Anglicans Only: Peter Akinola's statement

[Albion]

Unless you think ECUSA is going to end up out of Communion with Cantuar, I don't see why you think ECUSA is likely to change it's view of what is/is not Anglican.

I don't think ECUSA is going to change. However, that has nothing to do with the point I made (and you replied to).

It was about this interesting turn of mind in which we see ECUSA saying "so what?...We'll still be Anglican," when for decades ECUSA has been saying the opposite to the Continuing Churches.

Then it was, "If you don't belong to the Anglican Communion, you aren't Anglican." We still have such people on this forum, in fact. But now that the shoe is on the other foot....

If this were to happen, then surely ECUSA and everyone else in that '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' could carry on insisting that they are Anglicans and the rest are not. Or am I missing something?

No, that is what will happen. I merely observed the hypocrisy (or irony, if you prefer) in it.

If there are any "core beliefs" that are intrinsically Anglican, surely one of them is that the Bishop is the symbol and centre of the local church, so a Parish (that thas no theological standing) is very different from a Diocese (that does) is different again from a national church.

I don't think I said "intrinsically Anglican." I was referring to the elements of the Christian faith enunciated by all the member churches of the Communion.

2 years. Wow. What an ancient Tradition. (If that were an accurate portrayal of what happened anyway.)

There's nothing ancient about the Anglican Communion in any case! It is a recently created association of Anglican provinces, but if that means to you that it has no standards or procedures, then I have to say that's incorrrect.

Shared principles and heritage, yes. The right to tell other churches they are wrong on anything outside core beliefs, no.

That, to me, is a weak and improvised argument. Associations have principles, including this one. But no one IS telling other churches what to believe, only that if they believe X when the organization has pledged itself to Y, that the organization has the right to address the groups continued eligibility to belong. There's nothing to wring one's hands and beat one's breast over with this fact of life. In fact, I ask you this-- If some province were to advocate, let's say for an example, racial separation as being God's will, wouldn't you be in favor of the call that church to be expelled from the Communion? You know you would sympathize with any move to do so.

Seems to me either the communion is held together by another fudge, and everyone wins, or the communion breaks and everybody looses. I really can't see how there can be winners and losers.

Others apparently feel that a Christian organization without Christian standards is not worth having.

Since I don't see "Anglican" as meaning anything if it doesn't mean being in the communion, I'll have to disagree.

Then I take it you actually don't see any reason for ECUSA to be so defensive about being asked to leave?

 

[ebia]

I don't think ECUSA is going to change. However, that has nothing to do with the point I made (and you replied to).

It was about this interesting turn of mind in which we see ECUSA saying "so what?...We'll still be Anglican," when for decades ECUSA has been saying the opposite to the Continuing Churches.


Then it was, "If you don't belong to the Anglican Communion, you aren't Anglican." We still have such people on this forum, in fact. But now that the shoe is on the other foot....



No, that is what will happen. I merely observed the hypocrisy (or irony, if you prefer) in it.

If there is a split, and if Cantuar ends up in the same half as ECUSA, then I fail to see the irony. Surely ECUSA only has to do an about face if they end up not in communion with Cantuar.

I don't think I said "intrinsically Anglican." I was referring to the elements of the Christian faith enunciated by all the member churches of the Communion.

That's not my point, which was that that there is something very different about a Diocese or larger unit choosing to do something like split, and a parish choosing to split.

There's nothing ancient about the Anglican Communion in any case! It is a recently created association of Anglican provinces, but if that means to you that it has no standards or procedures, then I have to say that's incorrrect.

Only the very looses of them intended to support dialog and mutual support, to to enable some national churches to hold others to ransom.

That, to me, is a weak and improvised argument. Associations have principles, including this one. But no one IS telling other churches what to believe, only that if they believe X when the organization has pledged itself to Y, that the organization has the right to address the groups continued eligibility to belong.

Where is this list of 'Y' that every church has pledged itself to when the communion was formed? If we were talking about excluding a church because it had thrown away something fundamental like the creeds, you would have a point, but we are not.

There's nothing to wring one's hands and beat one's breast over with this fact of life. In fact, I ask you this-- If some province were to advocate, let's say for an example, racial separation as being God's will, wouldn't you be in favor of the call that church to be expelled from the Communion? You know you would sympathize with any move to do so.

I don't think I would support expelling them, no. Certainly not in the short term.

Others apparently feel that a Christian organization without Christian standards is not worth having.

Both sides believe they are supporting Christian standards. We aren't talking about throwing away the creeds or the bible, we are talking about how the bible is best understood on one particular, very small issue. We should be able to stay in the same communion, talk about it like adults, and respect that others have (in good conscience) come to different conclusions than ourselves. We manage that with dioceses that have extremely different views on the Catholic-Evangelical scale. We've managed it thus far over a far more significant and difficult to manage change (the introduction of female priests and bishops). We should be able to manage it over this.

