Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
- Merriam Webster definition:
- Main Entry:
Friday, April 24, 2009
3. Lambeth 1998 1.10 was a disaster, being bad politics unaccompanied by theological underpinnings.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Rev’d Mr Harris has released via his blog confidential emails not addressed to him. We assume him to be a man of civility and honor, in view of his role as a member of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion Institute has long been on record as supportive of the Anglican Communion, the Covenant process, and the flourishing of the Episcopal Church and the defense of its Constitution. We have welcomed the Pastoral Visitors idea as emerging from the Communion’s common life, and have been engaged, through Communion Partners, with a plan that would honor the polity of this Church and find a way to maintain the unity of the Church and of the Anglican Communion. Communion Partners has from its inception been on record as wishing to prevent churches from leaving because, given the season we are in, they were unclear about the place of their own mission within the larger Anglican Communion. Our understanding of the proper role to be exercised by the Presiding Bishop, consistent with the Constitution of The Episcopal Church, is the subject of a public document to be found on our web-site (see the 12 March 2009 essay below) and so no secret.
Mr Harris has put before the public email communications that are not addressed to him, but are fully consistent with this larger goal of maintaining the witness of the Anglican Communion and the role of The Episcopal Church as integral within that. The statement that be refers to, signed by Bishops of this Church, is equally fully consistent with this position on the place of The Episcopal Church within the world-wide Anglican Communion. We would request that he indicate, given his role on the Executive Council, what the justification for this publication of email correspondence not addressed to him is; and further, why he did not discuss the matter of private emails with the principals before releasing them on his blog and passing them on to his colleagues elsewhere. We request that Mr. Harris explain to the public how he obtained access to this confidential communication.
The Revd Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
Research Professor of Biblical Interpretation
University of Toronto, Wycliffe College
Director, Incarnation School of Theology, Dallas
Add to the following:
Once again, we have evidence that if one does not tow the official line, if one dares to go against the status quo, then one will be branded as disloyal - or worse, "manipulating a schism driven agenda" to "undermine the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church." Yikes! The former Archbishop of Canterbury wasn't kidding when he warned the Communion Partners last week that regarding the remnant orthodox wing of The Episcopal Church “all signs suggest that over time they are likely to be cleaned out of TEC.” Babyblue
Well, the plain and simple truth is if you look at a prior posting you will find that if one puts together a comment on a blog from Babyblue with Radner's comments with the Diocese of the South West resolutions it is pretty simple to conclude what the orthodites of the world are up to. They seem to think that because we are kind we are weak. They think that because we do not think as they do that we are stupid. I expect they will think differently from now on
If the Communion Partners, Fr. Rob Eaton included, thought that they could destroy the Episcopal Church from within they need to think again. No organization of any kind will allow dissension to the point of its own annihilation. That is not going to happen and it certainly is not going to happen here in TEC. TEC will allow genuine discussion and argumentation for the sake of moving the faith forward but TEC will not stand for the internal destruction of the Episcopal Church. You all seem to think that you could change the game and hope no one would find out -- sorry about that. It is my fondest hope that TEC will develop a strategy that will put this group of hate mongers out where they can do the least amount of damage -- that would be somewhere other than the Episcopal Church!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
"It is my humble opinion that the only birthright we have coming into this world is sin. We are born with sin and only when we are baptized do we then revert to one of God's own people. I did not know nor did I think that we are born to be Anglicans or Catholics or Presbyterians or whatever -- in fact, we are baptized Christians.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Covenant is a document designed to "put TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada in their place, or more profoundly, out of their place. It is a political document not a theological work and it is not written with the community of Christ in mind. Has anyone noticed that while we examine and wring our hands and reach for our thesaurus GAFCON meets and moves forward.
Can someone look up for one second to see what is happening? Does anyone have a plan besides the one in play now? We are all busy writing and analyzing and figuring out this document while GAFCON has already planned through the winter of 2010! We cannot play catch up! We must put a plan of action together that will turn the tables and put the pointy hatted people out!
Monday, April 13, 2009
“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3)
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Would the therm(sic) "Church" not also include Episcopal Dioceses to join if - should that time ever come - General Convention rejects the Covenant?
9/4/09 5:38 PM
Comments such as these might be construed as a mere comment or is it? Perhaps, BB has tipped a bit of the next attack on The Episcopal Church. Why do I say that. Well, what follows is the Diocese of West Texas and one of the most insidious resolutions to pass ever.
WHEREAS, the General Convention Budget has historically been funded by dioceses based on their financial capability and voluntary choice;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 105th Council of the Diocese of West Texas affirms that the Diocese of West Texas is in union with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ directly through the Anglican Communion, its Instruments of Unity, and our Diocesan Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Gary Lillibridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council accepts no actions by General Convention that would reverse the authority roles between Dioceses and the General Convention, or would grant the Office of the Presiding Bishop executive powers over Dioceses and their Bishops; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council accepts no specific actions by General Convention that would
- mandate financial assessments from Dioceses to the General Convention budget;
- unilaterally impose trust interests on diocesan and congregational assets.
31. Ephraim Radner wrote:
Dr. Noll asks one of the question very much in some people’s minds. The answer is that the word “church” is not carefully defined because it would have been overly limiting of a number of potential situations we did not feel it was wise to constrain in advance, including churches now in a relationship of ecumenical partnership, as well as future uniting churches, currently extra-jurisdictional dioceses, or future ones, etc.. The specific issue of ACNA or an individual diocese in a non-covenanting province was placed on the table, discussed at length, and we agreed that no limitation on this possibility would be defined. I.e., of course ACNA or siuch a diocese can sign and formally request recognition and participation. (The latter might finally function under some metropolitan aegis as currently happens with e.g. Lusitania. The seeming inconsistency between the Preamble and these kinds of possibilities was noted, and understood to be acceptable as the price paid for the organic transformation of the Communion under the covenant as I have noted it in a previous comment (I think!): the Communion is not static.
In fact, we are now looking not at what is good for the "Anglican Communion" but rather what punishes people. So, this covenant is good for who? It promotes what? I am hopeful that not only does this covenant not see the light of day but the revisers are chastised for this most recent revision in which they politics above everything else.