen, Peter, as you recommended, to Jay Behan's speech to FCANZ - right to the end!I did have a problem with what might well have been a sermon by Bishop Brian Tamaki of 'Destiny Church'; thinking, while I was listening, that his (and FCANZ') problems might be solved by setting themselves under the episcope of Brian Tamaki.I noticed that there were 2 clergy-persons present at FCANZ who are NOT part of the Anglican Communion of Churches: (1) a CANA Bishop and (2) a clergy-person from the schismatic parish of West Hamilton - a fact which makes one question the loyalty of FCANZ to our Anglican Province of ACANZP.My biggest puzzle here is to distinguish between FCANZ (Jay Behan's) determination to (1) free itself from a Church that promotes SSBs while at the same time (2) professing itself willing to be part of ACANZP - provided it gets guaranteed immunity from celebrating SSBs, while still-presumably wanting to REMAIN part of ACANZP. EITHER; (1) you want to be completely free of a Church that compromises your conscience, OR; (2) you want to be integrated into its eirenic diversity.Incidentally, Peter, I do object to the GAFCON/FOCA habit of referring to themselves as the exclusively 'orthodox' Church. 'The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' is a good enough title for a credal statement for the Universal Body of Christ - without the need for a contestable presumption of 'orthodoxy' for oneself, alone. 'Right-Thinking' in this instance really is a state of mind pertaining to one's own version of 'The Truth'. "
Dear Peter, regarding your inhibition against publishing part of my last comment on the FCANZ Saga, which commented on the possible outcome for a FCANZ member, may I just amend that by reminding your readers that Jay Behan, the local convenor of FCANZ, has aleady sought help - through a visit to a GAFCON Province - to protect its members in N.Z. should the debate on Motion 29 not turn out as FCANZ requires. I think this would help readers understand how keen FCANZ is to protect itself from a possiblewn outcome from our General Synod that does not meet with FCANZ opposition to SSB in our Church
Dear Peter, as the only person to respond to your invitation to listen to the talks given at the recent FCANZ Cofernce in Christchurch, I just wonder if anyone else is even vaguely interetsed in what was, in effecvt, and invitation from a minority group in the diocese to a group of people opposed to Motion 29 shortly to be affirmed by our Church in Aotearoa/New Zealand and Polynesia.Having alrerady commented on the speech by the local Convenor, Jay Behan, I now would like to write about the taslk by Julian Dobbs, a New Zealand born priest from the N.Z. Diocese of Nelson, who deparfted for North America to join an ex-TEC congregation there before being ordained in Nigeria By GAFCON bishops in order to minister on their behalf to disafilliated TEC members in Nigeria's plant in CANA - now affiliated with ACNA.Listening toi Bishop Dobbs, it very soon became obvious that he wsas urging New Zealand dissidents to 'drive a stake in the ground' to defend their 'orthodxy' against what he calls the heretical behaviour of New Zealand's bishops. Bearing in mind that Bishop Dobbs - despite his 'episcopal ordination' in the Church oif Nigeria - is actually 'persona non grata' as a bishop of thre Anglican Communion. That this call, if followed, would necessitate the instigation of schismatic breakaway from ACANZP (as already threatened by Mr Behan) Perhaps this threat should be recognised by our Church's Bishops and our General Synod before they meet in May of this year.I am wondering when our Bishops will acknowledge the orchestrated threat to their authority as presented by the inflammatory remarks made by this visiting prelate at this gathering of people opposed to Motion 29 - before it comes to Synod.
Finally, Peter, I took time out to listen to the final Question Time, where Dave Clancy, Vicar of St.Saviours' Beckenham expressed his own opinion that he could not live with the situation of Same-Sex Blessings in our Church.Bishop Julian Dobbs confused me a bit when he - in answer to a question about the veracity of staying with the Anglican Family or not - proceeded to say that he valued the Anglicanism he had been brought up with - in Nelson - but he saw that true Anglicanism rested with the preaching of the True Gospel, which he felt had been left begin by everyone else in the Anglican Communion excepting GAFCON, FOCA, CANA and its contributing factions. He said that there were 2 gospels being offered and only one was correct - and that was that of his own constituency.The Bishop of Hobart, Tasmania (who, I suspect, was just one more graduate of Moore College, Sydney) and David Clancy, when questioned about the possibility of splitting from their respective Anglican Provincial Churches, intimated that this would depend upon 2 things: (1) the outcome of ACANZP General Synod in May, and (2) the advice of the GAFCON Prelates, whom they will both be visiting - presumably after our General Synod Meeting.It seems to me, Peter, that FOCANZ is already primed for departure from ACANZP - if they do not get the response they want from General Synod - aided and abetted by the support of Bishops Julian Dobbs (ACNA/CANA); Bishop Richard Condie (FOCA & Anglican Diocese of Hobart, Australia) and the presbyter of the former Anglican Parish of Hamilton East, New Zealand)
Dear Ron,It is hard to imagine that the 20 million Anglicans in church every Sunday in Nigeria would agree that Bishop Julian Dobbs is a persona non grata.