Then I take it you actually don't see any reason for ECUSA to be so defensive about being asked to leave?

That doesn't follow from what I said, but anyway, being asked to leave and choosing to leave are different things.

 

[Albion]

If there is a split, and if Cantuar ends up in the same half as ECUSA, then I fail to see the irony. Surely ECUSA only has to do an about face if they end up not in communion with Cantuar.

Possibly not, if you look at it that way, thinking that being with "Cantuar" but not with 3/4 of the Anglican world is somehow a victory.

Only the very looses of them intended to support dialog and mutual support, to to enable some national churches to hold others to ransom.

Ransom? You're managing to stick all the loaded words you can into your comments, but mostly they don't fit the situation.

Both sides believe they are supporting Christian standards. We aren't talking about throwing away the creeds or the bible, we are talking about how the bible is best understood on one particular, very small issue. We should be able to stay in the same communion, talk about it like adults, and respect that others have (in good conscience) come to different conclusions than ourselves.

OK, if that is your view. I merely reflected upon the fact that it never is the view when ECUSA has the upper hand and has the choice of how it will deal with those who don't support its policies.

We manage that with dioceses that have extremely different views on the Catholic-Evangelical scale. We've managed it thus far over a far more significant and difficult to manage change (the introduction of female priests and bishops).

Actually, the facts have been far different from this. But it sounds good in theory, doesn't it?

That doesn't follow from what I said, but anyway, being asked to leave and choosing to leave are different things.

They were asked to leave and did so knowing that if they refused, they would be expelled. There is little doubt about this.

 

[ebia]

Possibly not, if you look at it that way, thinking that being with "Cantuar" but not with 3/4 of the Anglican world is somehow a victory.

I don't see any kind of split as being a victory, and I hope others don't either.

The question was, which part could call itself "Anglican". If the definition of Anglican Communion is "in communion with Cantuar", then the answer to that question is whichever part Cantuar ends up in.

Ransom? You're managing to stick all the loaded words you can into your comments, but mostly they don't fit the situation.

Shrug. That's how I see it.

OK, if that is your view. I merely reflected upon the fact that it never is the view when ECUSA has the upper hand and has the choice of how it will deal with those who don't support its policies.

When has ECUSA demanded that another national church be thrown out of the communion? Or offered episcopal oversight to parishes in someone else's juristiction (something definitely against the 'rules' if there are any rules).

Actually, the facts have been far different from this.

How so? A handful of parishes and individual churches have left, but the communion has survived without (so far) pretty much intact and without a single national church or (AFAIK) diocese being asked to leave.

They were asked to leave and did so knowing that if they refused, they would be expelled. There is little doubt about this.

Who? Details please.

 

[Albion]

The question was, which part could call itself "Anglican". If the definition of Anglican Communion is "in communion with Cantuar", then the answer to that question is whichever part Cantuar ends up in.

No, that wasn't the question. Both parts will use the term in all probability. But ECUSA, which has said for 25 years that if you aren't in the Communion you aren't Anglican, is now forced to say that it's not so after all...since it is she that won't be in the Communion.

And make no mistake. If five or six provinces remain with ECUSA out of almost 40 (and only a small percentage of Anglican people), regardless of what titles are used by the two sides, it isn't the "Communion" of worldwide Anglicanism.

When has ECUSA demanded that another national church be thrown out of the communion? Or offered episcopal oversight to parishes in someone else's juristiction (something definitely against the 'rules' if there are any rules).

That wasn't what was said, so let us stay with the subject. ECUSA has shown little tolerance for diversity among its members, but now that it is on the verge of expulsion from the Communion resorts, as you do, to this appeal. But I wonder if you are in a position to know the details as an American might.

 

[ebia]

No, that wasn't the question. Both parts will use the term in all probability. But ECUSA, which has said for 25 years that if you aren't in the Communion you aren't Anglican,

... in communion with the see of Canturbury.

is now forced to say that it's not so after all...since it is she that won't be in the Communion.

They will so long as they are in Communion with Canturbury. Whether or not that includes most people who call themselves Anglican.

And make no mistake. If five or six provinces remain with ECUSA out of almost 40 (and only a small percentage of Anglican people), regardless of what titles are used by the two sides, it isn't the "Communion" of worldwide Anglicanism.

Well, it wouldn't be very worldwide (not that it really is at the moment).

That wasn't what was said, so let us stay with the subject.

But that is the subject - whether or not national churches can tell other national churches what to do. Any episcopal model includes authority within diocese, and the Anglican model includes giving synods authority over the national churches. If you don't want an Episcopal model, join a congregational church. The Anglican model has not, until now, included giving anyone any authority outside of their juristiction.

ECUSA has shown little tolerance for diversity among its members,

It wouldn't be unique in that. Probably the First World diocese that is the fiercest defender of Akinola's position and the fieceist critic of ECUSA doesn't have a good track record on that score.

