New Anglican Church

[gitlance]

I think I have heard it all from his holiness Peter Akinola... he has gone too far this time. His power-hungry, domineering schemes have got to stop.


In a new African-based Anglican community they plan to replace the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams as their spiritual leader with the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Jasper Akinola, and exclude homosexuals from full church life.


http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1920442005

God help us.

[SirTimothy]

Hmmm... he's crazy. I wonder if that'll include this diocese, though... I pray not!

Timothy

[Aymn27]

I think I have heard it all from his holiness Peter Akinola... he has gone too far this time. His power-hungry, domineering schemes have got to stop.



http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1920442005

God help us.
Actually, I think he is VERY sane!! It has taken too long already..

I cannot wait until the day!! (and it appears sooner than later) I will definitely be officially a member of the new Anglican (or Alexiandrian) church..I sooo hope that at least one of the local churches leaves ECUSA and affiliates with this new Province - it would be an answer to my prayers!!

BTW..do you think we would then have our own forum??!! LOL...

[TomUK]

The ABC really needs to be more vocal. Now isn't the time for weakness.

[PaladinValer]

No surprises here.

He never should have been ordained a bishop (let alone anything) in the first place.

IS OUTRAGE!

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.


It is a reality within the Anglican Church, that individual provinces are autocephalous, that authority on matters of doctrine resides with Bishops and with the formation of consensus between Bishops which functions in different ways in different provinces, and that Ordination (and Consecration to the Episcopacy) are permanent and intransitory states.

It is a reality that during the formation of consensus, which may take years or decades, different Bishops will disagree with each other while being and remaining Bishops of the Church.

This forum of STR embraces both those who agree with Bishop Akinola, and agree strongly; and those who disagree strongly. In order to uphold the Christian Forums mandate of "uniting all Christians as one Body" it is essential that those who disagree with ++Peter do so with respect to his standing as Bishop, and also that those who agree with ++Peter do so with respect to those Bishops with whom he disagrees.

Disrespect for Consecrated Anglican Bishops will not be tolerated in this forum. If they are in error -- and they may well be, and disagreement with error IS allowed -- they are in error as our Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and as Bishops whose office is to be treated with respect.


Regards,
Pamela Mclean

[Inside Edge]

I think they have every right to set up their own church/communion. It's a bit of a shame, and I hope it's not over the one issue. I also imagine that many will be back in the AC after a short while. There will be a lot of hothead bandwagoneers who, once they are free of the homosexuality debate, will begin to have serious problems with many other practices and opinions with which their new Church identifies. At which point, they'll realise what splitting over one debate cost them. It'll still be a big split, but I doubt 2/3 of current Anglicans.

But if they're sick of talking, listening and debating and want to leave the table, there isn't much we can do.

Besides, the AC will be a healthier place without Akinola involved.

[SirTimothy]

Actually, I just realised, that we almost certianly will be part of this, almost no question. Our bishop is the Primate of the province. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=J2

Timothy

[gitlance]

I suppose there is always a remnant...

It just sickens me that Akinola wants to make himself the new Archbishop of Canterbury, whatever that means.

[AngCath]

I weep over the increased division and recommend prayer and fasting to all.

[TomUK]

"I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through my word, that they all may be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, so that the world may believe you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one." John 17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read this earlier today and found it somewhat powerful, and perhaps in a way relevant to this discussion:

"There is a longing for unity among all human beings, for unity offers the promise of peace. The problem is that we want unity on our terms, and it is our rival programs for unity which tear us apart. As Augustine said, all wars are fought for the sake of peace. The history of the world could be told as the story of successive efforts to bring unity to the world, and of course the name we give to these efforts is 'imperialism.' The Christian gospel has sometimes been made the tool of an imperialism, and of that we have to repent. But at its heart it is the denial of all imperialisms, for at its center there is the cross where all imperialisms are humbled and we are invited to find the center of human unity in the One who was made nothing so that all might be one. The very heart of the biblical vision for the unity of humankind is that its center is not an imperial power but the slain Lamb." Lesslie Newbiggin

We are all trying to bring the peace of Christ to the world, each in our own way. Bishop Anikola should not be resented for serving Christ, equally as the Western Anglican church should not be resented for aiming for inclusivity. As Newbiggin says, let us follow the biblical vision for unity and not our own. Rather than focussing on what it is that unites and divides us, i pray we can instead focus on the slain Lamb.

[Aymn27]

The ABC really needs to be more vocal. Now isn't the time for weakness.
He has been weak through this entire ordeal...the liberal pitty-pat time has ceased..praise God!

I am somewhat dismayed that anyone would be shocked, surprised or taken back by this..I am equally surprised at the "inclusivity" that is being showed here of all POV - isn't that what liberalism espouses as its trademark??(actually I'm not) While you wield your attacks at ++Akinola, I have to ask, what kind of man sets himself up above the unity of a church knowing what will happen because of his lifestyle. Did he/they honestly think that evangelicals and orthodox Catholic believers would roll over and play dead?? What "throne" did he/they set himself/themselves upon to bring the Communion to this place? How arrogant is it of ECUSA/ACoC/CofE to press their first world agenda on third world countries - what kind of peace and justice is that?

Honestly, what has ++Ankolina NOT done to remedy the situation that he views as unacceptable?? How long is he supposed to stick around and "listen" - to talk and never be listened to?? I posted here several months back that this was going to happen and got negative responses and vitriol - well friends, by the end of next month - the AC as we know it will most likely be no more..the alignment has been long coming. While there is plenty of blame to throw around - I have to say that pride does indeed come before the fall - and in my opinion, it isn't ++Akinola's pride.

[Aymn27]

"I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through my word, that they all may be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, so that the world may believe you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one." John 17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read this earlier today and found it somewhat powerful, and perhaps in a way relevant to this discussion:

"There is a longing for unity among all human beings, for unity offers the promise of peace. The problem is that we want unity on our terms, and it is our rival programs for unity which tear us apart. As Augustine said, all wars are fought for the sake of peace. The history of the world could be told as the story of successive efforts to bring unity to the world, and of course the name we give to these efforts is 'imperialism.' The Christian gospel has sometimes been made the tool of an imperialism, and of that we have to repent. But at its heart it is the denial of all imperialisms, for at its center there is the cross where all imperialisms are humbled and we are invited to find the center of human unity in the One who was made nothing so that all might be one. The very heart of the biblical vision for the unity of humankind is that its center is not an imperial power but the slain Lamb." Lesslie Newbiggin

We are all trying to bring the peace of Christ to the world, each in our own way. Bishop Anikola should not be resented for serving Christ, equally as the Western Anglican church should not be resented for aiming for inclusivity. As Newbiggin says, let us follow the biblical vision for unity and not our own. Rather than focussing on what it is that unites and divides us, i pray we can instead focus on the slain Lamb.
Tom, that is a great post..thank you for posting that. And might I add that I don't think anyone thinks that inclusivity is juxtaposed against following Christ - but there are those of us who believe that to be inclusive means to follow what God has laid down before us in his Holy Word. I do think it is a shame that this battle is being fought over homosexuality (with homosexuals being the scape goat of both sides of the argument) and think that this same argument and fervor should have occured when allowing females to the priesthood or even more so when allowing divorced/remarried persons to be ordained. However, I think this issue is the proverbial "straw" that broke the camels back.

May we ALL submit our will and mind to Christ.

[Philip]

He never should have been ordained a bishop (let alone anything) in the first place.


Which he?

[Aymn27]

Which he?
I'm quite sure Paladinvaler is referring to Akonila...

[Fish and Bread]

I'd encourage anyone who supports Bishop Akinola to check out his province's website. On that website the other day were prominent articles calling for a "war against nakedness", which when you read the article you actually discover amounts to clothing that shows a little skin, and another article that calls for a complete ban on home videos of any sort since they, in the view of the article on the site, lead to evil! The Bishop is clearly a fundamentalist and fundamentalism is fundamentally unanglican. I can try to respect Bishop Akinola as a fellow Christian, but one thing he is not is a traditional Anglican. He's attempting to steal our Anglican heritage from us and recast it in his own image. Anglicans don't do fundamentalism, and Anglicans most certainly don't do Popes, which seems to be what he wants to make himself.

I feel bad for anyone stuck in a province, diocese, or parish which is going to associate themselves with this gentleman's new denomination. I belong to a Network parish (For the next few days anyhow... I'm moving to a new part of the country on Saturday and will thus be transferring my membership, parish to be determined) and get along fine with the conservative folks there, but what constitutes a conservative in the US is not what constitutes a conservative in the eyes of Bishop Akinola. I think conservatives in the US are going to very unpleasantly surprised if they affiliate with this man, because they're going to find they've joined something far more reactionary than they bargained for.

John

[Aymn27]

I'd encourage anyone who supports Bishop Akinola to check out his province's website. On that website the other day were prominent articles calling for a "war against nakedness", which when you read the article you actually discover amounts to clothing that shows a little skin, and another article that calls for a complete ban on home videos of any sort since they, in the view of the article on the site, lead to evil! The Bishop is clearly a fundamentalist and fundamentalism is fundamentally unanglican. I can try to respect Bishop Akinola as a fellow Christian, but one thing he is not is a traditional Anglican. He's attempting to steal our Anglican heritage from us and recast it in his own image. Anglicans don't do fundamentalism, and Anglicans most certainly don't do Popes, which seems to be what he wants to make himself.

I feel bad for anyone stuck in a province, diocese, or parish which is going to associate themselves with this gentleman's new denomination. I belong to a Network parish (For the next few days anyhow... I'm moving to a new part of the country on Saturday and will thus be transferring my membership, parish to be determined) and get along fine with the conservative folks there, but what constitutes a conservative in the US is not what constitutes a conservative in the eyes of Bishop Akinola. I think conservatives in the US are going to very unpleasantly surprised if they affiliate with this man, because they're going to find they've joined something far more reactionary than they bargained for.

