tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post1670234819990537428..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: What Should ++Rowan Do?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45456713313245440312011-01-19T01:12:04.382+13:002011-01-19T01:12:04.382+13:00One of the things I find so disagreeable about thi...One of the things I find so disagreeable about this ACI piece is the suggestion that the upcoming meeting of Primates will be a cause for scandal and tragic. <br /> <br />The interventions from the ACI are increasingly shrill and set a tone that might convince some to think as they do but there is surely no need. <br /> <br />The debate on the the role of the Primates Meeting has been going on for some years. Encouragement for them to take up an enhanced role in 1988 and 1998 was tempored by a less than encouraging reaction to their subsequent performance in 2008. Many Primates and bishops just did not want that experiment to continue. <br /> <br />Indeed the whole idea of these meetings having a conciliar role has been hotly debated from the moment the ABC called the first Lambeth Conference. Many significant people boycotted that meeting too. <br /> <br />I do not find it tragic that our Communion is in flux about governance and that there are many, often contradictory opinions about how we should (or should not) move forward nor should we claim it as a cause for scandal! As I see it, in the scale of things, we are just at the begriming and while there are many trying to bounce us into hasty actions - we stand a long way off from any finished work. <br /> <br />It will be sad if some Primates do not attend as a protest, but as I say, we have been here before. <br /> <br />Where I agree with my ACI brothers is their belief that it would be best if they all cameMartin Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741108069763152456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62454273416642429412011-01-18T06:53:16.290+13:002011-01-18T06:53:16.290+13:00Hi Ron,
Some intriguing issues in your post!
(1) I...Hi Ron,<br />Some intriguing issues in your post!<br />(1) I suggest it is too easy to look back on what happened at Lambeth 1998 and deem it to have been 'divisive' as though there was an alternative which was not divisive. Given the vote which occurred would it have been undivisive to have had a resolution which sought to merely encourage people to keep talking? It would certainly have been divisive to have had a resolution which was the opposite of 1.10!<br /><br />(2) Two gospels or one? I shall post on that question soon.<br /><br />(3) What is 'truly Anglican'? I shall post on that soon too. But in the meantime a question: by what authority might any of us propose that to be truly Anglican is to adhere to the three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition, and reason?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29619418178054287172011-01-18T00:38:41.416+13:002011-01-18T00:38:41.416+13:00Peter, I would hesitate to state castegorically, a...Peter, I would hesitate to state castegorically, as you do, that there are 2 Gospels. Surely, there is only one Christian Gospel - that which has been proclaimed through the incarnation, teaching and ministry of Jesus, Son of God?<br /><br />I agree with some of what you are saying here, but I think you have failed to account for the fact that the Communion was bifurcated under the leadership of the previous ABC, George Carey, who was responsible for allowing the divisive tactics of the burgeoning 'Global South' Prelates at his final hosting of Lambeth.<br /><br />Therefore, your question as to what should Rowan do? might better be countered by "What should George have done?" Granted, both questions might now be relegated to the hypothetical and therefore unanswerable - by anyone but, in the first case, Rowan. Certainly George, with his continuing grand-standing on the state of the Church and the World, would scarcely be expected to apologise for his performance.<br /><br />It would seem from the evidence available to us, that whatever the ABC chooses to do now, this will make little difference to the GAFCON and ACNA dissidents. They have 'set their faces resolutely towards Jersualem' and will still continue to assert their moral superiority over the rest of us.<br /><br />2 Communions in the future? Maybe. But only one of them will be truly Anglican - in terms of the three-legged stool of 'Scripture, Tradition and Reason'.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55535865378400738162011-01-17T10:47:51.538+13:002011-01-17T10:47:51.538+13:00Hi Doug,
Fair point: I shall nuance the post sligh...Hi Doug,<br />Fair point: I shall nuance the post slightly.<br /><br />In my defence I would point out that other secessions from TEC have taken place for a long time now; and, in my view, the 'big split' is 2003 onwards.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83493467011301647622011-01-17T10:46:41.030+13:002011-01-17T10:46:41.030+13:00Hi Suem,
I think one technical difference between ...Hi Suem,<br />I think one technical difference between my/++Rowan's painting of the Communion picture as two (or more tiered) is that the concept arose originally re the Covenant: signers up and non-signers would contitute two tiers. Whereas I am asserting that the two tiers now exist, even without a Covenant.<br /><br />I accept that defining the 'two gospels' is tricky. But it is not only about those who accept and those who deny the divinity of Christ. It is also about whether Scripture is God's revelation to us or not (e.g. our insights in the divine recorded to ourselves); and about the nature of sin and whether or not salvation rescues us from eternal separation from God.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81140593821480470812011-01-17T10:40:08.418+13:002011-01-17T10:40:08.418+13:00Peter,
Do you think Carey should be grouped with ...Peter,<br /><br />Do you think Carey should be grouped with his predecessors as "managing the risk" or with his successor as "dealing with" the split?<br /><br />I note that it was in his time that the AMiA bishops were consecrated, and self-proclaimed refugees from TEC joined African allegiances in the USA. It was in his time that the C of E set up a woman free enclave to enable people to exist denying the validity of the rest of the church's sacraments.<br /><br />Yes, things speeded up rapidly, but perhaps it is fairer to see +Rowan as inheriting the split.Doug Chaplinhttp://clayboy.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29055265878300864272011-01-17T08:54:37.687+13:002011-01-17T08:54:37.687+13:00I actually agree with much of this. I do think the...I actually agree with much of this. I do think there should be more acknowledgement of impaired communion, and an acceptance (if that is what you are saying?) of the reality of two or more foci points. Isn't this in effect the same as Rowan's "two tier communion" though - and then his later reference to a "many layered communion."<br /><br />I am not sure I agree with there being "two gospels", although I might agree with this if it is true, as some say, that TEC as a whole are denying the divinity of Christ outright (I am not talking about a nuanced theological debate on the Resurrection as most important for its symbolic aspects as coming under that banner.)<br /><br />I would certainly say there are many approaches to the gospel, different interpretations of Christ's teaching, different emphases and different pastoral responses in different contexts - not sure that means a different gospel as such.<br /><br />Interesting that Ephraim Radner seems to deny that the ACI missive has the implications that certainly could be read into it. I did say that they have presented views not as strictly their own - but have expressed them forcefully, using some language such as "heretical" and "manipulative" that they have certainly not repudiated in the same document. Such adjectives are wholly unjustified when applied to our Archbishop. I would love to hear them say that!Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.com