But I wonder if you are in a position to know the details as an American might.

Perhaps not, but it affects me so I have a right to comment. If you need to enlighten me, do so.

 

[Albion]

... in communion with the see of Canturbury.

They will so long as they are in Communion with Canturbury. Whether or not that includes most people who call themselves Anglican.

Very well. There are different theories about what makes one an Anglican. You apparently hold to one of the least persuasive and least defensible of them from history, that being in communion with Canterbury is what defines Anglican. So be it, although I would point out that not even Canterbury nor Lambeth agree with you on that.

Returning to my point...ECUSA used to say that being in the COMMUNION was what made one an Anglican, now it and many of its sympathizers in the current crisis have changed their tune and are saying something else, whether it be your twist on the subject or (more commonly) that if the faith is still held, etc.... I called that ironic at the least.

Well, it wouldn't be very worldwide (not that it really is at the moment).

No matter how you look at it, it would be more widespread than what would be left out (UK, North America, Oceania maybe and few others).

But that is the subject - whether or not national churches can tell other national churches what to do. Any episcopal model includes authority within diocese, and the Anglican model includes giving synods authority over the national churches. If you don't want an Episcopal model, join a congregational church. The Anglican model has not, until now, included giving anyone any authority outside of their juristiction.

The obvious answer to that is, if you don't want to be part of the Anglican Communion and therefore adhere to its rules and policies, the organization is within its rights to leave you out. Don't confuse the Anglican Communion OR being in Canterbury with how a diocese operates, the so-called Anglican model, episcopacy, or the rest that doesn't apply. The Anglican Communion doesn't define or make possible any of that; it's just a voluntary association.

Perhaps not, but it affects me so I have a right to comment. If you need to enlighten me, do so.

ECUSA has been anything but tolerant in the past but now is supposing that the appeal to tolerance and diversity will save it. If you don't know the details of past ECUSA history on this, I understand, but you can trust that this is so. Once again, it's not anything to argue over, but it does exist and show IMO some hypocrisy now that she herself is not in the position to order the Communion around as she formerly did and is instead getting a taste of her own ways.

 

[ebia]

Very well. There are different theories about what makes one an Anglican. You apparently hold to one of the least persuasive and least defensible of them from history, that being in communion with Canterbury is what defines Anglican. So be it, although I would point out that not even Canterbury nor Lambeth agree with you on that.

And what defines being in the communion? (Edited to add) or rather, what is a neccessary (but not sufficient) condition to being in the communion.

From AnglicansOnline:

THE CHURCHES LISTED HERE[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] are not 'in the communion'. That means that they are not part of the Anglican Communion. To be part of it, a church must have a formal relation with the See of Canterbury. [/font]

It is, of course, possible to be in full communion with Canterbury without being Anglican.

No matter how you look at it, it would be more widespread than what would be left out (UK, North America, Oceania maybe and few others).

So what?
(Although I'm not sure there would be that much in it - one part would be dominant in N.America, Europe and Oceania. The other part in Africa and Southern Asia.)

The obvious answer to that is, if you don't want to be part of the Anglican Communion and therefore adhere to its rules and policies, the organization is within its rights to leave you out. Don't confuse the Anglican Communion OR being in Canterbury with how a diocese operates, the so-called Anglican model, episcopacy, or the rest that doesn't apply. The Anglican Communion doesn't define or make possible any of that; it's just a voluntary association.

You are the one trying to compare forcing out a national church with disipline issues within a national church, not me.

ECUSA has been anything but tolerant in the past but now is supposing that the appeal to tolerance and diversity will save it. If you don't know the details of past ECUSA history on this, I understand, but you can trust that this is so.

Can I? Not everyone agrees with you.

Once again, it's not anything to argue over, but it does exist and show IMO some hypocrisy now that she herself is not in the position to order the Communion around as she formerly did and is instead getting a taste of her own ways.

So intolerance should be institutionalised? Regardless of what ECUSA may or may not have done (which you seem determined to be vague about), Anglicanism without tolerance & diversity isn't worth having - it would have lost the one distinctive advantage it has over most other churches.

 

[Albion]

It is, of course, possible to be in full communion with Canterbury without being Anglican.

What's your point there?

And what defines being in the communion?

Holding membership, although doing so and not being allowed to participate (ECUSA's present situation) strikes many as tantamount to not being a member.

So intolerance should be institutionalised? Regardless of what ECUSA may or may not have done (which you seem determined to be vague about), Anglicanism without tolerance & diversity isn't worth having - it would have lost the one distinctive advantage it has over most other churches.

Whatever you say. My point was only that ECUSA now says it isn't necessary to be in the Communion in order to be Anglican (now that it faces expulsion), whereas it used to say to the Continuing Churches that it was when it was riding high.