John
I truly hope you are mistaken on your understanding of this and not trying to perpetuate untruths....the page is translated into english and has misplaced modifiers..the article reads



August 25, 2005- President of the Diocese of Egbu Mothers' Union, Women's Guild and Girls' Guild, Mrs. Ada Iheagwam has called for the ban on all home video, which have no good morals to teach.

Secondly, there is nothing in the other article to make me believe they are encouraging some type of puritanical dress...simply promoting modesty (which is greatly needed here as well)!!

The articles are on this (http://www.anglican-nig.org/home.htm) page.

Aaron

[Fish and Bread]

I truly hope you are mistaken on your understanding of this and not trying to perpetuate untruths....the page is translated into english and has misplaced modifiers..

My understanding of the article was that they wanted to ban home video. However, upon reviewing the article again in light of your comments, I could see where it could possibly be the result of a translation issue, and that their actual intent was to only ban certain films. Even if that is the case, though, they're still talking about banning videos. Maybe they can hold a book burning after they get through with destroying their video tapes. It's like something out of the dark ages.

Secondly, there is nothing in the other article to make me believe they are encouraging some type of puritanical dress...simply promoting modesty (which is greatly needed here as well)!!

From the article:
"The primate's wife described indecent dressing as involving clothes [...] and the plaiting of hair and wearing of earrings by men,'' saying these were all unbiblical. "

So God hates dreadlocks and earrings? Clearly we need to crack down on this kind of hedonism! I mean, what's next? Tank-top t-shirts? Women wearing pants? The horor! The horror! I'm a fairly conservative dressing guy who goes around most days wearing dress pants and a polo shirt and has never worn an earring in my life and even *I* find that article offensive. I think God has better things to do than worry about the way people dress and the Church ought to have better things to do than enforce some sort of a dress code for the faithful.

John

[Aymn27]

My understanding of the article was that they wanted to ban home video. However, upon reviewing the article again in light of your comments, I could see where it could possibly be the result of a translation issue, and that their actual intent was to only ban certain films. Even if that is the case, though, they're still talking about banning videos. Maybe they can hold a book burning after they get through with destroying their video tapes. It's like something out of the dark ages.

[color=black]

From the article:
"[font=Verdana]The primate's wife described indecent dressing as involving clothes [...] and the plaiting of hair and wearing of earrings by men,'' saying these were all unbiblical. "

So God hates dreadlocks and earrings? Clearly we need to crack down on this kind of hedonism! I mean, what's next? Tank-top t-shirts? Women wearing pants? The horor! The horror! I'm a fairly conservative dressing guy who goes around most days wearing dress pants and a polo shirt and has never worn an earring in my life and even *I* find that article offensive. I think God has better things to do than worry about the way people dress and the Church ought to have better things to do than enforce some sort of a dress code for the faithful.

John
Now now John!!! Are we taking culture into consideration here!! The AMiA seems to be doing well - haven't seen any book burnings or women wearing headress/veils to Holy Eucharist.

[gitlance]

Regardless, Akinola has set himself above every other bishop in the Anglican world. The very fact that he wants to make himself some sort of Primate that carries (in his mind) as much weight (if not more) as the Archbishop of Canterbury, affirms that he is not in this for the sake of "Christian orthodoxy."

And concerning Bishop Robinson: He was elected fair and square by the House of Bishops with a two-thirds majority vote. They acted based on what they believed the Holy Spirit to be leading them into, and we should try to understand that. Akinola himself supposedly agreed to uphold the "mutual discussion in the hopes of understanding" that was laid out at Lambeth, the ACC, the Primates Meeting, etc etc. Now he is going against his word...

[AveMaria]

Christ have mercy. . .

[Lel]

I shall respect the office of Bp. Akinola, but I have to say that I am still glad that I am not under his jurisdiction. (Is that un-Anglican?)

[benedictine]

Wether or not +Robinsopn was bvalidly elected a Bishop (which he was, according to the Canons of the Episcopal Church), we should not have Consecrated him as such, without taking the rest of the Holy Catholic Church, or the rest of the Anglican Communion at the very least, into account. We have no right to depart from anything, unless a consensus is made by Lambeth, including ECUSA and ++Akinola's folks.

[benedictine]

Christ have mercy. . .

Amen.

[benedictine]

I also urge everyone to look at this from ++Akinola's POV. In his opinion, the US, Canada, and CoE have all departed from the faith. He probably doesn't even see our sacraments as valid.

[gitlance]

I also urge everyone to look at this from ++Akinola's POV. In his opinion, the US, Canada, and CoE have all departed from the faith. He probably doesn't even see our sacraments as valid.

It isn't up to his opinion. If he's so concerned, how about he request an emergency meeting of all the Primates and get something worked out, instead of deciding that he's going to make his own church. By creating a new church that is unfounded historically and traditionally, he will just be another schismatic.

[trooper]

Bravo. Standing by.

[AveMaria]

Okay... I know there's a wide range of opinion on this, and we have to be very careful when discussing this situation. . . and I know there's a lot of potential for hurt feelings and anger, and I don't want to see anyone feel as though they don't belong in STR or anything.

But. . . can we step away from how we keep about ++Akinola, ++Williams and +Robinson and +Griswold and look at the bigger picture, about the implications for the Anglican Communion?

I haven't been following this recent development very closely and I'm not an expert on church law. . . and a lot of this is bewildering to me, quite frankly, and I'm sure I'm not the only one sitting here, shaking my head, unsure what to think.

Are there any legal implications? Moral/ethical? How will this change things?

[Lel]

I also urge everyone to look at this from ++Akinola's POV. In his opinion, the US, Canada, and CoE have all departed from the faith. He probably doesn't even see our sacraments as valid.

Is he willing to look at it from our POV? By getting into schism, he's saying that these little issues (or at least that's how some of us see them) are more important than the unity of the Christian body.

We're all united sacramentally, but creating division doesn't do much for the body of Christ.

[thejesusfish90]

Is he willing to look at it from our POV? By getting into schism, he's saying that these little issues (or at least that's how some of us see them) are more important than the unity of the Christian body.

We're all united sacramentally, but creating division doesn't do much for the body of Christ.

The problem lel is that this is a very big issue and without initiating a debate on homosexuality, I can't really get into the nitty gritty of it... suffice it to say, that divergance from the anglican commuinion on Akinola's behalf IMO is certainly justified, given his beliefs (and probably my own as well), surrounding this issue....

While unity is the utmost pursuit of the churches status, division here could eventually produce a favourable outcome... While denominationalism certainly isn't a desireable characteristic of the church, sometimes it is nessesary that certain factions remain seperate of one and other... if either side in this situation (as had been the case) refuse to compromise, then there is scarsely any other option... Both ECUSA and ACoC have been provided with ample time to make their POV clear and it is unlikely that their current view will change... I will add that while I feel some of Akinola's past actions were a little excessive (eg throwing a party upon the suspension of ECUSA's membership at the anglican convention!), I do personally support his action... I dont think he has ever stated that he will establish himself as the leader of this new anglican church with power and status equivalent to that of the ABC, and what I feel has been represented as the pursuits of a power hungry, war monger, is rather the firm maintainance of the IMHO perfectly valid POV possessed by ++Akinola...

One thing which I find quite frustrating with the reporting conducted by the Scotsman, and probably every other secular newspaper is that they seem to equate the prohibition of active homosexual ordination and marital blessing with exclusion of homosexual people period. Homosexual people (active or not) are forever welcome in any church, the same as anyone else is welcome in a church and those who are homosexual yet not active are perfectly acceptable candidates for ordination in the eyes of conservatives...

YBIC

Chris

[holyshe]

i think akinola is just doing what he sees (like many others do)as right.
he sees that too many 'liberals' (forgive the term) have come and changed his faith like i do and is just following what the bible teaches......

romans 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
god bless him xx

[SirTimothy]

Well... does anyone have any other sources for this, actually? I was just wondering why this diocese--as the diocese of the Archbishop of a region the includes Egypt--hasn't heard anything about the alexandria conference. There *was* a conference last year, but this year, we've heard nothing.

Timothy

[Aymn27]

Well... does anyone have any other sources for this, actually? I was just wondering why this diocese--as the diocese of the Archbishop of a region the includes Egypt--hasn't heard anything about the alexandria conference. There *was* a conference last year, but this year, we've heard nothing.

Timothy
timothy,
This was discussed when the ACC met, I started a thread about it back then (which may or may not have been deleted, I can't remember) - but it is not the first I heard about it - and the CAPA meeting is next month, ++Akinola promised that the "talking" and "listening" was over and that they (CAPA) would do something about the situation if no one else would. He discussed this with David Virtue I believe and it infuriated even the ACN here (Virtue's article)...this may, in fact, be some political grand standing - but I don't think so...

[ahab]

Hi gitlance,



Regardless, Akinola has set himself above every other bishop in the Anglican world. The very fact that he wants to make himself some sort of Primate that carries (in his mind) as much weight (if not more) as the Archbishop of Canterbury, affirms that he is not in this for the sake of "Christian orthodoxy."

And concerning Bishop Robinson: He was elected fair and square by the House of Bishops with a two-thirds majority vote. They acted based on what they believed the Holy Spirit to be leading them into, and we should try to understand that. Akinola himself supposedly agreed to uphold the "mutual discussion in the hopes of understanding" that was laid out at Lambeth, the ACC, the Primates Meeting, etc etc. Now he is going against his word... This again is simply not true.

Akinola has no more set himself above every other than Griswold has by sanctioning Robinson against the wishes of the majority and Lambeth and Lambeth 1.10.

Also you are assuming he wants to be something. Akinola was as ‘fairly’ elected according to the rules as was Robinson.

However I would say that as the Holy Spirit reminds of the teachings of Jesus, John 14 and as I see no teachings of Jesus that countenance same-sex sex and some that condemn it 1 Cor, 1 Tim, Rom 1, (let alone teachings on marriage) Therefore based on what Jesus taught I would say Akinola is the one who is guided by the Holy Spirit on this matter and and Griswold and Robinson have heard from another spirit.