Have you thought of the possibility, Sam, that most of the Anglicans of Nigeria would never have heard of Julian Dobs? This was a poitical appointment by the GAFCON Primates - to use a Western clergy-person to forward their achismatic incursion into the USA.
Hi Ron,If in the last paragraph of your 11.50 blog, you are referring to Michael Hewat of the West Hamilton Parish; why would he be advocating "unity" with the ACANZP, which treated him as it did. Was it not Jesus who said:"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you". His Bishop's licence was withdrawn [I understand], because he would not adhere to a Constitutional technicality; over which G.S. is bending the Constitution to implement. Same sex blessings are not just a matter related to the Canons but are in fact a contravention of Art.20 which prohibits the ACANZP from formulating a"ceremony or rite" that is inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures as explained in the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Art.Please explain to me how blessing same sex fits in with the "Homily on Marriage" contained in the 39 Art.After all the chaos which TEC. manufactured through their arrogant liberalism and spending millions of dollars suing conservative parishes which would not buy into their unconstitutional Progressive Christianity; I think it is a bit rich to accuse GAFCON of a achismatic incursion into the USA.
Hello AllPlease take care to speak accurately about situations; also to focus less on specific individuals (unless actually discussing something they have said and you can cite) than on the larger questions of what the future of our church and the Anglican Communion is all about.We are in a situation where I suggest we should be clear that no one "wants to leave" because all want to stay in this church and in the Communion.But some are wondering whether they can stay if certain changes are made, some are wondering whether certain proposed changes are constitutionally sound, some are wondering whether true faithfulness to what the majority of the Communion believes requires a different structural arrangement. These are all fair, appropriate and reasonable questions for Anglicans to ask. And to ask them is no sign of disloyalty or for preference for schism.
Dear Peter,You have suggested that no one wants to leave. I'm not sure that this is true. The liberals currently do not 'want to leave' because they feel that they are in the majority and will win the day. However, as our General Secretary has reported, some liberals have threatened that unless the church moves to bless same sex marriages they will leave.I don't think this issue is about unity. It is not about 'not wanting to leave'. It is about buildings. It is about trust funds. It is a political game on both sides of the isle. The sooner we can all admit this, the sooner we may actually make some headway. How about we all agree to cut the b.s. and be honest with each other.
Hi Sam1. My remark was based on the way Jay Behan spoke to FCANZ. But if you are questioning him then that is up to you :).2. Perhaps in some diocese somewhere it is about buildings and trust funds etc. That is not how I see it here in the Diocese of Christchurch. I think we are having honest discussions here in conversations, in our recent synod and, for a few, on this blog. So, frankly, I am not sure what b.s. you are talking about.
I must admit, I don't agree with Sam that this is 'all about' property. It really is 'all about' whether, ot not, conservative Christians who have a problem with any sort of same-sex relationships could possibily co-exist in the same Church (in this case, ACANZP) with those who have no problem with accepting this legally permissible diversity of sexual relationships. That, for me at least, appoears to be the 'nitty gritty'. This seems to me to be of the very same order as the question of marriage of divorced persons - which also impacts on The Tradition, whose prospect for change conservatives have a problem with. Meanwhile, the majority of people outside of the Church wonder what all the fuss is about - especially when promiscuity is the real problem for everyone in Christian communities.
re Ron"Meanwhile, the majority of people outside of the Church wonder what all the fuss is about - especially when promiscuity is the real problem for everyone in Christian communities."Really?you know the story of blind men feeling different parts of an elephant being used as a picture of " all paths lead us to God" etc etc .the man who claims to see the elephant is making a bold if not arrogant claim. Ron you are certainly not speaking for me and I am part of the everyone in the church. hoggs
Post a Comment