Also I believe that as we will all one day find out for sure and stand before Christ to give an account of our lives, those who are in responsibility are to be even more deserving of our prayers.

Peace

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

i think akinola is just doing what he sees (like many others do)as right.
he sees that too many 'liberals' (forgive the term) have come and changed his faith like i do and is just following what the bible teaches......



Thank you so much. It's nice to know you think there are too many people like me in the church. Would you prefer it if I just washed the car on Sunday morning?

[SirTimothy]

this may, in fact, be some political grand standing

I would expect and hope so, to be honest.

Timothy

[ahab]

Hi Karl liberal backslider,

Thank you so much. It's nice to know you think there are too many people like me in the church. Would you prefer it if I just washed the car on Sunday morning? May I suggest that as Holyshe has posted the scripture that she, I and quite obvioulsy Akinola believes indicate what we should consider doing, it may be best if you look to the scriptures for your answers about what you should do on a Sunday morning. We believe that the scripture is the word of God. HolyShe simpy quoted it.

Peace

[benedictine]

It isn't up to his opinion. If he's so concerned, how about he request an emergency meeting of all the Primates and get something worked out, instead of deciding that he's going to make his own church. By creating a new church that is unfounded historically and traditionally, he will just be another schismatic.


Given the fact that they had a meeting of the Primates before consecrating +Robinson, and then one again later, and the obvious out come still exists, I don't think he believes that such an action would work.

Also, in his POV, we're the schismatics.

And, Alexandria is one of the ancient episcopal sees.

[benedictine]

Is he willing to look at it from our POV? By getting into schism, he's saying that these little issues (or at least that's how some of us see them) are more important than the unity of the Christian body.

We're all united sacramentally, but creating division doesn't do much for the body of Christ.


Truth or Unity? ? Unity or Truth?


(rhetorichal questions meant to spur people into realizing what ++Akinola thinks)

[holyshe]

Thank you so much. It's nice to know you think there are too many people like me in the church. Would you prefer it if I just washed the car on Sunday morning?

please dont take offence to my comment i just used the word liberal as my opinion to what they stand for. which is why i put my comment in brackets.

in my opinion i have been picked on before for using labels in other threads, so i was just trying to be clear...
for some unknown reason to me, 'liberals' get offended when i use the term liberal??? and if you are not liberal as in the way i define liberal then you would not be upset surely?

the who thing confuses me to the max which is why i put the comment in brackets in the first place....

i didnt ever state, that i think there are too many people like you, in church, you have taken something out of context.and i feel deeply annoyed, that you would put such an outrageous/slanderous statement. and as for your sarcastic comment about washing your car i would respectfully state you are allow to in my opinion do what ever you wish on a sunday and if washing you car is soooo important to you then go ahead be my guest.

all i gave is my opinion and i am sorry if you dont like my opinion but as far as i am concerned and the rules are concerned my opinion is allow to be posted on this site and you can chose to agree or disagree that is upto you.

[holyshe]

Hi Karl liberal backslider,

May I suggest that as Holyshe has posted the scripture that she, I and quite obvioulsy Akinola believes indicate what we should consider doing, it may be best if you look to the scriptures for your answers about what you should do on a Sunday morning. We believe that the scripture is the word of God. HolyShe simpy quoted it.

Peace
god bless you honey xxx

[benedictine]

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/tiara-sm1.jpg

OFFICIAL MODERATOR POST

I would like to thank you all for the restraint and civility that you have thus far shown. Please continue to do so and to pray for the Church as a whole.


Remember the following:

+Griswold, +Robinson, ++Williams, ++Akinola all hold a piece of the Episcopate and episcopal power. Thus, respect for their office, as a successor to the apostles, is necessary. You may disagree with them all you want, but they are ALL ordained and consecrated bishops.

[karen freeinchristman]

I find this all really sad. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

please dont take offence to my comment i just used the word liberal as my opinion to what they stand for. which is why i put my comment in brackets.

in my opinion i have been picked on before for using labels in other threads, so i was just trying to be clear...
for some unknown reason to me, 'liberals' get offended when i use the term liberal??? and if you are not liberal as in the way i define liberal then you would not be upset surely?

the who thing confuses me to the max which is why i put the comment in brackets in the first place....

i didnt ever state, that i think there are too many people like you, in church, you have taken something out of context.and i feel deeply annoyed, that you would put such an outrageous/slanderous statement. and as for your sarcastic comment about washing your car i would respectfully state you are allow to in my opinion do what ever you wish on a sunday and if washing you car is soooo important to you then go ahead be my guest.

all i gave is my opinion and i am sorry if you dont like my opinion but as far as i am concerned and the rules are concerned my opinion is allow to be posted on this site and you can chose to agree or disagree that is upto you.

It's clear enough. You said that Akinola thinks (and you agree) that there are "too many liberals"

Since this Akinola business is all about homosexuality, and I am one of those evil liberals who wants to see a more gay-friendly church, clearly I'm one of those liberals there are "too many of" in the church. In other words, I do think I'm one of those "liberals" as you define "liberal".

Hence my question. Given that I've not seen any reason to change my opinion, should I stay in the church or leave it? If there are too many of us, surely you want me to leave, if I'm not going to change?

Just seeking for clarification. It's all very well to say you're just posting your opinion, but when that opinion essentially says "we don't want your type in the church" then you have to be prepared to hear those who are of the unwanted type complain about it. Getting huffy doesn't really answer the question - as one of those "too many liberals", what do you want me to do? You make it very clear that we're not welcome.

[Bonifatius]

Dear all,

I am shocked about what I read. I certainly would feel very sad about the schism, but on the other hand I must admit I would not be unhappy to see them go. I am convinced that the action of ECUSA was wrong (not in itself, but as an act against the Anglican Communion). But what ++Akinola and his fellow bishops have done since was in my eyes far worse and did much more harm to our communion than one single consecration of a gay bishop - may it be wrong or right.

What worries me is that in case there will be an Anglican Church of Canterbury and an Anglican Church of Alexandria all local churches or dioceses or what will have to make a decision to which they want to belong. And this schism will cause other schisms - if there is to be a breach over the gay issue, we will have another one over the women issue, I expect. So we will have pro gay and pro women churches, contra gay pro women churches, contra women and contra gay churches ... or what? We could also have a split between churches who affirm women priests but not women bishops and those who do like both? This is a nightmare...

Love
Boni

[SirTimothy]

But what ++Akinola and his fellow bishops have done since was in my eyes far worse and did much more harm to our communion than one single consecration of a gay bishop - may it be wrong or right.

I agree strongly.

Timothy

[ahab]

Hi Karl Liberal Backslider,
Since this Akinola business is all about homosexuality, No it isnt all about that.
and I am one of those evil liberals..... This thread is not about you but about "New Anglican Church"
Hence my question. Given that I've not seen any reason to change my opinion, should I stay in the church or leave it? If there are too many of us, surely you want me to leave, if I'm not going to change? I suugest the teaching of Jesus in NT scripture suggests two things, that as God has placed or allowed people placed in authority, we should be looking to support those leaders who we believe are correct in preference to criticising those who we think are incorrect. Many of us also believe that the scripture 1 Cor 5, Heb 12 has to be taken into account as well as those scriptures which teach us not to quarrel over details and those which teach us to avoid false teaching.
Just seeking for clarification. It's all very well to say you're just posting your opinion, but when that opinion essentially says "we don't want your type in the church" then you have to be prepared to hear those who are of the unwanted type complain about it. Getting huffy doesn't really answer the question - as one of those "too many liberals", what do you want me to do? You make it very clear that we're not welcome. But in fairness you also need to realise that if you "dont like our type of church" and find us unwelcome to your thinking, then you have to be prepared to be asked to find one or form one you do like.
Peace

[holyshe]

i think akinola is just doing what he sees (like many others do)as right.
he sees that too many 'liberals' (forgive the term) have come and changed his faith like i do and is just following what the bible teaches......

romans 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
god bless him xx

It's clear enough. You said that Akinola thinks (and you agree) that there are "too many liberals"

Since this Akinola business is all about homosexuality, and I am one of those evil liberals who wants to see a more gay-friendly church, clearly I'm one of those liberals there are "too many of" in the church. In other words, I do think I'm one of those "liberals" as you define "liberal".

Hence my question. Given that I've not seen any reason to change my opinion, should I stay in the church or leave it? If there are too many of us, surely you want me to leave, if I'm not going to change?

Just seeking for clarification. It's all very well to say you're just posting your opinion, but when that opinion essentially says "we don't want your type in the church" then you have to be prepared to hear those who are of the unwanted type complain about it. Getting huffy doesn't really answer the question - as one of those "too many liberals", what do you want me to do? You make it very clear that we're not welcome.

sorry if my wording was not clear enough but as you can see up above i have not said anywhere there is too many liberals in the church!"
i said too many liberals have come and changed the faith and he is just following what the bible teaches!

so please can you make sure when you are quoting me, you do it correctly or if you are objecting to something i said please make sure you know exactly what i said!
and in no uncertain terms have i implied liberals are not welcome! please can you retract these comments.

and as for the comment that you assume me of not wanting your types in the church!
please think about !
all the so called liberals have basically told all the traditonalist to go to rome, ! and after they changed everything in the first place.
i have heard comments to put up or get out said by the so called liberals in the church! and it gets on my nerves!

[Aymn27]

It's clear enough. You said that Akinola thinks (and you agree) that there are "too many liberals"

Since this Akinola business is all about homosexuality, and I am one of those evil liberals who wants to see a more gay-friendly church, clearly I'm one of those liberals there are "too many of" in the church. In other words, I do think I'm one of those "liberals" as you define "liberal".

Hence my question. Given that I've not seen any reason to change my opinion, should I stay in the church or leave it? If there are too many of us, surely you want me to leave, if I'm not going to change?

Just seeking for clarification. It's all very well to say you're just posting your opinion, but when that opinion essentially says "we don't want your type in the church" then you have to be prepared to hear those who are of the unwanted type complain about it. Getting huffy doesn't really answer the question - as one of those "too many liberals", what do you want me to do? You make it very clear that we're not welcome.

I would have to honestly say that it is not "we don't want your type in the church" that is driving this. I believe what holyshe means by "too many liberals in the church" is that the current situation (starting back in the 60s/70s) and direction of the church is being guided by a "spirit of the Age" which is a "liberal" ideology that is inclusive and accepting of almost anything - in my opinion it is b/c the "feel good" generation is in charge now. Honestly, I like liberals, they call us more "fundamentalists" types to look deeper at the gospel in terms of action and love. The problem is that the movement of inclusivity has caused a train wreck at the intersection of Scripture and Tradition. Some things just cannot be contextualized to the point where they fit with Scripture or Tradition. Some things are, in fact, black and white.

If I were to join a church, while commiting adultery against my wife, I would not be surprised, bewildered or upset when the church rejected my lifestyle. Afterall, it is plainly laid out in Scripture as well as the Tradition of the church. Furthermore, if I were a priest/bishop in this situation - would the church then say, "well, we understand what you want and what you need, so continue to do what you are doing - Scripture does not understand what the needs of a 21st century male are.."? I would hope not!

We are called to submit our wills and lives to Christ - the guidance is laid out for us in Holy Scripture. It is ++Akonila's duty to uphold Scripture - even above unity for the sake of unity - which is not really unity at all.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

HolyShe - forums are only a written medium and people can only respond to what they think people are saying. If I've got it wrong, then surely you can explain without all the exclamation marks.

Rather than pick apart our exact wording, let's start again.

Suppose I was in your church, and expressed the opinion that I thought the church should be accepting of gays and lesbians - even practicing ones in long term relationships. Would I still be welcome? Would I be allowed to express that view?

If so, then I don't see why you're supporting Akinola who is essentially distancing himself from those who take that line. If not, then am I not unwelcome?

[holyshe]

lol
i guess everyone is answering at the same time lmao

now as for you comment regard what i would do if you came to my church stating you think gays (same sexed lovers) are ok and acceptable

i would stay that you are welcome here and welcome to express you views and welcome to show us were in the good lords holy scripture that this is acceptable by lord god almighty.

but i would also say you must respect our faith the way it is and not expect our faith to change to suit you or someone you love lifestyle! i am not saying tuff i am saying show us it is wrong not by vote or opinion but by scripture!

i dont think it is about changing the religion to include everyone and make them feel better about there lifestyles! i believe it is about making god happy and doing what he wants! i know many will argue about god wanting unity. but surely he wants unity under his rules which is why he gave us them in the first place !

who am i to change them? if you can show me i have them wrong then fair enough!

but i dont see anywhere is scripture where women priests are allowed infact Anyone who is advocating a position with which I disagree, should be able to support that position with evidence from scripture. This applies to all the issues on which we disagree

[gitlance]

It may not be entirely on homosexuality, but when Akinola states that "homosexuals will not be allowed full participation" in the "new Anglican church," he is very blatantly excluding a group of people. That is unChristian, heretical, and hypocritical. Since when do we have the right to say who can be in the church and who can't? OK fine, you don't have to agree with or even like homosexuals, but you have NO RIGHT to tell them they can't be full members of your church. That is discrimination, and an awful sin against God and his people.

[holyshe]

It may not be entirely on homosexuality, but when Akinola states that "homosexuals will not be allowed full participation" in the "new Anglican church," he is very blatantly excluding a group of people. That is unChristian, heretical, and hypocritical. Since when do we have the right to say who can be in the church and who can't? OK fine, you don't have to agree with or even like homosexuals, but you have NO RIGHT to tell them they can't be full members of your church. That is discrimination, and an awful sin against God and his people.
please note there is no such thing as discrimination within religious groups it is the one thing exclude by law.

an yes i agree i have no right to say who can and cant be in our church and pray.
but i do have a right to say that i think homosexual acts are against god as i believe that is what scripture states

[gitlance]

please note there is no such thing as discrimination within religious groups it is the one thing exclude by law.

an yes i agree i have no right to say who can and cant be in our church and pray.
but i do have a right to say that i think homosexual acts are against god as i believe that is what scripture states

And I believe gluttony and lying is against God, but I don't condemn the gluttoners and liars by telling them they can't have full membership and all rights in the Church. All Akinola wants is a scapegoat so he can do what pleases him.

[Aymn27]

It may not be entirely on homosexuality, but when Akinola states that "homosexuals will not be allowed full participation" in the "new Anglican church," he is very blatantly excluding a group of people. I don't think that was a direct quote from ++Akinola

That is unChristian no, it isn't - the church has always drawn lines as to "who's in" and "who's out" heretical Not at all, is actually a bishops "job" hypocritical. no not really, he's following Scripture Since when do we have the right to say who can be in the church and who can't? Since Christ gave his apostles the keys to bind and loose OK fine, you don't have to agree with or even like homosexuals, but you have NO RIGHT to tell them they can't be full members of your church. That is discrimination, and an awful sin against God and his people Actually, yes he has every right by the power entrusted to him by his office acting in accordance with Scripture and discrimination is not a sin at all - never has been - if used in accordance with the will of God - perhaps a sin to liberal ideology, but not a sin against God.

[Wigglesworth]

I was intrigued by this reference to the thirty-nine articles.


And a vicar from London has been asked by Archbishop Malango to clarify his views before being consecrated as Bishop of Lake Malawi. The Rev Nick Henderson has two parishes in west London and Malango asked him to confirm that he subscribes to the Creed, the Bible and the Thirty-Nine Articles and "fashions his own life and his household according to the doctrine of Christ".


There are doctrinal stands being taken as well as stands on moral/social issues.

[Finella]

I'm not for censorship in any way, but I find it amusing what passes for "Christian-friendly" dialogue around here.

To keep my post relevant to the OP: Akinola may be a bishop. but his actions only further my belief that any church is a very flawed human organization trying to understand God. The more such actions take place, the more fractured our belief systems become, and then people wonder why we live in such confusion -- it's a vicious circle, because then the confusion makes people think they need to revert to "fundamentals" to get back to the "truth." I don't think there's such a thing as "getting back" -- we need to look to where everyone is, and try to work together to become more unified.

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

I am allowing this post to remain open due to the importance of the issue being discussed, and because of the politely-worded respectful posts that intersperse those that come to the brink of -- and push a toe across the line of -- rule violations. Please understand that the latter behaviour -- brinkmanship and rule violations -- must end now.

There will be no discussion of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, (or polygamy, or any other 4.2 topic) whether you put the words "in my opinion" or "I would like to see" in front of the discussion or not. None.

Bishops will be referred to as "Bishop X" or "+X" (or "++X" in the case of National Bishops and Primates) whether you agree with them or not.


Regards,
Pamela Mclean

[ahab]

Sorry to have to raise this again but its crucial. In the light of the continued use of 'will you accept me' questions and 'you have no right to tell me what to do' statements...

Many of us believe the church belongs to Christ Jesus. So it isn’t just the case of what the church accepts so much as what the church believes and teaches is God’s will and purpose.
We believe Jesus accepts us as we are or He wouldn’t have died for us all whilst we were still sinners. John 3, Rom 5.
The question is do we accept Jesus, His teaching and what He wants us to be? John 14 & 15

Jesus is Lord :clap:

[Bonifatius]

Sorry to have to raise this again but its crucial. In the light of the continued use of 'will you accept me' questions and 'you have no right to tell me what to do' statements...

Many of us believe the church belongs to Christ Jesus. So it isn’t just the case of what the church accepts so much as what the church believes and teaches is God’s will and purpose.
We believe Jesus accepts us as we are or He wouldn’t have died for us all whilst we were still sinners. John 3, Rom 5.
The question is do we accept Jesus, His teaching and what He wants us to be? John 14 & 15

Jesus is Lord :clap:


Sounds a bit like N T Wright, eh? :D

I agree with you on that. And as long as my brothers and sisters can share this affirmation: Jesus is Lord - they will be welcome. So why can't ++Akinola have it that way? Why creating new obstacles to unity? Why causing division over a question that is far less important than our common witness to the fact that Jesus is Lord?

[ahab]

Hi Bonifatius,

Sounds a bit like N T Wright, eh? :D I thought it sounded like Jesus. It was to the scriptures I referred. :scratch: I agree with you on that. And as long as my brothers and sisters can share this affirmation: Jesus is Lord - they will be welcome. I think Jesus says that those who seek Him and look to try and obey His teachings and commands remain in Him. John 14 & 15, not necessarily those who simply call Him Lord Lord Matt 25.
So why can't ++Akinola have it that way? Why creating new obstacles to unity? The obstacle to unity is the breach of Lambeth 1.10, it takes two to break unity. Why causing division over a question that is far less important than our common witness to the fact that Jesus is Lord? Becuase many will point out that this issue is a major departure from living like Jesus is Lord and therefore witnessing Jesus as Lord.

Peace

[higgs2]

all the so called liberals[/B]
all the traditonalist
and after they changed everything
[I]Bolding added to show exaggeration.

It's hard to have a dialogue with you when you use such hyperbole.

[Fish and Bread]

Now now John!!! Are we taking culture into consideration here!! The AMiA seems to be doing well - haven't seen any book burnings or women wearing headress/veils to Holy Eucharist.

My feeling is that the conservative Anglicans in this country are not of the same theological variety as Bishop Akinola and many of those in the third world provinces. Right now, those international leaders are treading lightly in excerising authority over the AMiA, but that will probably change once decisions are made and there is a formal split with ECUSA and the rest of the Anglican Commuinion, with a new authority structure. At that time, I think the Network and the AMiA are going to find themselves realizing they have even less in common theologically with Bishop Akinola than they have with Bishop Griswold and the leadership of ECUSA.

As far as cultural differences go, I can certainly understand why there might be reason to have slightly different rules in different parts of the world. When Christ gave his disciples the power to bind and loose, a directive that in the Anglican tradition we feel applies in a special way to Apostles and Bishops, it was probably for exactly that reason -- the Word of God must be applied with care and attention paid to what people in a given time, place, or culture can handle. What I would question is why the Anglicans in Nigeria and Uganda feel we ought to overlook things like video burning, sexism, polygamy, and so forth in the name of culture differences, but that they shouldn't give we, their counterparts in the West, the same benefit of a doubt that we're doing the best we can to walk with God. It saddens me that we can't all get along a little bit better.

John

[Fish and Bread]

he sees that too many 'liberals' (forgive the term) have come and changed his faith like i do and is just following what the bible teaches

When Jesus walked the earth, I'd imagine that folks were saying much the same thing about him as they now are saying about the "liberals" in ECUSA. They claimed he changed the faith and was not following what the bible taught about things like the Sabbath and so forth. Yet, what he taught was the true faith of God, rightly dividing the faith that has been misinterpreted before. In the post-Ascension era, the Holy Spirit has taken over that particular ministry of Jesus. That doesn't mean that every perceived changed is really an action of the Holy Spirit, but it does mean that some changes are good, ordained by God, and that we should watch for them. We are not meant to stay static, but to grow in love and understanding as a community, expanding the kingdom until Jesus comes again. If we're keeping everything exactly the same, we are not following our calling. As comfortable as it might be for things not to change, that's not God's plan.

romans 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

You quote that implying that it applies to Bishop Griswold and Bishop Robinson, but in reality, I think it could easily apply to Bishop Akinola. He is undeniably sowing divisions and it is beginning to appear as if he may be serving his own appetite for power. I certainly hope his motives are more pure than that, but I have my doubts. Setting oneself up as a Patriarch or a Pope of a new denominations could be seen as a power grab, though I would not venture to say what is truly in his heart.

John

[john23237]

There is an old adage "give them enough rope and they will hang themselves". As yet one more chapter in this sad, sorry, pathetic little Anglican drama takes place, it might be wise to reflect upon the lessons of the past. At the end of the English Civil War , the English people and a goodly percentage of the Church of England embraced Cromwell and son. After eleven years of their rule, the people of England and their Church were begging for Charles II to accept the crown. Those who seem so joyous over the notion of the Archbishop of Nigeria establishing a new communion might wish to give this additional thought. Be very careful of what one asks for, you might just receive it.

[Fish and Bread]

There is an old adage "give them enough rope and they will hang themselves". As yet one more chapter in this sad, sorry, pathetic little Anglican drama takes place, it might be wise to reflect upon the lessons of the past. At the end of the English Civil War , the English people and a goodly percentage of the Church of England embraced Cromwell and son. After eleven years of their rule, the people of England and their Church were begging for Charles II to accept the crown. Those who seem so joyous over the notion of the Archbishop of Nigeria establishing a new communion might wish to give this additional thought. Be very careful of what one asks for, you might just receive it.

That's a good point. What I see ultimately happening long term is a fall-out between the southern provinces and much of the North American province of this new Alexandrian denomination, perhaps ten years down the road. What conservative Episcopalians chance being left with, if they go down that path, is a small number of non-denominational independent parishes with loose ties to surrounding parishes. It is my hope that they'll reconsider and stay a part of ECUSA. Ultimately, we're stronger together than apart, and I greatly value all of the voices we presently have in ECUSA. That Bishop Akinola has chosen to do this may in some respects be a blessing, because it may give some members of the Network in the US and Canada pause and allow them to reconsider what seems to be a tentative decision to leave ECUSA.

I feel sad at the prospect of being seperated from some of our brethren in the global south as well. If they do walk away, I hope that the province of Southern African, which will likely stay aligned with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England, ECUSA, the Anglican Church of Canada, etc., will plant some missionary parishes in Nigeria, Uganda, and so forth to offer those who want to stay a part of the Anglican Communion a chance to do so. We should have a continued presence in those areas.

John

[benedictine]

That's a good point. What I see ultimately happening long term is a fall-out between the southern provinces and much of the North American province of this new Alexandrian denomination, perhaps ten years down the road. What conservative Episcopalians chance being left with, if they go down that path, is a small number of non-denominational independent parishes with loose ties to surrounding parishes. It is my hope that they'll reconsider and stay a part of ECUSA. Ultimately, we're stronger together than apart, and I greatly value all of the voices we presently have in ECUSA. That Bishop Akinola has chosen to do this may in some respects be a blessing, because it may give some members of the Network in the US and Canada pause and allow them to reconsider what seems to be a tentative decision to leave ECUSA.

I feel sad at the prospect of being seperated from some of our brethren in the global south as well. If they do walk away, I hope that the province of Southern African, which will likely stay aligned with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England, ECUSA, the Anglican Church of Canada, etc., will plant some missionary parishes in Nigeria, Uganda, and so forth to offer those who want to stay a part of the Anglican Communion a chance to do so. We should have a continued presence in those areas.

John

How is this any different than AMiA?

[Aymn27]

That would be a liberal presence so it would be okay!!

[Finella]

How is this any different than AMiA?I was wondering the same thing. It seems that the head of a Province taking his province out of the AC would be quite different that the situation going on between the ECUSA, AMiA and the AC. But I suppose some would argue that the consecration of +Robinson did that very thing -- certainly not in formal terms, though, as ++Akinola has done. :scratch:

[Fish and Bread]

How is this any different than AMiA?

Right now, the Anglican provinces in Nigeria, Uganda, etc. are still a part of the same Anglican Communion as the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. As such, we're all mutually bound to respect each other's diocesean boundries and so forth. If some provinces decide to quit, then they would become a different denomination and we would be obligated to provide for the faithful remnant of Anglican Communion remembers in the areas where there are no longer any constituant members of the Anglican Communion either through missionary efforts or by recognizing different existing churches as the Anglican provinces in those regions.

So, in short, the difference is, right now we're all part of the same thing and infringing on each other's dioceses is not constructive, but if we were to become seperate denominations, it would make sense to change that policy and begin treating each other the same way we treat the Roman Catholic Church and so forth. If the global south had said "We quit" and then started the AMiA, I'd have no problem with the AMiA. My problem with it at present is that they're staying part of our communion while blithely ignoring the rules. Nevertheless, it appears it'll soon be water under the bridge, so there's no point rehashing old disagreements. I'd saddened by the south's impending departure and wish they wouldn't leave, but I wish them the best and still consider them brothers in Christ. Hopefully ecumenical dialogue can one day bring us back together. If nothing else, Christ will unite us all when all things are fulfilled, so we will be one again someday, even if we walk seperate paths today.

John

[john23237]

That would be a liberal presence so it would be okay!!

The problem with declaring open warfare is that the other side usually feels free to fire back.

[benedictine]

OFFICIAL MODERATOR POST


This thread WILL be closed if it does not calm down now, and editing is likely to be done anyway.

[Aymn27]

Right now, the Anglican provinces in Nigeria, Uganda, etc. are still a part of the same Anglican Communion as the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. As such, we're all mutually bound to respect each other's diocesean boundries and so forth. If some provinces decide to quit, then they would become a different denomination and we would be obligated to provide for the faithful remnant of Anglican Communion remembers in the areas where there are no longer any constituant members of the Anglican Communion either through missionary efforts or by recognizing different existing churches as the Anglican provinces in those regions.

So, in short, the difference is, right now we're all part of the same thing and infringing on each other's dioceses is not constructive, but if we were to become seperate denominations, it would make sense to change that policy and begin treating each other the same way we treat the Roman Catholic Church and so forth. If the global south had said "We quit" and then started the AMiA, I'd have no problem with the AMiA. My problem with it at present is that they're staying part of our communion while blithely ignoring the rules. Nevertheless, it appears it'll soon be water under the bridge, so there's no point rehashing old disagreements. I'd saddened by the south's impending departure and wish they wouldn't leave, but I wish them the best and still consider them brothers in Christ. Hopefully ecumenical dialogue can one day bring us back together. If nothing else, Christ will unite us all when all things are fulfilled, so we will be one again someday, even if we walk seperate paths today.

John
I really say this with all due respect, but didn't you guys choose to walk apart by defying the instruments of unity?? I mean, let's say three countries(each independent legally from each other) are in a treaty to not build bridges or whatever...and one says, "well, we feel we need to build a bridge so we are going to build it" - then, despite requests not to build the bridge from those others countries in the treaty, they build it. Does the treaty still stand? Being somewhat familiar with "contract" law, I'd say no - not at all - therefore the other two nations could build bridges if they choose to. Sorry for the weak analogy - but is just common sense if you ask me...

[Aymn27]

The problem with declaring open warfare is that the other side usually feels free to fire back.
That would be acceptable...though I doubt there would be much interest (other than for monetary reasons).

[Lel]

I really say this with all due respect, but didn't you guys choose to walk apart by defying the instruments of unity?? I mean, let's say three countries(each independent legally from each other) are in a treaty to not build bridges or whatever...and one says, "well, we feel we need to build a bridge so we are going to build it" - then, despite requests not to build the bridge from those others countries in the treaty, they build it. Does the treaty still stand? Being somewhat familiar with "contract" law, I'd say no - not at all - therefore the other two nations could build bridges if they choose to. Sorry for the weak analogy - but is just common sense if you ask me...

I hesitate to suggest not keeping one's word, but if one believes the bridge is an ultimately good goal, and that a bridge is not inherently problematic, then sometimes in the name of doing what is right, it is better to build a bridge and hope to persuade others to remain and start building their own bridges too.

If they choose to depart due to this, so be it. It is kind of hard to talk to each other when one side values unity and one side values truth.

[Fish and Bread]

I really say this with all due respect, but didn't you guys choose to walk apart by defying the instruments of unity?

The Instruments of Unity are not instruments of authority, but rather concensus building tools. They are valuable in that they help us understand each other and communicate our thoughts and ideas directly, as well as giving us a forum in which to cordinate common missions. Never have the provinces given the instruments of unity any legal standing with our communion, they've always been essentially advisory boards or, in the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury, an advisory person.

In the past, the Lambeth Conference has voted for things like condemning birth control and so forth without later voting to repeal them, even though I presume that all of the provinces approve of birth control nowadays. There was never a move to repeal those sorts of votes because they were basically a "sense of the house" statement, not a law that had any binding weight. Religious discipline and order is established on the provincial level and always has been. The only power the Anglican Communion has formally resides in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power to say who is in and who is out.

John

[Aymn27]

I hesitate to suggest not keeping one's word, but if one believes the bridge is an ultimately good goal, and that a bridge is not inherently problematic, then sometimes in the name of doing what is right, it is better to build a bridge and hope to persuade others to remain and start building their own bridges too.

If they choose to depart due to this, so be it. It is kind of hard to talk to each other when one side values unity and one side values truth.
Then the country that want to build a bridge should bring it back to the table - however, when it is rejected by the other two - it needs to choose to remain in the treaty or withdraw - if it withdraws then so be it - but don't start building bridges/flaunting it in front of the others and then decrying hypocrisy when they start providing "air service" - LOL;)

I would agree that it is "open season" should a new Province be formed (and I don't think the AMiA was a bad thing either).

The problem I see here (and even in these posts if you read through them) is a first-world-centrism POV - dismissing the Southern areas b/c they aren't "up to snuff" with modern developments/thought. As if somehow their voices don't carry as much weight.

[Aymn27]

The Instruments of Unity are not instruments of authority, but rather concensus building tools. They are valuable in that they help us understand each other and communicate our thoughts and ideas directly, as well as giving us a forum in which to cordinate common missions. Never have the provinces given the instruments of unity any legal standing with our communion, they've always been essentially advisory boards or, in the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury, an advisory person.

In the past, the Lambeth Conference has voted for things like condemning birth control and so forth without later voting to repeal them, even though I presume that all of the provinces approve of birth control nowadays. There was never a move to repeal those sorts of votes because they were basically a "sense of the house" statement, not a law that had any binding weight. Religious discipline and order is established on the provincial level and always has been. The only power the Anglican Communion has formally resides in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power to say who is in and who is out.

John
But even if they don't carry any authority - in essence, by rejecting one or more of them, then aren't you no longer in "unity".

[Lel]

Then the country that want to build a bridge should bring it back to the table - however, when it is rejected by the other two - it needs to choose to remain in the treaty or withdraw - if it withdraws then so be it - but don't start building bridges/flaunting it in front of the others and then decrying hypocrisy when they start providing "air service" - LOL;)

If bridges are that important, and unity is that important also, then perhaps bridges should be built and displayed.

The problem I see here (and even in these posts if you read through them) is a first-world-centrism POV - dismissing the Southern areas b/c they aren't "up to snuff" with modern developments/thought. As if somehow their voices don't carry as much weight.

I don't see it as so much that as simple disagreement with the Southern POV. If they can manage to overthrow the Anglican Communion and get Bp. Akinola installed as the ABC, then I guess we'd have no choice but to comply or get out, as their voices would carry the official weight of the Anglican Communion. Instead, they're trying to break away, which is inherently a less powerful position. By breaking away, they lose the power of years of tradition, loyalty, and in the case of the CoE, state sanction.

[Fish and Bread]

Then the country that want to build a bridge should bring it back to the table - however, when it is rejected by the other two - it needs to choose to remain in the treaty or withdraw

The question is really what was the nature of the treaty in the first place. I've never seen any indication that we agreed to share all of the same practices and beliefs. We're all supposed to be Anglicans, locally adapted to the cultures in which we find ourselves. By demanding we comply with their doctrines, it is the provinces in the global south that are in the camp of Bishop Akinola that have altered our traditional way of relating to each other.

The problem I see here (and even in these posts if you read through them) is a first-world-centrism POV - dismissing the Southern areas b/c they aren't "up to snuff" with modern developments/thought. As if somehow their voices don't carry as much weight.

I think the voice of every person carries weight. In this case, I simply think that Bishop Akinola and his associates are misguided in their actions. It is not that I believe that are any less valid as people or any less intelligent as people then those in the west, but rather a simple matter of respectful disagreement between intelligent well-meaning folks. It is also notable that there is at least one African primate who I believe to be an excellent example of Christianity and Anglicanism in action, the Primate of the Province of Southern Africa, who put aside some theological disagreements with ECUSA in order to work closely with our primate on a recent poverty initiative.

John

[ahab]

Nevertheless, despite all the posturing the unavoidable fact is that the ECUSA and Canadian provincial leadership have breached agreed teaching, namely Lambeth 1.10 which the majority feel is unacceptable, and I agree. What it has actually done is split the UK and North American provinces in two as well as the ECUSA and Canadian leadership against the majority.
The bridge to build is up to the leadership of the ECUSA and Canada. Their insisting on being included means the schism continues. I see it as 100% the fault of the ECUSA and Canadian leadership, they should comply or leave their arrogance is beyond belief.

As to the possibility of the majority forming their own Anglican Communion, I suggest they would also attract a sizeable minority of the UK and North American churches.

Peace

[Bonifatius]

Nevertheless, despite all the posturing the unavoidable fact is that the ECUSA and Canadian provincial leadership have breached agreed teaching, namely Lambeth 1.10 which the majority feel is unacceptable, and I agree. What it has actually done is split the UK and North American provinces in two as well as the ECUSA and Canadian leadership against the majority.
The bridge to build is up to the leadership of the ECUSA and Canada. Their insisting on being included means the schism continues. I see it as 100% the fault of the ECUSA and Canadian leadership, they should comply or leave their arrogance is beyond belief.

As to the possibility of the majority forming their own Anglican Communion, I suggest they would also attract a sizeable minority of the UK and North American churches.

Peace


Hi Ahab!

I've tried, but I just can't see it that way.

Of course the action of ECUSA and our Candadian sister Church was a breach of Lambeth 1.10. BUT: This does not necessarily mean that there has to be a breach of Church Communion. It is only a schism if we want to see it as one. There have been consequences, and they so far were accepted by ECUSA. The bishops have expressed their repentance. They have suspended all further consecrations of gay bishops. What do you expect them to do further? To leave because they have made a mistake? O come on, the breach of Canon Law by ++Akinola and fellow African bishops is far more severe and goes on and on and on. If you look at it from this perspective, they have to be excluded as well, because they have misused their episcopal power without waiting until Lambeth 2008.

Greetings
Boni

[holyshe]

following is my opinions on this and on the threads please note i in no way, mean, to insult anyone or upset anyone, if i do i am sorry.
god bless you all and god bless all our bishops xxx

i think the whole idea goes round and round and round over and over and over until we go back to the beginning this thread is like the women priest thread and forward in faith thread and so on.....

i think if you have read all of them you will see that the arguement cant be solved by this the ones on the left wont entertain the ones on the right and vissa versa

i dont expect everyone to agree with me . ones who do great, ones who dont fine.
traditionalist as such want the church to remain how it was as no one but jesus and god can or should change anything.... but liberals as such want a modern inclusive church as jesus called for unity.

i dont expect one side to change there views for the other. i dont expect one side to be made to leave for the other.

i dont expect a so called inclusive group telling me to leave...

look! there is only one answer, give a new free province it is the only 'inclusive' way. yes there will be problems with it at first. of course. just like the church in the beginning, but over time they will sort themselves out,

god bless you all no matter which side you are
arguements and bad mouthing peeps dont solve anything so remember stop telling how people are wrong and start showing us a way to move pass the disagreements.

ok so lets for a moment say your opinion is right!
so what about all the people who disagree what should they do?????
that is the question that should be asked......

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

ok so lets for a moment say your opinion is right!
so what about all the people who disagree what should they do?????
that is the question that should be asked.....

Stay. Why should you have any problem? The person next to you in the pew is gay and is there with his lover - what is that to you?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Nevertheless, despite all the posturing the unavoidable fact is that the ECUSA and Canadian provincial leadership have breached agreed teaching, namely Lambeth 1.10 which the majority feel is unacceptable, and I agree. What it has actually done is split the UK and North American provinces in two as well as the ECUSA and Canadian leadership against the majority.
The bridge to build is up to the leadership of the ECUSA and Canada. Their insisting on being included means the schism continues. I see it as 100% the fault of the ECUSA and Canadian leadership, they should comply or leave their arrogance is beyond belief.

As to the possibility of the majority forming their own Anglican Communion, I suggest they would also attract a sizeable minority of the UK and North American churches.

Peace

In the UK that gives them a problem. If they want to be part of a schismatic communion rather than the CofE, they are, in the words of a priest of my acquaintance, going to have to leave the key under the mat as they leave - in other words, if individual priests and congregations want to leave, they can, but they can't take the church building with them.

Again, it's up to them. I'm beginning, regretfully, to think that a split is inevitable. It will at least allow both sides to practice the faith as they see fit.

[karen freeinchristman]

In the UK that gives them a problem. If they want to be part of a schismatic communion rather than the CofE, they are, in the words of a priest of my acquaintance, going to have to leave the key under the mat as they leave - in other words, if individual priests and congregations want to leave, they can, but they can't take the church building with them.



True.

[holyshe]

In the UK that gives them a problem. If they want to be part of a schismatic communion rather than the CofE, they are, in the words of a priest of my acquaintance, going to have to leave the key under the mat as they leave - in other words, if individual priests and congregations want to leave, they can, but they can't take the church building with them.

Again, it's up to them. I'm beginning, regretfully, to think that a split is inevitable. It will at least allow both sides to practice the faith as they see fit.


why cant we take our churchs? they belong to the people of that parish and if that parish says no then that church will be taken to the third province.
the same arguement was made when the c of e first started and the king took all the churchs from rome stating they belong to the people. built by the poeple

so stop saying that we have to leave our keys at the door they were all our churchs to start with and built by like minded forefathers. the people within our fif'er parishes should and could keep the churches that belong to them.


i dont know why i always get sucked back into these discussions when i try to pull back and stop argueing. i can see why many like minded people to me feel like they are going round and round and getting no where because i always feel like my words are not being heard clearly? i know people reply to them but does anyone opposed to my view really think about what people like me are saying or do you just assume we are wrong
with out thinking about it? that is not directed to anyone in particular just my inner thought.
anyway
god blss xxx

[SirTimothy]

why cant we take our churchs? they belong to the people of that parish and if that parish says no then that church will be taken to the third province.
the same arguement was made when the c of e first started and the king took all the churchs from rome stating they belong to the people. built by the poeple

The Crown has that right, since the whole place is technically owned by them.

so stop saying that we have to leave our keys at the door they were all our churchs to start with and built by like minded forefathers. the people within our fif'er parishes should and could keep the churches that belong to them.

Legally, they're owned by the Church of England. And are worth, in many cases, many millions of pounds. The CofE cannot afford a schismatic group taking millions of pounds worth of building out of it.

If FiF wants to schism, go ahead. If I wanted to be nasty, I could make the point that if they are in schism, then they cannot use words like 'Anglican', 'Catholic', 'historic' and 'official'... but I won't. I will let you think on the endless possibilities, instead.

Timothy

[ebia]

why cant we take our churchs? they belong to the people of that parish and if that parish says no then that church will be taken to the third province.
the same arguement was made when the c of e first started and the king took all the churchs from rome stating they belong to the people. built by the poeple
So who are the people of the parish? Last time, it was (to all intents and purposes) everybody who lived in the parish. The CofE is still theoretically built on the idea that everybody living in the parish is (in some sense) a member that parish, and that parish serves everybody living in it (if only for christenings, weddings and funerals). So, are you prepared to give the choice to everybody living the parish? If not, any argument based on "that building was built by our forefathers" is pretty spurious, as is any reference back to the CofE's foudning.

A CofE parish is not just its Sunday morning congregation, and any move that makes it so is a huge shift in the nature of the Church of England, not something to be done lightly to paper over some other problem.

[SirTimothy]

So who are the people of the parish? Last time, it was (to all intents and purposes) everybody who lived in the parish. The CofE is still theoretically built on the idea that everybody living in the parish is (in some sense) a member that parish, and that parish serves everybody living in it (if only for christenings, weddings and funerals). So, are you prepared to give the choice to everybody living the parish? If not, any argument based on "that building was built by our forefathers" is pretty spurious, as is any reference back to the CofE's foudning.

I agree.

Timothy

[Aymn27]

Of course the action of ECUSA and our Candadian sister Church was a breach of Lambeth 1.10. BUT: This does not necessarily mean that there has to be a breach of Church Communion. It is only a schism if we want to see it as one. I must be missing something here!! Are you saying we are to reconstruct a reality to make something that is..not be??

There have been consequences, and they so far were accepted by ECUSA. Is that why they went to the ACC and rubbed shoulders acting like there was nothing wrong? The bishops have expressed their repentance. They have only expressed sorrow for offending others and have not decried their actions - that is not repentence. They have suspended all further consecrations of gay bishops. As well as heterosexual ones - what signal does that send - "If we can't consecrate practicing homosexuals, we aren't going to consecrate anyone!"..
What do you expect them to do further? To leave because they have made a mistake? Submit to the requirements - repent, possibly resign or part ways.. O come on, the breach of Canon Law by ++Akinola and fellow African bishops is far more severe and goes on and on and on. If you look at it from this perspective, they have to be excluded as well, because they have misused their episcopal power without waiting until Lambeth 2008. Wait for what? more talking, more listening..more non-action?? This is one of those "black and white" issues - there is no grey. You either stand with the historical/biblical view or with the revisionists view, why all the waiting? I don't think Scripture says that if your brother is sinning, you go and talk to him and listen and wait and listen and wait and listen and wait, and on and on - two chances then he is to be dispelled from the church, no?

[Bonifatius]

I must be missing something here!! Are you saying we are to reconstruct a reality to make something that is..not be??



Sorry, this must be due to my being German ... I meant to say: it is only a schism if we want to see this as a schism. The breach is not inevitable. It is still us who decide if there is to be a breach or not.


Is that why they went to the ACC and rubbed shoulders acting like there was nothing wrong? They have only expressed sorrow for offending others and have not decried their actions - that is not repentence.


No, as far as I remeber they said "sorry". That is repentance. The aim cannot be to make them all think what you think. The aim must be to walk together in truth and unity while still holding different views on these things. You can't expect them to say sorry for consecrating a gay man, because they believe this is the right thing to do. You can expect them to say sorry for acting against the other Anglican churches.

As well as heterosexual ones - what signal does that send - "If we can't consecrate practicing homosexuals, we aren't going to consecrate anyone!"..

Just until Lambeth 2008.

Submit to the requirements - repent, ..

That's what they did. There will be no actions taken against Lambeth 10.1 until a final decision made by Lambeth Conference.

possibly resign or part ways

Why - as long as they submit to the requirements (s.a.) why should they resign??


Wait for what? more talking, more listening..more non-action??


No - only until there has been a final decision made by Lambeth Conference. If they decide that there is to be a breach - ok, then we have it.

This is one of those "black and white" issues - there is no grey. You either stand with the historical/biblical view or with the revisionists view, why all the waiting? ?

That only shows that you (and maybe ++Akinola) set their own conviction and understanding of Scripture above all authorities of the Anglican Communion, above our Anglican Council (which is the Lambeth Conference). It is about the "I" being more than the "us", ++Akinola being more than the Communion of 700 Anglican Bishops. This is presumptuous to the extreme. There are ways in which our communion deals with "offenders" like ECUSA. But if ++Akinola and others wish to decide by themselves and alone, let them do so. By doing so they certainly may hold up what they see as "biblical truth", but they will step away from not only the tradition of the Anglican Church but also the Ancient Church Tradition.


I don't think Scripture says that if your brother is sinning, you go and talk to him and listen and wait and listen and wait and listen and wait, and on and on - two chances then he is to be dispelled from the church, no


Are you arguing that we have to expel ++Akinola and his fellows straightway because he's been acting against church law for several years now without showing any repentance and a will to cease doing so?

[john23237]

The Instruments of Unity are not instruments of authority, but rather concensus building tools. They are valuable in that they help us understand each other and communicate our thoughts and ideas directly, as well as giving us a forum in which to cordinate common missions. Never have the provinces given the instruments of unity any legal standing with our communion, they've always been essentially advisory boards or, in the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury, an advisory person.

In the past, the Lambeth Conference has voted for things like condemning birth control and so forth without later voting to repeal them, even though I presume that all of the provinces approve of birth control nowadays. There was never a move to repeal those sorts of votes because they were basically a "sense of the house" statement, not a law that had any binding weight. Religious discipline and order is established on the provincial level and always has been. The only power the Anglican Communion has formally resides in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power to say who is in and who is out.

John


This, boys and girls, is the point conservatives on this board are so good at completely overlooking, namely that the Lambeth Council does not and never has had any authority whatsoever to impose it's resolutions upon member churches. ALL resolutions of said council are advisory only and always have been. It is, in point of fact, the conservatives ,themselves, who are conveniently ignoring tradition when it suits them. No contract has been violated because none ever existed. If you wish to completely change the power structure and authority within the communion, at least be honest enough to admit to that, but please do not pretend that the the Archbishop of Nigeria is supporting traditional Anglican concepts of authority when he is clearly doing nothing of the kind.

[holyshe]

The Crown has that right, since the whole place is technically owned by them.
if you want to do technicallity the whole of england is owned by the pope due to the fact one king before the magna carter gave evrything to the pope then signed the magna carter under duress therefore is not legally binding
so no the crown does not have the right but many argue differently like i am sure you will too. ok.
but even if they own the church like it is commonly accepted no church would be taken with out the crown allowing it.



Legally, they're owned by the Church of England. And are worth, in many cases, many millions of pounds. The CofE cannot afford a schismatic group taking millions of pounds worth of building out of it.
this is not about money! it was so the so called liberals who lost millions of pound the church own in monertry value through investing in hair braiin ideas and lost hundreds of priests pensions funds!!!!!!!!! how about the traditionalists asking for all that money back!
but like i said money is not the arguement! and church building is only worth something if it was sold and not third province church would be sold! so there fore unless you are saying all liberals views are about selling the churchs that is not a church i would want to be part of for with out the building all you have is some men/women who say the are priests but never do anything.

If FiF wants to schism, go ahead. If I wanted to be nasty, I could make the point that if they are in schism, then they cannot use words like 'Anglican', 'Catholic', 'historic' and 'official'... but I won't. I will let you think on the endless possibilities, instead.

Timothy
you could say that! but i could also say if liberals are so inclusive why am i being told my views are wrong and either change them or go to rome??? that is not inclusive??

[gtsecc]

What is Good Shepherd Rosemont doing in this situation?

[ahab]

Hi Bonifatius and Karl Liberal Backslider,

That ther should be a break away from the present situation by the African and Global south provinces would be schism. I think the pronouncements following the civil law same-sex union are ludicrous and no doubt so does the majority, which has prompted the idea for the African and Global south. But my original point is that the issue is the action of ECUSA and the Candadian province against Lambeth 1.10. There is no repentance where those who support the teaching against Lambeth 1.10 continue to teach it and support ist teaching.
But there is plenty of division in the ECUSA and Canadian provinces and in the CofE in the UK.
All that happens is diocese and bishops and churches simply dont take any notice of the authority they dont wish to take any notice of. thats not communion really. If the dissentors and revisionists dont comply with Lambeth 1.10 and they dont leave the communion will break down completey.

Peace

[SirTimothy]

if you want to do technicallity the whole of england is owned by the pope due to the fact one king before the magna carter gave evrything to the pope then signed the magna carter under duress therefore is not legally binding
so no the crown does not have the right but many argue differently like i am sure you will too. ok.
but even if they own the church like it is commonly accepted no church would be taken with out the crown allowing it.

Absolute rubbish. Until I see reasonable sources, which I have NEVER seen, and never will see, because, well, bluntly, it's rubbish. Even if it did happen, the crown has the right to revoke that decision. You have made this totally spurious claim twice. I am waiting for solid reliable sources, that A) prove it ever happened, and B) prove it was never revoked.

so no the crown does not have the right but many argue differently like i am sure you will too. ok.
but even if they own the church like it is commonly accepted no church would be taken with out the crown allowing it.

Of course it has the right. The crown has the right to do pretty much anything. Their rights have mostly been taken away by the government, but in all honesty, that power is still there. It CERTAINLY was there during the 1500s.

this is not about money! it was so the so called liberals who lost millions of pound the church own in monertry value through investing in hair braiin ideas and lost hundreds of priests pensions funds!!!!!!!!! how about the traditionalists asking for all that money back!
but like i said money is not the arguement! and church building is only worth something if it was sold and not third province church would be sold! so there fore unless you are saying all liberals views are about selling the churchs that is not a church i would want to be part of for with out the building all you have is some men/women who say the are priests but never do anything.

It's not just the parishes, which could be worth millions, but also the vicarages? They are certainly worth a lot, and are used by the priests free of charge. Money is a big thing about this... FiF is basically asking for a free gift worth millions of pounds, which is just not going to happen.

you could say that! but i could also say if liberals are so inclusive why am i being told my views are wrong and either change them or go to rome??? that is not inclusive??

The 'liberals' are totally inclusive. They are telling you that if you want to schism, then you can do it without stealing millions of pounds. Of course this is about money and buildings. FiF would have split long ago, otherwise. If you don't schism, then you can stay and accept the teaching authority of the church as a whole which you are currently a member of. NO-ONE is telling you to go to Rome.

Now, I come from a low-church evangelical anglican background--which accepts women priests--but is not 'liberal' by a long shot. Moderates, really. And this is the moderate view... you are welcome to stay in the church, so long as you, like we, accept the teaching authority of our bishops. If you put up a fuss and start breaking with episcopal authority, then we would like you to leave, if you feel that strongly about it, because we feel that your remaining with in our church is not only a pain and a distraction to *our* worship, but also highly hypocritical.

I'm now going to say something you probably will not appreciate. If you want a serious debate, PLEASE type your posts in something with a decent spell and grammar checker, because I am really REALLY struggling to decipher your posts. I want to debate this matter, seriously and openly, but your posts are very confusing, often appearing to contain circular logic.

Timothy

[Fish and Bread]

why cant we take our churchs? they belong to the people of that parish and if that parish says no then that church will be taken to the third province.
the same arguement was made when the c of e first started and the king took all the churchs from rome stating they belong to the people. built by the poeple

The Catholic Christian tradition has always been that the most basic unit of the church is the diocese, headed by a bishop. The parish is a subunit of the diocese and it's priest an authorized representative of it's bishop. Going up a level, national churches are alliances of dioceses. I don't know how the legalities of all this stuff are going to shake out and who owns what legally in what country, but the Christian tradition seems to point towards each diocese making it's own decision. Legally in the US and England, I'd guess that the national church/province has the call, but I'm not a lawyer and thus can't be as sure about that as I can be with tradition.

John

[Finella]

What is Good Shepherd Rosemont doing in this situation? Ah, you know about them, eh? Just checked their website
http://www.goodshepherdrosemont.org/ and there's nothing mentioned there. I also, for the heck of it, looked at David Virtue's website for news, and nothing about Good Shepherd there, either.

But now I think I'm going to wash my hands. And face. Ugh. What ugliness in that last site.

[Inside Edge]

Unless there's a completely clear-cut case that a given church is overwhelmingly supported (financially) by its current parishioners, and that its current congregation is substantially (well over half) in favour of removing themselves from the authority of its diocese, then the property and assets will likely remain with the Diocese, and those who have chosen to leave will have to find other accommodation.

Anything less than a strong majority in support of departure and very strong evidence that said majority is providing (and can provide for) the total upkeep of the property will give good cause for some sort of financial/legal contest over the property.

It may be more complicated in England, I don't know. In Canada, if the diocese owns the property, that in and of itself is pretty strong leverage, regardless of where current funding comes from. People who want to leave the house have no blanket right(s) to claim ownership of it, especially if there's people in it who want to stay.

[PaladinValer]

A parish is the property of the diocese. So is a mission. So are any of the content of the parish or mission bought by the diocese.

This is, by the way, Holy Tradition.

[AveMaria]

It's not just the parishes, which could be worth millions, but also the vicarages? They are certainly worth a lot, and are used by the priests free of charge. Money is a big thing about this... FiF is basically asking for a free gift worth millions of pounds, which is just not going to happen.


Plus, the vestments and paraments, many of which can be very valuable (especially if any are antiques) and the tat and other treasures.

[gitlance]

They can't get their cake and eat it too. Either they leave the Church and build a new parish elsewhere, or they stay in the Church and keep their parish. Anything else is contrary to Canon law.

[benedictine]

Breaking my silence to point out that what liberals are accusing Conservatives of doing, the Liberals are doing just the same.

[gitlance]

Here's something of an update of ++Akinola's doings...


Akinola blocks Brazil from Global South meeting
By Pat Ashworth

THE ARCHBISHOP of Nigeria, Dr Peter Akinola, has excluded the Province of Brazil and its Archbishop, the Most Revd Orlando Santo de Olivera, from a meeting of Anglicans of the Global South to be held in Alexandria next month.

Archbishop Orlando dissociated his province from the actions of the Bishop of Recife, the Rt Revd Robinson Calvacanti, in taking part in irregular confirmations in Ohio in March 2004 ( News, 7 January 2005 (http://churchtimes.co.uk/80256fa1003e05c1/httppublicpages/2b8ba3d845fa919480256fa200098f06?opendocument)). Bishop Calvacanti was deposed and Recife appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Panel of Reference, but matters came to a head last week when the suffragan bishop of Recife, the Rt Revd Filadelfo Oliveira, deposed 32 clergy loyal to Bishop Calvacanti.

The "Recife 32" issued a statement on 2 September expressing their "shock and dismay" at the decree, and protesting that they had been excommunicated before the result of the appeal to the panel and "without being accused of anything, without following any official process, without having the right to defend ourselves, and without the opportunity of any appeal".

In a letter to Archbishop Orlando, Dr Akinola describes Bishop Calvacanti's deposition as "creating a crisis concerning our relations". He goes on to say that he is "doubly troubled" by a paper published by the Bishop of South Western Brazil, the Rt Revd Jubal Neves, as "an authoritative voice from Brazil". The Bishop's assertion that the Windsor report and the agreed theological position of the Communion represented "a pretentious majority wishing to assume control and power" was "shocking, damaging and false", said Dr Akinola.

He went on to say that the presence of the Brazilian Church would be counterproductive. "We are seeking to speak with integrity and love. The actions and statement of your province are only adding to the tensions," he writes.

"Until we hear from you and your Church your clear decision to correct these actions and statements, the organising committee has agreed unanimously to withdraw the invitation for your province to be represented in Egypt."

Archbishop Orlando, a member of the planning committee for the first South-to-South Anglican meeting in Kenya, said that he was shocked and saddened that an official meeting of the Anglican Communion had for the first time been set up in a way that was "authoritarian and discriminatory".

In his response to Dr Akinola, he charges the Global South committee with wanting to listen to only one way of thinking. "It seems that the participants and the theological content of the meeting will have only one theological perspective, and not pastorally and theologically [be] open to the diversity which is the basis of the Anglican Communion," he says, emphasising that Brazil has never broken communion with any of the provinces of the Anglican Communion.


Taken from the Church Times. (http://churchtimes.co.uk/80256FA1003E05C1/httpPublicPages/ACF6E872DEA883D78025707600457C5A?opendocument)

[AveMaria]

This keeps getting more and more confusing!

[Lel]

Breaking my silence to point out that what liberals are accusing Conservatives of doing, the Liberals are doing just the same.

I hate to be a numbskull, but can you elaborate a bit? I think my brain is fried. Thanks!

[karen freeinchristman]

Can someone tell me what FiF means? thanks!
:scratch:

[holyshe]

forward in faith a group which originated from wow women against the ordination of women and another group which was main preist oriantated.

the formed around 1992 an are now a world wide organisation
forward in faith have there own web site check it out forwardinfaith.com

all information you need about them is on that site.

[SirTimothy]

It may be more complicated in England, I don't know. In Canada, if the diocese owns the property, that in and of itself is pretty strong leverage, regardless of where current funding comes from. People who want to leave the house have no blanket right(s) to claim ownership of it, especially if there's people in it who want to stay.

Well, as far as I'm aware, my parish in the UK, that's building it's own parish, from within it's parish funds, will still belong to the diocese, technically.

Timothy

[holyshe]

what do you think of this artical?
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5739&title=Bishop%20says%20colleagues%20ready%20to%20join%20new%20province

[SirTimothy]

They can't get their cake and eat it too. Either they leave the Church and build a new parish elsewhere, or they stay in the Church and keep their parish. Anything else is contrary to Canon law.

That's my feelings precisely.

Timothy

[ebia]

what do you think of this artical?
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5739&title=Bishop%20says%20colleagues%20ready%20to%20join%20new%20province
Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't say anything new.

[karen freeinchristman]

I thought that was really interesting, thanks for bringing it to our attention, holyshe.

[holyshe]

I thought that was really interesting, thanks for bringing it to our attention, holyshe.
your welcome and thank you for reading it.